data brief: diversity, equity, and inclusion key takeaways · it is important to note that the...

of 81

Data Brief: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Key Takeaways

SUNY was founded on the principles of equity and inclusion to serve those who had been turned

away from private institutions for reasons of race, ethnicity and/or religion.

SUNY’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policy, adopted by the SUNY Trustees in September 2015, is

designed to build on existing efforts SUNY‐wide to meet ambitious goals in this area.

As this brief comes just nine months after the policy’s adoption and one year since the first data brief

was done, there are few significant changes to report. However, there are some new analyses

contained herein related to program of study, the new student information survey, and more.

SUNY’s available data set is becoming more complete and comprehensive with respect to

race/ethnicity. Data on gender identity and sexual orientation are limited. Information on students

with disabilities is limited.

As a percent of SUNY’s total enrollment, URM (under‐represented minority) enrollment has grown

from 14.7% to 24.8% in the past ten years.

At the state‐operated campuses, URM enrollment is up 5% from last year (2014), while URM

enrollment at SUNY community colleges has remained constant.

Hispanic graduates from NYS public high schools increased 15% between 2009‐10 and 2014‐15.

During this period the number of Hispanic high school graduates increased from 32,360 to 37,223.

Due to this change, Hispanic public high school graduates represented 20% of the total graduates in

2014‐15, up from 17% in 2009‐10.

URM retention rates have shown steady improvement over the time period examined, increasing

from 61.5% to 65.3%. URM students have the lowest first‐year retention rates SUNY wide, lagging the

rates for White students by approximately 7 percentage points.

The trend in employees at SUNY identifying as URM has shown an incremental increase over the

period from Fall 2007 to Fall 2015 (11.9% to 12.6%).

Overall at SUNY, nearly one out of every twenty students is reported as having some type of

disability.

System‐wide, the percent of students in the selected cohorts reported as receiving Pell has remained

relatively steady at about 40‐41% overall. More than half of URM students are reported as having

received a Pell grant in Fall 2015 (53.1%).

Although the percentage of overall enrollment remains relatively unchanged, SUNY decreased its

active military duty enrollment by seven students when compared to Fall 2014.

In comparison with Fall 2013, there have been only very slight changes in the racial/ethnic

distribution of all SUNY campus employees.

Annual Series: June 2016‐V2

of 81

A. Introduction

A commitment to diversity and equity was a primary driver toward SUNY’s founding in 1948. The SUNY

system came to be, in large part, to serve those who had been turned away from private institutions

for reasons of race, ethnicity and/or religion.1 SUNY’s statutory mission statement specifically states

that SUNY’s educational services will be provided with the “broadest possible access, fully

representative of all segments of the population…”

This data brief is the second in an annual series to report on SUNY’s progress in meeting its diversity

and inclusion goals. Notably, this report comes nine months after the unanimous adoption of a

sweeping, system‐wide, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policy by the SUNY Trustees (Resolution No.

2015‐53). The policy is grounded in SUNY’s historical commitment to diversity and equity, and was

created as a means to build on existing efforts to significantly move the dial with respect to diversity,

equity and inclusion across the System.

It is a policy that was championed by SUNY’s senior leadership, SUNY Board Chairman H. Carl McCall

and SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher. Chancellor Zimpher empaneled a System‐wide Diversity Task

Force which was co‐chaired by Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Alexander Cartwright and System

Vice Chancellor and CDO Carlos Medina.

SUNY’s diversity policy sets a clear goal:

SUNY aspires to be the most inclusive State university system in the country. We will

achieve this goal by: striving to ensure that the student population we serve and the

administrative staff and faculty we employ are representative of the diversity of our

state; recognizing the value of international experiences and interactions; and

eliminating achievement gaps for minority and low income students. We will develop

strategic diversity and inclusion action plans for system administration and at each

campus that tangibly demonstrate SUNY’s commitment to the principles of inclusive

excellence, wherein an institution only achieves excellence when it is inclusive. SUNY

will identify diversity, equity and inclusion as essential aspects of system and campus

planning and as indispensable characteristics of academic excellence and the ongoing

experience of every member of the SUNY community.

The policy broadly defines diversity to include race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender,

gender identity and expression, age, socioeconomic status, status as a veteran, status as an individual

with a disability, students undergoing transition (such as transfer, stop‐out, international student

acclimation), and first‐generation students.

Importantly, the policy not only applies to all SUNY campuses, but also SUNY’s Albany, New York

headquarters (System Administration). Highlights of campus and System responsibilities detailed in the

policy include:

A Chief Diversity Officer for every campus and System Administration.

- Each campus CDO will:

Work as a senior member of the campus administration, reporting directly to the

president or provost;

1 Clark, J, Leslie W., O’Brien K. (2010). SUNY at Sixty. SUNY Press.

of 81

Work collaboratively with offices across campus including but not limited to, the offices of academic affairs, human resources, enrollment management, and admissions;

elevate inclusiveness and implement best practices related to diversity, equity and inclusion in such areas as the recruitment and retention of students and senior administrators, faculty and staff hires; and

Serve as part of a system‐wide network of CDOs to support SUNY's overall diversity goals.

Each campus and SUNY System Administration will develop comprehensive strategic

diversity and inclusion plans.

- Campus plans will address student recruitment, retention, and completion strategies;

administrative, faculty, and staff recruitment and retention strategies; cultural

competency programming and an evaluation/assessment component.

- System’s plan will build on existing efforts and include an administrative and staff

recruitment and retention strategy; cultural competency programming; and an

evaluation/assessment component.

- Both campuses and System will use leadership search firms that have demonstrated

that they value diversity.

In addition, System Administration has the following responsibilities:

- Planning for a new initiative focused on the challenges associated with hiring couples

who both work in higher education.

- Planning for a new initiative that will pilot a faculty mentoring program.

- Preparing customized cultural competency training for SUNY and campus staff.

- Reporting annually on policy progress that is tied to the leadership evaluation process.

- Convening faculty researchers in the areas of diversity, equity and inclusion will support

the SUNY Chief Diversity Officer network and evaluate the policy for effectiveness and

continuous improvement.

In addition to providing an overview of available data related to diversity, this data brief will highlight

SUNY’s progress to date toward policy implementation (see Section B below).

At the same time that it adopted the policy, the SUNY Trustees also approved the System‐wide

administration of a new data collection tool that will provide every student who registers at a SUNY

campus with an opportunity to voluntarily self‐identify in the following areas:

Sexual orientation. Students will be able to select one of seven options (straight, gay, lesbian,

bisexual, pansexual, queer, questioning or unsure) or write‐in an orientation not identified;

Gender identity. Within the same tool, students will be able to select one of seven options

(man, woman, trans man, trans woman, genderqueer/gender‐fluid, questioning or unsure) or

write‐in an identity; and

of 81

Additional status, such as being a first‐generation college student, active military or veteran,

whether they will work on and/or off campus, and if they have requested services from the

campus office of disabilities.

Key to SUNY’s efforts to be inclusive, students will have the opportunity to update this data each

semester; and SUNY will be able to review retention and completion patterns for students who self‐

identify by campus, by sector, and across SUNY to inform student support services.

This data brief will include a review of available baseline responses collected from the first

administration of the survey tool (see Section I below).

It is important to note that the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policy builds on a number of existing

successful diversity and inclusion efforts across the University, including:

Creation of the Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (ODEI) in 2007. The head of the office. Dr.

Carlos Medina, serves as the System Chief Diversity Officer. ODEI has grown to administer a

series of state‐funded scholarship and grant program and play a leadership role in fostering

diversity and inclusion across the System:

‐ Empire State Diversity Honors Scholarship Program;

‐ Explorations in Diversity and Academic Excellence Initiative;

‐ Faculty Diversity Program;

‐ Graduate Diversity Fellowship Program;

‐ Native American Initiative;

‐ Doctoral Diversity Fellowships in STEM Initiative;

‐ Diversity Abroad Honors Scholarship Program; and

‐ Diverse Scholars Research Awards.

In addition, ODEI staff serve as an ongoing resource to campuses and are frequently called

upon for their counsel.

The Office sponsors conferences and events, including the Diversity in STEM conference and

the Model Senate Project. The Office has a regular newsletter to foster the sharing of best

practices and in 2014, ODEI assumed oversight for the Office of Minority and Women‐Owned

Business Enterprise working not only to meet related requirements but also to foster a link to

system‐wide diversity efforts.

A detailed report on the work of ODEI will be presented to the Trustees in the fall.

Extensive programming on many campuses to support diversity and inclusion goals,

incorporation of inclusive excellence in the curriculum, and on several campuses, existing Chief

Diversity Officers, Offices of Diversity and Inclusion, and prominence of diversity in campus

strategic plans.

of 81

SUNY’s system‐wide strategic plan, the Power of SUNY ‐ 2010 and Beyond, specifically

addresses diversity. Each of the plan’s six big ideas includes a Diversity Counts statement. The

statements describe how progress toward goals and objectives in that area will be grounded in

a commitment to diversity.

In November 2013, SUNY Board of Trustees’ Chairman H. Carl McCall requested a report on the

diversity of campus leaders and across System Administration. The report, given by SUNY Vice

Chancellor for Human Resources Curtis Lloyd, described gains in gender equity under

Chancellor Zimpher’s leadership and an increase in the inclusion of under‐represented

minorities on campuses and at system administration. However, both Chancellor Zimpher and

Chairman McCall recognized that more progress was needed.

In January 2013, Chancellor Zimpher called for the creation of a System‐wide Task Force on

Diversity.

The SUNY Excels Performance Improvement Framework, adopted in 2014, includes diversity as

a specific metric in the category of access. In addition, diversity metrics were added for each of

the remaining categories of the program: completion, success, inquiry and engagement.

In March 2014, Chancellor Zimpher initiated the first‐ever SUNY System sponsored leadership

workshop focused on diversity. The week‐long summer program worked with individuals in

early leadership roles on campuses to develop the skills and expertise necessary for them to

become ambassadors for diversity.

In November 2014, the System‐wide SUNY Diversity Task Force was launched. The Task Force

was given the bold charge of identifying system‐wide policies that would advance SUNY’s

diversity goals in four key areas: structure (which includes detail on the qualifications and

portfolio of campus chief diversity officers); student recruitment and retention; faculty

recruitment and retention; and climate. The initial recommendations of the Diversity Task

Force resulted in the policy adopted by the SUNY Trustees in January.

In 2015 and again in 2016, at the urging of Assembly Speaker Carl E. Heastie, the 2015‐16 State

budget included increased investment in both the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) in

place at 43 SUNY campuses and the Educational Opportunity Centers (EOCs) administered by

SUNY (10 EOCs and two counseling centers). EOP and EOC are access programs for

academically and economically disadvantaged students. Educational Opportunity Programs

admit students to SUNY campuses who demonstrate the ability to succeed in college but who

might not be admitted. EOCs offer academic preparedness programs, life skills programs and

vocational training programs. This support is noted here because the majority of students

currently served by both programs have self‐identified as under‐represented minorities.

As will be seen in this data brief, as a result of these efforts and the work of campuses, SUNY has made

progress in increasing racial diversity among enrolled students; however, significant gaps with respect

to retention and graduation remain between under‐represented minorities (URM) and their White and

Asian counterparts. The gap is particularly significant for Hispanic students, the segment of the

population projected to grow the fastest through 2020. There also remains a significant achievement

gap between economically disadvantaged students and their counterparts.

of 81

SUNY’s work in strengthening the education pipeline, particularly for academically and economically

disadvantaged students, is critical to ensuring that students come to SUNY better prepared and

become part of the pool of educated adults that can become SUNY faculty and staff. However,

initiatives for current students to enhance success are also urgently needed and are being addressed

as part of the broader completion agenda under the SUNY Excels framework.

SUNY has seen little progress in increasing diversity among faculty and staff and moderate progress in

increasing diversity among leadership at campuses and System Administration. Relevant to increasing

employee diversity is the available pool of educated adults in the New York State as described in this

data brief. According to U.S. census data, White citizens are overrepresented among those who have

obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher in New York State, while Hispanic and Black citizens are

underrepresented among bachelor’s degree or higher recipients. These data have multiple implications

for SUNY, including: the need to go the extra mile to ensure that candidate pools are diverse through

targeted outreach in New York and expanding search pools beyond New York State; and importantly,

working to serve this adult population.

B. Progress to Date on Policy Implementation

Key action to date includes:

In‐depth panel discussion on responding to campus crises, student marches and protests, and

student, faculty and staff concerns at a meeting of all campus presidents.

When the Board adopted a Diversity and Inclusion policy in September 2015, it was regarded

as a historic moment for SUNY. At the time, both the System and campuses recognized that

there was much hard work ahead with respect to implementation. What was not anticipated

was that the national dialogue on race relations would escalate so significantly. In the weeks

and months following policy adoption, SUNY System CDO Medina and his staff were dispatched

to campuses to provide assistance. As a result of that work, an in‐depth panel discussion was

conducted on responding to campus crises at a meeting of all campus presidents.

Investments in human capital to support policy implementation.

The Assistant Director of Policy Implementation will report to the System CDO and have

responsibility for logistics, planning, and working with the Provost’s Office on communication.

The NYC‐based Director of Student Recruitment will focus on the recruitment of under‐

represented and academically and economically disadvantaged students in support of policy

goals. This is a shared appointment between the offices of ODEI, EOP and Enrollment

Marketing.

Notably, to better align with the policy and in recognition of exemplary performance, System

CDO Medina was promoted to the position of Vice Chancellor, and now carries the title Vice

Chancellor and Chief Diversity Officer. This elevation underscores System’s recognition that to

be most effective, the CDO has to be part of the organization’s leadership team.

of 81

Campuses have met the first deadline of the policy, submitting to the Chancellor their plans

for appointing a CDO by September 1, 2017.

The plans underwent an iterative review to ensure alignment with the policy. Several

institutions already had a CDO and they have revised that individual’s job description to align

with the policy. Others have engaged in careful planning efforts and launched searches for a

CDO, sharing job descriptions and advertising plans in their report. Two pilot efforts to share a

CDO by community colleges were approved.

Development of a comprehensive resource guide to help campuses in the development of

their required strategic diversity and inclusion plans.

Given the work that done in exploring national best practices, it

was clear that campus diversity and inclusion plans were key to

policy implementation. The plans will be updated annually as

part of the Performance Improvement Plan process and

progress toward plan completion will be linked to the

presidential review process. The Guide emphasizes the

importance of collaborative plan development and provides a

potential format/model for campus plans:

- A Campus Diversity & Inclusion Vision/Mission Statement

- Current Campus Diversity & Inclusiveness Assessment – A

candid analysis of where each campus is based on data and

existing initiative effectiveness.

- Annual and Multi‐Year Goals – Setting long‐ and short‐term goals.

- Strategic Diversity Action Plan and Implementation Strategies – Detailed strategies to meet

goals.

- Assessment and Evaluation – Initially provide current benchmarks and projected outcomes

in as much detail as needed reflecting the work of departments, divisions or programs in

the college. Going forward, analyze the success or limitations the campus experienced in

implementing its diversity plan and identify adjustments to improve future performance

and goal attainment.

- Summative Statement.

The guide also includes: countless sample goals and strategies that align with the policy; links

to sample plans from other states; relevant resolutions from the UFS and Student Assembly;

and System’s commitment to help.

of 81

Day‐long workshop in Albany organized by Vice Chancellor and CDO Medina to assist

campuses in developing their strategic diversity and inclusion plans.

Attracting 100 participants from 50 campuses, it

was clear that campuses have taken this charge

seriously. SUNY Trustee and President of the

University Faculty Senate, Dr. Peter Knuepfer

was also in attendance.

Three representatives from the National

Association of Diversity Officers in Higher

Education (NADOHE) provided guidance and

insight into the challenges of creating a strong

strategic diversity plan in higher education: Dr.

Archie W. Ervin, NADOHE President and Vice President for Institute Diversity at Georgia Tech;

Dr. Benjamin D. Reese, immediate Past President of NADOHE and Vice President for

Institutional Equity at Duke University; and Ms. Paulette Granberry‐Russell, NADOHE Board

Member and Senior Advisor to the President for Diversity and Director, Office for Inclusion and

Intercultural Initiatives at Michigan State University.

Notably, all three NADOHE representative cited SUNY’s policy as a national exemplar.

In addition to presentations from the three NADOHE representatives, CDO Medina and Provost

Cartwright, the workshop featured roundtable discussions on identifying student recruitment

strategies, facilitating faculty and staff retention and mentoring, and envisioning change to

build campus climate and promote institutional commitments to inclusion through a mission

statement. A number of strategies were identified in each area as a result:

Campus climate and vision:

- Integrating concepts of inclusive excellence into the curriculum and building faculty

competency in the areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

- Effective training for upper level‐management to understand the role of the CDO positon.

- Inclusion of the President, community, and student leaders to close gaps caused by race,

ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

- Commitment of staff and faculty to meet regularly to monitor and improve campus

climate.

- The importance of institutional diversity as part of the mission and vison of the educational

institution and the preparation of students to interact in a diverse society.

- Providing faculty the tools to prepare students by engaging in difficult topics.

- Efficient and effective use of climate assessments, surveys, and exit interviews.

Student recruitment:

- Facilitating multicultural weekends on campus for prospective students living in urban

areas and on reservations.

- Increasing outreach for students in K‐12 programs.

of 81

- Ensuring community involvement to raise the comfort level of both students and

community residents.

- Employing interns/fellows specifically focused on diversity to work with students.

- Reviewing and improving communication used to describe student populations in an effort

to reduce alienation of students.

- Participating in seminars to gain knowledge on race and policing.

- Developing opportunities diversity classes and a diversified academic curriculum.

- Aligning admissions with enrollment to determine the gap between admissions and

acceptance.

- Considering questions of housing and employment for disadvantaged students.

- Encouraging public engagement for students through recognition and possible credit

bearing incentives.

- Training faculty to recognize and focus on student needs.

Faculty and staff retention and mentoring:

- The importance of identifying effective advertising measures for diverse candidates.

- The significance of a mentoring program for new faculty.

- Identifying the necessary resources to implement policy changes.

- Utilizing Deans and Department Chairs to create ground‐up cultural change.

- Providing diverse student populations opportunities as future faculty and staff.

- Reflecting intentionality in the recruitment of faculty and staff through sororities,

fraternities and professional organizations.

- Mentoring staff and faculty in an effort to sustain the network on campus and retain

personnel.

- Determining challenges related to failed searches for diverse staff and faculty.

- Creating a database for faculty in the area to use as a potential recruitment resources or

candidate referral.

- Cluster hiring so that a diverse candidate is not a “solo” in a particular department.

- Screening for cultural competencies during the recruitment process, including, a diversity

statement in the application or requiring a candidate to describe their own concept of

diversity.

- Ensuring that search committee members are prepared through cultural competency

training before searches begin.

- Repurposing search committee to play a more active role as recruitment committee to

actively recruit and identify potential candidates.

Campus and System diversity and inclusion plans are due on November 1, 2016.

of 81

The Diversity Advisory Board called for in the policy has been empaneled. This group will serve

in an ongoing advisory role and may recommended additional policy.

The working group to develop the System Administration diversity and inclusion plan has been

empaneled and work begun.

C. About this Data Brief

This report does not intentionally address SUNY’s compliance with Affirmative Action or Title IX

requirements or related case law, though its content may be relevant to both. Rather, this brief

reviews:

1) Available data regarding SUNY student enrollment, retention, graduation, and/or available

supports and services pertaining to:

- Race/ethnicity;

- Disability;

- Socio‐economic status;

- Veteran and military;

- Sexual orientation.

2) Available data regarding the diversity of SUNY campus administrators, faculty, and staff;

3) Available data regarding the diversity of SUNY System Administration staff; and

4) Projected New York State trends.

This information is designed to allow the reader to make informed observations with respect to SUNY’s

progress in meeting its commitment to diversity as expressed in the 2015 Diversity, Equity and

Inclusion policy, Power of SUNY Strategic Plan, SUNY Excels, and the Presidential Review Process.

Data Availability and Usage Notes

SUNY, state, and national data in this report come from multiple sources: SIRIS (SUNY Institutional

Research Information System) data submissions; SUNY System’s Human Resources Management

System (HRMS); the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) in their federally mandated IPEDS

surveys; the New York State Education Department; Western Interstate Commission for Higher

Education (WICHE); and the U.S. Census Bureau.

At the System level, the student survey and the State Operated Campus Student Opinion Survey are

the first efforts to collect information on sexual orientation and gender identity. Both of these data

collection tools are voluntary. SUNY relies on the New York State Education Department for reporting

on Students with Disabilities due to legal determinations that are now being revisited.

The most readily available data is that on race/ethnicity, but here too there are important reader

notes:

At the federal level, the reporting of ‘Two or More Races’ was phased in for student enrollment

and employees between IPEDS collection years 2008‐09 and 2010‐11.

of 81

In federal IPEDS data, international students and employees have their own race/ethnicity

category, which is reported to IPEDS as Non‐Resident Alien. International and Non‐Resident

Alien are used interchangeably in this document.

There is frequently interest in looking at under‐represented minorities (URM) in particular and

combined into one group. When this is done, the group consists of Black or African American,

Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,

and Two or More Races.

While a minority group, Asians are not currently considered to be under‐represented. Hence,

they are excluded from the URM grouping, as are Non‐Resident Aliens, Unknowns, and Whites.

- There are some instances in this brief where the individual race/ethnicity categories are

shown separately and/or where other breakdowns are shown for clarity or to be

comparable with data from other sources. Where this is done, it is specifically noted.

As in past data briefs, receipt of a federal Pell grant will be used as a proxy for economically

disadvantaged when discussing socio‐economic status.

The veteran and military data shared in this report for SUNY students is taken from the detailed unit‐

record SIRIS submissions as reported by each campus. The Office of Enrollment Management and

Student Success at System Administration collects comparable information in aggregate form via a

survey, the results of which may be seen elsewhere and may not match exactly with what is shown in

this brief.

of 81

D. New York State Population

As SUNY largely draws from New York State for its students and to a slightly lesser degree for its faculty

and staff, the diversity of the state is relevant to the review of SUNY’s diversity goals.

Figure 1. New York State’s Changing Racial/Ethnic Demographics

New York Statewide Demographics

Population Estimate 2005‐2009

Percent of Total

Population Estimate 2010‐2014

Percent of Total

Percent Change

White 11,721,101 60.3% 11,220,383 57.3% ‐4.3%

Asian 1,309,561 6.7% 1,511,457 7.7% 15.4%

Black 2,839,299 14.6% 2,824,566 14.4% ‐0.5%

Hispanic 3,172,353 16.3% 3,559,644 18.2% 12.2%

American Indian and Alaska Native 47,250 0.2% 47,213 0.2% ‐0.1%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 3,933 0.0% 4,700 0.0% 19.5%

Some Other Race 101,699 0.5% 96,258 0.5% ‐5.4%

Two or More Races 228,700 1.2% 330,109 1.7% 44.3%

Total 19,423,896 100.0% 19,594,330 100.0% 0.9%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005‐2009 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010‐2014 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates2

Figure 1 shows the overall statewide racial/ethnic demographics for New York State and its change

from the 2005‐09 census estimates to the 2010‐14 census estimates. Last year’s diversity data brief

included a comparison using 3‐year estimates from 2006‐2008 and 2011‐2013 (to avoid overlap),

whereas this year’s brief includes data from the 5‐year estimates for increased statistical reliability.

Key Observations

The size of the New York State population remained fairly stable from 2005‐09 and the 2010‐14

census estimates, growing just slightly from a total population of 19,423,896 to 19,594,330,

less than a 1% increase.

2 “The American Community Survey (ACS) will provide all states and communities that have at least 65,000 residents with single‐year estimates of demographic, housing, social, and economic characteristics—a boon to government agencies that need to budget and plan for public services like transportation, medical care, and schools. For geographic areas with smaller populations, the ACS samples too few households to provide reliable single‐year estimates. For these communities, several years of data will be pooled together to create reliable 3‐year or 5‐year estimates. Single‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year estimates from the ACS are all “period” estimates that represent data collected over a period of time (as opposed to “point‐in‐time” estimates, such as the decennial census, that approximate the characteristics of an area on a specific date). While a single‐year estimate includes information collected over a 12‐month period, a 3‐year estimate represents data collected over a 36‐month period, and a 5‐year estimate includes data collected over a 60‐month period. The primary advantage of using multiyear estimates is the increased statistical reliability of the data for less populated areas and small population subgroups.” ‐‐ Census Bureau, U. S. (2008). A compass for understanding and using American Community Survey data: What general data users need to know.

of 81

Over that same time period, however, New York has seen significant changes in population

demographics:

- Most notably, the state saw a 12.2% increase in those identifying as Hispanic. Hispanic

citizens grew from making up 16.3% of the total New York population to making up 18.2%

of the total population.

- The Asian population saw a 15.4% increase but still makes up only 7.7% of New York’s

population.

- The Black population remained relatively stable at just over 14% of the total population.

- The White population decreased as a share of the total population, falling from 60.3% to

57.3%.

Compared to the 2011‐2013 3‐year estimates from last year’s data brief, the Asian population

has had the most significant increase in population (13,501) and increase in their percentage of

the statewide population (2.0%). The Hispanic percentage of the statewide population

increased 1.1% compared to last year. Whites had the sharpest decline in population (10,493)

but the White percentage of total population only decreased 0.1%.

New York State High School Graduates

The demographic profile of New York State public high school graduates is changing. Over the last five

years, New York State high school graduates are more diverse, which is significant to SUNY’s diversity

goals.

Figure 2. Percent of Population Identifying as Under‐Represented Minority*

* Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander, Two or More Races

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: June 3, 2016

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010‐2014 American Community Survey 5‐ year estimates

of 81

Figure 2 a map of the United States showing the percent within the state identifying as under‐represented minority based on U.S. Census Bureau, 2010‐14 American Community Survey 5‐year estimates.

The figure is inserted to provide a perspective on how NYS compares with other states. As shown, NYS, along with New Jersey, is one of the more diverse states within the Northeast region.

Figure 3. NYS Public High School Graduate Racial/Ethnic Demographic Profile

Figure 3 shows the change in race/ethnicity of NYS public high school graduates between the school

years 2009‐10 and 2014‐15. In the June 2015 Diversity data brief, similar data was presented, but the

source was from Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), Knocking at the

College Door, Projections of High School Graduates, New York State Profile, December 2012. Due to

the official 2014‐15 figures now being available through NYS’s Education Department (presented as

projections in the last data brief), this data brief includes official figures from NYSED rather than

projections from WICHE.

Key Observations

While absolute figures are not shown on the graph, the total number of graduates from NYS

public high schools decreased from 189,178 to 184,251 between 2009‐10 and 2014‐15.

Hispanic graduates from NYS public high schools increased 15% between 2009‐10 and 2014‐15.

During this period the number of Hispanic high school graduates increased from 32,360 to

37,223. Due to this change, Hispanic public high school graduates represented 20% of the total

graduates in 2014‐15, up from 17% in 2009‐10.

The number of Asian/Pacific Islander graduates from NYS public high schools rose by 16%

between 2009‐10 and 2014‐15. The number of graduates during this period increased from

57%52%

17%20%

18% 17%

8% 10%

1% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2009‐2010 2014‐2015

White non‐Hispanic

Hispanic Black non‐Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

Other

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 12, 2016 Source: New York State Education Department

of 81

15,214 to 17,575. Asian/Pacific Islander graduates represented 10% of total graduates in 2014‐

15 (up from 8% in 2009‐2010).

White and black non‐Hispanic graduates from public high schools decreased between 2008‐09

and 2014‐15. Total white graduates decreased 11% while black graduates decreased 5% during

this period. Representationally, white graduates decreased 5 percentage points during the time

periods examined, while black graduates decreased 1 percentage point.

New York State School District Enrollment

The first set of maps below shows total public school district enrollment by percent URM during 2005‐

06 and 2014‐15. The second set of maps show URM enrollment at SUNY campuses for Fall 2005 and

Fall 2014. This is not meant to be a direct correlation but rather a picture at two points in time for the

State and SUNY. Note that this analysis does not include international students.

of 81

Figures 4 ‐ 7. Change in Under‐Represented Minority (URM) Distribution of New York State Public

School District Enrollments vs. Change in Under‐represented Minority (URM) SUNY Enrollment

Figure 4. 2005‐06 URM Enrollment by NYS Public School District

Figure 5. 2014‐2015 URM Enrollment by NYS Public School District

of 81

Figure 6. Fall 2006 URM Enrollment by Campus

Figure 7. Fall 2015 URM Enrollment by Campus

Source of Figures 5 and 6: NYSED Office of Information and Reporting Services Source of Figures 7 and 8: Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 21, 2016 :: SUNY Data Warehouse

Key Observations

Over the past ten years, the percentage of URM enrolled in New York State Public School

districts has increased in many districts. Geographically, these increases tend to be centered

on the I‐90 corridor and the mid‐Hudson Valley.

of 81

Higher percentages of URM in the far north and western regions reflect the location of Native

American reservations.

The percentage of URM students at many SUNY campuses has mirrored these demographic

trends. Many, but not all, campuses in the mid‐Hudson Valley and I‐90 corridor have increased

their percentage of URM students over this time period.

Importantly, some campuses have increased their share of URM in spite of being located in a

geographic area with fewer URM school district enrollments. Examples include SUNY Potsdam

and SUNY Canton.

Taken all together, the preceding figures suggest:

There is opportunity for SUNY campuses to increase URM student enrollment even if the

surrounding community has not seen URM growth.

SUNY campuses should plan now to respond to projected increases in URM enrollment and

related student supports, particularly for Hispanic students.

Educational Attainment of Adult New Yorkers by Race/Ethnicity

In addition to looking at the high school age population, SUNY must also look to the demographics of

non‐traditional age New Yorkers as a source of prospective students, faculty and staff.

Figure 8. Distribution of Educational Attainment by Race Ethnicity of New Yorkers 25 Years and Older

Figure 8 illustrates the distribution of racial/ethnic distribution within multiple levels of educational

attainment for NYS adult residents as well as the overall statewide distribution. Each educational

attainment category totals 100%.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Distribution of Those WithBachelor's Or Higher

Distribution of Those WithSome College or

Associate's

Distribution of Those WithHigh School Credentials

Distribution of Those WithLess Than High School

Credential

Distribution of NYSPopulation 25 Years +

White

Asian

Black

Hispanic

American Indian or Alaska Native

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Two or More Races

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 18, 2016 Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates 2010‐2014

of 81

Key Observations

Individuals identifying as White are overrepresented in attaining higher levels of education

such as a bachelor’s degree. They make up 59.7% of the total statewide population 25 years

and over but make up 70.3% of those holding a bachelor’s degree or higher. Compared to last

year, Whites make up 0.6% less of the statewide population and 0.5% less of the population

holding a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Individuals identifying as Asian are also overrepresented among those with a bachelor’s degree

or higher. While only making up 7.8% of the general population 25 and over, Asians make up

10.6% of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher. Of interest is that Asians are

underrepresented among those with some college or an associate’s degree making up only

4.7% of this group. The Asian statewide population increased 0.2% since last year while the

Asian percentage of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher remained flat.

Individuals identifying as Hispanic are overrepresented among those with less than a high

school education. Hispanics make up 15.8% of New York’s 25 and older population; however,

they represent 35.6 % of the population with less than a high school diploma. Of note, the

Hispanic percentage of the total statewide population increased more than any other group

within the last year (0.3%); however, the Hispanic percentage of the statewide population

without a high school diploma increased 0.4%

Individuals identifying as Hispanic make up only 7.8% of those with a bachelor’s degree or

higher, but this number increased 0.1% over the last year.

Individuals identifying as Black are also underrepresented among those with bachelor’s

degrees or higher. While making up 14.5% of the 25 and older population (up 0.1% since last

year), Blacks only make up 9.3% of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher (up 0.1% since last

year).

of 81

E. Student Data: Race/Ethnicity

Figures 9, 10a, and 10b. SUNY Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2005, Fall 2014, and Fall 2015

American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.5%

Asian, 4.4%Black or African American, 8.5%

Hispanic/Latino, 5.8%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 0.0%

International, 3.7%

Two or more race,

0.0%

Unknown, 9.7%

White, 67.4%

Figure 9. Fall 2005

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: June 5 2016

American Indian or Alaska

Native, 0.4%

Asian, 5.3%Black or African American, 10.3%


Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 0.1%International, 5.1%

Two or more race,

2.1%Unknown, 6.3%

White, 59.6%

Figure 10a Fall 2014

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: June 5 2016

American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.4%

Asian, 5.6%

Black or African American, 10.6%


Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 0.1%

International, 5.2%

Two or more race, 2.2%

Unknown, 6.4%

White, 58.0%

Figure 10b. Fall 2015

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: June 5, 2016

of 81

Figures 9, 10a, and 10b illustrate the detailed race/ethnicity distribution of SUNY’s total student body

in Fall 2005, Fall 2014, and Fall 2015 as it is reported to the federal government. Note that as discussed

in Section C of this brief, international students have their own distinct category.

Key Observations

The proportion of White students decreased by 9.4 percentage points between Fall 2005 and

Fall 2015, falling from 67.4% of all enrolled students to 58.0%. This percentage is also down

from 59.6% in Fall 2014.

The proportion of Asian student enrollment increased 1.2 percentage points over the ten year

period and 0.3 percentage points since last year.

Of the URM population:

As a percent of SUNY’s total enrollment, URM enrollment has grown from 14.7% in Fall 2005 to

24.8% in 2015, reflecting a 10.1 percentage point increase over this ten year period. And from

our last diversity data brief, URM enrollment is up 1 percentage point up from 23.8% in 2014.

The proportion of Black or African American students increased by 2.1 percentage points since

Fall 2005 and 0.3 percentage points since last year.

The proportion of Hispanic/Latino students increased 0.7 percentage points since last year and

increased 5.7 percentage points over the ten year span.

Noting that the starting point was 0% in Fall 2005, the proportion of students who identified as

Two or More Races remained at roughly 2% for both Fall 2014 and Fall 2015.

The proportion American Indian/Alaska Native students at SUNY has remained low, at 0 .5% in

Fall 2005 and 0.4% in Fall 2015. Also, SUNY enrolls so few Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander students that their percentage rounds to 0% in Fall 2005 and just 0.1% in Fall 2015.

The proportion of those not reporting their race/ethnicity, (i.e. the “Unknowns”) decreased

from 9.7% to 6.4% between Fall 2005 and Fall 2015, providing more complete data for planning

and decision‐making. Although this is a vast improvement, the proportion of those not

reporting their race/ethnicity increased 0.1 percentage point since last year.

of 81

Figure 11. Trends in Minority and International Enrollment, Fall 2005 – Fall 2015

To provide a different visual perspective, Figure 11 shows total URM, Asian, and International

enrollment for the years illustrated in Figures 9 and 10b and each year in between. Figure 12 (below)

shows the percentage point differences in URM enrollment between Fall 2006 and Fall 2015 by

campus.

14.7% 15.1% 15.4% 16.1% 16.7%17.8%

19.8%21.4%

22.4%23.8%

24.8%

4.4% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 4.6% 4.9% 5.1% 5.3% 5.6%

3.7% 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.1% 4.5% 4.8% 5.1% 5.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Fall2005

Fall2006

Fall2007

Fall2008

Fall2009

Fall2010

Fall2011

Fall2012

Fall2013

Fall2014

Fall2015

URM

Asian

International


of 81

Figure 12. Percentage Point Differences in URM Enrollment by Campus, Fall 2006 vs. Fall 2015

# % # % # %

SUNY Total 417,575 63,166 15.1% 454,839 108,035 23.8% 442,940 109,764 24.8% 9.7

State Operated Total 208,516 26,312 12.6% 221,027 45,684 20.7% 219,942 47,958 21.8% 9.2

Doctoral Degree Granting 97,723 11,720 12.0% 105,408 18,298 17.4% 105,998 19,236 18.1% 6.2

Albany 17,434 2,483 14.2% 17,273 4,632 26.8% 17,178 4,994 29.1% 14.8

Alfred‐Ceramics 773 24 3.1% 645 57 8.8% 627 55 8.8% 5.7

Binghamton 14,373 1,579 11.0% 16,695 2,632 15.8% 16,913 2,673 15.8% 4.8

Buffalo Univ 27,823 2,519 9.1% 29,995 3,795 12.7% 29,808 4,045 13.6% 4.5

Cornell Stat 6,995 761 10.9% 7,667 1,636 21.3% 7,590 1,682 22.2% 11.3

Downstate Medical 1,609 533 33.1% 1,865 547 29.3% 1,858 546 29.4% ‐3.7

Envir Sci & Forestry 2,069 77 3.7% 2,200 159 7.2% 2,222 174 7.8% 4.1

Optometry 302 14 4.6% 363 37 10.2% 383 33 8.6% 4.0

SUNY Poly 2,587 200 7.7% 2,738 386 14.1% 2,779 387 13.9% 6.2

Stony Brook 22,522 3,432 15.2% 24,451 4,223 17.3% 25,160 4,453 17.7% 2.5

Upstate Medical 1,236 98 7.9% 1,516 194 12.8% 1,480 194 13.1% 5.2

Comprehensive Colleges 89,059 11,209 12.6% 89,442 20,733 23.2% 87,764 21,793 24.8% 12.2

Brockport 8,312 752 9.0% 8,106 1,352 16.7% 8,161 1,449 17.8% 8.7

Buffalo State 11,220 1,871 16.7% 11,083 3,940 35.5% 10,330 4,246 41.1% 24.4

Cortland 6,995 501 7.2% 6,958 1,161 16.7% 6,926 1,251 18.1% 10.9

Empire State 12,038 2,305 19.1% 11,952 3,339 27.9% 11,878 3,403 28.6% 9.5

Fredonia 5,406 270 5.0% 5,215 705 13.5% 4,842 714 14.7% 9.8

Geneseo 5,530 296 5.4% 5,625 690 12.3% 5,676 743 13.1% 7.7

New Paltz 7,699 1,158 15.0% 7,692 1,638 21.3% 7,751 1,776 22.9% 7.9

Old Westbury 3,450 1,533 44.4% 4,504 2,399 53.3% 4,353 2,307 53.0% 8.6

Oneonta 5,786 435 7.5% 6,101 916 15.0% 6,119 984 16.1% 8.6

Oswego 8,183 633 7.7% 8,034 1,364 17.0% 7,937 1,518 19.1% 11.4

Plattsburgh 6,217 548 8.8% 5,968 1,036 17.4% 5,718 1,084 19.0% 10.1

Potsdam 4,332 229 5.3% 3,979 841 21.1% 3,904 992 25.4% 20.1

Purchase 3,891 678 17.4% 4,225 1,352 32.0% 4,169 1,326 31.8% 14.4

Technology Colleges 21,734 3,383 15.6% 26,177 6,653 25.4% 26,180 6,929 26.5% 10.9

Alfred State 3,201 291 9.1% 3,661 636 17.4% 3,699 746 20.2% 11.1

Canton 2,584 336 13.0% 3,282 836 25.5% 3,140 856 27.3% 14.3

Cobleskil l 2,508 278 11.1% 2,535 607 23.9% 2,441 640 26.2% 15.1

Delhi 2,572 493 19.2% 3,596 1,144 31.8% 3,452 1,072 31.1% 11.9

Farmingdale 6,256 1,246 19.9% 8,394 2,410 28.7% 8,648 2,531 29.3% 9.4

Maritime 1,316 214 16.3% 1,799 222 12.3% 1,860 309 16.6% 0.4

Morrisvi lle 3,297 525 15.9% 2,910 798 27.4% 2,940 775 26.4% 10.4

Community Colleges 209,059 36,854 17.6% 233,812 62,351 26.7% 222,998 61,806 27.7% 10.1

Adirondack 3,604 87 2.4% 4,247 357 8.4% 3,993 366 9.2% 6.8

Broome 6,282 334 5.3% 5,944 478 8.0% 5,926 584 9.9% 4.5

Cayuga County 3,869 153 4.0% 4,290 455 10.6% 4,184 449 10.7% 6.8

Clinton 2,170 124 5.7% 1,870 149 8.0% 1,862 149 8.0% 2.3

Columbia‐Greene 1,770 147 8.3% 2,043 367 18.0% 1,781 321 18.0% 9.7

Corning 4,693 172 3.7% 4,520 401 8.9% 3,972 377 9.5% 5.8

Dutchess 7,928 1,424 18.0% 9,905 3,111 31.4% 9,546 3,031 31.8% 13.8

Erie 13,012 2,842 21.8% 12,733 3,227 25.3% 12,022 2,609 21.7% ‐0.1

Fashion Institute 10,010 1,910 19.1% 9,764 2,887 29.6% 9,565 2,790 29.2% 10.1

Finger Lakes 5,150 254 4.9% 6,793 802 11.8% 6,755 646 9.6% 4.6

Fulton‐Montgomery 2,157 200 9.3% 2,589 540 20.9% 2,551 531 20.8% 11.5

Genesee 6,503 261 4.0% 6,883 854 12.4% 6,521 847 13.0% 9.0

Herkimer County 3,354 379 11.3% 3,259 420 12.9% 3,020 519 17.2% 5.9

Hudson Valley 11,952 1,343 11.2% 12,177 2,185 17.9% 11,796 2,300 19.5% 8.3

Jamestown 3,711 192 5.2% 5,065 627 12.4% 4,826 654 13.6% 8.4

Jefferson 3,245 315 9.7% 3,880 785 20.2% 3,748 819 21.9% 12.1

Mohawk Valley 5,890 549 9.3% 7,149 1,175 16.4% 6,675 1,090 16.3% 7.0

Monroe 17,110 3,726 21.8% 15,335 5,079 33.1% 14,586 4,803 32.9% 11.2

Nassau 21,229 6,883 32.4% 22,374 10,304 46.1% 21,558 10,384 48.2% 15.7

Niagara County 5,932 524 8.8% 6,478 1,058 16.3% 6,116 1,088 17.8% 9.0

North Country 1,636 70 4.3% 1,962 118 6.0% 1,883 156 8.3% 4.0

Onondaga 9,393 1,036 11.0% 12,271 2,620 21.4% 11,886 2,553 21.5% 10.4

Orange County 6,523 1,459 22.4% 6,951 2,653 38.2% 6,982 2,716 38.9% 16.5

Rockland 6,171 1,969 31.9% 7,521 2,939 39.1% 7,180 2,902 40.4% 8.5

Schenectady County 4,411 552 12.5% 6,497 1,526 23.5% 6,126 1,444 23.6% 11.1

Suffolk County 21,859 4,401 20.1% 26,600 7,079 26.6% 26,829 8,116 30.3% 10.1

Sull ivan County 1,613 396 24.6% 1,643 654 39.8% 1,592 639 40.1% 15.6

Tompkins Cortland 3,009 298 9.9% 5,559 1,061 19.1% 5,939 1,101 18.5% 8.6

Ulster County 3,294 310 9.4% 3,594 738 20.5% 3,468 709 20.4% 11.0

Westchester 11,579 4,544 39.2% 13,916 7,702 55.3% 12,966 7,391 57.0% 17.8

Percentage

Point

Difference

Between Fall

2015 and

Fall 2006

Fall 2014

Total

Enrollment

Fall 2014 URMFall 2006 URM Fall 2015 URMFall 2015

Total

Enrollment

Fall 2006

Total

Enrollment

Sector/Campus

of 81

Figure 13. Race/Ethnicity Over Time at SUNY and 10‐Year Changes by Sector and Student Level

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics::June 5, 2016 Source: SUNY Student Data Warehouse

Ethnicity Groups Fall 2005 Fall 2007 Fall 2009 Fall 2011 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015

414,165 427,398 461,447 468,006 459,550 454,839 442,940 ‐2.6% 6.9%

Asian 18,428 19,172 20,628 21,651 23,577 24,226 24,975 3.1% 35.5%

International 15,471 17,710 18,772 19,408 22,030 23,074 22,881 ‐0.8% 47.9%

URM 60,923 65,851 77,094 92,636 102,809 108,035 109,764 1.6% 80.2%

Unknown 40,004 46,220 55,092 40,412 29,980 28,459 28,453 0.0% ‐28.9%

White 279,339 278,445 289,861 293,899 281,154 271,045 256,867 ‐5.2% ‐8.0%

373,629 386,818 419,886 427,402 418,917 414,304 402,722 ‐2.8% 7.8%

Asian 16,342 16,987 18,246 19,193 20,929 21,592 22,264 3.1% 36.2%

International 8,960 10,672 11,727 12,162 13,055 13,562 13,899 2.5% 55.1%

URM 57,613 62,473 73,663 88,971 98,714 103,606 105,119 1.5% 82.5%

Unknown 36,627 42,480 51,189 35,859 26,854 25,679 25,913 0.9% ‐29.3%

White 254,087 254,206 265,061 271,217 259,365 249,865 235,527 ‐5.7% ‐7.3%

40,536 40,580 41,561 40,604 40,633 40,535 40,218 ‐0.8% ‐0.8%

Asian 2,086 2,185 2,382 2,458 2,648 2,634 2,711 2.9% 30.0%

International 6,511 7,038 7,045 7,246 8,975 9,512 8,982 ‐5.6% 38.0%

URM 3,310 3,378 3,431 3,665 4,095 4,429 4,645 4.9% 40.3%

Unknown 3,377 3,740 3,903 4,553 3,126 2,780 2,540 ‐8.6% ‐24.8%

White 25,252 24,239 24,800 22,682 21,789 21,180 21,340 0.8% ‐15.5%

205,795 213,269 222,204 220,339 219,759 221,027 219,942 ‐0.5% 6.9%

Asian 12,113 12,604 13,334 14,415 15,915 16,439 16,921 2.9% 39.7%

International 12,052 14,136 15,425 15,989 18,679 19,900 19,597 ‐1.5% 62.6%

URM 24,983 27,267 29,648 36,110 41,869 45,684 47,958 5.0% 92.0%

Unknown 23,426 26,283 29,803 20,222 11,700 10,061 9,102 ‐9.5% ‐61.1%

White 133,221 132,979 133,994 133,603 131,596 128,943 126,364 ‐2.0% ‐5.1%

165,441 172,891 180,849 179,935 179,315 180,689 179,903 ‐0.4% 8.7%

Asian 10,037 10,427 10,959 11,979 13,282 13,819 14,224 2.9% 41.7%

International 5,560 7,143 8,419 8,780 9,737 10,427 10,656 2.2% 91.7%

URM 21,680 23,897 26,232 32,468 37,804 41,284 43,342 5.0% 99.9%

Unknown 20,153 22,643 26,016 15,691 8,610 7,302 6,573 ‐10.0% ‐67.4%

White 108,011 108,781 109,223 111,017 109,882 107,857 105,108 ‐2.5% ‐2.7%

40,354 40,378 41,355 40,404 40,444 40,338 40,039 ‐0.7% ‐0.8%

Asian 2,076 2,177 2,375 2,436 2,633 2,620 2,697 2.9% 29.9%

International 6,492 6,993 7,006 7,209 8,942 9,473 8,941 ‐5.6% 37.7%

URM 3,303 3,370 3,416 3,642 4,065 4,400 4,616 4.9% 39.8%

Unknown 3,273 3,640 3,787 4,531 3,090 2,759 2,529 ‐8.3% ‐22.7%

White 25,210 24,198 24,771 22,586 21,714 21,086 21,256 0.8% ‐15.7%

208,370 214,129 239,243 247,667 239,791 233,812 222,998 ‐4.6% 7.0%

Asian 6,315 6,568 7,294 7,236 7,662 7,787 8,054 3.4% 27.5%

International 3,419 3,574 3,347 3,419 3,351 3,174 3,284 3.5% ‐3.9%

URM 35,940 38,584 47,446 56,526 60,940 62,351 61,806 ‐0.9% 72.0%

Unknown 16,578 19,937 25,289 20,190 18,280 18,398 19,351 5.2% 16.7%

White 146,118 145,466 155,867 160,296 149,558 142,102 130,503 ‐8.2% ‐10.7%

208,188 213,927 239,037 247,467 239,602 233,615 222,819 ‐4.6% 7.0%

Asian 6,305 6,560 7,287 7,214 7,647 7,773 8,040 3.4% 27.5%

International 3,400 3,529 3,308 3,382 3,318 3,135 3,243 3.4% ‐4.6%

URM 35,933 38,576 47,431 56,503 60,910 62,322 61,777 ‐0.9% 71.9%

Unknown 16,474 19,837 25,173 20,168 18,244 18,377 19,340 5.2% 17.4%

White 146,076 145,425 155,838 160,200 149,483 142,008 130,419 ‐8.2% ‐10.7%

182 202 206 200 189 197 179 ‐9.1% ‐1.6%

Asian 10 8 7 22 15 14 14 0.0% 40.0%

International 19 45 39 37 33 39 41 5.1% 115.8%

URM 7 8 15 23 30 29 29 0.0% 314.3%

Unknown 104 100 116 22 36 21 11 ‐47.6% ‐89.4%

White 42 41 29 96 75 94 84 ‐10.6% 100.0%

Undergraduate

Graduate

Percent

Change

(2014 to

2015)

Undergraduate

Graduate

Community Colleges

Undergraduate

Graduate

State Operated

SUNY University Race / Ethnicity URM Headcount 2005 to 2015SUNY Total / State

Operated/ CC (UG/

Grad)Home Insitution Student Count

Ten Year

Percent

Change

(2005 to

2015)SUNY All Campuses

of 81

Figure 13 provides an every‐other‐year look at how the race/ethnicity breakdowns have changed over time both system‐wide and by major sector (i.e. state‐operated and community colleges) and student level. In this table, all of the individual under‐represented minority (URM) categories have been combined into a singular URM category.

Key Observations

The state‐operated institutions have had significant 10‐year increases in the number of both URM and international students enrolled—increases of 92.0% and 62.6%, respectively, and a 5.0% URM increase from last year, 2014. These increases are compared to an overall student enrollment increase of 6.9% from 2005‐2015.

While the state operated overall undergraduate enrollment increased 8.7% in the last ten years the URM student population increased 100% from over 21K to over 43K students.

The community colleges experienced a 72.0% increase of URM students over that same time period, while they saw a decrease of 3.9% for international students. Note, however, that the number of international students is relatively small at the community colleges (1.5% of the total enrollment in Fall 2015).

While the state‐operated campuses have been reporting markedly fewer students with unknown race/ethnicity (down 61.1%); almost 24,500 in 2004 to just over 9,000 in 2015, a decrease of unknown reporting of 9.5% since last year’s briefing. The community colleges have been reporting markedly more students with unknown race/ethnicity (up 16.7%, at 19,351 in 2015). Yet, this is a vast improvement from the last reported 10‐year period (2004‐14) at 38.2% unknown. System Administration has been working with campuses in an attempt to reverse this trend and has been making progress, noting that this issue in general has become a topic of national conversation.

Figure 14. URM Enrollment at SUNY State‐Op Institutions vs. Public 4‐Year Schools by State, Fall 2014

Figure 14 looks specifically at URM enrollment at SUNY’s state‐operated institutions compared to

public 4‐year and above institutions across the nation by state, as reported on the IPEDS Fall 2014

Enrollment Survey.

50.1%

33.9%

20.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

DC

NM

CUNY TX FL HI

MS

CA

NV

MD

GA NY

LA NC

OK NJ

AZ

AL IL AK

TN DE

VA

AR SC

WA

CO CT

SUNY RI

MA

OR

MI

PA KS IN

MO

OH ID KY

UT

NE

SD WI

MN

WV

ND

WY

MT IA VT

ME

NH

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016 Source: 2014 IPEDS Fall Enrollment Survey

of 81

Key Observations

Despite the overall increase in URM enrollment at SUNY, the state‐operated institutions

perform moderately with respect to their public peers.

The percentage of enrolled URM students at 4‐year institutions ranges from 70% for

Washington D.C. to 6% for New Hampshire.

At 50.1%, New York’s CUNY system has the third largest percent of URM enrollment in the

country.

When all Public 4‐Year Institutions in New York State are looked at as a whole (i.e. SUNY and

CUNY combined), the state has the highest percentage of URM enrollment of the Northeastern

States at 33.9%.

At 20.7% of total enrollment, just over half of U.S. states exceed SUNY in terms of URM

students.

Connecticut and New Jersey report a larger percentage of URM enrollment than SUNY. SUNY’s

percentage of URM enrollment is greater than that of Rhode Island, Massachusetts,

Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire.

Figure 15. URM Enrollment at SUNY Community Colleges vs. National Public 2‐Year Schools by State, Fall 2014

Figure 15 looks specifically at URM enrollment at SUNY’s community colleges compared to public 2‐year institutions across the nation by state, as reported on the IPEDS Fall 2014 Enrollment Survey.

Key Observations

The percentage of enrolled URM students at 2‐year colleges ranges from 68.5% for CUNY to 7% for New Hampshire.

When all NYS public 2‐year institutions are looked at as a whole, New York is slightly behind New Jersey as far as Northern States (39.5% and 40.8% respectively).

68.5%

39.5%

26.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

CUNY

AK

NM CA TX HI

GA LA FL

MD

MS

AZ

CT NJ

NY

SC IL DE

NC

VA

MA RI

OK

AL

NV

AR

CO PA

SUNY

MI

MT KS

MN

OH TN IN UT

WA

OR

MO NE ID WI

ND KY IA

WY

SD VT

WV

ME

NH

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016 Source: 2014 IPEDS Fall Enrollment Survey

of 81

SUNY’s community college percent of URM enrollment in Fall 2014 is 26.7%, with a little more than half of the public 2‐year institutions grouped by state reporting a greater value.

At the two‐year level, CUNY, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all have higher percentages of URM Students than SUNY’s community colleges.

Figure 16. Percent Minority and International Students at SUNY State‐Operated Institutions, Fall 2015

64.5%

54.1%

53.9%

53.0%

48.0%

47.8%

46.4%

46.4%

45.7%

45.3%

44.5%

39.1%

38.4%

38.0%

37.9%

35.6%

35.4%

34.2%

33.2%

32.1%

30.6%

30.3%

29.5%

28.9%

28.4%

27.9%

27.4%

25.4%

24.6%

23.5%

22.9%

21.7%

20.9%

20.0%

19.8%

19.4%

19.3%

17.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Old Westbury

Stony Brook

Downstate Medical

Optometry

Research Centers

Cornell Stat

Doctoral Degree Granting

Buffalo Univ

Buffalo State

Albany

Binghamton

Farmingdale

State Operated

Other Research/Doctoral

Purchase

SUNY Total

Empire State

Delhi

New Paltz

Technology Colleges

Comprehensive Colleges

Canton

Morrisville

Cobleskill

Potsdam

Upstate Medical

Plattsburgh

Maritime

SUNY Poly

Oswego

Alfred State

Geneseo

Brockport

Cortland

Alfred‐Ceramics

Fredonia

Oneonta

Envir Sci & Forestry% URM % Asian % International

* URM includes Black or African‐American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Native Hawaiin or Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research Source: SUNY Data

of 81

Figure 16 provides a snapshot for Fall 2015 of each state‐operated institution’s minority and

international diversity. Data is displayed as a stacked bar showing the percentage of URM students,

followed by the percentage of Asian students, and then the percentage of international students. The

aggregate percentage is displayed at the end of each bar. The White and Unknown categories are not

displayed.

Key Observations

Aggregate diversity ranges from a high percentage of 64.4% at Old Westbury to a low of 17.8%

at Environmental Science and Forestry, a range of 46.6 percentage points. For reference, the

system‐wide aggregate is 35.6%, and the state‐operated aggregate is 38.4%.

Racial diversity within campuses does not change materially on a year‐to‐year basis, yet over

time strides are being made to increase diversity at our campuses, as evident in this year’s

overall SUNY percentage being 1.4 percentage points higher than last years’ 34.2%.

Race/ethnicity diversity is not uniform across campuses. In looking at the ten state‐operated

campuses with the highest levels of aggregate diversity, for example, there are some campuses

with low percentages of URM students and higher Asian and international enrollments and

other campuses with a more balanced student mix.

As an example of URM diversity within campuses, in the doctoral sector, URM enrollment,

specifically, ranges from 29.4% at Downstate to 7.8% at ESF. In the comprehensive sector,

URM enrollment ranges from 53.0% at Old Westbury to 13.1% at Geneseo. In the technology

sector, URM enrollment ranges from 31.1% at Delhi to 16.6% at Maritime.

As a whole, the technology and comprehensive college sectors enroll lower numbers of

minority students with Old Westbury, Buffalo State, Purchase, Farmingdale, and Delhi as

notable exceptions.

of 81

Figure 17. Percent Minority and International Students at SUNY Community Colleges, Fall 2015

Figure 17 provides a snapshot for Fall 2015 of each community college institution’s minority and

international diversity. Data is displayed as a stacked bar showing the percentage of URM students,

followed by the percentage of Asian students, and then the percentage of international students. The

aggregate percentage is displayed at the end of each bar. The White and Unknown categories are not

displayed.

62.2%

56.0%

52.8%

46.3%

42.5%

42.3%

38.0%

35.6%

35.6%

34.0%

32.8%

31.3%

30.4%

27.9%

25.8%

25.4%

24.5%

24.1%

22.5%

22.2%

22.1%

20.8%

19.1%

16.1%

15.0%

13.7%

12.2%

11.7%

10.6%

10.2%

10.2%

10.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Westchester

Nassau

Fashion Institute

Rockland

Sullivan County

Orange County

Monroe

Dutchess

SUNY Total

Suffolk County

Community Colleges

Tompkins Cortland

Schenectady County

Fulton‐Montgomery

Hudson Valley

Erie

Onondaga

Jefferson

Ulster County

Mohawk Valley

Herkimer County

Columbia‐Greene

Niagara County

Genesee

Jamestown

Broome

Cayuga County

Clinton

Corning

Finger Lakes

Adirondack

North Country% URM % Asian % International

* URM includes Black or African‐American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Native Hawaiin or Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research Source: SUNY Data Warehouse

of 81

Key Observations

Aggregate diversity ranges from a high percentage of 57.0% at Westchester to a low of 8.0% at

Clinton, a range of 49.0 percentage points. For reference, the system‐wide aggregate is 35.6%,

and the community college aggregate is 32.8%.

Nearly all of the diversity seen at the community colleges comes from the enrollment of URM

students, with notably smaller enrollments of Asian and international students.

Further, consistent with the fact that community colleges primarily serve students in their local

areas, the campuses with the most diversity are those located downstate and in major NYS

metropolitan areas. Conversely, those with the least race/ethnicity diversity are those located

in rural regions of the state.

Figure 18. State‐Operated Enrollment by Major Grouping and Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2015

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics:: May 25, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse

Figure 18 shows the distribution of Major Grouping enrollment at the state‐operated institutions by

race/ethnicity. To obtain the Major Groupings, the individual detailed majors were collapsed in the

primary groupings classification developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and

Statistics Canada. See Appendix B for a crosswalk from the 2‐digit CIP codes to the primary major

groupings used in this analysis. Note that this figure combines students enrolled at all degree levels in

the Major Groupings. The racial/ethnic distribution may vary by degree level within the Major

Groupings.

For additional informational purposes, the enrollment for each grouping is listed by that grouping’s

label on the vertical axis.

See Appendix B for enrollment distributions by major at the CIP2 level, race/ethnicity, and sector.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Agriculture, natural resources and conservation, 3300

Education, 10372

Mathematics, computer and information sciences, 4754

Architecture, engineering, and related technologies, 8982

Health and related fields, 16042

Physical and life sciences and technologies, 12576

Business, management and public administration, 20425

Visual and performing arts, and communications…

Social and behavioral sciences and law, 19761

Humanities, 7482

Unknown/Non‐Matriculated/Major not Chosen, 12552

Misc. multidisciplinary studies, 674

Personal, protective and transportation services, 3604

URM White Asian International Unknown

of 81

Key Observations

Figure 18 shows that URM students have lower representation in the STEM‐related, business,

and arts groupings than in the humanities and social sciences groupings.

International students have notably high representation in the architecture and engineering

and the math and computer science groupings.

This graph also illustrates the disproportionate enrollment of white students in the education

and in the agricultural / natural resources groupings.

Figure 19: Community College Enrollment by Major Grouping and Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2015

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 25, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse

Figure 19 shows the distribution of Major Grouping enrollment at the community colleges by

race/ethnicity. To obtain the Major Groupings, the individual detailed majors were collapsed in the

primary groupings classification developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and

Statistics Canada. See Appendix A for a crosswalk from the 2‐digit CIP codes to the primary major

groupings used in this analysis. Note that this figure combines students enrolled at all degree levels in

the Major Groupings. The racial/ethnic distribution may vary by degree level within the Major

Groupings.

For additional informational purposes, the enrollment for each grouping is listed by that grouping’s

label on the vertical axis. See Appendix B for enrollment distributions by major at the CIP2 level,

race/ethnicity, and sector.

Key Observations

Here again, URM students have lower representation in the STEM‐related groupings than in

the humanities and social sciences groupings.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Agriculture, natural resources and conservation, 983

Unknown/Non‐Matriculated/Major not Chosen, 53201

Architecture, engineering, and related technologies, 9508

Education, 314

Health and related fields, 17121

Mathematics, computer and information sciences, 6104

Physical and life sciences and technologies, 611

Visual and performing arts, and comm. technologies, 9826

Business, management and public administration, 28225

Personal, protective and transportation services, 13612

Humanities, 76460

Social and behavioral sciences and law, 7033

URM White Asian International Unknown

of 81

This graph also illustrates the clear disproportionate enrollment of white students in the

agricultural / natural resources grouping, but not as strong of a disproportionate enrollment in

the education grouping as seen with the state‐operated campuses.

Figure 20. SUNY‐wide Retention Rate Trends of First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate and Baccalaureate Degree Seeking Students for Select Race/Ethnicity Groups, Fall 2010 ‐ Fall 2014 Cohorts

Figure 20 shows a five year trend of first year retention rates for first‐time, full‐time associate and baccalaureate degree seeking students, focusing on students who identify as Asian, white, or an under‐represented minority group.

Key Observations

First‐year retention rates are highest for first‐time, full‐time Asian students, with rates consistently at approximately 85% over the five year period.

The retention rate for white students over the past five years has shown a steady increase from 68.9% to 72.2%.

URM students have the lowest first‐year retention rates, lagging the rates for white students by approximately 7 percentage points. Their retention rates have shown, however, steady improvement over the time period examined, increasing from 61.5% to 65.3%.

85.4% 84.8% 85.9% 85.1% 84.5%

68.9% 69.5% 70.5% 70.6% 72.2%

61.5% 61.8% 63.2% 65.0% 65.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Asian

White

URM

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Researchand Data Analytics : : May 25, 2016 Source: SUNY Student Data Warehouse

of 81

Figure 21. Retention of First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate and Baccalaureate Degree Seeking Students for Select Race/Ethnicity Groups, Fall 2014 Cohorts – SUNY Overall, State‐Operated Institutions, and Community Colleges

Figure 21 shows first year retention rates for first‐time, full‐time associate and baccalaureate degree seeking students in the Fall 2014 cohort for SUNY‐wide, state‐operated and community college sectors. Similar to Figure 20 above, the focus is on students who identify as Asian, white, or an under‐represented minority group.

Key Observations

State‐operated campuses have the highest first‐year retention rates for each racial/ethnic

group shown.

At the state‐operated institutions, Asian students have the highest rate at 88%. URM students have the lowest retention rate at 78%, but the gap between URM and white students is just 3 percentage points (78% vs. 81%, respectively).

At community colleges, Asian students again have the highest retention rate, at 75%. The gap between URM students and white students is over twice what it is at the state‐operated campuses, however, at 7 percentage points (58% vs. 65%, respectively).

71%

85%

65%

72%

81%

88%

78%81%

63%

75%

58%

65%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Overall Asian URM White

SUNY‐wide State‐Operated Institutions Community Colleges

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 25, 2016 Source: SUNY DataWarehouse

of 81

Figure 22. Retention of First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate and Baccalaureate Degree Seeking Students for Select Race/Ethnic Groups, Fall 2014 Cohorts – SUNY State‐Operated Sectors

Figure 22 shows first‐year retention rates for first‐time, full‐time associate and baccalaureate degree seeking students in the Fall 2014 cohort for the state‐operated sectors. Similar to Figures 20 and 21 above, the focus is on students who identify as Asian, white, or an under‐represented minority group.

Key Observations

First‐year retention rates are highest in the doctoral sector for all racial/ethnic groups shown.

First‐year retention rates are highest for Asian students in the doctoral and technology sectors, but not in the comprehensive sector, where whites have a higher rate (81% and 79%, respectively).

The doctoral institutions show a difference of just one percentage point between the URM and white groups (88% and 87%, respectively).

The comprehensive colleges show a difference of 4 percentage points between the URM and white groups (77% vs. 81%, respectively).

The widest gap between URM and white students is at the technology colleges at 8 percentage points (63% vs. 71%, respectively).

88%91%

88% 87%

80% 79%77%

81%

69%

85%

63%

71%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Overall Asian URM White

Doctoral Institutions Comprehensive Colleges Technology Colleges

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 25, 2016 Source: SUNY DataWarehouse

of 81

Figure 23. Comparison of 1‐Year and 2‐ Year Retention Rates for First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate

Degree Seeking Students, URM vs. Non‐URM, Entering Cohorts Fall 2012 and Fall 2013

Figure 23 illustrates the gap in first‐ and second‐year retention for first‐time, full‐time baccalaureate

degree seeking students who identify as URM and those who do not. Students entering in Fall 2012

who were still enrolled in Fall 2013 and Fall 2014, as well as students entering in Fall 2013 who were

still enrolled in Fall 2014 and Fall 2015, are shown on either side of the chart. For this chart, students

whose race/ethnicity is unknown or who are non‐resident aliens (i.e. international) are excluded.

Key Observations

Overall, first‐ and second‐year retention rates for first‐time, full‐time baccalaureate degree

seeking student who are non‐URM are approximately 84.5% and 76.5%, respectively, for the

two cohort years shown.

Both first‐and second‐year retention rates show an increasing gap between non‐URM and URM

students between the two cohort years. This increasing gap is attributable to the retention

rates decreasing between the two years for URM students while they stayed steady or slightly

increased for non‐URM students.

Closing gaps in achievement and persistence must be a high priority.

83.7%73.9%

82.9%73.0%

0.7%

2.4%

1.7%

3.7%

84.4%

76.3%

84.6%

76.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate StudentsFall 2012 Entering Cohort

First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate StudentsFall 2013 Entering Cohort

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: June 7, 2016 Source: SUNY Student Data Warehouse

*Note that International/Unknown are excluded from this chart.

Top number = Non‐URM

Middle number = gap

Bottom number = URM

of 81

Figure 24. Comparison of 1‐Year Retention Rates for First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree Seeking

Students, URM vs. Non‐URM, Entering Cohorts Fall 2013 and Fall 2014

Figure 24 illustrates the gap in first‐year retention for first‐time, full‐time associate degree seeking

students who identify as URM and those who do not. Students entering in Fall 2013 who were still

enrolled in Fall 2014, as well as students entering in Fall 2014 who were still enrolled in Fall 2015, are

shown on either side of the chart. For this chart, students whose race/ethnicity is unknown or who are

non‐resident aliens (i.e. international) are excluded.

Key Observations

First‐year retention rates for first‐time, full‐time associate degree seeking student who are non‐URM increased from 63.9% to 65.5% between the two cohort years examined.

The first‐retention rates for URM students stay essentially the same between the two cohort years, 57.6% for the Fall 2013 cohort and 57.7% for the Fall 2014 cohort.

The aforementioned observations result in an increase in the gap between URM and non‐URM first‐year retention rates between the two cohort years, from 6.3 to 7.8 percentage points.

57.6% 57.7%

6.3% 7.8%

63.9% 65.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree StudentsFall 2013 Entering Cohort

First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree StudentsFall 2014 Entering Cohort

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: June 7, 2016 Source: SUNY Student Data Warehouse


Top number = Non‐URM

Middle number = gap

Bottom number = URM

of 81

Figure 25. Six‐Year Graduation Rates by Select Race/Ethnicities for SUNY Baccalaureate Students

Figure 25 examines the differences in traditional six‐year graduation rates (i.e. those who graduated from their initial college of entry within six years) for the race/ethnicity categories of White, Asian, and URM over the past five years. Students included in the cohorts are those who were first‐time, full‐time and enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program. For reference, the corresponding overall six‐year graduation rates for all students in the cohort are included at the top of the chart.

Key Observations

While the most recent six‐year graduation rate for each group is higher than the rate from four years prior, the differences between the groups remained relatively constant, with the exception of the past year which saw a slight increase in the difference between the rate for URM students and both Asian and White students.

For each of the five years examined, Asian students have the highest six‐year graduation rates (70‐73.5%) as compared to White students (65‐67%) and URM students (56‐58%).

65.7% 65.5% 65.0% 66.0% 67.1%70.2% 71.0%

69.5% 69.4%

73.5%

57.5% 58.2%56.2%

57.9% 58.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fall 2005 as of Fall 2011 Fall 2006 as of Fall 2012 Fall 2007 as of Fall 2013 Fall 2008 as of Fall 2014 Fall 2009 as of Fall 2015

White Asian URM


6‐Year Systemwide Graduation Rates for All Baccalaureate Students in Cohort:64.7% 64.9% 63.9% 65.0% 66.2%

of 81

Figure 26. Four‐Year Graduation Rates by Select Race/Ethnicities for SUNY Associate Degree Students

Figure 26 examines the differences in traditional four‐year graduation rates (i.e. those who graduated from their initial college of entry within four years) for the select race/ethnicity categories of White, Asian, and URM over the past five years. Students included in the cohorts are those who were first‐time, full‐time and enrolled in an associate’s degree program. For reference, the corresponding overall four‐year graduation rates for all students in the cohort are included at the top of the chart.

Key Observations

For White students over this five‐year period, the four‐year graduation rate has changed (increased) by three percentage points. Asian students’ rates have experienced some fluctuations but have been steadily increasing over the past three years. And the URM students’ four‐year graduation rates have been steadily increasing each of the past five years, going from 17.6% to 20.8%.

At the associate level, for each of the five years examined, White students have the highest 4‐year graduation rates (31‐34%) as compared to Asian students (28‐34%) and URM students (18‐21%).

There is a clear achievement gap of approximately 13 percentage points between URM students and their White and Asian peers.

These data underscore the need for recent commitments SUNY has made to remedial support efforts, such as Quantway‐Statway and early‐alert systems such as Starfish and EAB (Education Advisory Board).

31.0% 31.5% 31.7% 31.8%34.1%

30.6%28.2%

31.0% 31.6%33.8%

17.6% 18.3% 19.1% 19.9% 20.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fall 2007 as of Fall 2011 Fall 2008 as of Fall 2012 Fall 2009 as of Fall 2013 Fall 2010 as of Fall 2014 Fall 2011 as of Fall 2015

White Asian URM


4‐Year Systemwide Graduation Rates for All Associate Degree Students in Cohort:28.1% 28.3% 28.5% 28.5% 30.1%

of 81

Access to Success Initiative Taking Student Success to Scale

As presented in the January 2015 (student success) and June 2015 (diversity) data briefs, Access to

Success (A2S) was a partnership initiative between the Education Trust and the National Association of

System Heads (NASH). SUNY was one of twenty‐two public higher education systems participating in

the initiative, all of whom had pledged to cut the college‐going and graduation gaps for low‐income

and minority students in half by 2015.

Generally speaking, the A2S initiative saw notable improvements in its “access” component, thereby

seeing more Pell recipient and under‐represented minority (URM) enrollments and graduates, but fell

short in regards to its “success” component, especially in reducing the gap between Pell and non‐Pell

graduation rates and between URM and non‐URM graduation rates.

Building on what was learned from the A2S effort, NASH has embarked on a new initiative, Taking

Student Success to Scale. To date, twenty‐two higher education systems have committed to adopting

and scaling proven student success interventions, which include

Guided Pathways Using Predictive Analytics (Tennessee Board of Regents) ‐ to provide the

ability to map interventions to specific student needs.

Redesigning the Math Pathway (State University of New York) – the Quantway/Statway

method of mathematics instruction.

High Impact Practices for All Students (California State University) ‐ which makes high

engagement learning experiences such as undergraduate research and community‐based

learning part of every student’s pathway—another element in the “playbook” of interventions.

As a founding member and leader of this initiative, SUNY is absolutely committed to leveraging

evidence‐based practice to facilitate continuous improvement. Key features of this initiative include:

Common definitions of success, built on existing metrics;

Flexibility in implementation approaches, to accommodate the diversity of campuses and

student populations;

Networked improvement communities of both system and campus representatives;

Discussions informed by data, which focus on sharing best practices and collectively identifying

and overcoming barriers;

Significant system leadership support; and

Strong interest from a substantive number of campuses in each system, accounting for

variability in system size and institutional diversity.

The effort, which focuses on systemness and improvement science, calls for “at Least 350,000 More

College Graduates in 10 Years,” (NASH Press Release, December 4, 2014).

In both the September 2013 and January 2015 data briefs, we shared A2S graduation rates for first‐

time students in a program by URM status. As a general recap for the first‐time baccalaureate

students, SUNY’s six‐year graduation rates exceeded the rates for the aggregate of all A2S participating

public higher education systems for both URM and non‐URM students. In addition, the completion

of 81

gap between URM and non‐URM students at SUNY improved over time and was narrower than that

for the aggregate of all A2S participating public higher education systems. And as a general recap for

the first‐time associate degree students, with the exception of one cohort year examined, SUNY's four‐

year graduation rates for both URM students and non‐URM students exceeded the rates for the

aggregate of all public higher education systems participating in A2S. However, unlike the

baccalaureate cohorts, the gaps between the URM and non‐URM completion rates for the associate

degree cohorts were slightly wider than the A2S Systems Aggregate gaps, consistently running 1 to 2

percentage points wider.

While Systems benchmarking data is no longer available for graduation rates of URM vs. non‐URM

students, we can still examine this data for SUNY students and do so below.

Figure 27: Six‐Year Graduation Rates for First‐time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate Students, URM Students

Compared to Non‐URM Students

Figure 27 illustrates the graduation rates of URM students vs. non‐URM students for the cohort of first‐

time, full‐time baccalaureate degree students examined in the last Student Success data brief (i.e. Fall 2008

as of Fall 2014) along with the graduation rates for the next cohort (i.e. Fall 2009 as of Fall 2015).

The chart shows the URM and non‐URM graduation rates in black text and the gap between the two in

white text.

Key Observations

Compared to the Fall 2008 cohort, the graduation rate for the Fall 2011 baccalaureate degree

graduation rate for URM and non‐URM students has increased for all time periods examined;

however, there is an increasing gap between URM and non‐URM graduation rates.

38.2%

54.3% 57.9%

39.3%

55.0% 58.0%

11.7%

10.0%8.6%

12.1%

10.8%9.8%

50.0%

64.3%66.4%

51.4%

65.8%67.8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate StudentsFall 2008 Cohort as of 2014

First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate StudentsFall 2009 Cohort as of 2015

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: May 26, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Repository Tables


Top number =

Non‐URM

Middlenumber =

gap

Bottom number = URM

of 81

The 4‐year graduation rate gap for the Fall 2009 baccalaureate degree cohort is 12.1 percentage

points (up from 11.7 for the Fall 2008 cohort).

The most current gap increases to 10.8 percentage points (up from 10.0) for the 5‐year graduation

rate and 9.8 percentage points (up from 8.6) for the 6‐year graduation rate.

Figure 28: Four‐Year Graduation Rates for First‐time, Full‐Time Associate Degree Students, URM

Students Compared to Non‐URM Students

Figure 28 illustrates the graduation rates of URM students vs. non‐URM students for the cohort of first‐

time, full‐time associate degree students examined in the last Student Success data brief (i.e. Fall 2010 as of

Fall 2014) along with the graduation rates for the next cohort (i.e. Fall 2011 as of Fall 2015).

The chart shows the URM and Non‐URM graduation rates in black text and the gap between the two in

white text.

Key Observations

Compared to the Fall 2010 cohort, the Fall 2011 associate degree cohort had higher graduation

rates for every time period examined for both URM and non‐URM recipients.

For the associate degree cohorts, URM students graduated at a notably lower rate than their non‐

URM peers and this gap has increased for all time periods examined.

The gap for the 2‐year associate degree Fall 2011 cohort is 9.9 percentage points, and that gap

increases to 13.4 percentage points by the 4‐year mark.

5.5%15.2%

19.9%

5.9%15.9%

20.8%9.2%

12.2%12.3%

9.9%

13.2%13.4%

14.7%

27.5%32.2%

15.7%

29.1%34.1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree StudentsFall 2010 Cohort as of 2014

First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree StudentsFall 2011 Cohort as of 2015



Top

number =

Non‐URM

Middlenumber =

gap

Bottom number =

URM

of 81

F. Student Data: Disabilities

As discussed in Section C, System Administration does not store unit‐record data on student

disabilities. The aggregate data below represents what was reported by the individual campuses to the

New York State Education Department on the NYSED 2H‐2 survey, Enrollment of College Students with

Disabilities. Fall 2014 is the latest available data.

Figure 29. Unduplicated Counts of Students with Disabilities, Fall 2012 and Fall 2014

Key Observations

• Overall at SUNY, nearly one out of every twenty students is reported as having some type of

disability.

• The number of students SUNY‐wide reporting a disability decreased 0.5 percentage points

between Fall 2012 and Fall 2014, from 5.1% to 4.6%.

• State‐operated campuses showed a decrease of 0.6 percentage points, from 4.3% in Fall 2012 to

3.7% in Fall 2014.

• Community colleges showed a decrease of 0.3 percentage points, from 5.7% in Fall 2012 to 5.4% in

Fall 2014.

SUNY Sectors

Distinct

Students

with a

Disability

Fall 2012

Total

Enrollment

% with a

Disability

Distinct

Students

with a

Disability

Fall 2014

Total

Enrollment

% with a

Disability

SUNY‐wide 23,363 461,816 5.06% 20,166 442,940 4.55%

State‐Operated Institutions 9,482 218,809 4.33% 8,211 219,942 3.73%

Community Colleges 13,881 243,007 5.71% 11,955 222,998 5.36%

Fall 2012 Fall 2014

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics Source: NYSED 2H‐2 Surveys 2012‐2014

of 81

Figure 30. Student Self‐Reported Disabilities by Category ‐ Duplicated Counts, Fall 2012 ‐2014

Key Observations

The total number of students with disabilities at SUNY increased 7.2% between Fall 2012 and

Fall 2014, with the state‐operated campuses seeing an increase of 16.7% and the community

colleges seeing an increase of 1.5%.

Total students self‐reporting disabilities at State Operated campuses increased 16.7%, whereas

this student population at community colleges held steady at 1.5% from 2012 ‐ 2014.

The majority of students with a disability report that it is related to their learning ability 46.6%

and 43.9% SUNY wide for 2012 & 2014.

SUNY has seen a large increase in the number of reported neurological disabilities, up 19.3%

(from 4,372 to 5,215) between 2012 and 2014, with most of that increase taking place at the

state‐operated campuses.

Mobility wheelchair bound students and acoustically impaired students are in decline across

SUNY, yet visually impaired students are increasing, though the actual numbers of these groups

remain quite low.

SUNY- wide

State- Operated Institution

Community Colleges

SUNY- wide


Community Colleges

SUNY- wide


Community Colleges

All Disabilities 29,025 10,790 18,235 31,105 12,593 18,512 7.2% 16.7% 1.5%

Learning Disability 13,527 4,557 8,970 13,669 4,901 8,768 1.0% 7.5% -2.3%

Mobility Impaired Total 571 265 306 573 272 301 0.4% 2.6% -1.6%Wheelchair Assisted 198 84 114 160 59 101 -19.2% -29.8% -11.4%

Other Assistive Device 77 40 37 86 41 45 11.7% 2.5% 21.6%

Mob.Impaired/no Assistive Device 296 141 155 327 172 155 10.5% 22.0% 0.0%

Visually Impaired Total 572 186 386 576 228 348 0.7% 22.6% -9.8%Legally Blind 140 79 61 168 104 64 20.0% 31.6% 4.9%

Other Visually Impaired 432 107 325 408 124 284 -5.6% 15.9% -12.6%

Acoustically Impaired Total 542 177 365 518 166 352 -4.4% -6.2% -3.6%Legally Deaf 156 55 101 123 38 85 -21.2% -30.9% -15.8%

Other Acoustically Impaired 386 122 264 395 128 267 2.3% 4.9% 1.1%

Neurological Disability 4,372 1,632 2,740 5,215 2,256 2,959 19.3% 38.2% 8.0%

Other Health Impairments Total 10,012 4,238 5,774 11,127 5,042 6,085 11.1% 19.0% 5.4%Mental Health Impairment 5,090 2,226 2,864 5,662 2,490 3,172 11.2% 11.9% 10.8%

Speech Impairment 334 74 260 416 94 322 24.6% 27.0% 23.8%

Traumatic Brain Injury 338 128 210 425 190 235 25.7% 48.4% 11.9%

Orthopedic Impairment 505 159 346 619 219 400 22.6% 37.7% 15.6%

Alcohol/substance Abuse 431 170 261 244 146 98 -43.4% -14.1% -62.5%

Other Health Impairments 3,314 1,481 1,833 3,761 1,903 1,858 13.5% 28.5% 1.4%

All Disabilities 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (x) (x) (x)

Learning Disability 46.6% 42.2% 49.2% 43.9% 38.9% 47.4% -5.7% -7.8% -3.7%

Visually Impaired Total 2.0% 1.7% 2.1% 1.9% 1.8% 1.9% -6.0% 5.0% -11.2%

Acoustically Impaired Total 1.9% 1.6% 2.0% 1.7% 1.3% 1.9% -10.8% -19.6% -5.0%

Neurological Disability 15.1% 15.1% 15.0% 16.8% 17.9% 16.0% 11.3% 18.4% 6.4%

Other Health Impairments Total 34.5% 39.3% 31.7% 35.8% 40.0% 32.9% 3.7% 1.9% 3.8%

Disability

Note: campuses Cortland; Maritime; SUNY Poly; Cornell; Plattsburg;Jamestow n; Genesee; FIT; Suffolk used 2013 reported data. Excluded from this table are Buffalo HSC; Fredonia; Morrisville; Onoenta; North Country CC.Source: NYSED Survey 2H-2 2012-2014 data as repoted by the campuses.

Fall 2012 Fall 2014 Percent change 2012-2014

of 81

Notably, reported students with alcohol/substance abuse have been in a steep decline SUNY‐

wide, at a negative 43.4%.

G. Student Data: Socio‐Economic

As indicated in Section C, this report will use the receipt of a federal Pell grant as a proxy for

economically disadvantaged when examining socio‐economic status. In the future, the Office of

Institutional Research anticipates being able to look at socio‐economic status in more detail, by way of

family income ranges obtained from data on the SIRIS Financial Aid submissions.

Figure 31. Percent Pell Recipients of All Undergraduates at Public Institutions, Academic Year 2013‐14

Total undergraduate enrollment reported on the IPEDS Student Financial Aid Survey includes students

who are full‐time, part‐time, degree‐seeking, and non‐degree seeking and all IPEDS race/ethnicity

categories (including non‐resident aliens). Figure 31 represents the percentages of these students who

received a Pell grant.

Key Observations

Among 4‐year Public Institutions, SUNY’s percent of Pell recipients is comparable to the

National Public rate, 36.1% vs. 35.7%. CUNY’s percent of Pell recipients exceeds both by

approximately 13 percentage points.

36.1% 36.9%

48.7%

57.3%

35.7% 37.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

4‐Year 2 Year

SUNY CUNY National Publics (except NYS)

SUNY System Administration,Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 27, 2016 Source: IPEDS 2013‐‐14 Student Financial Aid Survey

of 81

SUNY’s percent of Pell recipients at its 2‐year institutions is 1 percentage point lower than the

National Public rate. Again, CUNY’s percent of Pell recipients exceeds the rates for both

National Publics and SUNY, here by almost 20 percentage points.

Figure 32. Percent Pell Recipients by Sector, Fall 2013‐ Fall 2015

Figure 32 displays the Pell recipients for the past three years by sector as a proportion of all

undergraduate students reported enrolled in a program and not non‐resident aliens. This selection is

used since only undergraduate students enrolled in a program and who are U.S. Residents are typically

eligible to apply for the Pell grant.

Key Observations

System‐wide, the percent of students in the selected cohorts reported as receiving Pell has

remained relatively steady at about 40‐41% overall.

More students enrolled at community colleges are reported as receiving Pell than at the state‐

operated institutions. For Fall 2015, those percentages were 42.8% and 37.0%, respectively.

Within the state‐operated sector, students enrolled at the technology colleges are most likely

to be receiving Pell (43.8% in Fall 2015), followed by those at the comprehensive colleges

(37.2%), followed by those at the doctoral institutions (34.3%).

Yes % Yes Yes % Yes Yes % Yes

350,234 141,109 40.3% 343,678 140,930 41.0% 334,239 133,363 39.9%

165,189 59,553 36.1% 166,108 61,512 37.0% 165,672 61,298 37.0%

62,023 19,979 32.2% 64,464 21,824 33.9% 64,857 22,233 34.3%

77,610 28,074 36.2% 77,319 28,766 37.2% 76,570 28,446 37.2%

25,556 11,500 45.0% 24,325 10,922 44.9% 24,245 10,619 43.8%

185,045 81,556 44.1% 177,570 79,418 44.7% 168,567 72,065 42.8%

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse (Student)

In a program,

U.S. Resident

Cohort

Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015

Pell Recipient

Grand Total

State Operated Total


In a program,

U.S. Resident

Cohort

Pell RecipientIn a program,

U.S. Resident

Cohort

Pell Recipient

Comprehensive Colleges Total

Technology Colleges Total

Community Colleges Total

of 81

Figures 33 and 34. Percent Pell Recipients by Campus, Fall 2015

Figures 33 and 34 illustrate how the percent of Pell recipients varies across campuses.

Key Observations

The percent of Pell recipients reported by the state‐operated institutions spans from a high of

58.6% at Morrisville to a low of 18.3% at Cornell statutory colleges, a range of 40.3 percentage

points.

For the state‐operated institutions, four of SUNY’s technology colleges serve the highest

percentage of Pell recipients (Morrisville, Canton, Cobleskill, and Alfred State).

For the community colleges, the percent of Pell recipients spans from a high of 65.2% at

Mohawk Valley to a low of 28.6% at Rockland, a range of 36.6 percentage points.

Along with Hudson Valley, community colleges with the lowest percentages of Pell recipients

are those located downstate (Rockland, Orange, Suffolk, FIT, Dutchess, Nassau, Westchester,

Ulster).

The observations noted above are consistent with the ones noted last year, for Fall 2014.

58.6%

58.2%

51.6%

51.5%

48.9%

46.5%

46.4%

43.8%

43.8%

42.8%

40.6%

39.9%

38.2%

37.5%

37.3%

37.2%

37.1%

37.0%

36.6%

36.0%

35.2%

34.3%

34.1%

32.0%

31.0%

29.6%

29.5%

28.9%

28.2%

28.2%

27.7%

24.6%

23.6%

23.6%

20.4%

18.3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Morrisville

Canton

Cobleskill

Alfred State

Buffalo State

Delhi

Old Westbury

Potsdam

Technology Colleges

Albany

Brockport

Oswego

Fredonia

SUNY Poly

Plattsburgh


Empire State

State Operated

Buffalo Univ

Research Centers

Stony Brook


Purchase

New Paltz

Farmingdale

Oneonta

Binghamton

Cortland

Upstate Medical

Alfred‐Ceramics

Envir Sci & Forestry

Other Research/Doctoral

Downstate Medical

Geneseo

Maritime

Cornell Stat

SUNY System Admin Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse (Student)

65.2%

63.9%

60.5%

58.9%

58.5%

56.4%

56.3%

56.1%

55.8%

55.8%

55.7%

53.8%

53.8%

52.7%

52.3%

51.8%

48.4%

45.7%

45.2%

44.0%

43.1%

42.8%

42.6%

39.5%

37.5%

37.3%

34.1%

32.9%

30.3%

29.1%

28.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Mohawk Valley

Herkimer County

North Country

Genesee

Jamestown

Cayuga County

Clinton

Tompkins Cortland

Fulton‐Montgomery

Jefferson

Schenectady County

Broome

Finger Lakes

Corning

Sullivan County

Niagara County

Onondaga *

Columbia‐Greene

Monroe

Adirondack

Erie

Community Colleges

Ulster County

Nassau

Westchester

Hudson Valley

Dutchess

Fashion Institute

Suffolk County

Orange County

Rockland

SUNY System Admin Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse (Student)

of 81

Figure 35: Percent of Each Race/Ethnicity Category Receiving Pell, Fall 2015

Figure 35 shows the breakdown of Pell recipient by race/ethnic category. Like in Figures 32 ‐ 34, this

table is limited to students who would ordinarily be eligible to apply for a Pell grant, i.e. undergraduate

students who are U.S. citizens and enrolled in a program.

Key Observations

System‐wide, more than half of URM students are reported as having received a Pell grant in

Fall 2015 (53.1%). This is significantly greater than the percentage of White students receiving

Pell (30.7%).

#Yes % Yes

334,239 129,515 38.7%

White 200,104 61,381 30.7%

Asian 20,086 10,032 49.9%

97,702 51,843 53.1%

American Indian or Alaska Native 1,445 713 49.3%

Black or African American 41,816 24,342 58.2%

Hispanic/Latino 45,394 22,683 50.0%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 526 229 43.5%

Two or more race 8,521 3,876 45.5%

Unknown 16,347 6,259 38.3%

State Operated Total 165,672 61,298 37.0%

White 102,885 28,083 27.3%

Asian 14,042 7,361 52.4%

42,695 24,026 56.3%

American Indian or Alaska Native 521 293 56.2%




Two or more race 4,475 1,932 43.2%

Unknown 6,050 1,828 30.2%

Community Colleges Total 168,567 68,217 40.5%

White 97,219 33,298 34.3%

Asian 6,044 2,671 44.2%

55,007 27,817 50.6%

American Indian or Alaska Native 924 420 45.5%




Two or more race 4,046 1,944 48.0%

Unknown 10,297 4,431 43.0%

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 26, 2016

Source: SUNY Data Warehouse (Enrollment)

Under ‐represented (URM) Total

Fall 2015

Pell Recipients

SUNY Total



Eligible to

Apply

of 81

The Black/African American population in state‐operated colleges, in particular, has the highest

percentage of Pell recipients, with over 6 out of 10 (62.3%) undergraduates in a program

receiving the grant.

At the state‐operated institutions, the percent of Asians and URMs receiving Pell grants is

higher than the percentages at the system‐wide level. However, the percentage of Whites

receiving the grant is lower than the system‐wide value (by 11.5 percentage points).

At the community colleges, the percent of URM students receiving Pell remains approximately

50.6%, lower than the percentage at the system‐wide level. The Asian percentage is 44.2%,

and the White percentage is 34.3%.

Figure 36: Graduation Rates of Pell Recipients vs. Non‐Pell Recipients

* Pell information was not available for the cohorts examined for Cornell, Stony Brook, Maritime, and FIT, and those campuses are therefore not included in this analysis.

Figure 36 illustrates the most recent completion rates of Pell recipients vs. non‐Pell recipients for a

cohort of first‐time, full‐time baccalaureate students and for a cohort of first‐time, full‐time associate

degree students.

39.8%

53.5%56.1%

66.7%

58.7%

68.8%

9.3%

17.0%20.6%

30.5%

25.3%

35.8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate Students First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree Students


Graduation Rates of Pell Recipients vs. Non‐Pell Recipients *, Fall 2009 Cohort of First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate Students

and Fall 2011 Cohort of First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree Students

* Note that Cornell, Stony Brook, Maritime, and FIT are excluded from this chart.

of 81

Key Observations

For both the baccalaureate and associate degree cohorts, for every time period examined, Pell

recipient students graduated at a markedly lower rate than their non‐Pell recipient peers.

At the baccalaureate level, the 4‐year gap is 13.7 percentage points, and that gap decreases

slightly to 10.1 percentage points by the 6‐year mark.

At the associate level, the 2‐year gap is 7.7 percentage points, and that gap increases to 10.5

percentage points by the 4‐year mark.

SUNY is addressing this challenge, in part, through the Access to Success and Taking Student

Success to Scale initiatives, discussed earlier with Figures 23 and 24. In addition, SUNY’s

current Completion Agenda aims to also make significant strides in this area by way of

increasing the effectiveness of remediation, financial literacy and other key levers.

H. Student Data: Military and Veteran Status

Figure 37. Statewide Population by Veteran Status

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010‐2014 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates2

Figure 37 shows the number of veterans estimated in New York State by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Key Observations

Veterans make up 5.7% of New York State’s population. This is down 0.3% from the estimates

presented last year. SUNY’s enrollment consists of 1.4% students with reported veteran status.

Veterans, therefore, could conceivably be considered an under‐represented demographic

among SUNY enrollees. However, before making such a conclusion, it is useful to consider the

age distribution of the state’s veterans (see Figure 38 below).

Population

EstimatePercentage

Veteran 868,764 5.7%

Non Veteran 14,429,518 94.3%

Total 15,298,282 100.0%

Veteran Status in New York

of 81

Figure 38. Age Distribution of Veterans in New York

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010‐2014 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates

Figure 38 shows the number and percent of New York State veterans by age category.

Key Observations

While Figure 37 shows that veterans make up 5.7% of New York’s population, they are predominantly older New Yorkers, with 52.4% of veterans being of age 65 years and older.

Only 7.0% of the state’s veterans are within the 18‐34 year old age group. Another 20.7% are between the ages of 35 and 54 years.

Increasing veteran enrollment at SUNY would involve recruiting more non‐traditionally aged students.

Figure 39. Active Military and Veteran Enrollment by Sector, Fall 2015


Figure 39 shows the number of active military duty students and the number of veterans reported as

being enrolled at SUNY in Fall 2015. It also shows how those students are distributed across the

sectors compared to how the overall enrollment is distributed across the sectors.

Age GroupPopulation Estimate

Percentage

18 to 34 years 60,878 7.0%

35 to 54 years 180,037 20.7%

55 to 64 years 173,241 19.9%

65 to 74 years 203,741 23.5%

75 years and over 250,867 28.9%

Total 868,764 100.0%

Age Distribution of Veterans in New York

Fall 2015

Total

Enrollment

% Total

Enrollment

by Sector

Active

Military

Duty

% Active

Military

Duty

Veteran % Veteran

SUNY Systemwide 442,940 100.0% 676 100.0% 6,082 100.0%

State‐Operated Institution 219,942 49.7% 347 51.3% 2,267 37.3%

Doctoral Degree Granting 105,998 23.9% 57 8.4% 736 12.1%

Comprehensive Colleges 87,764 19.8% 267 39.5% 1,133 18.6%

Technology Colleges 26,180 5.9% 23 3.4% 398 6.5%

Community Colleges 222,998 50.3% 329 48.7% 3,815 62.7%

of 81

Key Observations

In Fall 2015, 676 active military duty students are reported as being enrolled at SUNY, which

amounts to .2% of SUNY’s total enrollment. Although the percentage of overall enrollment

remains relatively unchanged, SUNY decreased its active military duty enrollment by seven

students when compared to Fall 2014.

In Fall 2015, a greater proportion of active military duty students attend state‐operated

institutions (51.3% compared to 48.7% at community colleges). In Fall 2014, active duty

students were divided approximately equally between state‐operated institutions and

community colleges (49.9% and 50.1%, respectively).

• Within the state‐operated sector, comprehensive colleges report having 39.5% of the system’s

total number of active military students, compared to having 19.8% of SUNY’s overall

enrollment. Much of this is attributed to Empire State College, which alone has 26.6% of

SUNY’s overall active military enrollment and 51.9% of the active military enrollment at state‐

operated institutions. Empire State has significant online offerings and according to its website

offers pre‐application advising and unofficial review of military transcripts at no charge as well

as credit for college‐level learning gained through military training, standardized exams, and

other life experiences.

• Similarly, the majority of active military enrollment at the community colleges can also be

attributed to one institution in that sector, Jefferson Community College. Jefferson has 34.8%

of SUNY’s overall active military enrollment and 74.5% of the community colleges’ active

military enrollment. Jefferson is a member of Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) and

operates the Fort Drum Army Continuing Education Program (ACES), which includes

maintaining full‐time academic advisors located on‐base at nearby Fort Drum.

In Fall 2015, 6,082 veterans were reported as being enrolled at SUNY, which amounts to 1.4%

of SUNY’s total enrollment. Compared to Fall 2014, veteran enrollment in Fall 2015 was down

4.5%.

Unlike the active military duty students, veterans are much more likely to be enrolled at

community colleges rather than state‐operated institutions (62.7% vs. 37.3%, respectively). In

2014, there was a 3% greater disparity between the veteran enrollment percentage at

community colleges compared to state operated institutions.

of 81

Figures 40 and 41. Active Military and Veteran Enrollment by Award Level, Fall 2015

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics Source: SUNY Data Warehouse

Figures 40 and 41 illustrate at what program levels active military duty personnel and veterans are

enrolled at SUNY.

Key Observations

Although the vast majority of active military duty students are enrolled in undergraduate

programs or not enrolled in any program (96.1% combined), a growing percentage are

enrolling in doctoral and master degree programs. In Fall 2015, 3.8% of active duty personnel

were enrolled in graduate programs compared to only 2.1% in Fall 2014. Compared to Fall

2014, active military student enrollment remained relatively stable, declining by only seven

students.

of 81

For veterans, 60% are enrolled in an associate degree program, and approximately 29% are

enrolled in a baccalaureate program. Though the numbers are very small, veterans are found

at every level of study at SUNY, including the doctoral and first professional. Compared to Fall

2014, there has been a very slight movement from associate degree programs and

undergraduate certificates to baccalaureate and graduate degree programs.

I. Student Data: Gender Identify & Sexual Orientation

SUNY has very recently begun to collect data related to student gender identity and sexual orientation.

Student Opinion Survey

In the Spring 2012 administration of SUNY’s long‐running Student Opinion Survey (SOS) at state‐

operated campuses, students were asked to answer two questions on prejudice based on sexual

orientation and gender identity:

On average, students agree that “acts of prejudice based on sexual orientation are rare” on

campus (mean rating = 3.85 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating Strongly Disagree and 5

indicating Strongly Agree).

On average, students agree that “acts of prejudice based on gender identity are rare” on

campus (mean rating = 3.86 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating Strongly Disagree and 5

indicating Strongly Agree).

And then in the Spring 2015 administration of the survey, students had the opportunity for the first

time to identify as LGBT as one of the background questions of the survey. To the question, “Do you

identify as LGBT?”, 5.8% responded “Yes”, 69.1% responded “No”, 7.3% “Prefer Not to Answer”, and

17.8% did not respond (left blank).

The responses on the Spring 2015 SOS to the same two questions asked in the Spring 2012 version

resulted in similar overall ratings. Between students who identified as LGBT and those who don’t,

however, there are differences.

On average, students agree that “acts of prejudice based on sexual orientation are rare” on

campus (mean rating = 3.83 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5). For those students who identified as LGBT, the average rating on this question was 3.67, and for those who did not identify as LGBT, the

average was 3.86.

On average, students agree that “acts of prejudice based on gender identity are rare” on

campus (mean rating = 3.82 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5). For those students who identified as LGBT, the average rating on this question was 3.51, and for those who did not identify as LGBT, the

average was 3.86.

The most recently available data for the SOS at Community Colleges (Spring 2013) did not include any

specific questions regarding prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Spring

2016 version of the survey did; however, the data is not yet available for analysis.

Student Information Survey

of 81

In late Fall 2015, as part of the registration process for Spring 2016 classes and as an initiative spear‐

headed by the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees. While over 40 institutions

administered the survey, thirty‐two SUNY campuses had valid results from the first administration of

the Student Information Survey, which included questions on sexual orientation and gender identity.

The results are listed below in Figure 42.

Figure 42. Student Information Survey: Frequency Counts of Sexual Orientation, Spring 2016

Sector Student Count % of Students

State Operated Campuses 1

91,553

Doctoral Degree Granting 36,136 100%

Straight (heterosexual) 19,199 53.1%

Gay 412 1.1%

Lesbian 183 0.5%

Bisexual 689 1.9%

Pansexual 170 0.5%

Queer 130 0.4%

Questioning or unsure 198 0.5%

I prefer not to respond. 12,348 34.2%

An orientation not listed 120 0.3%

Not Reported 2,687 7.4%

Comprehensive Colleges 34,164 100%


Gay 476 1.4%

Lesbian 278 0.8%

Bisexual 1,071 3.1%

Pansexual 369 1.1%

Queer 243 0.7%





Technology Colleges 21,253 100%


Gay 154 0.7%

Lesbian 148 0.7%

Bisexual 351 1.7%

Pansexual 130 0.6%

Queer 50 0.2%




Not Reported 807 3.8%

Community Colleges 2

32,618 100.0%


Gay 186 0.6%

Lesbian 185 0.6%

Bisexual 498 1.5%

Pansexual 179 0.5%

Queer 39 0.1%




Not Reported 590 1.8%Footnotes:

1 Based on 19 State Operated Campuses; 5 Doctoral, 8 Comprehensive, 6 Technology

2 Based on 13 Community College Campuses


of 81

Key Observations

If the responses of “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Pansexual, Queer, and Questioning or unsure” are

combined, the total percentage of this aggregate group of students is highest in the Comprehensive

sector at 7.9%, similar in the Doctoral and Technology sectors at 4.9% and 4.3% respectively, and

lowest at the Community Colleges at 3.3%.

There are a significant number of responses which were either “I prefer not to respond” or not

reported (left blank). This is seen most in the Community College sector (51.6%), less in the

Doctoral sector (41.6%), and still almost one in five in the Comprehensive and Technology sectors,

(19.8% and 18.0% respectively).

Students had the opportunity to write in an orientation not listed; 181 students reported as

Asexual.

of 81

Figure 43. Student Information Survey: Frequency Counts of Gender Identity, Spring 2016

Key Observations

If the responses of “Trans man/woman, Gender queer/Gender‐fluid, and Questioning or

unsure” are combined, the total percentage of this aggregate group of students is highest in

the Comprehensive sector at 1.2%, followed by the Technology sector at 0.8% and lowest in

the Doctoral sector at 0.5% and Community Colleges at 0.5%.

Sector Student Count % of Students

State Operated Campuses 1

91,553

Doctoral Degree Institutions 36,136 100.0%

Man 9,912 27.4%

Woman 11,603 32.1%

Trans man 26 0.1%

Trans woman 23 0.1%

Gender queer/Gender‐fluid 106 0.3%


A gender identity not listed 49 0.1%

I prefer not to respond 11,701 32.4%


Comprehensive Colleges 34,164 100.0%

Man 11,700 34.2%

Woman 16,283 47.7%

Trans man 48 0.1%

Trans woman 35 0.1%






Technology Colleges 21,253 100.0%

Man 9,632 45.3%

Woman 8,212 38.6%

Trans man 26 0.1%

Trans woman 31 0.1%





Not Reported 807 3.8%

Community Colleges 32,618 100.0%

Man 6,472 19.8%

Woman 9,993 30.6%

Trans man 29 0.1%

Trans woman 14 0.0%





Not Reported 592 1.8%Footnotes:

1 Based on 19 State Operated Campuses; 5 Doctoral, 8 Comprehensive, 6 Technology

2 Based on 13 Community College Campuses


of 81

There are a significant number of responses which were either “I prefer not to respond” or not

reported (left blank). This is seen most in the Community College sector (48.7%), less in the

Doctoral sector (39.8%), and lowest in the Comprehensive and Technology sectors, (16.3% and

14.4%, respectively).

Students had the opportunity to report a gender not listed. The only response reported by

more than five students was Non‐Binary.

Campus Climate Assessment Policy

In October 2014, the SUNY Trustees unanimously voted to adopt a system‐wide, uniform set of sexual

assault prevention and response practices at SUNY campuses. Part of that effort was to include

development of a new climate survey to address at least the following:

• Student and employee knowledge about:

- The Title IX Coordinator’s role;

- Campus policies and procedures addressing sexual assault;

- How and where to report sexual violence as a victim/survivor or witness;

- The availability of resources on and off campus, such as counseling, health, academic

assistance;

- The prevalence of victimization and perpetration of sexual assault, domestic violence,

dating violence, and stalking on and off campus during a set time period (for example, the

last two years);

- Bystander attitudes and behavior; and

- Whether victims/survivors reported to the College/University and/or police, and reasons

why they did or did not report.

Members of SUNY’s Diversity Task Force were part of the working group that developed the surveys.

In May 2016, SUNY signed a contract with Campus Labs to design and facilitate the implementation of

the survey. A pilot administration with several campuses is scheduled for Fall 2016 and full

administration by all campuses is scheduled for March 2017. Information yielded may be able to

support SUNY’s diversity goals.

of 81

J. Campus Employee Data: Gender

Figure 44. SUNY Campus Employees by Sector, Employee Category, and Gender, Fall 2015

Figure 44 shows the distribution of all SUNY campus employees, full and part‐time, by sector, general

occupational grouping, and gender as reported on the 2015 IPEDS Human Resources Survey.

Key Observations

System‐wide, more women are employed than men at SUNY institutions. Overall, the

percentage of female employees is 55.4%, with minimal difference between state‐operated

campuses and community colleges (55.1% and 56.1%, respectively).

Looking at the employee classification categories, women tend to have greater representation

in professional non‐faculty positions (62.2%) than in faculty positions (48.6%). Women hold

under half of the faculty positions at state‐operated campuses (45.7%) and just over half

(52.6%) at the community colleges.

No notable changes were observed this year as compared to fall 2014.

Total women

No. % No. %

All Campuses 89,497 39,938 44.6% 49,559 55.4%

Faculty 33,683 17,319 51.4% 16,364 48.6%

Professional (Non‐faculty) 30,683 11,592 37.8% 19,091 62.2%

Other (Non‐faculty) 19,581 8,281 42.3% 11,300 57.7%

Graduate Assistants 5,550 2,746 49.5% 2,804 50.5%

State Operated/Funded Campuses 63,515 28,527 44.9% 34,988 55.1%

Faculty 19,540 10,616 54.3% 8,924 45.7%



Graduate Assistants 5,550 2,746 49.5% 2,804 50.5%

Community Colleges 25,982 11,411 43.9% 14,571 56.1%

Faculty 14,143 6,703 47.4% 7,440 52.6%



SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : May 17, 2016

Source: IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey

Sector and Employee Category

All Campus

Employees

Gender

Total men

of 81

K. Campus Employee Data: Race/Ethnicity

Figure 45a. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of All SUNY Campus Employees, Fall 2013

Figure 45a shows the race/ethnicity distribution of all SUNY campus employees, full and part‐time, as reported on the 2013 IPEDS Human Resources Survey and in the June 2015 Diversity data brief. The under‐represented minority percentage includes employees identifying as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or Two or More Races.

77.2%

4.7%

12.4%7.5%

4.0%0.3% 0.1% 0.5%

4.1%1.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 18, 2015 Source: IPEDS Human Resources Survey

of 81

Figure 45b. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of All SUNY Campus Employees, Fall 2015

Figure 45b shows the race/ethnicity distribution of all SUNY campus employees, full and part‐time, as

reported on the 2015 IPEDS Human Resources Survey. The under‐represented minority percentage

includes employees identifying as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or

Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or Two or More Races.

Key Observations

According to the most recent complete data available from IPEDS (Fall 2015), across all SUNY

campuses, approximately 77% of the total employees (i.e. faculty and non‐faculty) are White.

Under‐represented minorities (URM) make up the second largest group at 12.6%, followed by

Asians at 4.9%, and then Non‐resident Aliens at 3.7%.

Of the racial/ethnic groups included in the under‐represented minority percentage, the largest

representation is Black and African Americans, 7.6% of all employees, followed by Hispanic or

Latinos at 4.2% of all employees.

In comparison with Fall 2013 data (Figure 45a), there have been only very slight changes in the

racial/ethnic distribution of all SUNY campus employees.

77.0%

4.9%

12.6%

7.6%4.2%

0.3% 0.1% 0.5%3.7% 1.8%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

SUNYSystem Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : May 17, 2016 Source: IPEDS2015 Human Resources Survey

of 81

Figure 46. Trends in Minority and International Employees at SUNY Institutions, Fall 2005 – Fall 2015

Figure 46 shows the trend in the percentage of URM, Asian, and International (i.e. non‐resident alien)

employees at SUNY campuses from Fall 2005 to Fall 2015 as reported on IPEDS Human Resources

Surveys 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015. Note that institutions are required to report the

race/ethnicity of employees on the IPEDS HR Survey on an every‐other‐year basis.

Key Observations

The trend in employees identifying as URM has shown an incremental increase over the period

from Fall 2007 to Fall 2015 (11.9% to 12.6%).

The percent of employees identifying as Asian has increased more than a percentage point

over the period from Fall 2005 to Fall 2015 (3.7% to 4.9%).

International (non‐resident alien) employee percentages during this period have shown

fluctuation in the range of 3.7% to 4.9%.

11.9% 11.8% 11.9% 12.1% 12.4% 12.6%

3.7% 3.8%

4.1%

4.5%

4.7% 4.9%4.0%

4.5%

3.8%

4.9%

4.1%3.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Fall 2005 Fall 2007 Fall 2009 Fall 2011 Fall 2013 Fall 2015

URM

Asian

International

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics: : May 17, 2016 Source: IPEDS Human Resources Surveys

of 81

Figure 47. Percent Minority and International Employees by State‐Operated Institution, Fall 2015

Figure 47 provides a snapshot for Fall 2015 of each state‐operated institution’s race/ethnicity diversity

of total employees. Data is displayed as a stacked bar showing the percentage of URM employees,

followed by the percentage of Asian employees, and then the percentage of non‐resident alien

employees. At the end of each bar, the aggregate percentage is shown. The White and Unknown

categories are not displayed.

Key Observations

For SUNY employees at the state‐operated institutions, the aggregate race/ethnicity diversity

ranges from a high percentage of 73.6% at Downstate to a low of 5.2% at Delhi and Alfred

State, a range of 68.4 percentage points. For reference, the system‐wide aggregate is 21.2%,

and the state‐operated aggregate is 24.6%.

73.6%

51.1%

34.8%

31.2%

29.7%

29.6%

28.4%

25.3%

24.6%

24.1%

23.3%

21.3%

21.2%

20.9%

20.1%

19.6%

18.1%

18.0%

14.7%

14.4%

14.4%

12.6%

12.6%

11.2%

10.7%

10.5%

10.3%

9.9%

9.1%

8.3%

8.0%

6.7%

6.6%

6.5%

5.2%

5.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Downstate

Optometry

Old Westbury

Stony Brook

Maritime

Doctoral Institutions

Purchase

Albany

State Operated/Funded

Binghamton

Buffalo Univ.

Cornell Statutory

SUNY Total

Farmingdale

Upstate

SUNY Poly

Buffalo College

New Paltz

Env. Sci. & Forestry

Brockport


Technology Colleges

Empire State

Geneseo

Oswego

Fredonia

Oneonta

Alfred Ceramics

Plattsburgh

Canton

Potsdam

Cortland

Morrisville

Cobleskill

Alfred

Delhi

% URM % Asian % Non‐Resident Alien

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 18, 2016 Source: IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey

of 81

Optometry also has a notably high percentage of race/ethnicity diversity of 51.1%.

Much of the employee diversity for Downstate is attributable to the combination of their large

number of medical staff and their location in NYC.

There is a clear pattern of the state‐operated institutions located downstate having higher

percentages of minority and international employees than those institutions located in more

rural parts of the state.

Figure 48. Percent Minority and International Employees by Community College, Fall 2015

25.5%

22.8%

22.4%

21.2%

20.0%

19.0%

18.3%

14.6%

13.9%

12.8%

12.3%

10.9%

10.7%

8.8%

8.6%

8.2%

7.6%

7.4%

6.6%

6.1%

5.9%

5.3%

4.7%

4.5%

4.4%

4.1%

3.8%

2.9%

1.1%

1.0%

1.0%

0.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rockland

Westchester

Orange County

SUNY Total

Fashion Inst.

Nassau

Monroe

Dutchess

Schenectady

Community Colleges

Suffolk County

Erie

Onondaga

Mohawk Valley

Sullivan County

Broome

Niagara County

Tompkins‐Cortland

Ulster County

Jefferson

Corning

Genesee

Hudson Valley

Adirondack

Columbia‐Greene

Fulton‐Montgomery

Finger Lakes

Jamestown

Clinton

Cayuga County

Herkimer

North Country

% URM % Asian % Non‐Resident Alien

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 18, 2016 Source: IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey

of 81

Figure 48 provides a snapshot for Fall 2015 of each community college’s race/ethnicity diversity of

total employees. Data is displayed as a stacked bar showing the percentage of URM employees,

followed by the percentage of Asian employees, and then the percentage of non‐resident alien

employees. At the end of each bar, the aggregate percentage is shown. The White and Unknown

categories are not displayed.

Key Observations

For SUNY employees at the community colleges, the aggregate race/ethnicity diversity ranges

from a high percentage of 25.5% at Rockland to a low of 0% at North Country, a range of 25.5

percentage points. For reference, the system‐wide aggregate is 21.2%, and the community

college aggregate is 12.8%.

As seen in Figure 47 for state‐operated employees and also in Figure 17 for student enrollment

at the community colleges, there is a clear pattern of the community colleges located

downstate having higher percentages of minority and international employees than those

located in more rural parts of the state.

A Focus on Full‐Time Employees

When one considers employment status of faculty vs. non‐faculty, full‐time vs. part‐time, and

occupational category, it is important to recognize that the applicant pool naturally varies

considerably.

Figure 49a. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Full‐Time SUNY Campus Faculty, Fall 2013

Figure 49a shows the race/ethnicity distribution of full‐time faculty for all SUNY campuses combined and separately for state‐operated campuses and community colleges, as reported in the June 2015 Diversity data brief. Note again that URM indicates under‐represented minorities and includes Black or

of 81

African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races.

Figure 49b. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Full‐Time SUNY Campus Faculty, Fall 2015

Figure 49b shows the most current race/ethnicity distribution of full‐time faculty for all SUNY

campuses combined and separately for state‐operated campuses and community colleges. Note again

that URM indicates under‐represented minorities and includes Black or African American, Hispanic or

Latino, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Two or More

Races.

Key Observations

For all SUNY campuses, the percentage of full‐time minority faculty is 17.1%, with those

identifying as Asian comprising 9.4% of that total and those identifying as under‐represented

minority comprising the remaining 7.7%.

The number of full‐time faculty at state‐operated campuses is about three times the number at

community colleges (11,739 vs. 4,152, respectively). The distribution by race/ethnicity of full‐

time faculty members at SUNY, therefore, is heavily weighted towards the state‐operated

percentages.

The community colleges’ full‐time faculty are less diverse overall than at the state‐operated

campuses, with the percent identifying as minority at 10.7% vs. 19.5%, respectively. Note that

community colleges have fewer full‐time faculty identifying as Asian, fewer international

faculty, and more unknowns.

In comparing Fall 2015 (Figure 43b) with Fall 2013 (Figure 43a), while the percentage of non‐

white full‐time faculty has increased slightly, except for Asians, no percentage has increased

greater than 0.5%.

77.8%

9.4% 7.7%4.0%

1.1%

74.9%

11.7%7.8%

5.3%0.3%

86.0%

3.0%7.7%

0.3%3.1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All Campuses ‐ FT Faculty State Operated/Funded ‐ FT Faculty Community Colleges ‐ FT Faculty

SUNYSystem Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : May 18,2016 Source: IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey

of 81

Figure 50a. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Full‐Time SUNY Campus Professionals, Fall 2013

Figure 50a shows the race/ethnicity distribution of full‐time professional employees for all SUNY

campuses combined and separately for state‐operated campuses and community colleges, as reported

in the June 2015 Diversity data brief. Professional Employees include those in occupational categories:

Management, Business/Finance, Computer Science, Library, Student and Academic Affairs, etc. Note

again that URM indicates under‐represented minorities and includes Black or African American,

Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and

Two or More Races.

Figure 50b. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Full‐Time SUNY Campus Professionals, Fall 2015

75.9%

6.2%

15.5%

1.7% 0.8%

75.0%

6.9%

15.9%

2.0% 0.2%

80.5%

2.6%

13.3%

0.0%3.6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All Campuses ‐ FT Professionals State Operated/Funded ‐ FT Professionals Community Colleges ‐ FT Professionals

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : May 18,2016 Source: IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey

of 81

Figure 50b shows the most current race/ethnicity distribution of full‐time professional employees for

all SUNY campuses combined and separately for state‐operated campuses and community colleges.

Professional Employees include those in occupational categories: Management, Business/Finance,

Computer Science, Library, Student and Academic Affairs, etc. Note again that URM indicates under‐

represented minorities and includes Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or

Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races.

Key Observations

For all SUNY campuses, the percentage of full‐time minority professional employees is 21.7%,

with those identifying as Asian comprising 6.2% and those identifying as URM comprising

15.5% of that total.

The number of full‐time professional employees at state‐operated campuses is over five times

the number at community colleges (20,443 vs. 3,960, respectively). So again, the distribution

by race/ethnicity of full‐time professional employees at SUNY, therefore, is heavily weighted

towards the state‐operated percentages.

As with full‐time faculty, the community colleges’ full‐time professionals are less diverse than

at the state‐operated campuses, with the percent identifying as minority at 15.9% vs. 22.8%,

respectively. There are fewer full‐time professionals identifying as Asian or as URM in this

sector at this level.

In comparing Fall 2015 (Figure 50b) with Fall 2013 (Figure 50a), the racial/ethnic diversity of

full‐time professional staff, no significant change is noted.

Figure 51. URM Full‐Time Faculty at SUNY State‐Operated Institutions vs. National Public 4‐Year

Institutions, Fall 2013

Figure 51 looks specifically at URM full‐time faculty at SUNY’s state‐operated campuses compared to

public 4‐year institutions across the nation, grouped by state, as reported on the IPEDS Fall 2013

Human Resources Survey and downloaded from the IPEDS Data Center. More current information is

not yet available, and this figure is being included in this updated data brief as reference.

18.3%

7.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DC

NM MS

CUNY FL TX LA AL

NC

DE

MD

GA HI IL TN SC AZ

AR

NV

VA NJ

OK

CA CT

AK

MI

KY

WA

OH IN

MO CO KS

SUNY

MA

PA

MN RI

WI

IA NE

OR

WV VT

SD UT

ND

NH ID MT

WY

ME

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics::May 18, 2015 Source: 2013 IPEDS Human Resources Survey

Does not include Alfred Ceramics, Cornell Statutory or hospital employees at Downstate or Upstate.

of 81

Key Observations

The District of Columbia, which has only one public institution, has over twice the percentage

of URM full‐time faculty as the next highest percentage state.

The states with the highest percentages tend to be the states in which the general population

is also more diverse (see Appendix F). SUNY’s state‐operated Fall 2013 value is 7.6%.

States in the Northeast having higher percentages than SUNY of URM full‐time faculty at their

4‐year institutions include New Jersey and Connecticut.

Figure 52: URM Full‐Time Faculty: SUNY Community Colleges vs. National Public 2‐Year Institutions,

Fall 2013

Figure 52 shows URM full‐time faculty at SUNY’s community colleges compared to public 2‐year

institutions nationally by state, as reported on the IPEDS Fall 2013 Human Resources Survey. More

current information is not yet available, and this figure is being included in this updated data brief as

reference.

Key Observations

CUNY’s community colleges have the highest percentage of URM full‐time faculty at 27.3%,

whereas SUNY’s community college Fall 2013 value is 7.2%.

As with the 4‐year institutions, the states with the highest percentages tend to be the states in

which the general population is also more diverse (see Appendix F). States in the Northeast

having higher percentages than SUNY of URM full‐time faculty at their 2‐year institutions

include New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.

27.3%

7.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CUNY

LA GA TX

NM CA AL FL MT AZ

MD HI

SC OK NJ

MS

NC

AK IL VA

TN CT

MA

PA

MI

MO IN DE

OH

WA

OR

AR

SUNY

CO

NV

UT

WI

KS

KY

MN

ND NE RI

ID IA

WY

WV

ME

SD NH


of 81

Figure 53: URM Full‐Time Professionals at SUNY State‐Operated Institutions vs. National Public 4‐Year Institutions, Fall 2013

Figure 53 shows URM full‐time professional employees at SUNY’s state‐operated institutions compared

to public 4‐year institutions across the nation, grouped by state, as reported on the IPEDS Fall 2013

Human Resources Survey. More current information is not yet available, and this figure is being

included in this updated data brief as reference.

Key Observations

The District of Columbia, again, shows a percentage of URM full‐time professionals twice that

of the next highest percentage state.

CUNY has the second highest percentage, at 39.7%, whereas SUNY’s state‐operated Fall 2013

value is 11.0%.

As with the full‐time faculty, the states with the highest percentages tend to be the states in

which the general population is also more diverse. (See Appendix F.)

39.7%

11.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DC

CUNY

NM TX

MD FL MS LA NJ

GA

CA

NV

NC IL DE AL

AZ

SC AR HI

TN VA

AK

OK CT

MI

CO PA

SUNY

OH

WA KY

KS

MA RI

MO IN SD WV

OR

UT

MN ID WI

WY

ND VT

NE IA

MT

NH

ME


Does not include Alfred Ceramics, Cornell Statutory or hospital employees at Downstate , Stony Brook or Upstate.

of 81

Figure 54: URM Full‐Time Professionals at SUNY Community Colleges Institutions vs. National Public

2‐Year Institutions, Fall 2013

Figure 54 looks specifically at URM full‐time professional employees at SUNY’s community colleges

compared to public 2‐year institutions across the nation, grouped by state, as reported on the IPEDS

Fall 2013 Human Resources Survey and downloaded from the IPEDS Data Center. More current

information is not yet available, and this figure is being included in this updated data brief as

reference.

Key Observations

CUNY’s community colleges have the highest percentage of URM full‐time professionals at

52.3%.

SUNY’s community college Fall 2013 value is 12.9%.

And once again, the states with the highest percentages tend to be the states in which the

general population is also more diverse (Appendix C).

L. SUNY Campus Management and Leadership: Gender & Race/Ethnicity

Figure 55. Full‐time Campus Employees in Management Occupations by Gender, Fall 2015

52.3%

12.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CUNY

NM LA TX MT FL AL

SC GA

CA AZ

NJ

MD VA

AK

MS

CO IL NC HI

DE

CT

MI

NV

OK

TN MA IN RI

PA

OH AR

ND

MO SD

SUNY

UT KY

OR

WA

WI

KS

WV

MN NE ID IA

WY

NH

ME


Sector % Men % Women

All SUNY Campuses 44.5% 55.5%

State Operated/Funded 45.2% 54.8%

Community Colleges 42.8% 57.2%

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics


of 81

Figure 56: Full‐time Campus Employees in Management Occupations by Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2015

Figures 55 and 56 show the gender and race/ethnicity distribution of employees in the Management occupational category as reported on the IPEDS 2015 Human Resources Survey.

Key Observations

Female representation in Management occupations in both the state‐operated and community college sectors is above 50%.

System‐wide, 83.3% of Management occupation employees are White, 3.1% are Asian, and 12.6% are URM.

Minority representation at all SUNY campuses in Management occupations is led by Black or African Americans at 8.8%, followed by Asians and Hispanic or Latinos at 3.1%.

Figures 57 and 58. Executive Leadership by Gender and Race/Ethnicity, as of May 2016

Figure 57 Total Male Female

State‐Operated Institutions:

Presidents 29 18 11

Provosts / VPs for Academic Affairs 27 16 11

VPs for Business and Finance 29 20 9

Community Colleges:

Presidents 30 18 12

Figure 58 Total White Asian Hispanic Black NativeAmerican

State‐Operated Institutions:

Presidents 29 23 1 0 5

Provosts / VPs for Academic Affairs 27 25 0 0 2

VPs for Business and Finance 29 27 0 0 1 1

Community Colleges:

Presidents 30 26 0 0 4 SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics

Source for Figure 51 and 52 state‐operated data: SUNY Human Resources System

Source for Figure 51 and 52 community college data: SUNY System Administration Office of Education Pipeline and Community Colleges

Figures 57 and 58 show the executive leadership at SUNY campuses by gender and race/ethnicity,

respectively. State‐operated campuses are part of SUNY’s HRMS (Human Resources Management

System) and hence, in addition to presidents, it is possible to ascertain information specifically for

Provosts/VPs for Academic Affairs and VPs for Business and Finance.

Sector White Asian URMBlack/African

American

Hispanic/

Latino

American

Indian/

Alaska Native

Native

Hawaiian/

Other Pacific

Islander

Two or MoreNon‐resident

AlienUnknown

All SUNY Campuses 83.3% 3.1% 12.6% 8.8% 3.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.8%

State Operated/Funded 83.2% 3.6% 12.7% 9.2% 3.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

Community Colleges 83.6% 1.8% 12.3% 7.6% 3.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.8% 0.0% 2.3%

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics


Percentage by Race/Ethnicity

of 81

Cornell and Ceramics are not included since they do not participate in SUNY’s HRMS, hence a total of

29 state‐operated presidents are represented in these tables rather than 31. The count for state‐

operated Provosts / VPs for Academic Affairs is less than the number for presidents and VPs for

Business and Finance due to current provost vacancies at Farmingdale and Upstate HSC.

Key Observations

At both the state‐operated institutions and the community colleges, nearly two‐thirds of the

current presidents are male. At the state‐operated institutions compared to last year, the

number of male presidents decreased by two and the number of female presidents increased

by two. At the community colleges, the number of male presidents decreased by one and the

number of female presidents increased by one.

At the state‐operated campuses, 59.2% (16 of 27) of the current Provosts /VPs for Academic

Affairs and 69.0% (20 of 29) of the current VPs for Business and Finance are male.

From the more detailed human resources data available for the state‐operated institutions,

92.3% (24 out of 26) of the Provosts / VPs for Academic Affairs are white, and 96.4% (27 out of

28) of the VPs for Business and Finance are white.

M. SUNY System Administration Employee Data: Race/Ethnicity

Figure 59. System Administration Employees by Race/Ethnicity, as of May 2016

EEO6 Classification Total White Asian Black Hispanic Native

American

Multi‐

Racial

Grand Total 530 427 81.0% 17 3.3% 53 10.0% 27 5.1% 1 0.002% 5 0.009%

Executive/Administ

rative/Managerial 133 106 80.0% 3 2.2% 15 11.3% 8 6.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.008%

Professional

(Non‐Faculty) 262 211 81.0% 13 5.0% 23 8.8% 11 4.2% 1 0.004% 3 0.012%

Other

(Non‐Faculty) 132 109 83.0% 1 0.008% 14 10.6% 7 5.3% 0 0.0% 1 0.008%

Faculty 3 1 34.0% 0 0.0% 1 34.0% 1 33.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics Source: SUNY Human Resources System

Figure 59 shows the most current (as of May 2016 payroll) race/ethnicity distribution of System

Administration employees by occupational classification.

Key Observations

Twenty percent of the total Executive, Administrative, and Managerial staff are of minority

race/ethnicity. For comparative purposes, this represents an increase from 18% in May 2013.

Of the total System Administration staff, 19.0% are a minority race/ethnicity. It was 16% in

May 2015.

There are 103 minority employees, as compared to 87 in May 2015. Of the 103 minority

employees, 53 identify as black and 27 identify as Hispanic.

of 81

Currently, there are 8 employees at the Vice Chancellor and Associate Vice Chancellor/

Associate Vice Provost level who are of minority race/ethnicity.

N. SUNY System Administration Employee Data: Gender, Veteran, Disability

Figure 60. System Administration Employees by Various Diversity Attributes, as of May 2016

EEO6 Classification Total Female Veteran Disabled

Grand Total 530 289 55.0% 15 2.8% 9 1.7%

Executive/Administrative/Managerial 133 79 59.4% 4 3.0% 2 1.5%

Professional (Non Faculty) 262 127 48.5% 6 2.3% 7 2.7%

Other (Non Faculty) 132 82 62.1% 5 3.8% 0 0.0%

Faculty 3 1 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics Source: SUNY Human Resources Management System (HRMS)

Key Observations

Overall and in the Executive/Administrative/Managerial and Other (Non‐Faculty) occupational

classifications, more than half of the System Administration employees are female.

2.8% of the System Administration staff are recorded as having veteran status, with the largest

percentage (3.8%) being in the Other (Non‐Faculty) occupational classification, which includes

Secretarial/Clerical, Technical/Paraprofessional, Skilled Crafts, and Service/Maintenance.

Under 2% (9 employees out of 530) are recorded as having a disability, with 2 of those

employees being Executive/Administrative/Managerial and 7 Professional (Non‐Faculty).

of 81

O. The Critically Important Pipeline: Race/Ethnicity

The diversity of faculty is impacted by the pool of available candidates seeking employment in

academia. In order to get a sense of potential applicants we now take a look at the diversity of

doctoral degree candidates nationally.

Figure 61. Doctoral Degrees1 Conferred by Discipline and Race/Ethnicity, Academic Year July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014

Figure 61 lists Doctoral Degrees conferred at U.S. Postsecondary Institutions (public, private non‐profit and

private for profit) by general discipline categories and race/ethnicity as reported on the IPEDS 2014

Completions Survey. Most disciplines listed reflect specific CIP Codes, but some related CIP Codes have been

combined for summary purposes. The data represent about 970 institutions. Most doctoral degrees are

granted by public institutions (50%) and private non‐profit institutions (46%), with a small amount granted by

private for profit institutions (4%).

Key Observations

For all doctoral degrees granted, 15.0% (26,877 of 179,544) were awarded to recipients who

identified as Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Pacific

Islander/Native Hawaiian or Two or More Races, grouped as under‐represented minority (URM).

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All Doctorates 179,544 102,400 57.0% 17,525 9.8% 26,877 15.0% 21,269 11.8% 11473 6.4%

Biological Sciences 8,425 4,194 49.8% 656 7.8% 812 9.6% 2,296 27.3% 467 5.5%

Computer Science 1,990 581 29.2% 111 5.6% 106 5.3% 1,063 53.4% 129 6.5%

Engineering 10,182 2,943 28.9% 648 6.4% 514 5.0% 5,697 56.0% 380 3.7%

Mathematics 1,879 712 37.9% 80 4.3% 81 4.3% 919 48.9% 87 4.6%

Physical Sciences 5,839 2,502 42.8% 254 4.4% 369 6.3% 2,414 41.3% 300 5.1%

Law 44,832 28,841 64.3% 3,032 6.8% 8,737 19.5% 1,194 2.7% 3028 6.8%

Health Services 45,003 28,092 62.4% 6,616 14.7% 5,760 12.8% 1,854 4.1% 2681 6.0%

Medicine (MD & DO) 22,871 13,327 58.3% 4,500 19.7% 3,264 14.3% 273 1.2% 1507 6.6%

Business 3,110 1,239 39.8% 165 5.3% 683 22.0% 671 21.6% 352 11.3%

Education 11,012 6,325 57.4% 355 3.2% 2,970 27.0% 596 5.4% 766 7.0%

Human Services 1,053 510 48.4% 35 3.3% 270 25.6% 142 13.5% 96 9.1%

Humanities 7,247 4,247 58.6% 297 4.1% 784 10.8% 1,311 18.1% 608 8.4%

Psychology 6,815 4,325 63.5% 339 5.0% 1,321 19.4% 353 5.2% 477 7.0%

Social Sciences 3,697 1,743 47.1% 175 4.7% 358 9.7% 1,161 31.4% 260 7.0%

Theology 2,286 1,201 52.5% 133 5.8% 481 21.0% 325 14.2% 146 6.4%

All Other Disciplines 3

3,303 1,618 49.0% 129 3.9% 367 11.1% 1,000 30.3% 189 5.7%

Footnotes :

1 Includes Research/Scholarship, Profess ional Practice and Other Doctoral Degrees

2 Includes Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Paci fi c Is lander/Native Hawai ian, Two or More Races

3 Includes Degrees in Agricul ture, Architecture, Criminal Justice, Environmental Science, Human Sciences , Leisure Studies , Library Science and Multi Discipl inary Fields of Study.

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : June 1, 2016 Source: IPEDS 2014 Completions Survey

Race/Ethnicity

Doctorates by Discipline

Non Resident Alien UnknownTotal

White Asian URM 2

of 81

The percentage of URM Doctoral graduates varies considerably by discipline.

Figure 62. Doctoral Degrees1 Conferred at SUNY Institutions by Discipline and Race/Ethnicity, Academic Year July 1,

2013 to June 30, 2014

Figure 62 lists doctoral degrees conferred at SUNY Institutions by general discipline categories and

race/ethnicity. Most disciplines listed reflect specific CIP Codes, but some related CIP Codes have been

combined for summary purposes.

Key Observations

For all SUNY doctoral degrees granted, 8.4% (228 of 2,713) were awarded to recipients who

identified as Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Pacific

Islander/Native Hawaiian or Two or More Races, grouped as under‐represented minority

(URM). As with the prior figure, the percentage of URM Doctoral graduates varies

considerably by discipline.

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

All SUNY Doctorates 2,713 1,320 48.7% 335 12.3% 228 8.4% 535 19.7% 295 10.9%

Biological Sciences 225 95 42.2% 14 6.2% 13 5.8% 83 36.9% 20 8.9%

Computer Science 56 9 16.1% 0.0% 0 0.0% 44 78.6% 3 5.4%

Engineering 156 31 19.9% 7 4.5% 7 4.5% 101 64.7% 10 6.4%

Mathmatics 58 11 19.0% 3 5.2% 1 1.7% 40 69.0% 3 5.2%

Physical Sciences 114 42 36.8% 1 0.9% 7 6.1% 58 50.9% 6 5.3%

Law 197 136 69.0% 11 5.6% 15 7.6% 12 6.1% 23 11.7%

Health Services 684 393 57.5% 124 18.1% 49 7.2% 41 6.0% 77 11.3%

Medicine 627 276 44.0% 155 24.7% 93 14.8% 11 1.8% 92 14.7%

Business 25 12 48.0% 2 8.0% 0 0.0% 9 36.0% 2 8.0%

Education 69 40 58.0% 0.0% 9 13.0% 13 18.8% 7 10.1%

Human Services 24 13 54.2% 0.0% 1 4.2% 6 25.0% 4 16.7%

Humanities 221 117 52.9% 10 4.5% 16 7.2% 49 22.2% 29 13.1%

Psychology 77 54 70.1% 3 3.9% 3 3.9% 11 14.3% 6 7.8%

Social Sciences 109 56 51.4% 3 2.8% 8 7.3% 34 31.2% 8 7.3%

All Other Disciplines 3

74 36 48.6% 2 2.7% 6 8.1% 25 33.8% 5 6.8%

Footnotes :

1 Includes Research/Scholarship, Profess ional Practice and Other Doctoral Degrees

2 Includes Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Paci fi c Is lander/Native Hawai ian, Two or More Races

3 Includes Degrees in Agriculture, Crimina l Jus tice, Environmental Science, Human Sciences and Multi Discipl inary Fields of Study.

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : June 1, 2016 Source: SUNY Student Data Warehouse

Non Resident Alien Unknown

Race/Ethnicity

Doctorates by DisciplineTotal

White Asian URM 2

of 81

Figure 63. Doctoral Degrees 1 Conferred at All Postsecondary Institutions and at SUNY Institutions as to STEM 2/Non‐STEM Discipline and Race/Ethnicity, Academic Year July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014

Footnotes:

1 Includes Research/Scholarship, Professional Practice and Other Doctoral Degrees

2 STEM as designated in list from US Dept of Homeland Security/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Updated May 2012)

3 Includes Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, Two or More Races

Source: SUNY Student Data Warehouse and IPEDS 2014 Completions Survey

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics : : June 1, 2016

Figure 63 examines another way to categorize the field of study of doctoral degree recipients by

grouping the CIP Codes of those degrees conferred as STEM or non‐STEM fields. The above figures

compare the race/ethnicity of doctoral degree graduates in STEM fields with those in non‐STEM fields

at all postsecondary institutions and at SUNY institutions.

Key Observations

Not shown in this figure but for reference purposes, of all doctoral degrees granted, only 17.3%

(31,124) were granted in STEM fields. At SUNY, 25.8% (701) of doctoral degrees were granted

in STEM fields.

In STEM disciplines, most doctoral degrees are earned by Non‐Resident Alien students both

generally and at SUNY institutions. Only 6.8% generally and 6.4% at SUNY of STEM field

doctoral degrees graduates identify as URM.

42.8%

39.3%

6.8%

6.1%

4.9%

60.8%

16.7%

10.5%

6.7%

5.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non Resident Alien

White

URM

Asian

Unknown

White

URM

Asian

Unknown

Non Resident Alien

STEMDisciplines

Non STEM Disciplines

All Postsecondary Institutions

51.4%

33.4%

6.4%

4.7%

4.1%

53.9%

15.2%

12.4%

9.7%

8.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Non Resident Alien

White

URM

Asian

Unknown

White

URM

Asian

Unknown

Non Resident Alien

STEMDisciplines

Non STEM Disciplines

SUNY Institutions

of 81

In non‐STEM disciplines, most doctoral degrees are earned by White students both generally

and at SUNY institutions. URM doctoral degree graduates represent 16.7% of all non‐STEM

graduates generally and 15.2% of non‐STEM doctorates at SUNY.

Figure 64. Estimated Percentage of Research Doctorates Expected to be Employed in Academia (Numbers Based on Responses of Doctorate Recipients with Definite Postgraduate Employment Commitments, Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2014)

Figure 64 presents the estimated Percentage of Research Doctorates expected to be employed in

Academia. The number is estimated based on responses of Doctorate Recipients with Definite

Postgraduate Employment Commitments, Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2014

The Survey of Earned Doctorates includes responses from research doctorate recipients only. In this

survey, doctoral students who have a definite postgraduate commitment of employment are asked in

which sector they have accepted employment. From the 2014 survey, 27% (14,802 of 54,070) of the

survey respondent indicated they had a definite employment commitment. Almost half responded

that they intended to be employed in academia.

If one assumes that the percentages, which were provided for all doctorates with commitments, holds

for all survey respondents, an approximation of the number of doctorate students going into academia

can be obtained. In the table provided, the percent of survey respondents by race/ethnicity group

who indicated they had a definite commitment in academia was applied to the race/ethnicity

breakdown for all survey respondents.

Total 1

White Asian Total URM 2

Temporary

Visa Holders

Other race

or race not

reported

Ethnicity Not

Reported

Research Doctorate Recipients 54,070 24,824 2,883 5,342 15,852 272 684

Percent from Sample of

Research Doctorates with

Definite Postgraduate

Commitments for Employment

in Academia

49.3% 55.2% 39.1% 54.3% 3 33.3% 38.4% 53.3%

Estimated ‐ Seeking Academic

Employment26,657 13,703 1,127 2,901 5,279 104 365

1 ‐ 4,213 Doctorate Recipients with no race/ethnicity or citizenship status provided so summation of categories will not equal total.

2 ‐ Includes Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Two or More Races

3 ‐ Calculated based on URM categories summation.

Source:

TABLE 22. Doctorate recipients , by ci tizenship status , ethnici ty, race, and subfield of s tudy: 2014

TABLE 47. Employment sector of doctorate recipients with defini te postgraduation commitments for employment in the United States , by sex,

ci tizenship status , ethnici ty, and race: Selected years , 1994–2014

Race/Ethnicity

of 81

Based on this approximation, about 2,901 doctoral candidates who identify as URM will be or would

like to be employed in academia. There are approximately 5,000 degree granting institutions (2 year

and above) institutions which report to IPEDS. This includes public, private non‐profit, and private

profit institutions. Recognizing that the candidate’s discipline would have to match the needs of the

institution, there would potentially be only one URM doctorate level graduate for every one or two

institutions in 2014.

of 81

Appendix A CIP to Primary Groupings Crosswalk

Primary groupings Constituent CIP series and subseries

Education 13. Education

10. Communications technologies/technicians and support services

50. Visual and performing arts

16. Aboriginal and foreign languages, literatures and linguistics

23. English language and literature/letters

24. Liberal arts and sciences, general studies and humanities

30.13 Medieval and renaissance studies

30.21 Holocaust and related studies

30.22 Classical and ancient studies

30.29 Maritime studies

38. Philosophy and religious studies

39. Theology and religious vocations

54. History

55. French language and literature/letters

05. Area, ethnic, cultural, gender, and group studies

09. Communication, journalism and related programs

19. Family and consumer sciences/human sciences

22. Legal professions and studies

30.05 Peace studies and conflict resolution

30.10 Biopsychology

30.11 Gerontology

30.14 Museology/museum studies

30.15 Science, technology and society

30.17 Behavioural sciences

30.20 International/global studies

30.23 Intercultural/multicultural and diversity studies

30.25 Cognitive science

30.26 Cultural studies/critical theory and analysis

30.28 Dispute resolution

30.31 Human computer interaction

30.33 Sustainability studies

42. Psychology

45. Social sciences

30.16 Accounting and computer science

44. Public administration and social service professions

52. Business, management, marketing and related support services

26. Biological and biomedical sciences

30.01 Biological and physical sciences

30.18 Natural sciences

30.19 Nutrition sciences

30.27 Human biology

30.32 Marine sciences

40. Physical sciences

41. Science technologies/technicians

11. Computer and information sciences and support services

25. Library science

27. Mathematics and statistics

30.06 Systems science and theory

30.08 Mathematics and computer science

30.30 Computational science

04. Architecture and related services

14. Engineering

15. Engineering technologies and engineering‐related fields

30.12 Historic preservation and conservation

46. Construction trades

47. Mechanic and repair technologies/technicians

48. Precision production

01. Agriculture, agriculture operations and related sciences

03. Natural resources and conservation

31. Parks, recreation, leisure and fitness studies

51. Health professions and related programs

60. Dental, medical and veterinary residency programs

12. Personal and culinary services

28. Military science, leadership and operational art

29. Military technologies and applied sciences

43. Security and protective services

49. Transportation and materials moving

Miscellaneous multidisciplinary studies 30.99 Multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary studies, other

Mathematics, computer and information sciences

Architecture, engineering, and related technologies

Agriculture, natural resources and conservation

Health and related fields

Personal, protective and transportation services

Visual and performing arts, and communications technologies

Humanities

Social and behavioural sciences and law

Business, management and public administration

Physical and life sciences and technologies

of 81

Appendix B: Enrollment by Major (CIP2) and Race/ethnicity, Fall 2015

of 81

Appendix C

Percent of Population Identifying as Under‐represented Minority* * Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Two or More Races


Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010‐2014 American Community Survey 5‐ year estimates

34.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 18, 2015 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009‐2013 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates5

data brief: diversity, equity, and inclusion key takeaways · it is important to note that the...

Documents