i. diversity, equity inclusion - suny systemsystem.suny.edu/.../diversity-data-brief-aug2015.pdf ·...

of 78

I. Data Brief: Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Diversity enriches our lives and the educational experience: it invigorates conversations, awakens curiosity, and widens perspectives. Diversity also ensures that our campuses mirror the rapidly changing world, creating an environment that prepares our students to be culturally competent so they can succeed anywhere...

‐ Power of SUNY – 2010 and Beyond

We respect, encourage, and promote all aspects of human difference—whether in terms of background, interests, age, race, or stage of life. Diversity enriches our lives and the educational experience: it invigorates conversations, awakens curiosity, and widens perspectives. Diversity also ensures that our campuses mirror the rapidly changing world, creating an environment that prepares our students to be culturally competent so they can succeed anywhere. Our diversity is SUNY’s edge.

Power of SUNY 2010 ‐ Beyond

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.

Despite the evidenced‐based definition and application of diversity promulgated today, in practice, institutions across the country, including those within SUNY, continue to struggle to fully meet diversity goals and/or to take steps necessary to prepare for projected demographic shifts.

SUNY’s available data set is most complete with respect to race/ethnicity. Data on gender identity or sexual orientation are limited or do not yet exist at the System level. Information on students with disabilities is limited and available only at an aggregate level through the New York State Education Department (NYSED).

As a percent of SUNY’s total enrollment, URM (under‐represented minority) enrollment has grown from 14.7% to 23.8% in the past ten years.

At the same time, both URM students and Pell recipients have the lowest retention rate and lowest graduation rates among SUNY students.

The demographics of New York State are changing. Between 2008‐09 and 2019‐20, the number of Hispanic public high school graduates is expected to increase by 13% (from 16% to 20% of all public high school graduates), and the number of Asian/Pacific Islanders by nearly 40% (from 8% to 12% of all public high school graduates). SUNY campuses must plan now to address existing achievement gaps and respond to the projected demographic shifts.

The trend in employees at SUNY identifying as URM has shown an incremental increase over the period from Fall 2007 to Fall 2013 (11.9% to 12.4%). According to the most recent complete data available from IPEDS (Fall 2013), across all SUNY campuses, approximately 77% of the total employees (i.e. faculty and non‐faculty) are white.

At both the state‐operated institutions and the community colleges, two‐thirds of the current presidents, Provosts, and VPs for Business and Finance are male.

At the presidential level, 82.8% (24 out of 29) of the current presidents at the state‐operated institutions and 86.7% (26 out of 30) of the current presidents at the community colleges are White.

The System Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion administers grants, scholarships, programs, and conferences designed to share best practices and support campus efforts to be inclusive.

SUNY’s Diversity Task Force has made an initial set of bold recommendations in response to a review of the data as well as observations from campus staff on the ground in areas where SUNY’s data set is not complete.

of 78

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…”

What it means to have a commitment to diversity—at SUNY and within U.S. public higher education more generally—has naturally evolved over the past seventy years. Addressing inequities in admissions and hiring2 and assuring a broad array of viewpoints and ideas in the classroom have become common goals in institutional strategic plans and mission statements across the country. In the last decade, following Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action, there has been a shift from diversity being an isolated goal to becoming a broader part of the very fabric of institutional identity and culture.

In 2005, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), for example, launched a multi‐year effort to study “inclusive excellence,” stressing that an academic institution can only reach the highest levels of excellence when it is inclusive. AAC&U described inclusive excellence as reflective of, “decades of work to infuse diversity into recruiting, admissions, and hiring; into the curriculum and co‐curriculum; and into administrative structures and practices…Likewise, diversity and inclusion efforts move beyond numbers of students or numbers of programs as end goals. Instead, they are multilayered processes through which we achieve excellence in learning; research and teaching; student development; local and global community engagement; workforce development; and more.”3

That same year, recognizing the structures required to achieve this infusion of diversity, the first national meeting of higher education chief diversity officers took place as part of the Educating all of one Nation’s Conference, sponsored by the American Council on Education. From that meeting the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) emerged. The organization has just published the first national standards for the role of Chief Diversity Officers. SUNY’s own System Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion was formed in 2007. The head of that office, Dr. Carlos Medina, was named System Chief Diversity Officer in 2014.

The body of research related to diversity has also grown over this period. There is clear evidence to show the benefits of a diverse student body and diverse faculty and staff. Students learn from academically strong peer mentors who look like them and also grow intellectually and personally through their experiences with those whom they perceive as different from themselves and by those who share different ideas and experiences. These interactions in the University setting contribute to a student’s ability to successfully adapt to new situations, persist, and to make the types of connections with others that lead to personal and professional successes, including their ability to contribute to their communities, state and beyond. 4

Today, the diversity umbrella across higher education is generally regarded as being much broader as campuses seek to be welcoming to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation,

1 Clark, J, Leslie W., O’Brien K. (2010). SUNY at Sixty. SUNY Press. 2 National Conference of State Legislators: http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative‐action‐overview.aspx 3 Berger, J, McClendon, S, Williams, D. (2005). Toward a Model of Inclusive Excellence and Change in Postsecondary Institutions. Report series commissioned by Association American Colleges and Universities. 4 Chang, M., Hakuta, K, Jones, J, Witt, D. (2003). Compelling Interest: Examining the Evidence on Racial Dynamics in Higher Education. Stanford University Press.

of 78

gender, age, socioeconomic status, status as a veteran, status as a student with a disability, students in transition, and first‐generation students.

However, despite the evidenced‐based definition and application of diversity promulgated today, in practice, many institutions across the country, including within SUNY, continue to struggle to meet diversity goals and/or to prepare for projected demographic shifts.

The call for further progress in New York State and nationally is urgent, not only because of the evidence‐based value diversity brings or even because of the recognized responsibility of public education to serve all who come to its doors, but because of continuing incidents of unrest on campuses where perceived differences leads to intolerance.

B. SUNY’s Current Commitment to Diversity

SUNY has consistently set high expectations for diversity. A sampling of major initiatives or milestones that began or were strengthened under the leadership of Chairman McCall and Chancellor Zimpher appear below:

The Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (ODEI) was established in 2007. Over the past six years, ODEI has grown to administer a series of state‐funded scholarship and grant programs (described in greater detail in Section II. of this brief):

- 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

- Diverse Scholars Research Awards

In addition, Dr. Medina and his 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.

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. For example, in the SUNY and the Seamless Education Pipeline Big Idea is the following diversity statement:

- In the national epidemic that is our high school dropout rate, children living in poverty and low‐income minority students unquestionably fare the worst. Across the country, barely half of African American and Hispanic students earn high school diplomas in four years. To reverse this trend, we will expand our partnerships with community leaders on strategies that target the interlocking problems that so often thwart the ambitions and capabilities of at‐risk students. These programs run the gamut from early intervention to counseling and mentoring, physical and mental health services, and financial support.

of 78

Ensuring that these students meet their educational targets, obtain their degrees, and join the workforce is one of the most powerful contributions we can make to our state’s prosperity.

One of many actions taken in response to this charge was the establishment of SUNY's Office of the Education Pipeline as an intermediary of the Smart Scholars Early College High School (ECHS) program, providing the 23 participating schools, school districts, and college/university partners with technical assistance through a contract with EDWorks. Each ECHS works to make college a reality for students who otherwise would be at risk of dropping out. A majority of students enrolled in a SUNY‐sponsored early college high school have identified as under‐represented minority.

In May of 2013, the SUNY University Faculty Senate released its report, Making Diversity Count, in which the governance body applauded the inclusion of the Diversity Statements in the Strategic Plan and made suggestions about how to make these key goal statements a reality. “The Power of SUNY [plan] is very clear that ‘diversity counts’—this theme is woven throughout all six big ideas. The question that emerges, however, is how to make it so. There are many initiatives on campuses around our system; this position paper aims to provide goals and suggestions on how to recognize and incorporate achievements in this area into the faculty review and reward processes. In doing so, faculty who make meaningful and important contributions towards enhancing their academic community’s diversity will be recognized and empowered to continue their efforts, and all of SUNY will benefit.”

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 to advise her on these matters.

- In February of 2014, as a result of conversations made during several Power of SUNY Refresh discussions with campus and faculty leaders, Chancellor Zimpher charged the System Provost’s Office (which supports the campus Presidential search process) with ensuring that any search not resulting in a diverse pool of candidates be expanded or restarted.

- In March 2014, the Chancellor 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, chaired by Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Alexander Cartwright and SUNY System CDO Carlos Medina. 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

of 78

initial recommendations of the Diversity Task Force are discussed in more detail in Section III. of this brief.

- In January 2015, at her State of the University address, SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher called for creation of a Chief Diversity Officer on every SUNY campus, a staff member beyond what it required for mandatory reporting; a staff member who would work closely with campus offices of human resources, enrollment management, admissions, etc. in support of campus and System diversity goals.

- Also in January 2015, upon the recommendation of Chancellor Zimpher, the SUNY Trustees adopted the SUNY Excels Performance System Framework. Upon recommendation from the Diversity Task Force, each focus area of SUNY Excels (Access, Completion, Success, Inquiry and Engagement) will include metrics where diversity related progress is monitored. For the first time, SUNY will be looking at campus performance related to diversity not only with respect to enrollment and completion, but in a broad range of areas including principal investigators on research projects and appointment to the distinguished faculty ranks.

- In March of 2015, Chancellor Zimpher launched a new presidential review process which is aligned to SUNY Excels. Commitment to diversity is a key measure in the review.

In April 2015, 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 admitted 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.

SUNY’s work in strengthening the education pipeline, particularly for academically and economically disadvantaged students, would seem critical to ensuring that students come to SUNY better prepared and become part of pool of educated adults that can become SUNY faculty and staff. However, initiatives for current students to enhance success are also urgently needed.

SUNY has seen little progress in increasing racial diversity among faculty and staff and moderate progress in increasing racial 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 Hispanics and African Americans are underrepresented among bachelor’s degree or higher recipients (see Figure 8 below). These data have multiple implications for SUNY: the need to go the extra mile to ensure that candidate pools are diverse through targeted outreach in New York and

of 78

expanding search pools beyond New York State; and importantly, working to serve this adult population.

The SUNY Diversity Task Force, whose work is described in greater detail in Section III of this brief has identified a need to address gaps in recruitment and retention practices as well as the need for professional development and training regarding inclusiveness as priorities for increasing the diversity of students, faculty and staff and to enhance campus climates.

C. About this Data Brief

It is important to note that this data brief 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;

4) Projected New York State trends;

5) Services of the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion; and

6) The initial charge of the SUNY Diversity Task Force.

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 Power of SUNY Strategic Plan, SUNY Excels, and the Presidential Review Process, as well as in meeting the charge of the SUNY Board of Trustees and Chancellor. This information, in part, was reviewed by the SUNY Diversity Task Force which recently released its draft recommendations for review and comment.

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, SUNY has not collected data relative to gender that allows for students or employees to identify as questioning. In fact, SUNY is still mandated to report gender for students and employees as either strictly male or female. SUNY relies on the New York State Education Department for reporting on Students with Disabilities due to legal determinations that are now being revisited. SUNY has only begun to collect data, on a voluntary basis, with respect to sexual orientation.

of 78

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.

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 sent in 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. The System Office of Institutional Research is working closely with campuses to minimize discrepancies going forward.

of 78

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006‐2008 American Community Survey 3 Year Estimates; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011‐2013 American Community Survey 3 Year Estimates

5

Figure 1 shows the overall statewide racial/ethnic demographics for New York State and its change from the 2006‐08 census estimates to the 2011‐13 census estimates.

Key Observations

The size of the New York State population remained fairly stable between the 2006‐08 and the 2011‐13 census estimates, growing just slightly from a total population of 19,428,881 to 19,576,660, less than a 1% increase.

Over that same time period, however, New York has seen significant changes in the demographics of its populace:

5 “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.

Population Estimate

2006‐2008

Percent

of Total

Population Estimate

2011‐2013

Percent

of Total

Percent

Change

White 11,679,943 60.1% 11,230,876 57.4% ‐3.8%

Asian 1,321,333 6.8% 1,497,956 7.7% 13.4%

Black 2,841,536 14.6% 2,815,945 14.4% ‐0.9%

Hispanic 3,194,111 16.4% 3,550,158 18.1% 11.1%

American Indian

and Alaska Native 53,001 0.3% 47,928 0.2% ‐9.6%

Native Hawaiian

and Other Pacific

Islander 6,463 0.0% 5,638 0.0% ‐12.8%

Some other Race 104,267 0.5% 99,875 0.5% ‐4.2%

Two or more 228,227 1.2% 328,284 1.7% 43.8%

Total 19,428,881 100.0% 19,576,660 100.0% 0.8%

New York Statewide Demographics

of 78

- Most notably, the state saw an 11.1% increase in those identifying as Hispanic. Hispanic citizens grew from making up 16.4% of the total New York population to making up 18.1% of the total population.

- The Asian population saw an approximately 13% 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 60.1% to 57.4%.

New York State High School Graduates

If we look at the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education’s (WICHE’s) demographic projections of public and non‐public high school graduates through 2019‐20, New York is the only Northeast state with a projected increase, due in large measure to continued growth in Hispanic and Asian populations.

Figure 2. Actual and Projected NYS Public High School Graduate Racial/Ethnic Demographic Profile

Excerpted from Knocking at the College door, Projections of High School Graduates, New York State Profile, December 2012, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE).

According to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE)6:

Hispanic graduates from public high schools are expected to increase by 13% between 2008‐09 and 2019‐20, for an additional 3,800 high school graduates, from 29,530 to 33,300.

6 Excerpted from Knocking at the College door, Projections of High School Graduates, New York State Profile, December 2012, Western Interstate commission for Higher Education (WICHE).

58%54% 52%

16%18% 20%

17%16% 16%

8% 10% 12%

0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2008‐09 (Actual) 2014‐15 (Projected) 2019‐20 (Projected)

White non‐Hispanic

Hispanic Black non‐Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian/Alaska Native

of 78

The number of Asian/Pacific Islander graduates from public high schools is projected to rise by nearly 40% by 2019‐20, adding 5,600 more in that class, from 14,350 to 19,970.

White non‐Hispanics are projected to drop by 18%, almost 19,000 graduates, over the same timeframe, from 105,630 to 86,870.

After a brief initial rise, the number of Black non‐Hispanics is expected to decline by roughly 4,300 graduates over the same years, from 30,440 to 26,110.

Figure 3. Actual and Projected New York City (MSA) Public High School Graduate Racial/Ethnic Demographic Profile

In looking at the actual and projected profile of the New York City MSA (U.S. Census – Metropolitan Statistical Area, includes New York‐Northern New Jersey‐Long Island (NY‐NJ‐PA)) Public High School Graduates from 2008‐09 through 2019‐20, one sees a significantly different profile. Note that because this area covers more than just locales in New York State, it cannot be viewed as a subset of the data presented in Figure 2.

Source: Knocking at the College door, Projections of High School Graduates, New York City Profile, December 2012, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE).

Hispanic graduates are expected to demonstrate the highest increase from 22% of this population in 2008‐09 to 28% by 2019‐20.

The number of Asian/Pacific Islander graduates is projected to rise from 11% to 16% over the same period.

White non‐Hispanics graduates are projected to drop by 8 percentage points between 2008‐09 and 2019‐20, going from 47% to 39%.

The number of Black non‐Hispanics is expected to decline from 20% of the total in 2008‐09 to 17% projected in 2019‐20.

47%42% 39%

22%25%

28%

20%19% 17%

11% 14% 16%

0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2008‐09 (Actual) 2014‐15 (Projected) 2019‐20 (Projected)

White non‐Hispanic

Hispanic Black non‐Hispanic

Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian/Alaska Native

of 78

New York State School District Enrollment

The first set of maps shows total public school district enrollment by percent URM during 2004‐05 and 2013‐14. 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.

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. 2004‐05 URM Enrollment by NYS Public School District

Figure 5. 2013‐14 URM Enrollment by NYS Public School District

of 78

Figure 6. Fall 2005 URM Enrollment by Campus

Figure 7. Fall 2014 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, 2015 :: SUNY Data Warehouse

of 78

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.

There are some hotspots of URM in the far north and western regions which relate to 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

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

Distribution of NYS Population 25 Years +

Distribution of Those With Less Than High School

Distribution of Those With High School Credentials

Distribution of Those With Some College Or Associate's

Distribution of Those With Bachelor's Or Higher

White

Asian

Black

Hispanic

American Indian Alaska Native

Native Hawaiian

Two Or More Races

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 16, 2015 Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates 2009‐2013

of 78

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%.

Key Observations

Whites are overrepresented in attaining higher levels of education such as a bachelor’s degree. Whites make up 60.3% of the total statewide population 25 years and over but make up 70.8% of those holding a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Asians are also overrepresented among those with a bachelor’s or higher degree. While only making up 7.6% 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 4.5% of this group.

Hispanics are overrepresented among those with less than a high school education. Hispanics make up 15.5% of New York’s 25 and older population; however, they represent 35.2 % of the population with less than a high school diploma.

Hispanics make up only 7.7% of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Blacks are also underrepresented among those with bachelor’s degrees or higher. While making up 14.4% of the 25 and older population, Blacks only make up 9.2% of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher.

For current and future students, SUNY must play a bigger role in supporting more URM students seeking higher educational credentials, to the benefit of the individuals as well as the state as a whole.

of 78

E. Student Data: Race/Ethnicity

Figures 9 & 10. SUNY Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2005 and Fall 2014

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%

Fall 2005

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: May 14, 2014 Source: SUNY Data

American Indian or Alaska Native,

0.4%

Asian, 5.3%

Black or African

American, 10.3%

Hispanic/Latino,

10.8%

Native Hawaiian

or Other Pacific Islander, 0.1%

International,

5.1%

Two or more

race, 2.1%

Unknown,

6.3%

White, 59.6%

Fall 2014

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: May 14, 2014 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse

of 78

Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the detailed race/ethnicity distribution of SUNY’s total student body in Fall 2005 and in Fall 2014 as it is reported to the federal government. Note that as discussed in Section C, international students have their own distinct category.

Key Observations

As a percent of SUNY’s total enrollment, URM enrollment has grown from 14.7% to 23.8%, reflecting a 9.1 percentage point increase over this 10 year period. While significant given SUNY’s starting point, there is room for continued gains as will be described later in this report.

The proportion of Asian student enrollment increased by less than 1 percentage point; the proportion of Black or African American students increased by 1.8 percentage points.

The proportion of Hispanic/Latino students increased by 5 percentage points; the proportion of students who identified as Two or More Races increased by 2.1 percentage points (noting that the starting point in this calculation was 0); and students who identified as Non‐Resident Alien increased by 1.4 percentage points.

The proportion American Indian/Alaska Native students at SUNY has remained low, at .5% in Fall 2005 and .4% in Fall 2014. Also, SUNY enrolls so few Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students that their percentage rounds to 0% in Fall 2005 and just .1% in Fall 2014.

The proportion of White students decreased by 7.8 percentage points between Fall 2005 and Fall 2014, falling from 67.4% of all enrolled students to 59.6%.

The proportion of those not reporting their race/ethnicity, (i.e. the “Unknowns”) decreased from 9.7% to 6.3%, providing more complete data for planning and decision‐making.

Figure 11a. Trends in Minority and International Enrollment, Fall 2005 – Fall 2014

To provide a different visual perspective, Figure 11a shows total URM, Asian, and International enrollment for the years illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 and each year in between. Figure 11b (below) shows the percentage point differences in URM enrollment between Fall 2005 to Fall 2014 by campus.

14.7%15.1% 15.4%

16.1%16.7%

17.8%

19.8%

21.4%22.4%

23.8%

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

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

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014

URM

Asian

International

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 16, 2015 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse

of 78

Figure 11b. Percentage Point Differences in URM Enrollment by Campus, Fall 2005 vs. Fall 2014

# % # %

414,165 60,923 14.7% 454,839 108,035 23.8% 9.0

205,795 24,983 12.1% 221,027 45,684 20.7% 8.5

96,788 11,443 11.8% 105,408 18,298 17.4% 5.5

Albany 17,040 2,348 13.8% 17,273 4,632 26.8% 13.0

Alfred‐Ceramics 737 22 3.0% 645 57 8.8% 5.9

Binghamton 14,017 1,446 10.3% 16,695 2,632 15.8% 5.4

Buffalo Univ 27,220 2,604 9.6% 29,995 3,795 12.7% 3.1

Cornell Stat 7,939 721 9.1% 7,667 1,636 21.3% 12.3

Downstate Medical 1,567 509 32.5% 1,865 547 29.3% ‐3.2

Envir Sci & Forestry 2,140 75 3.5% 2,200 159 7.2% 3.7

Optometry 292 14 4.8% 363 37 10.2% 5.4

SUNY Poly 2,590 211 2,738 386 14.1% 14.1

Stony Brook 22,011 3,417 15.5% 24,451 4,223 17.3% 1.7

Upstate Medical 1,235 76 6.2% 1,516 194 12.8% 6.6

87,171 10,201 11.7% 89,442 20,733 23.2% 11.5

Brockport 8,484 680 8.0% 8,106 1,352 16.7% 8.7

Buffalo State 11,006 1,710 15.5% 11,083 3,940 35.5% 20.0

Cortland 7,224 440 6.1% 6,958 1,161 16.7% 10.6

Empire State 9,996 1,788 17.9% 11,952 3,339 27.9% 10.0

Fredonia 5,432 260 4.8% 5,215 705 13.5% 8.7

Geneseo 5,484 266 4.9% 5,625 690 12.3% 7.4

New Paltz 7,822 1,148 14.7% 7,692 1,638 21.3% 6.6

Old Westbury 3,398 1,457 42.9% 4,504 2,399 53.3% 10.4

Oneonta 5,859 440 7.5% 6,101 916 15.0% 7.5

Oswego 8,282 619 7.5% 8,034 1,364 17.0% 9.5

Plattsburgh 6,044 518 8.6% 5,968 1,036 17.4% 8.8

Potsdam 4,329 226 5.2% 3,979 841 21.1% 15.9

Purchase 3,811 649 17.0% 4,225 1,352 32.0% 15.0

21,836 3,339 15.3% 26,177 6,653 25.4% 10.1

Alfred State 3,304 290 8.8% 3,661 636 17.4% 8.6

Canton 2,481 311 12.5% 3,282 836 25.5% 12.9

Cobleskill 2,478 250 10.1% 2,535 607 23.9% 13.9

Delhi 2,557 470 18.4% 3,596 1,144 31.8% 13.4

Farmingdale 6,460 1,342 20.8% 8,394 2,410 28.7% 7.9

Maritime 1,294 198 15.3% 1,799 222 12.3% ‐3.0

Morrisville 3,262 478 14.7% 2,910 798 27.4% 12.8

208,370 35,940 17.2% 233,812 62,351 26.7% 9.4

Adirondack 3,493 88 2.5% 4,247 357 8.4% 5.9

Broome 6,230 264 4.2% 5,944 478 8.0% 3.8

Cayuga County 3,841 163 4.2% 4,290 455 10.6% 6.4

Clinton 2,301 125 5.4% 1,870 149 8.0% 2.5

Columbia‐Greene 1,728 138 8.0% 2,043 367 18.0% 10.0

Corning 5,308 190 3.6% 4,520 401 8.9% 5.3

Dutchess 8,020 1,425 17.8% 9,905 3,111 31.4% 13.6

Erie 12,657 2,667 21.1% 12,733 3,227 25.3% 4.3

Fashion Institute 10,381 1,886 18.2% 9,764 2,887 29.6% 11.4

Finger Lakes 4,910 243 4.9% 6,793 802 11.8% 6.9

Fulton‐Montgomery 2,203 216 9.8% 2,589 540 20.9% 11.1

Genesee 6,490 270 4.2% 6,883 854 12.4% 8.2

Herkimer County 3,549 353 9.9% 3,259 420 12.9% 2.9

Hudson Valley 12,143 1,352 11.1% 12,177 2,185 17.9% 6.8

Jamestown 3,663 198 5.4% 5,065 627 12.4% 7.0

Jefferson 3,585 353 9.8% 3,880 785 20.2% 10.4

Mohawk Valley 5,984 511 8.5% 7,149 1,175 16.4% 7.9

Monroe 17,294 3,858 22.3% 15,335 5,079 33.1% 10.8

Nassau 20,979 6,574 31.3% 22,374 10,304 46.1% 14.7

Niagara County 5,421 499 9.2% 6,478 1,058 16.3% 7.1

North Country 1,605 67 4.2% 1,962 118 6.0% 1.8

Onondaga 8,263 890 10.8% 12,271 2,620 21.4% 10.6

Orange County 6,441 1,442 22.4% 6,951 2,653 38.2% 15.8

Rockland 6,325 2,028 32.1% 7,521 2,939 39.1% 7.0

Schenectady County 4,755 609 12.8% 6,497 1,526 23.5% 10.7

Suffolk County 21,180 4,140 19.5% 26,600 7,079 26.6% 7.1

Sullivan County 1,684 466 27.7% 1,643 654 39.8% 12.1

Tompkins Cortland 3,174 274 8.6% 5,559 1,061 19.1% 10.5

Ulster County 3,199 291 9.1% 3,594 738 20.5% 11.4

Westchester 11,564 4,360 37.7% 13,916 7,702 55.3% 17.6

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: June 10, 2015

Source: SUNY Data Warehouse

Percentage Point

Difference

between Fall 2014

and Fall 2005

Fall 2005

Total

Enrollment

Fall 2005 URM Fall 2014

Total

Enrollment

Fall 2014 URM

Community Colleges

Grand Total

State Operated Total

Doctoral Degree Granting

Comprehensive Colleges

Technology Colleges

of 78

Figure 12. Race/Ethnicity Over Time at SUNY and 10‐Year Changes by Sector and Student Level

Fall 2004 Fall 2006 Fall 2008 Fall 2010 Fall 2012 Fall 2014

10‐Yr

Percent

Change

413,572 417,575 439,523 471,105 461,816 454,839 10.0%

Asian 18,542 18,741 19,713 20,789 22,550 24,226 30.7%

International 14,911 16,374 18,151 19,395 20,834 23,074 54.7%

URM 59,269 63,166 70,906 83,817 99,054 108,035 82.3%

Unknown 34,972 43,758 43,984 50,728 29,955 28,459 ‐18.6%

White 285,878 275,536 286,769 296,376 289,423 271,045 ‐5.2%

372,442 377,283 398,617 429,020 421,716 414,304 11.2%

Asian 16,520 16,578 17,527 18,425 20,033 21,592 30.7%

International 8,393 9,691 11,025 12,068 12,689 13,562 61.6%

URM 55,981 59,752 67,437 80,478 95,151 103,606 85.1%

Unknown 31,563 40,179 40,315 43,994 26,650 25,679 ‐18.6%

White 259,985 251,083 262,313 274,055 267,193 249,865 ‐3.9%

41,130 40,292 40,906 42,085 40,100 40,535 ‐1.4%

Asian 2,022 2,163 2,186 2,364 2,517 2,634 30.3%

International 6,518 6,683 7,126 7,327 8,145 9,512 45.9%

URM 3,288 3,414 3,469 3,339 3,903 4,429 34.7%

Unknown 3,409 3,579 3,669 6,734 3,305 2,780 ‐18.5%

White 25,893 24,453 24,456 22,321 22,230 21,180 ‐18.2%

203,926 208,516 218,528 221,762 218,809 221,027 8.4%

Asian 12,163 12,367 12,965 13,548 14,956 16,439 35.2%

International 11,314 12,888 14,961 16,137 17,538 19,900 75.9%

URM 24,129 26,312 28,734 30,614 39,464 45,684 89.3%

Unknown 21,655 24,171 26,915 32,367 13,262 10,061 ‐53.5%

White 134,665 132,778 134,953 129,096 133,589 128,943 ‐4.2%

162,931 168,409 177,833 179,897 178,913 180,689 10.9%

Asian 10,148 10,212 10,784 11,198 12,457 13,819 36.2%

International 4,803 6,235 7,883 8,861 9,438 10,427 117.1%

URM 20,847 22,907 25,278 27,294 35,586 41,284 98.0%

Unknown 18,331 20,684 23,359 25,683 9,986 7,302 ‐60.2%

White 108,802 108,371 110,529 106,861 111,446 107,857 ‐0.9%

40,995 40,107 40,695 41,865 39,896 40,338 ‐1.6%

Asian 2,015 2,155 2,181 2,350 2,499 2,620 30.0%

International 6,511 6,653 7,078 7,276 8,100 9,473 45.5%

URM 3,282 3,405 3,456 3,320 3,878 4,400 34.1%

Unknown 3,324 3,487 3,556 6,684 3,276 2,759 ‐17.0%

White 25,863 24,407 24,424 22,235 22,143 21,086 ‐18.5%

209,646 209,059 220,995 249,343 243,007 233,812 11.5%

Asian 6,379 6,374 6,748 7,241 7,594 7,787 22.1%

International 3,597 3,486 3,190 3,258 3,296 3,174 ‐11.8%

URM 35,140 36,854 42,172 53,203 59,590 62,351 77.4%

Unknown 13,317 19,587 17,069 18,361 16,693 18,398 38.2%

White 151,213 142,758 151,816 167,280 155,834 142,102 ‐6.0%

209,511 208,874 220,784 249,123 242,803 233,615 11.5%

Asian 6,372 6,366 6,743 7,227 7,576 7,773 22.0%

International 3,590 3,456 3,142 3,207 3,251 3,135 ‐12.7%

URM 35,134 36,845 42,159 53,184 59,565 62,322 77.4%

Unknown 13,232 19,495 16,956 18,311 16,664 18,377 38.9%

White 151,183 142,712 151,784 167,194 155,747 142,008 ‐6.1%

135 185 211 220 204 197 45.9%

Asian 7 8 5 14 18 14 100.0%

International 7 30 48 51 45 39 457.1%

URM 6 9 13 19 25 29 383.3%

Unknown 85 92 113 50 29 21 ‐75.3%

White 30 46 32 86 87 94 213.3%

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 16, 2015


Home Institution Student Count

SUNY Total

State Operated Institutions

Community Colleges

Undergraduate Total

Graduate Total

Undergraduate Total

Graduate Total

Undergraduate Total

Graduate Total

of 78

Figure 12 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 by student level. In this table, 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 89.3% and 75.9%, respectively. These increases are compared to an overall student enrollment increase of 8.4%.

The community colleges experienced a 77.4% increase of URM students over that same time period, while they saw a decrease of 11.8% for international students. Note, however, that the number of international students is relatively small at the community colleges (1.4% of the total enrollment in Fall 2014).

Of particular note is that while the state‐operated campuses have been reporting markedly fewer students with unknown race/ethnicity (down 53.3%), the community colleges have been reporting markedly more students with unknown race/ethnicity (up 38.2%). System Administration will work with campuses in an attempt to reverse this trend, noting that this issue in general has become a topic of national conversation.7

Figure 13a. 10‐Year Enrollment Changes in Race/Ethnicity Categories by Student Level and In Comparison to 10‐Year Change in Race/Ethnicity Categories of NYS Public High School Graduates

7 Krogstad, J, Cohn, D. 2014. U.S. Census looking at big changes in how it asks about race and ethnicity. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact‐tank/2014/03/14/u‐s‐census‐looking‐at‐big‐changes‐in‐how‐it‐asks‐about‐race‐and‐ethnicity/.

10% 11%

‐1%

7%

‐5% ‐4%

‐18%

‐9%

31% 31% 30%

47%

82%85%

35%32%

55%

62%

46%

‐19% ‐19% ‐18%

‐40%

‐20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total White Asian URM International Unknown

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 16, 2015 Sources: SUNY Data Warehouse for SUNY enrollment data; WICHE"s Knocking at the College Door report for NYS Public HS Graduates data

SUNY Total SUNY Undergraduate SUNY Graduate Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment

NYS Public HS Graduates

of 78

Figure 13b. 10‐Year Percentage Point Differences in Race/Ethnicity Categories by Student Level and In Comparison to 10‐Year Percentage Point Differences in Race/Ethnicity Categories of NYS Public High School Graduates

Figure 13a illustrates the 10‐year SUNY enrollment changes by race/ethnicity category detailed in the Figure 12 table overall and by student level (i.e. undergraduate and graduate). The chart also includes, for purposes of comparison, the 10‐year changes by race/ethnicity category of NYS public high school graduates (which do not include international and unknown categories).

Figure 13b illustrates the 10‐year percentage point differences.

For both figures, the SUNY time period examined is Fall 2004 to Fall 2014, and the NYS public high school time period examined is school year 2004‐05 to 2014‐15.

Key Observations

Due to SUNY’s having significantly more undergraduate than graduate students (91% vs. 9%), the figures for SUNY’s Total Enrollment closely mirror those for SUNY’s Undergraduate Enrollment. For both, the 10‐year percent increase of URM students is significantly greater than any of the other racial/ethnic categories, followed by International and then Asian.

At the graduate level, however, the international student category has seen the greatest 10‐year increase at 46%. This is compared to a 35% increase for URM students and a 30% for Asian students.

At both the undergraduate and graduate levels, campuses have reported 10‐year declines in students identified as White as well as students with unknown race/ethnicity. The decrease in White students at the graduate level is quite notable, at ‐18%.

Looking at how students are distributed across the racial/ethnic categories, one sees that at SUNY overall, the proportion of White students is currently 9.5 percentage points lower

‐9.5 ‐9.5‐10.7

‐9.4

0.8 0.8 1.6

2.8

9.4 10.0

2.9

6.7

1.5 1.0

7.6

‐2.2 ‐2.3‐1.4

‐20

‐15

‐10

‐5

0

5

10

15

Percentage Point Difference

White Asian URM International Unknown

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: June 10, 2015 Sources: SUNY Data Warehouse for SUNY enrollment data; WICHE"s Knocking at the College Door report for NYS Public HS Graduates data

NYS Public HS Graduates

SUNY Total SUNY Undergraduate SUNY Graduate Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment

of 78

than it was ten years ago. The proportion of White NYS public high school graduates is currently 9.4 percentage points lower than it was ten years ago.

While the proportion of Asian students at SUNY is only .8 percentage points higher than ten years ago, the proportion of Asian NYS public high school graduates is 2.8 percentage points higher.

And for the URM category, the proportion enrolled at SUNY is 9.4 percentage points higher than ten years ago, whereas for NYS public high graduates it is 6.7 percentage points higher.

Figure 14. URM Enrollment at SUNY State‐Op Institutions vs. Public 4‐Year Schools by State, Fall 2013

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 2013 Enrollment Survey and downloaded from the IPEDS Data Center.

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 67% for Washington D.C. to 6% for New Hampshire.

At 48.2%, 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 32.0%.

At 19.1% of total enrollment, just over half of U.S. states exceed SUNY in terms of URM students.

48.2%

32.0%

19.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DC

NM

CUNY

TX FL HI

MS

CA

MD

NV

GA

NY LA NC

OK NJ

AL

AZ

AK IL TN DE

VA

AR SC CO CT

WA

SUNY RI

MA

OR

MI

PA

OH KS

IN

MO KY ID UT

SD NE

WI

MN

WV

ND

MT

WY IA VT

ME

NH

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 18, 2015Source: 2013 IPEDS Fall Enrollment Survey

of 78

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 2013

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 2013 Enrollment Survey and downloaded from the IPEDS Data Center.

Key Observations

The percentage of enrolled URM students at 2‐year colleges ranges from 67% for CUNY to 7% for New Hampshire.

As with the public 4‐year institutions, when all NYS public 2‐year institutions are looked at as a whole, New York has the highest URM enrollment of the Northeastern States at 37.5%.

SUNY’s community college percent of URM enrollment in Fall 2013 is 25.4%, 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.

67.4%

37.5%

25.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CUNY

NM TX CA HI

LA GA

MD

MS NJ

AZ FL CT

SC IL NY

DE

NC

VA

MA

AK AL RI

OK

NV

AR

CO PA

SUNY

MI

MT

TN WA KS

OH

MN IN

MO OR

UT

NE ID WI

ND KY IA

WY

SD WV VT

ME

NH

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 18.2015Source: 2013 IPEDS Fall Enrollment Survey

of 78

Figure 16. Percent Minority and International Students by State‐Operated Institution, Fall 2014

Figure 16 provides a snapshot for Fall 2014 of each state‐operated institution’s race/ethnicity 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. At the end of each bar, the aggregate percentage is shown. The White and Unknown categories are not displayed.

Key Observations

Aggregate race/ethnicity diversity ranges from a high percentage of 64.6% at Old Westbury to a low of 17.7% at Environmental Science and Forestry, a range of 46.9 percentage points. For reference, the system‐wide aggregate is 34.2%, and the state‐operated aggregate is 37.1%.

64.6%

55.0%

53.0%

51.2%

45.8%

45.6%

45.4%

44.5%

43.4%

42.9%

39.1%

38.0%

37.1%

34.6%

34.2%

33.1%

30.8%

30.8%

29.2%

29.0%

28.2%

27.0%

26.7%

26.2%

24.9%

24.5%

21.5%

21.2%

20.6%

19.7%

19.7%

19.1%

18.7%

18.3%

18.3%

17.7%

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

Old Westbury

Downstate Medical

Stony Brook

Optometry

Buffalo Univ

Cornell Stat


Binghamton

Buffalo State

Albany

Farmingdale

Purchase

State Operated

Delhi

SUNY Total

Empire State

New Paltz

Technology Colleges


Morrisville

Canton

Upstate Medical

Cobleskill

Plattsburgh

SUNY Poly

Potsdam

Oswego

Geneseo

Maritime

Alfred State

Brockport

Fredonia

Cortland

Alfred‐Ceramics

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 InstitutionalResearch Source: SUNY Data Warehouse

of 78

Race/ethnicity diversity is not achieved uniformly across campuses. In looking at the ten campuses with the highest levels of aggregate diversity, for example, there are some with low percentages of URM students and higher Asian and international enrollments and others with a more balanced student mix.

In the doctoral sector, URM enrollment, specifically, ranges from 29.3% at Downstate to 7.2% at ESF. In the comprehensive sector, URM enrollment ranges from 53.3% at Old Westbury to 12.3% at Geneseo. In the technology sector, URM enrollment ranges from 31.8% at Delhi to 12.3% at Maritime.

As a whole, the technology and comprehensive college sectors enroll the lowest number of minority students with Old Westbury, Buffalo State, Purchase, Farmingdale, and Delhi as notable exceptions.

of 78

Figure 17. Percent of Minority and International Students by Community College, Fall 2014

Figure 17 provides a snapshot for Fall 2014 of each community college’s race/ethnicity diversity. The data is displayed for each institution as a stacked bar, showing the percentage of URM students, followed by the percentage of Asian students and the percentage of international students. At the end of each bar, the aggregate percentage is shown. The White and Unknown categories are not displayed.

60.9%

53.8%

52.0%

44.6%

41.7%

40.9%

37.9%

35.2%

34.2%

31.4%

29.8%

29.0%

28.5%

26.8%

24.7%

22.8%

22.2%

22.1%

22.1%

21.5%

20.0%

17.9%

17.3%

14.7%

13.9%

12.8%

12.7%

12.1%

11.6%

9.9%

9.5%

7.8%

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

Westchester

Nassau

Fashion Institute

Rockland

Sullivan County

Orange County

Monroe

Dutchess

SUNY Total

Community Colleges

Suffolk County

Schenectady County

Erie

Fulton‐Montgomery

Onondaga

Hudson Valley

Ulster County

Jefferson

Tompkins Cortland

Mohawk Valley

Columbia‐Greene

Niagara County

Herkimer County

Genesee

Jamestown

Cayuga County

Finger Lakes

Clinton

Broome

Corning

Adirondack

North Country % URM % Asian % International


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

of 78

Key Observations

Aggregate race/ethnicity diversity ranges from a high percentage of 60.9% at Westchester to a low of 7.8% at North Country, a range of 53.1 percentage points. For reference, the system‐wide aggregate is 34.2%, and the community college aggregate is 31.4%.

Nearly all of the race/ethnicity 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 race/ethnicity diversity are those located downstate and in major NYS metropolitan areas. Conversely, those with the least race/ethnicity diversity are those located in the North Country and other rural parts of the state.

Figure 18. SUNY‐wide Retention Trends of First‐Time, Full‐Time Students in a Program for Select Race/Ethnic Groups, Fall 2009 ‐ Fall 2013 cohorts

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 fluctuated slightly, between approximately 69 to 71%.

URM students have the lowest first year retention rates, but over the five‐year period there has been improvement and the gap between URM and White students has decreased from almost 9% for the Fall 2009 entering cohort to less than 6% for the Fall 2013 entering cohort.

85.1% 85.4% 84.8% 85.9% 85.1%

69.9% 68.9% 69.5% 70.5% 71.1%

60.8% 61.7% 61.9%63.4%

65.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asian

White

URM


of 78

Figure 19. Retention of First‐Time, Full‐Time Students in a Program for Select Race/Ethnic Groups, Fall 2013 cohorts – SUNY Overall, State‐Operated Institutions, and Community Colleges

Key Observations

State‐operated campuses have the highest first‐year retention rates for all racial/ethnic groups shown.

At the state‐operated institutions, Asian students have the highest rate at 89%. URM students have the lowest retention rate, but the gap between them and White students is just 3 percentage points (79% vs. 82%, respectively).

At community colleges, Asian students again have the highest retention rate, at 76%. The gap between URM students and White students is over twice what it is at the state‐operated campuses at 7 percentage points (57% s. 64%, respectively).

70%

85%

65%

71%

82%

89%

79%82%

62%

76%

57%

64%

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 21, 2015 Source: SUNY DataWarehouse

of 78

Figure 20. Retention of First‐Time, Full‐Time Students in a Program for Select Race/Ethnic Groups, Fall 2013 cohorts – SUNY State‐Operated Sectors

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 at each state‐operated sector.

There is no gap in first‐year retention rates of URM and White students in the doctoral sector, with both being 87%.

The comprehensive colleges show a difference of 2 percentage points between the URM and White groups, 80% vs. 82%, respectively.

The widest gap between URM and White students is at the technology colleges at 6 percentage points (66% vs. 72%, respectively).

87%91%

87% 87%

81% 83%80%

82%

70%

80%

66%

72%

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 21, 2015 Source: SUNY DataWarehouse

of 78

Figure 21. Six‐Year Graduation Rates by Select Race/Ethnicities for SUNY Baccalaureate Students

Figure 21 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 slightly higher than the rate five years prior, the differences between the groups remained relatively constant.

For each of the five years examined, Asian students have the highest six‐year graduation rates (69‐71%) as compared to White students (65‐66%) and URM students (56‐58%).

64.6% 65.7% 65.5% 65.0% 66.0%68.9% 70.2% 71.0%

69.5% 69.4%

56.8% 57.5% 58.2%56.2%

57.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fall 2004 as of Fall 2010 Fall 2005 as of Fall 2011 Fall 2006 as of Fall 2012 Fall 2007 as of Fall 2013 Fall 2008 as of Fall 2014

White Asian URM


6‐Year Systemwide Graduation Rates for All Baccalaureate Students in Cohort:64.1% 64.7% 64.9% 64.4% 65.5%

of 78

Figure 22. Four‐Year Graduation Rates by Select Race/Ethnicities for SUNY Associate Degree Students

Figure 22 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 less than one percentage point. 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 17.3% to 19.9%.

At the associate level, for each of the five years examined, White students have the highest 4‐year graduation rates (31‐32%) as compared to Asian students (26‐32%) and URM students (17‐20%). For the last cohort, however, the retention rates for White and Asian students are nearly identical (31.8% and 31.6%, respectively).

There is a clear achievement gap of over 10 percentage points between URM students and their White or Asian peers.

Access to Success Initiative

As presented in the January 2015 “Student Success” data brief, Access to Success (A2S) is a partnership initiative between the Education Trust and the National Association of System Heads (NASH). SUNY has been one of twenty‐two public higher education systems participating, all of

31.0% 31.0% 31.5% 31.7% 31.8%

25.7%

30.6%28.2%

31.0% 31.6%

17.3% 17.6% 18.3% 19.1% 19.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fall 2006 as of Fall 2010 Fall 2007 as of Fall 2011 Fall 2008 as of Fall 2012 Fall 2009 as of Fall 2013 Fall 2010 as of Fall 2014

White Asian URM


4‐Year Systemwide Graduation Rates for All Associate Degree Students in Cohort:27.8% 28.1% 28.5% 28.2% 28.6%

of 78

whom had pledged to cut the college‐going and graduation gaps for low‐income and minority students in half by 2015.

Generally the A2S initiative resulted in notable improvements in its “access” component, thereby seeing more Pell recipient and under‐represented minority (URM) enrollments and graduates, but fell short in 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 is set to embark on a new initiative, Taking Student Success to Scale, in which fourteen higher education systems have already signed on for and in which SUNY will be playing a leadership role. The new effort calls for “following evidence based interventions that will contribute to the completion goals [of 350,000 more college graduates by 2025].8”

Figure 23: Access to Success: Six‐Year System‐wide Graduation Rates for First‐time Baccalaureate Students, URM Students Compared to Non‐URM Students

Figure 23 compares SUNY’s six‐year graduation rates for first‐time baccalaureate students, broken down by under‐represented minority (URM) and non‐URM status, to the aggregate rates for all systems participating in Access to Success (A2S).

Note that the cohorts include both full‐time and part‐time students, and the graduation rates include graduation from any college in each system, not just at the initial institution of enrollment. Thus, the rates displayed here will differ than the ones looked at in Figure 21. While this reflects two years’ worth of updated data for SUNY, only one year of updated data was available at the time of this writing for the A2S Systems Aggregate.

8 NASH Press Release “National Association of System Heads Calls For At Least 350,000 More College Graduates in 10 Years,” December 4, 2014

49

55 55 54

58 5957

43 44 44 45 4547

1510 10 11

12 11 12

14 14 15 15 16 15

64 65 65 65

70 70 69

57 58 59 60 61 62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1999 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

6‐year graduation rate (%)

Fall Cohort

Six‐Year Graduation Rates for First‐Time Baccalaureate StudentsUnder‐Represented Minority (URM) Students Compared to Non‐URMSUNY Compared to All Access‐to‐Success (A2S) Participating Systems

State University of New York A2S Systems Aggregate

Upper bar = Non‐URM rate

Lower bar = URM rate

difference

(achievement gap) shown in red numbers

n/av

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: December 23, 2014 Source: Education Trust

of 78

Key Observations

SUNY’s system‐wide six‐year graduation rates for first‐time baccalaureate students, for the entering cohorts Fall 2002 through Fall 2006, exceed the rates for the aggregate of all A2S participating public higher education systems for both URM and non‐URM students.

In reviewing the Fall 2002 entering cohort through the Fall 2007 entering cohort, one notes that the six‐year graduation gap between URM and non‐URM students persists between 10% and 12%. This gap is an improvement over the base year of the 1999 entering cohort (15%) and also runs 4 to 5 percentage points narrower than the gap for the aggregate of all A2S participating public higher education systems.

At 59%, SUNY’s URM 6‐year graduation rate was 12% higher than the aggregate A2S system rate of 47% in 2006, the most recent year for which comparable data is available.

Figure 24: Access to Success: Four‐Year System‐wide Graduation Rates for First‐time Associate Degree Students, URM Students Compared to Non‐URM Students

Figure 24 compares SUNY’s four‐year graduation rates for first‐time associate degree students, broken down by under‐represented minority (URM) and non‐URM status, to the aggregate rates for all systems participating in Access to Success (A2S).

Note that the cohorts include both full‐time and part‐time students, and the graduation rates include graduation from any college in each system, not just at the initial institution of enrollment. Thus, the rates displayed here will differ than the ones looked at in Figure 22. While this reflects two years’ worth of updated data for SUNY, only one year of updated data was available at the time of this writing for the Systems Aggregate.

27

2224

22

30 3028

2421 22 22 22

24

16

16 14 15

16 1616

1515 13 13 15

15

43

38 38 37

46 4644

3936 35 35

3739

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

4‐year graduation rate (%)

Fall Cohort

Four‐Year Graduation and Transfer Out Rates for First‐Time Associate Degree StudentsUnder‐Represented Minority (URM) Students Compared to Non‐URMSUNY Compared to All Access‐to‐Success (A2S) Participating Systems

State University of New York A2S Systems Aggregate

Upper bar =

Non‐URM rate

Lower bar =

URM rate

difference(achievement gap)

shown in red numbers n/av

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: December 23, 2014 Source: Education Trust

of 78

Key Observations

With the exception of one cohort (2006), SUNY's four‐year graduation rates of both first‐time associate degree URM students and non‐URM students entering between 2001 and 2008 exceeded the rates for the aggregate of all public higher education systems participating in A2S.

However, unlike the baccalaureate cohorts (Figure 12), the gaps between the URM and non‐URM completion rates for the associate degree cohorts are slightly wider than the A2S Systems Aggregate gaps, consistently running 1 to 2 percentage points wider.

SUNY is absolutely committed to improvement here and as noted above is taking a leadership role in NASH’s Taking Student Success to Scale initiative. The collaboration has already identified three evidence‐based interventions currently being scaled up in at least one NASH system:

1) Guided Pathways Using Predictive Analytics (Tennessee Board of Regents) ‐ to provide the ability to map interventions to specific student needs.

2) Redesigning the Math Pathway (State University of New York) ‐ this includes the Quantway/Statway approaches to mathematics instruction previously presented to the Board of Trustees

3) 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.

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. The latest complete data set available is for Fall 2012.

Figure 25. Unduplicated Counts of Students with Disabilities, Fall 2012

Number of Distinct

Students with a Disability Total

Enrollment % with a Disability

SUNY‐wide 23,363 461,816 5.1%

State‐Operated Institutions 9,482 218,809 4.3%

Community Colleges 13,881 243,007 5.7%

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research Source: NYSED 2H‐2 Survey

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

Key Observations

Overall at SUNY, approximately one out of every twenty students has reported to their campus that they have some type of disability.

SUNY’s community colleges have a higher percentage of students with disabilities than the state‐operated institutions, 5.7% vs 4.3% respectively.

of 78

Figure 26. Disabilities by Category – Duplicated Counts, Fall 2012

Category of Disability

Student Counts (duplicated), Fall 20129

SUNY‐ wide State‐ Operated Institutions

Community Colleges

Learning Disabilities 14,134 5,127 9,007

Mobility Disabilities 585 277 308

Wheelchair Assisted 202 88 114

Other Assistive Device 79 42 37

No Assistive Device 304 147 157

Visual Disabilities 592 205 387

Legally Blind 152 91 61

Other Visually Impaired 440 114 326

Acoustical Disabilities 557 192 365

Legally Deaf 164 63 101

Other Acoustically Impaired 393 129 264

Neurological Disabilities 4,430 1,668 2,762

Other Health Disabilities 10,323 4,508 5,815

Mental Health Impairment 5,193 2,322 2,871

Speech Impairment 342 82 260

Traumatic Brain Injury 358 142 216

Orthopedic Impairment 528 174 354

Alcohol/substance Abuse and Recovery 452 172 280

Other Health Impairments 3,450 1,616 1,834

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

Key Observations

The majority of students with a disability report that it is related to their learning ability. The next most common types of disabilities reported are mental health impairments and neurological disabilities.

Without having unit record data on students’ disability status, it is not currently possible to track success for these students. While the State Education Department has been collecting aggregate graduation rate information for students with disabilities, the data appear to be incomplete and hence are not being used by SUNY at this time.

9 Note students may have more than one type of disability, so this is necessarily not an unduplicated count.

of 78

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 27. Percent Pell Recipients of All Undergraduates at Public Institutions, Academic Year 2012‐13

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 27 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, 35.3% vs. 35.8%. CUNY’s percent of Pell recipients exceeds both by approximately 13 percentage points.

SUNY’s percent of Pell recipients at its 2‐year institutions is about 3 percentage points lower than the National Public rate. Again, CUNY’s percent of Pell recipients exceeds the rates for both National Publics and SUNY by almost 15 to 18 percentage points, respectively.

35.3% 36.3%

48.6%

53.8%

35.8%38.6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

4‐Year 2‐Year

SUNY CUNY National Publics (except NYS)

SUNY System Administration,Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics Source: IPEDS 2012‐13 Student Financial Aid Survey

of 78

Figure 28. Percent Pell Recipients by Sector, Fall 2012 ‐ Fall 2014

Figure 28 displays the Pell recipients for the past three years by sector as a proportion of undergraduate students reported as U.S. citizens and enrolled in a program. This selection is used since only undergraduate students enrolled in a program and who are U.S. citizens are 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 40‐41% overall.

More students enrolled at community colleges are reported as receiving Pell than at the state‐operated institutions. For Fall 2014, those percentages were 44.7% and 37.0%, respectively.

Within the state‐operated sector, students enrolled at the technology colleges are most likely to be receiving Pell (44.9% in Fall 2014), followed by those at the comprehensive colleges (37.2%), followed by those at the doctoral institutions (33.9%).

Yes % Yes Yes % Yes Yes % Yes

353,992 142,152 40.2% 350,234 141,109 40.3% 343,678 140,930 41.0%

165,182 59,354 35.9% 165,189 59,553 36.1% 166,108 61,512 37.0%

61,451 19,825 32.3% 62,023 19,979 32.2% 64,464 21,824 33.9%

78,389 28,171 35.9% 77,610 28,074 36.2% 77,319 28,766 37.2%

25,342 11,358 44.8% 25,556 11,500 45.0% 24,325 10,922 44.9%

188,810 82,798 43.9% 185,045 81,556 44.1% 177,570 79,418 44.7%

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 16, 2015 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse (Student)

Fall 2014

Community Colleges Total

Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Comprehensive Colleges Total

Technology Colleges Total

Pell Recipient?

Grand Total



In a Program,

US Citizens

Cohort

Pell Recipient? In a Program,

US Citizens

Cohort

Pell Recipient? In a Program,

US Citizens

Cohort

of 78

Figures 29 and 30. Percent Pell Recipients by Campus, Fall 2014

Figures 29 and 30 illustrate how the percent of Pell recipients varies across campuses. Note that Downstate did not report student Pell information for Fall 2014 and is therefore not shown in Figure 29.

Key Observations

The percent of Pell recipients reported by the state‐operated institutions spans from a high of 60.2% at Morrisville to a low of 18.4% at Cornell statutory colleges, a range of 41.8 percentage points.

For the state‐operated institutions, five of SUNY’s technology colleges serve the highest percentage of Pell recipients (Morrisville, Canton, Cobleskill, Alfred State, and Delhi).

For the community colleges, the percent of Pell recipients spans from a high of 65.9% at Herkimer to a low of 29.1% at Rockland, a range of 36.8 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).

60.2%

58.2%

52.3%

51.7%

48.6%

48.4%

47.4%

44.9%

43.9%

42.4%

42.2%

40.1%

39.9%

38.1%

37.9%

37.2%

37.0%

36.8%

35.6%

35.2%

34.8%

33.9%

33.3%

32.2%

31.9%

30.6%

29.4%

29.0%

27.2%

25.8%

25.3%

24.3%

22.8%

21.4%

18.4%

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

Morrisville

Canton

Cobleskill

Alfred State

Buffalo State

Old Westbury

Delhi

Technology Colleges

Potsdam

SUNY Poly

Albany

Oswego

Brockport

Empire State

Fredonia


State Operated

Plattsburgh

Research Centers

Buffalo Univ

Stony Brook


Purchase

New Paltz

Farmingdale

Binghamton

Cortland

Oneonta

Envir Sci & Forestry

Alfred‐Ceramics

Upstate Medical

Other Research/Doctoral

Maritime

Geneseo

Cornell Stat

SUNY System Admin Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 16, 2015 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse (Student)

65.9%

64.9%

64.1%

61.4%

60.8%

60.0%

58.7%

58.5%

56.8%

56.2%

56.1%

55.7%

54.7%

54.2%

54.0%

52.1%

51.2%

49.9%

48.7%

48.4%

44.7%

44.5%

43.0%

39.5%

39.4%

38.6%

34.0%

33.3%

31.5%

30.3%

29.1%

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

Herkimer County

Mohawk Valley

Fulton‐Montgomery

Cayuga County

Genesee

Jamestown

Tompkins Cortland

Sullivan County

Jefferson

Schenectady County

Corning

Finger Lakes

Broome

Clinton

North Country

Niagara County

Erie

Monroe

Adirondack

Onondaga

Community Colleges

Columbia‐Greene

Ulster County

Westchester

Nassau

Hudson Valley

Dutchess

Fashion Institute

Suffolk County

Orange County

Rockland

SUNYSystem Admin Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: May 16, 2015 Source: SUNY Data Warehouse (Student)

of 78

Figures 29a and 30a. Campus Percent Pell Recipients vs. Percent URM Students – Scatter Plots by

Sector

Figures 29a and 30a show the relationship between the percent of under‐represented minority (URM) undergraduate, U.S. citizen students at a campus and the corresponding percent of Pell recipients at the campus. The coordinates for the state‐operated institutions are plotted on Figure 29a, and the coordinates for the community colleges are plotted on Figure 30a. Overlaid on each scatter plot is a trend line and the R2 value (a “goodness of fit” measure). See Appendix G for data points used for the plots.

R² = 0.2286

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

% URM (undergraduates, US citizens))

% Pell Recipients

SUNY State‐Operated Institutions

R² = 0.3525

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

% URM (undergraduates, US citizens)

% Pell Recipients

SUNY Community Colleges

of 78

Key Observations

In neither case, for state‐operated institutions nor community colleges, is there a particularly strong relationship between the two measures. However, each case does have a general – and opposite – trend.

For the state‐operated institutions, there is a tendency for the percent of URM students at a campus to increase in conjunction with the percent of Pell recipients.

For the community colleges, the opposite is true. The percent of URM students at a campus leans towards an inverse relationship with the percent of Pell recipients. Initially, this may be counterintuitive. However, when one considers the geographic particulars of the state, this relationship makes logical sense. The community colleges located downstate, who tend to enroll students from that geographic region, are in areas that have higher mean and median incomes than the rest of the state (hence affecting their Pell eligibility) and also happen to have a higher rate of under‐represented minority residents. Conversely, the community colleges located upstate, who also tend to enroll students from their geographic regions, are in areas that have lower mean and median incomes (increasing the likelihood of qualifying for Pell) and relatively low rates of under‐represented minority residents.

of 78

Figure 31: Percent of Each Race/Ethnicity Category Receiving Pell, Fall 2014

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics

Source: SUNY Date Warehouse (Student)

Figure 31 shows the breakdown of Pell recipient by race/ethnic category. Like in Figures 28 ‐ 30, 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

At the system‐wide level, more than half of Asian and URM students are reported as having received a Pell grant in Fall 2014 (51.1% and 56.4%, respectively). These are significantly greater than the percentage of White students receiving Pell, 33.3%.

# Yes % Yes

SUNY Total 343,678 140,930 41.0%

White 212,837 70,876 33.3%

Asian 19,562 9,989 51.1%

Under‐represented (URM) Total 96,457 54,427 56.4%

American Indian or Alaska Native 1,459 789 54.1%

Black or African American 42,039 26,314 62.6%

Hispanic/Latino 44,031 22,880 52.0%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 546 232 42.5%

Two or more race 8,382 4,212 50.3%

Unknown 14,822 5,638 38.0%

166,108 61,512 37.0%

White 105,325 29,626 28.1%

Asian 13,610 7,121 52.3%


American Indian or Alaska Native 513 265 51.7%




Two or more race 4,275 1,842 43.1%

Unknown 6,611 1,926 29.1%

177,570 79,418 44.7%

White 107,512 41,250 38.4%

Asian 5,952 2,868 48.2%


American Indian or Alaska Native 946 524 55.4%




Two or more race 4,107 2,370 57.7%

Unknown 8,211 3,712 45.2%


Community Colleges Total

Population

Eligible to

Apply

Pell Recipients

Fall 2014

of 78

The Black/African American population, in particular, has the highest percentage of Pell recipients, with over 6 out of 10 undergraduates in a program qualifying for the grant at the system‐wide, state‐operated, and community college levels.

At the state‐operated institutions, the percent of Asians and URMs receiving Pell grants is comparable to the percentages at the system‐wide level. However, the percentage of Whites receiving the grant is 28.1%, 5.2 percentage points lower than the system‐wide value. The gap between Whites and their URM counterparts is 28.2 percentage points. The gap between Asian students and their White counterparts is 24.2 percentage points.

At the community colleges, the percent of URM students receiving Pell remains approximately 56%. The Asian percentage is 48.2%, about four percentage points less than at the state‐operated campuses. And conversely to what was seen with the state‐ops, the percentage of White students receiving a Pell grant is 38.4%, 5.1 percentage points higher than the system‐wide value and decreasing the gap between Whites and minorities to 9.8 percentage points for Whites and Asians and to 18.1 percentage points for Whites and URMs.

Figure 32: Graduation Rates of Pell Recipients vs. Non‐Pell Recipients

* Pell information was not available for the cohorts examined for Stony Brook, Maritime, and FIT are those campuses are therefore not included in this analysis.

Figure 32 illustrates the 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.

37.6%

51.2%53.5%

65.2%

56.6%

67.2%

7.8%12.2%

18.6%

25.7%23.2%

30.9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate Students First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree Students

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research :: December 26, 2014 Source: SUNY Data Repository Tables

Graduation Rates of Pell Recipients vs. Non‐Pell Recipients *, Fall 2008 Cohort of First‐Time, Full‐Time Baccalaureate Students

and Fall 2010 Cohort of First‐Time, Full‐Time Associate Degree Students

* Note that Stony Brook, Maritime, and FIT are excluded from this chart.

of 78

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 13.6 percentage points, and that gap decreases slightly to 10.6 percentage points by the 6‐year mark.

At the associate level, the 2‐year gap is 4.4 percentage points, and that gap increases to 7.7 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 33. Statewide Population by Veteran Status

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009‐2013 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates

5

Figure 33 shows the number of veterans estimated in New York State by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Key Observations

Veterans make up 6% of New York State’s population. SUNY enrollment consists of 1.4% students with Veteran status (Figure 37).

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 34 below).

Population Estimate Percentage

Veteran 912,499 6.0%

Non Veteran 14,258,723 94.0%

Total 15,171,222 100.0%

Veteran Status in New York

of 78

Figure 34. Age Distribution of Veterans in New York

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009‐2013 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates

5

Figure 34 shows the number and percent of New York State veterans by age category.

Key Observations

While Figure 32 shows that veterans make up 6% of New York’s population, they are predominantly older New Yorkers, with 50.7% of veterans being of age 65 years and older.

Only 6.8% of the state’s veterans are within the 18‐34 year old age group. Another 21.1% are between the ages of 35 and 54 years.

Increasing veteran enrollment at SUNY would involve recruiting more non‐traditionally aged students.

Figure 35. Active Military and Veteran Enrollment by Sector, Fall 2014


Figure 35 shows the number of active military duty students and the number of veterans reported as being enrolled at SUNY in Fall 2014. It also shows how those students are distributed across the sectors compared to how the overall enrollment is distributed across the sectors.

Key Observations

Age Group

Population

Estimate Percentage

18 to 34

years 62,050 6.8%

35 to 54

years 192,537 21.1%

55 to 64

years 195,275 21.4%

65 to 74

years 203,487 22.3%

75 years and

over 259,150 28.4%

Total 912,499 100.0%

Age Distribution of

Veterans in New York

Fall 2014

Total

Enrollment

% Total

Enrollment

by Sector

Active

Military

Duty

% Active

Military

Duty

Veteran % Veteran

454,839 100.0% 683 100.0% 6,357 100.0%

221,027 48.6% 341 49.9% 2,178 34.3%

Doctoral Degree Granting 105,408 23.2% 60 8.8% 611 9.6%

Comprehensive Colleges 89,442 19.7% 265 38.8% 1,149 18.1%

Technology Colleges 26,177 5.8% 16 2.3% 418 6.6%

233,812 51.4% 342 50.1% 4,179 65.7%

SUNY Systemwide

State‐Operated Institutions

Community Colleges

of 78

In Fall 2014, 683 active military duty students are reported as being enrolled at SUNY, which amounts to .2% of SUNY’s total enrollment. These students are 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 38.8% of the system’s total number of active military students, compared to having 19.7% of SUNY’s overall enrollment. Much of this is attributed to Empire State College, which alone has 23.4% of SUNY’s overall active military enrollment and 46.9% 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 37.0% of SUNY’s overall active military enrollment and 74.0% 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 2014, 6,357 veterans are reported as being enrolled at SUNY, which amounts to 1.4% of SUNY’s total enrollment.

Unlike the active military duty students, the veterans are not equally distributed between the state‐operated institutions and community colleges, with veterans much more likely to be enrolled at the latter than the former (65.7% vs. 34.3%, respectively).

Figures 36 and 37. Active Military and Veteran Enrollment by Award Level, Fall 2014

UG Certificates and Diplomas, 0.4%

Associates, 47.9%

Baccalaureates, 38.4%

Graduate Certificate, 0.3%

Masters, 1.8%

Not in a Program, 11.3%

Active Military: n=683 (.2% of total enrollment)

of 78

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

Figures 36 and 37 illustrate at what program levels active military duty personnel and veterans are enrolled at SUNY.

Key Observations

Nearly all active military duty personnel are enrolled in an undergraduate program or not enrolled in any program. Approximately 48% are enrolled in an associate degree program and approximately 38% are enrolled in a baccalaureate program. Over 10% are non‐matriculated.

For veterans, over 60% are enrolled in an associate degree program, and approximately 27% 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.

I. Student Data: Sexual Orientation

SUNY’s data collection related to sexual orientation is very limited. In the most recent (Spring 2012) state‐operated administration of SUNY’s long‐running Student Opinion Survey, 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)

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)

Beginning with the Spring 2015 administration of the survey, students will have had the opportunity to identify as LGBT. This has been added to the background information section of the survey and is currently designed as a simple “Do you identify as LGBT?” question with possible responses of yes, no, and prefer not to respond. This will allow analysis of the students’ opinions broken down by LGBT response.

UG Certificates and Diplomas, 2.8%

Associates, 63.1%

Baccalaureates, 26.6%

Graduate Certificate, 0.5%

Masters, 2.9%

Doctoral, 0.3%

First Professional, 0.1% Not in a Program,

3.7%

Veterans: n=6,357 (1.4% of total enrollment)

of 78

The most recent community college administration (Spring 2013) of the SOS survey did not include any specific questions regarding prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

ODEI Survey

The most recent data collected by survey regarding campus support services for members of the LGBTQ community (2013, Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (ODEI), 32 campuses responding) showed that the majority of responding campuses had:

Clear and visible procedures for reporting LGBT+ related bias incidents and hate crimes as well as zero – tolerance policies toward homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic comments;

Good integration of LGBT+ topics into other existing courses, outside of women, gender, or LGBT+ studies; and

Significant books, periodicals, and other resources available on sexual orientation/gender identity/gender

The survey found varying implementation of the following practices:

Training about the LGBT+ community and support services for Residential Life professionals (32%) and Health Center staff (35%);

Training for university police & public safety officers about the LGBT+ community (20%);

LGBT+ student activities, clubs, safe zones (68%);

Crisis line for students and staff (38%);

Standing advisory committee that advises administration on LGBT+ matters (27%);

Gender neutral housing (62% of responding comprehensives have such housing);

Senior administrators use the words sexual orientation and/or LGBT+ when discussing diversity matters on campus (76%); or

Simple processes for students to change their name and gender identity on university records, documents and campus ID (68%).

Campus Pride Index

The Campus Pride Index is produced by Campus Pride, a nonprofit organization “for student leaders and campus groups working to create safer, more LGBT‐Friendly learning environments at colleges and universities.”10

The Campus Pride Index Score is based on campus responses to a 50 question self‐assessment that addresses the following areas: LGBT Policy Inclusion, LGBT Support & Institutional Commitment, LGBT Academic Life, LGBT Student Life, LGBT Housing, LGBT Campus Safety, LGBT Counseling & Health, and LGBT Recruitment and Retention Efforts. Questions are weighted based on their significance to the overall campus pride as determined by a team of LGBT experts in higher education. The scale is 1 – 5 with 5 represented the most LGBT friendly. The score allows for benchmarking among campuses as well as a better understanding of how a campus can become more LGBT‐friendly. To date 12 SUNY campuses have completed the index:

10 Excerpted from the Campus Pride website: http://www.campuspride.org/

of 78

Binghamton 4

Potsdam 4

Stony Brook 4

University at Buffalo 3.5

SUNY College at Fredonia 3.5

Oneonta 3.5

SUNY Purchase 3.5

SUNY Geneseo 3

SUNY Morrisville 2

Westchester CC 2

Hudson Valley CC 1

Rockland CC 1 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 includes development of a new climate survey that will 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 are part of the working group developing the survey. Information yielded could support SUNY’s diversity goals.

of 78

J. Campus Employee Data: Gender

Figure 38. SUNY Campus Employees by Sector, Employee Category, and Gender, Fall 2013


Source: IPEDS 2013 Human Resources Survey

Figure 38 shows the distribution of all SUNY campus employees, full and part‐time, by sector, occupational grouping, and gender as reported on the 2013 IPEDS Human Resources Survey.

Key Observations

System‐wide, more women are employed than men at SUNY institutions. Overall, the percentage of female employees is 55.2%, with minimal difference between state‐operated campuses and community colleges (55.0% and 55.5%, respectively).

Looking at the employee classification categories, women tend to have greater representation in non‐faculty positions (approximately 60%) than in faculty positions (48%). Women hold under half of the faculty positions at state‐operated campuses (45.0%) and just over half (52.5%) at community colleges.

# % # %

All Campuses 89,479 40,118 44.8% 49,361 55.2%

Professional‐Non Faculty 29,432 11,378 38.7% 18,054 61.3%

Faculty 34,417 17,803 51.7% 16,614 48.3%

Other‐Non Faculty 20,267 8,305 41.0% 11,962 59.0%

Graduate Assistants 5,363 2,632 49.1% 2,731 50.9%

State‐Operated Campuses 62,708 28,208 45.0% 34,500 55.0%


Faculty 19,539 10,743 55.0% 8,796 45.0%


Graduate Assistants 5,363 2,632 49.1% 2,731 50.9%

Community Colleges 26,771 11,910 44.5% 14,861 55.5%


Faculty 14,878 7,060 47.5% 7,818 52.5%


Sector and Employee CategoryAll Campus

Employees

Gender

Total men Total women

of 78

K. Campus Employee Data: Race/Ethnicity

Figure 39. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of All SUNY Campus Employees, Fall 2013

Figure 39 shows the race/ethnicity distribution of all SUNY campus employees, full and part‐time, as reported on the 2013 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 2013), 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 12.4%, followed by Asians at 4.7%, and then Non‐resident Aliens at 4.1%.

American Indian or Alaskan Native, Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races are all very minimally represented, with percentages of .3%, .1%, and .5%, respectively.

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 2013 Human Resources Survey

of 78

Figure 40. Trends in Minority and International Employees at SUNY Institutions, Fall 2005 – Fall 2013

Figure 40 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 2013 as reported on IPEDS Human Resources Surveys 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013. 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 2013 (11.9% to 12.4%).

The percent of employees indentifying as Asian have increased a percentage point over the period from Fall 2005 to Fall 2013 (3.7% to 4.7%).

International (non‐resident alien) employee percentages during this period have shown fluctuation in the range of 3.8% to 4.9%.

11.9% 11.8% 11.9% 12.1% 12.4%

3.7% 3.8%

4.1%

4.5%

4.7%4.0%

4.5%

3.8%

4.9%

4.1%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Fall 2005 Fall 2007 Fall 2009 Fall 2011 Fall 2013

URM

Asian

International

SUNY System Administration, Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics: : May 19, 2015 Source: IPEDS Human Resources Surveys

of 78

Figure 41. Percent Minority and International Employees by State‐Operated Institution, Fall 2013

Figure 41 provides a snapshot for Fall 2013 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 75.4% at Downstate to a low of 5.1% at Alfred

75.4%

58.6%

38.0%

31.7%

29.9%

29.8%

29.7%

25.0%

24.8%

22.9%

22.4%

19.6%

19.4%

18.2%

17.2%

15.9%

15.3%

15.2%

14.8%

13.3%

13.3%

12.0%

11.4%

11.3%

11.0%

10.8%

10.3%

9.4%

8.7%

7.7%

7.3%

7.1%

6.8%

6.4%

5.8%

5.1%

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

Downstate

Optometry

Old Westbury

Purchase

Stony Brook

Maritime

Doctoral Institutions

Upstate Medical

State‐Operated

Farmingdale

SUNY Total

Albany

Buffalo College

New Paltz

Buffalo Univ

Cornell Stat

Brockport

Binghamton

Comprehensive …

Empire State

SUNY Poly

Technology Colleges

Geneseo

Oswego

Alfred Ceramics

Fredonia

Oneonta

Plattsburgh

Envir Sci & Forestry

Canton

Cobleskill

Potsdam

Cortland

Morrisville

Delhi

Alfred% URM % Asian % Non‐Resident Alien


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

of 78

State, a range of 70.3 percentage points. For reference, the system‐wide aggregate is 22.4%, and the state‐operated aggregate is 24.8%.

Optometry also has a notably high percentage of race/ethnicity diversity of 58.6%.

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 rural parts of the state.

of 78

Figure 42. Percent Minority and International Employees by Community College, Fall 2013

Figure 42 provides a snapshot for Fall 2013 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 30.7% at Westchester to a low of 0% at North Country, a range of 30.7 percentage points. For reference, the system‐wide aggregate is 22.4%, and the community college aggregate is 13.6%.

30.7%

29.4%

22.8%

22.4%

20.4%

20.1%

20.1%

16.4%

15.1%

14.6%

13.6%

13.4%

12.3%

8.5%

8.0%

7.1%

7.1%

6.8%

6.6%

5.6%

5.0%

4.9%

4.7%

4.3%

3.2%

3.2%

3.0%

2.9%

1.8%

1.6%

1.1%

0.0%

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

Westchester

Rockland

Fashion Institute

SUNY Total

Orange

Monroe

Nassau

Schenectady

Dutchess

Suffolk

Community Colleges

Onondaga

Erie

Mohawk Valley

Sullivan

Niagara

Hudson Valley

Broome

Genesee

Tompkins‐Cortland

Columbia‐Greene

Ulster

Adirondack

Corning

Jefferson

Finger Lakes

Fulton‐Montgomery

Jamestown

Cayuga

Clinton

Herkimer

North Country % URM % Asian % Non‐Resident Alien


SUNY System Administration Office of InstitutionalResearch Source: SUNY Data Warehouse

of 78

As seen in Figure 41 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 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.

Faculty members and professionals are typically recruited from a greater geographic area and specific qualifications are required. For example, a professor in Physics would be chosen from a pool of candidates having a Ph.D. in Physics, a rather narrow field. Conversely, a college registrar could be chosen from a pool of candidates having various award levels in various majors, hence providing a larger potential pool. Further, part‐time employees in general are much more likely to be drawn from the local community, thereby reducing the amount of control the institution may have over the recruitment process in regards to racial/ethnic diversity. With all of this in mind, presented below are data specific to full‐time faculty and to full‐time professionals.

Figure 43. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Full‐Time SUNY Campus Faculty, Fall 2013

Figure 43 shows the 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.

78.9%

8.9% 7.5%3.7%

0.9%

76.2%

11.1%7.6%

4.9%

0.1%

86.7%

2.7%

7.2%

0.2%3.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


All Campuses ‐ FT Faculty State‐Operated ‐ FT Faculty Community Colleges ‐ FT Faculty

of 78

Key Observations

For all SUNY campuses, the percentage of full‐time minority faculty is 16.4%, with those identifying as Asian comprising 8.9% of that total and those identifying as under‐represented minority comprising the remaining 7.5%.

The number of full‐time faculty at state‐operated campuses is about three times the number at community colleges (11,651 vs. 4,200, 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 9.9% vs. 18.7%, respectively. Note that community colleges have fewer full‐time faculty identifying as Asian, fewer international students and more reported unknowns.

Figure 44. Race/Ethnicity Distribution of Full‐Time SUNY Campus Professionals, Fall 2013

Figure 44 shows the 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.

74.4%

6.2%

15.5%

3.2%0.7%

73.0%

7.0%

16.0%

3.9%0.1%

81.2%

2.4%

12.9%

0.0%3.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


All Campuses ‐ FT Professionals State‐Operated ‐ FT Professionals Community Colleges ‐ FT Professionals

of 78

The number of full‐time professional employees at state‐operated campuses is nearly five times the number at community colleges (19,620 vs. 4,012, 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 15.3% vs. 23.0%, respectively. There are far fewer full‐time professionals identifying as Asian or as URM in this sector at this level.

Figure 45. URM Full‐Time Faculty at SUNY State‐Operated Institutions vs. National Public 4‐Year Institutions, Fall 2013

Figure 45 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.

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.

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 78

Figure 46: URM Full‐Time Faculty: SUNY Community Colleges vs. National Public 2‐Year

Institutions, Fall 2013

Figure 46 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.

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 78

Figure 47: URM Full‐Time Professionals at SUNY State‐Operated Institutions vs. National Public 4‐Year Institutions, Fall 2013

Figure 47 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.

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 78

Figure 48: URM Full‐Time Professionals at SUNY Community Colleges Institutions vs. National Public 2‐Year Institutions, Fall 2013

Figure 48 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

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. (See Appendix F.)

L. SUNY Campus Management and Leadership: Gender & Race/Ethnicity

Figure 49: Full‐time Campus Employees in Management Occupations by Gender, Fall 2013

Sector Male Female

All SUNY Campuses 45.8% 54.2%

State Operated 46.5% 53.5%

Community Colleges 44.0% 56.0% SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research Source: IPEDS 2013 Human Resources Survey

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


of 78

Figure 50: Full‐time Campus Employees in Management Occupations by Race/Ethnicity, Fall 2013

Sector White Asian URM* Black/ African American

Hispanic/Latino

American Indian/ Alaskan Native

Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander

Two or More Races

Non resident Alien

Unknown

SUNY Campuses 83.1% 2.6% 11.6% 8.4% 2.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 2.0% 0.6%

State Operated 82.4% 3.2% 11.5% 8.6% 2.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 2.7% 0.1%

Community Colleges

85.0% 1.1% 11.9% 7.9% 3.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 0.1% 1.9%

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics Source: IPEDS 2013 Human Resources Survey

* Includes Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or Two or More Races

Figures 49 and 50 show the gender and race/ethnicity distribution of employees in the Management occupational category as reported on the IPEDS 2013 Human Resources Survey.

Key Observations

Female representation in Management occupations in both the state‐operated and community college sectors is above 50%.

System‐wide, 83.1% of Management occupation employees are White, 2.6% are Asian, and 11.6% are URM.

Minority representation at all SUNY campuses in Management occupations is led by Black or African Americans at 8.4%, followed by Asians at 2.6%, and then Hispanic or Latinos at 2.5%.

Figure 51 and 52. Executive Leadership by Gender and Race/Ethnicity, as of May 2015

Figure 51 Total Male Female

State‐Operated Institutions:

Presidents 29 20 9

Provosts / VPs for Academic Affairs 26 17 9

VPs for Business and Finance 28 19 9

Community Colleges:

Presidents 30 19 11

Figure 52 Total White Asian Hispanic Black

State‐Operated Institutions:

Presidents 29 24 1 0 4

Provosts / VPs for Academic Affairs 26 24 0 0 2

VPs for Business and Finance 28 27 0 0 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 Management System (HRMS)

Source for Figure 51 and 52 community college data: SUNY System Administration Office of Education Pipeline and Community Colleges

Figures 51 and 52 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.

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 counts for state‐operated Provosts / VPs for Academic Affairs and VPs for Business and Finance are less than

of 78

the number of presidents due to a current provost vacancy at Morrisville, shared services at Cobleskill and Delhi, and no provost position catalogued in the HRMS for Upstate and Downstate.

Key Observations

At both the state‐operated institutions and the community colleges, a full two‐thirds of the current presidents are male.

At the state‐operated campuses, two‐thirds of the current Provosts /VPs for Academic Affairs and the current VPs for Business and Finance are male as well.

At the presidential level, 82.8% (24 out of 29) of the current presidents at the state‐operated institutions and 86.7% (26 out of 30) of the current presidents at the community colleges are white.

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 53. System Administration Employees by Race/Ethnicity, as of May 2015

EEO6 Classification Total White Asian Black Hispanic Native

American Multi‐Racial

Grand Total 542 455 83.9% 10 1.8% 45 8.3% 23 4.2% 2 0.4% 7 1.3%

Executive/Adminis‐trative/Managerial

127 103 81.1% 2 1.6% 14 11.0% 6 4.7% 0 0.0% 2 1.6%

Professional (Non‐Faculty)

268 229 85.4% 8 3.0% 16 6.0% 9 3.3% 2 0.7% 4 1.5%

Other (Non‐Faculty)

142 122 85.9% 0 0.0% 12 8.6% 7 4.9% 0 0.0% 1 0.7%

Faculty 5 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 3 60.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics Source: SUNY Human Resourses Management System (HRMS)

Figure 53 shows the most current (as of May 2015 payroll) race/ethnicity distribution of System Administration employees by occupational classification.

Key Observations

Nineteen percent of the total Executive, Administrative, and Managerial staff are of minority race/ethnicity. This number will increase to 20% at the end of June given recent hires. For comparative purposes, this represents an increase from 18% in May 2013.

Of the total System Administration staff, 16.0% are a minority race/ethnicity.

Of the 87 minority employees, 23 (or 26.4%) are Hispanic. In May 2013, 23 of 86 total minorities were Hispanic (or 26.7%).

Of the 87 minority employees, 16 (or 18.4%) are in the offices of Educational Opportunity Program and the University Center for Academic and Workforce Development.

Currently, 21% (or 6) of employees at the Vice Chancellor and Associate Vice Chancellor level are of minority race/ethnicity. This percentage will increase to 24% (or 7) by the end of June given recent hires. By way of comparison, this is an increase from May 2013, when three minority employees were at the Vice or Associate Vice Chancellor level.

of 78

N. SUNY System Administration Employee Data: Gender, Veteran, Disability

Figure 54. System Administration Employees by Various Diversity Attributes, as of May 2015

EEO6 Classification Total Female Veteran Disabled

Grand Total 542 308 56.8% 16 3.0% 10 1.8%

Executive/Administrative/Managerial 127 76 59.8% 3 2.4% 2 1.6%

Professional (Non Faculty) 268 135 50.4% 8 3.0% 8 3.0%

Other (Non Faculty) 142 94 66.2% 5 3.5% 0 0.0%

Faculty 5 3 60.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics Source: SUNY Human Resourses Management System (HRMS)

Key Observations

Overall and at each general occupational classification, more than half of the System Administration employees are female.

Three percent of the System Administration staff are recorded as having veteran status, with the largest percentage (3.5%) being in the Other (Non‐Faculty) occupational classification, which includes Secretarial/Clerical, Technical/Paraprofessional, Skilled Crafts, and Service/Maintenance.

Under 2% (10 employees out of 542) are recorded as having a disability, with 2 of those employees being Executive/Administrative/Managerial and 8 Professional (Non‐Faculty).

O. The Critically Important Student Pipeline: Race/Ethnicity

Figure 55. Race/Ethnicity Distributions of SUNY Students and Employees

69%

78%75%

79%

60%

14%

19%15%

8%

24%

5%2%

6%9%

5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Students ‐10 Years Ago

Non‐Professional

Staff

Professional Staff

Faculty Students ‐Current

White URM Asian

SUNY System Administration Office of Institutional Research and Data Analytics :: June 9, 2015 Sources: SUNY Data Warehouse (student data) and IPEDS 2013 Human Resources Survey (staff and faculaty data)

criticalrace/ethnicity

pipeline

of 78

Figure 55 shows side‐by‐side comparisons of the race/ethnicity distributions of SUNY students and SUNY full‐time employees. The data illustrated is what the student distribution was ten years ago (i.e. what may have been a potential pool for today’s employees), the current full‐time employee data broken down by general IPEDS category, and the most current student distribution. Specifically, student data is shown for Fall 2004 and Fall 2014, and employee data is shown for Fall 2013.

Key Observations

Because colleges and universities see significantly more frequent turnover in their student populations than in their employee populations, it is expected that one would see noticeable increases in diversity at a faster pace in the former than the latter.

The current employee race/ethnicity distribution is dependent upon that of former college students. Given the increased proportion of URM students enrolled at SUNY between Fall 2004 and Fall 2014 (14% to 24%), one would expect a larger pool of URM candidates for SUNY employment positions in the future.

This summary chart supports a multi‐prong approach to diversity issues. There are gains that can be made with respect to faculty and staff recruitment and retention. At the same time, SUNY is uniquely positioned to strengthen the education pipeline for URM students who will one day be part of the pool for future employment recruiting.

II. Office of Diversity Equity and Inclusion (ODEI)

ODEI shapes transformative campus programs in academic excellence and reaches into communities throughout the state, addressing students, parents, family and legislators regarding SUNY’s concerted efforts to infuse diversity into academic programs to develop a culture of inclusive excellence. The many facets of diversity are embodied in the programs, scholarships and faculty development opportunities ODEI supports.

Diversity Programs and Initiatives

The Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion administers a number of legislatively funded scholarship, fellowship, and programmatic support programs designed to assist campuses and the SUNY system at large in achieving their diversity‐related goals. A brief summary of each program follows:

Empire State Diversity Honors Scholarship Program – This program is a state‐wide undergraduate scholarship program which provides recipients with a scholarship in the amount of $1,500 for the academic year. Eligible students must demonstrate high academic achievement characteristic of an honors program and be matriculated in a degree program. In a given academic year, the Empire State Diversity Honors Scholarship Program assists more than 900 undergraduate students at over 40 SUNY institutions. See Appendix A for details.

Explorations in Diversity and Academic Excellence Initiative – This competitive program provides one‐time support to state‐operated campuses for campus‐wide programming such as: diversity and cultural competency training, curricular development, and conference support. Past awards have helped campus communities understand stereotype threat, recognize the problems of micro‐aggressions and other forms of unconscious bias, and

of 78

provided training and support for marginalized groups, such as LGBT or transgender populations. Since 2009, a total of 60 projects from 23 campuses have been funded.

Faculty Diversity Program – This competitive program supports efforts by state‐operated campuses to recruit, retain and promote outstanding faculty from diverse backgrounds, including individuals from groups who have been historically underrepresented in higher education. The program provides partial salary support for up to three years for individuals who have attained a record of distinction. See Appendix B for a breakdown of the academic disciplines of awardees. From 2008 to 2015, ODEI has funded 35 faculty at 11 campuses.

Graduate Diversity Fellowship Program ‐ This program provides stipends to masters, doctoral and professional students pursuing their studies at a SUNY campus. Academic disciplines of participating students range from the arts, humanities, social sciences, the STEM fields and more. The level of financial and professional development that the 24 participating institutions provide their fellows has made the GDFP one of ODEI’s most successful programs. Substantial support for this program has added avenues of access for advanced scholarship in a wide range of academic disciplines: arts, humanities, STEM fields, social sciences and more. In the past three academic years, the program has served approximately 500 new students per academic year. Please see Appendix B for additional details.

- Doctoral Diversity Fellowships in STEM Initiative – These competitive fellowships are awarded to academically exceptional students who have been admitted to SUNY’s doctoral degree‐granting institutions in STEM fields. Since its inception in 2009, this initiative has provided scholarship and research support for 10 doctoral students (4 male/6 female) from 3 university centers.

Native American Initiative ‐ This program provides support to SUNY Fredonia and Potsdam, located in the North Country and western areas of New York State where there is a critical need to assist Native American students and communities. These two campuses support recruitment, retention and graduation of Native American students by providing activities and services such as campus and community involvement, student development, counseling, networking, information sharing, cultural events and academic support. ODEI is working with Native American faculty to explore new programs to reduce barriers, both cultural and financial, to support access to SUNY.

Model Senate Project – This annual leadership development program run by the Edward T. Rogowsky Internship Program, in collaboration with the Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force of the New York State Legislature and the State University of New York. CUNY and SUNY students are brought together for a series of intensive training seminars on policy formulation, legislative processes, representation and leadership. Each year, 18 SUNY students are chosen from the participating institutions (University at Albany, Buffalo State College, SUNY Cortland, SUNY Oneonta and Stony Brook University). Faculty and staff professionals of each institution nominate, mentor and coach the students on the roles senators play in shaping legislation. The program culminates with presentations where students defend their positions on bills that are currently active in government on the floor of the actual Senate Chamber in Albany.

Diversity Abroad Honors Scholarship Program – This new program was introduced by ODEI in 2014 to assist diverse students wishing to study and travel abroad for semester‐length programs, summer study or research. The program offers scholarships of $1,000 matched

of 78

by campus funds of an equal or greater amount. The program has supported 26 students from 19 campuses to date.

Diverse Scholars Research Awards ‐ In 2015‐16 academic, ODEI will invite SUNY faculty to submit applications to conduct diversity research on university programs and/or other salient topics. Research in these areas will form the core documents of an archive of diversity research in SUNY. Faculty may utilize this opportunity to develop their research for future publications and presentations or share their findings in a university‐wide diversity forum.

ODEI Conferences and Projects

As a means to foster cross‐campus communication and the sharing of best practices, ODEI organizes or co‐organizes two key conferences and provides support for SUNY’s replication project, which supports student transfer. A brief description of each of these efforts follows:

Annual Diversity Conference ‐ In November 2014, ODEI and the University Faculty Senate co‐sponsored the first system‐wide diversity conference for faculty and staff to build a better understanding of diversity for SUNY’s students, faculty, leadership and governance. The program attracted 300 participants and featured 20 workshops and eight poster presentations. Dr. Daryl Smith, a nationally recognized diversity scholar, and Dr. Kerry Ann Rockquemore, a faculty development mentor, were featured keynote speakers. Workshops spanned topics including cultural competency, creative performance as a diversity strategy, campus climate, team management in view of diverse aptitudes, working with disabled and LGBT populations, and affirmative action programs on new rules and legislation.

Biennial SUNY STEM Conference – This bi‐annual conference attracts faculty and staff from across the state. The 2015 conference, “Building Pathways and Partnership in STEM for a Global New York,” is the fourth conference held to date. The conference focuses on building STEM capacity throughout SUNY by building partnerships and collaborations to enhance networking among SUNY diversity STEM faculty and programs. Key areas of focus include: recruitment and retention strategies; supporting student transitions from two‐ to four‐year and from four‐year to the graduate level; the benefit of summer programs to highlight research activities; and an overall sharing of high impact best practices.

The Replication Project – is based on the successful Baccalaureate and Beyond Community College Mentoring Program, which was founded fifteen years ago under the leadership of SUNY Purchase Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at SUNY. The program supports underrepresented minority, financially disadvantaged and first‐generation community college students in completing a Bachelor’s degree in various fields of the liberal arts and sciences. Over 500 students have participated in the program. Eighty‐three percent have completed their AA/AS degree and are transferring to four‐year institutions, and 71% of these students are completing their Bachelor’s degrees. Participating SUNY institutions are listed below with the lead collaborators noted first. SUNY is in a unique position to implement this project because of its powerful potential for adoptability and adaptability throughout the state and the nation.

of 78

Specialized Diversity Programs and Events

ODEI has supported 19 major diversity initiatives at 10 campuses as noted below through additional funding:

University at Albany: ASUBA Diversity Summit; The Shepherd Initiative; Puerto Rican Studies Association; 2013 EOP Reunion Farewell Brunch

SUNY Brockport: Annual Men of Color Summit

Buffalo State College: Anne Frank Project

University at Buffalo: Annual Undergraduate Research Conference (McNair/LS‐AMP, etc)

SUNY Cortland: Annual Diversity Conference; Train the Trainer Program; Conference on Women in Higher Education/Praxis; Africana Conference

Farmingdale State College: Annual STEM Conference and Research Symposium; Smart Scholar Early College Program

Genesee Community College: Multicultural Communication Initiative

SUNY Oneonta: SUNY Pride Conference

Purchase College: Bridges Mentoring, Research and Science Visions Preparation Program;

Replications Conference

Stony Brook University: SAAB Northeastern Regional Conference; How Class Works Conference.

Minority and Women‐Owned Business Enterprise (MWBE)

ODEI assumed oversight for the system MWBE office in July 2014. In addition to meeting or exceeding required program goals, ODEI hopes to leverage MWBE activities to support campus and system diversity goals. Key accomplishments include:

An improvement plan recommended by the Board of Trustees detailing corrective measures to the MWBE program at SUNY’s hospitals has been fully implemented with significant improvement in SUNY’s participation in MWBE.

Lower Hudson Valley Region (LHVR) Team 1

Long Island Region (LIR)

Team 2

Western Region

(WR) Team 3

North Central Region (NCR)

Team 4

Greater Capital Region (GCR)

Team 5

Southern Region

(SR) Team 6

Purchase College

Farmingdale State College

SUNY Oswego

SUNY Potsdam

SUNY Oneonta SUNY

Cortland

Rockland CC Stony Brook SUNY

Geneseo Jefferson CC

SUNY Cobleskill Tech College

Broome CC

Sullivan CC Old Westbury Buffalo State

College

North Country CC

SUNY Delhi

Tech College

Mohawk Valley CC

Dutchess CC

Nassau CC

Genesee CCFulton‐

Montgomery CC

Tompkins Cortland CC

Orange CC Monroe CC

Westchester CC

of 78

SUNY MWBE participation rates have improved considerably, from 5.12% in 2012 to 21.63% in 2015

Overall, SUNY achieved a 25.06% MWBE participation in Quarter 4 (2015) and 21.63% in Fiscal Year 2014‐15

For the first time in SUNY’s history, spending using certified MWBEs exceeded one hundred million dollars ($110.5 MM) in State Fiscal Year 2014‐15, up from $42.7 million in Fiscal Year 2011‐12.

Key office efforts to reach these gains included:

Deployment of PRISM, a new statewide performance reporting system for MWBE, is now fully operational on all campuses, with 27 campuses and 75 procurement staff receiving training

Updates to active contract records in PRISM with their MWBE goals, Utilization Plan and Waiver information with the assistance of an outside vendor

In April 2015, approximately 85 additional procurement staff received training on the new Construction Related Consultant Services procedures and process at the Purchasing Association Conference in collaboration with the SUNY Office for Capital Facilities

In May 2015, approximately 70 procurement staff received training on “Coding Solutions and User Resources Available in the University Finance and Management System” in collaboration with the University Controller’s Office.

System‐wide Affirmative Action

The Affirmative Action component of ODEI is tasked with assisting in the increase of the recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce; providing regional trainings on recruitment of faculty and staff, as well as initiating programs, training sessions and discussions to foster institutional awareness of and commitment to faculty diversity goals, including gender equity and equal opportunity for all qualified candidates for appointment and promotion.

Affirmative Action activities center on the diversification of the SUNY workforce by recruiting candidates from protected classes. To support this goal, greater outreach for diversity candidates has taken place. In collaboration with Human Resources, SUNY successfully recruited an African‐American woman for a campus presidency this past year, by providing a diversity candidate with a strong STEM background. The SUNY system‐wide Affirmative Action Officer continues to research and recommend diverse candidates to Human Resources for faculty and professional offices including presidencies and other campus‐based senior leadership positions.

Guidelines for Presidential Searches for Community Colleges and State‐Operated Campuses

ODEI collaborated with staff in the Office of Academic Affairs as well as the Office of the Education Pipeline to update presidential search guidelines to incorporate inclusion efforts in all aspects of a search.

Training and Informational Webinars

ODEI has hosted several workshops on compliance issues for SUNY Affirmative Action Officers (AAOs). Workshops have focused on:

Title IX

Investigating a Complaint

of 78

Recent changes to §503 of the Rehabilitation Act

The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA)

Reasonable Accommodation

WebEx trainings on topics such as domestic violence as a protected class

Throughout the year, in collaboration with the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, ODEI has trained campus liaisons to decrease domestic violence at our campuses. Additionally, a bi‐annual survey is conducted to evaluate the work on domestic violence prevention and response. While we have seen an increase in reporting on some campuses, on other campuses the incidents have decreased (in some instances to zero)

In collaboration with the SUNY legal department, ODEI assisted in crafting a presidential memo on “Legal Issues Surrounding Employment Applications.” Contained in the memo were required non‐discrimination language, guidance on social media, evaluation of criminal convictions, etc., which the campuses should follow to be in compliance

The SUNY AAO listserv serves as a venue to keep the AAOs current with laws, executive orders, regulations and cases relevant to AA. Now, many non–AAOs, such as vice presidents, human resource directors, student affairs and international staff are requesting to be included on the AAO list serve.

In addition, ODEI has partnered with the University at Albany and the Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals to offer a one‐day social justice institute in June 2015.

Outreach and Communication

ODEI has created an outreach and communication newsletter entitled: “Diversity Counts” to engage the SUNY community on diversity issues and to share best practices. The publication is issued twice each year. The upcoming 2015 issue will feature several articles on several campus initiatives and discuss the role of innovation in diversity. It is disseminated digitally on the office web page.

Dinner address to YMCA on student opportunities for diverse students.

Presentation to Toastmaster’s International at Genesee Community College.

Task Force Panel at Onondaga Community College facilitated by Trustee Tina Good.

Meetings with Bill Jones, Native American Faculty member, and Carlos Jones, Faculty Diversity Recipient.

Exploration of Dreamer’s legislation (DACS) with legislative leadership, Deborah Stewart Jones.

Use of social media to spark interest in diversity programming and calendar events.

Participation in Somos el Futuro.

Conversations with congressional staff and campuses to advance the Model Senate Program.

Awards and Recognitions

The Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at SUNY System has received Insight into Diversity’s prestigious Higher Education Excellence in Diversity (HEED) Award for three consecutive years (2012, 2013 and 2014) in recognition of its expanded commitment to diversity programs and leadership of diversity offices throughout SUNY System. The office will apply again this year.

of 78

III. Looking Forward: Diversity Task Force

The introduction of this report describes advancements in the thinking about diversity in higher education in the past decade. In response, campuses and System have launched a number of distinct efforts to not only increase the numbers of diverse administrators, students, faculty, staff but to provide necessary supports to drive retention and completion.

Still, SUNY has been unable to move the dial in a meaningful way. It was for this reason that Chancellor Zimpher created the SUNY Diversity Task Force (Task Force). At the first meeting of the Task Force she was clear, “if you have thought about it or read about it, we have already tried it. Be bold in your recommendations.”

The SUNY Diversity Task Force is charged with the development of policies that will strengthen SUNY’s efforts to increase diversity among students, faculty, and staff and also ensure a supportive, welcoming environment for all at both the system and campus levels. The Task Force was asked to examine all relevant data, review best practices, review existing system‐wide initiatives, and identify challenges and opportunities.

The Task Force quickly identified four areas of focus:

1. Undergraduate and graduate student recruitment, admissions, retention, and graduation;

2. Recruitment, retention, and support of diverse faculty, staff, and administrators;

3. Creation of welcoming System/campus environments; and

4. Identification of the most effective structures and reporting relationships of diversity officers/offices.

As noted earlier in this brief, the Task Force is co‐chaired by the System Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor and the System Chief Diversity Officer. The Task Force members hold faculty and administrative positions from across SUNY. See Appendix D for a complete listing of Task Force members.

Members of the Task Force were able to speak about their experiences on campus, particularly in areas where SUNY’s data set is lacking. While normally anecdotal accounts are not included in data briefs, these stories are consistent with national trends. Task force members described:

Requests from transgender students for opportunities to choose the pronoun by which they should be identified and about the need for communication and accommodation regarding students in the middle of transitioning from one gender to another.

Improvements in racial harmony on campus only to set back by insensitivity in the community.

Challenges and opportunities of being the “only one” of their race among campus leadership.

Challenges of recruiting prospective hires when they would be the “only one” in a given department on campus of a given race/ethnicity or orientation.

Strong support for giving students an opportunity to self‐identify as lesbian, gay, bi‐sexual, queer, questioning, or transitioning.

Supports necessary to ensure the retention and success of the full range of diverse students.

Concerns about budget challenges, particularly at small institutions, when it comes to addressing some of these challenges.

of 78

The Task Force worked tirelessly to develop recommendations that would be responsive to available data and also to issues brought to light by Task Force members and their surveys of their peers.

At the time of this writing, the Task force has just shared a draft of its initial recommendations in each of these areas with the campus community for comment. They expect to bring final recommendations to the SUNY Trustees for adoption as policy.

IV. Conclusion This data brief intentionally begins with mention of SUNY’s founding in1948. SUNY was literally established as a refuge for those who were victims of discrimination by the state’s private colleges and universities. The ethno/racial tensions rampant at the time are certainly not a source of pride for the State. However, the call to action to address the resulting inequities is, and that spirit is part of the life‐blood of SUNY.

SUNY must address the inequities of today including: the continued achievement gap between URM students and their White and Asian peers; identification and support of an emerging protected class of LGBTQ students and those managing gender identity issues; and, a need to significantly scale enrollment and employment of diverse persons.

Given the projected changing demographics of New York State and the projected increase in the number of retirements in the next five to ten years, SUNY has an historic opportunity to address these issues now.

It is clear from a review of the data the SUNY needs a multi‐pronged approach to addressing diversity: working to ensure implementation of best practices to attract diverse students, faculty, staff and administrative leaders; ensuring that supports are in place to support retention (of faculty and students) and to foster student completion; and implementation of programs and strategies to establish a welcoming environment for all. The SUNY Diversity Task Force has made an initial set of recommendations it believes will advance the System’s efforts here, beginning with the addition of a Chief Diversity Officer at each campus who would collaboratively work with their campus president and leadership team to ensure that these goals are achieved. The Office of the Provost and its Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion will work to refine Task Force recommendations post campus input and will partner with System leadership and the SUNY Board of Trustees to move forward.

In addition, because SUNY’s recognize that the pool of diverse potential employees in New York State and nationally with advanced degrees is more limited, SUNY must make outreach to this population a priority in its efforts to both strengthen the education pipeline and in recruiting and serving working adults.

Given its history, size, depth and breadth, SUNY has the opportunity to be recognized as the most inclusive public university system in the country.

of 78

Appendix A

SUNY Empire State Diversity Honors Scholarship Program

Three‐Year Summary

Academic Year 2011‐2012 2012‐13 2013‐2014

Total Recipients 980 969 929

Average Scholarship $1,713 $1,684 $1,384

Percent of Total Recipients

Black or African American 32% 33% 35%

Hispanic/Latino 31% 31% 28%

American Indian / Alaska Native

4% 4% 4%

Asian 11% 11% 10%

White 15% 15% 18%

Multi‐racial 2% 4% 3%

Other/Unknown 4% 6% 2%

Male 44% 39% 42%

Female 56% 61% 58%

New Freshman 18% 19% 18%

New Transfers 3% 2% 3%

Continuing Students 79% 79% 79%

Racial/Ethnic Underrepresented

74% 68% 68%

Economically Disadvantaged

36% 37% 40%

Students with Disabilities 4% 5% 5%

of 78

Appendix B

SUNY Graduate Diversity Fellowship Program

Three Year Summary

Yearly Allocation Total Allocation

$6,039,300.00 $6,039,300.00 $6,039,300.00 $18,117,900.00

Year

Totals 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014**

Fellows by Recipients 491 496 511 1498

Gender

Female 318 326 338 982

65% 66% 66% 66%

Male 173 170 173 516

35% 34% 34% 34%

Race/Ethnicity*

African American 170 171 177 518

35% 34% 35% 35%

Hispanic/Latino 161 168 165 494

33% 34% 32% 33%

Asian 33 33 23 89

7% 7% 5% 6%

Native American 16 23 23 62

3% 5% 5% 4%

Native Hawaiian 2 0 4 6

0% 0% 1% 0%

White 69 69 89 227

14% 14% 17% 15%

Multi‐Racial 27 23 25 75

5% 5% 5% 5%

Unknown 13 10 5 28

3% 2% 1% 2%

Degree Enrollm

ent* Doctorate

226 232 229 687

46% 47% 45% 46%

Masters 181 182 209 572

37% 37% 41% 38%

Professional 88 82 75 245

18% 17% 15% 16%

Unknown 1 2 0 3

0% 0% 0% 0%

Data provided by the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

*NOTE: Percentages are slightly off due to double counts. ** Data for Alfred State Not Available.

of 78

Appendix C

African American/Black,46% (16)Hispanic/

Latino,40% (14)

Asian/Pacific Islander,3% (1)

Native American,3% (1)

White,9% (3)

SUNY Faculty Diversity Program Recipients by Race and Ethnicity, 2008‐2015

A Total of 35 Recipients

Male49% (17)

Female51% (18 )

SUNY Faculty Diversity Program Recipients by Gender, 2008‐2015

A Total of 35 Recipients

of 78

Appendix D

SUNY Faculty Diversity Program by Institutional Sectors and Discipline,* 2008‐2015

University Centers and Doctoral Degree Granting Institutions

University Colleges Technology Colleges

American Studies Art Education History*

Anthropology Art History Psychology*

Atmospheric & Environmental Sciences

Computer Science* Sociology & Anthropology*

Biomedical Sciences Dance Studies

Chemistry Elementary Education &

Reading

Computer Science* History*

Educational Theory & Practice Music

English Theater*

Geography Theater Arts

Health & Wellness Studies

History*

Pathology

Psychology*

Psychiatry

Sociology

Social Work

Transnational Studies

Note: *Several disciplines are represented in all three institutional sectors

24 = Total number of disciplines which Faculty Diversity Program recipients teach in.

11 = Total number of SUNY institutions with Faculty Diversity Program recipents

of 78

Appendix E

SUNY Diversity Task Force Members

Alexander N. Cartwright, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, Task Force Co‐Chair

Carlos Medina, Chief Diversity Officer, Senior Associate Vice Chancellor, Task Force Co‐Chair

J. Philippe Abraham Associate Director, Advisement Services Center University at Albany Vice President for Professionals, United University Professions

Kevin Antoine Assistant Vice President, Office of Diversity Downstate Medical Center

Noelle Chaddock Chief Diversity Officer, SUNY Cortland Chair, UFS Committee on Diversity and Cultural Climate

Kathleen Dowley Professor of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies SUNY New Paltz

Kristin Esterberg President SUNY Potsdam

Joel Frater Assistant Provost for Diversity, Academic Affairs SUNY Brockport

Jackie Girard Vogel Assistant Vice President for International Enrollment Management SUNY Plattsburgh

Griselda Gonzalez Affirmative Action Officer Co‐Chair, FIT Diversity Council Fashion Institute of Technology

Tina Good President, Faculty Council of Community Colleges and Member, SUNY Board of Trustees

Lashawanda Ingram Director of Diversity Affairs SUNY College of Technology at Canton

Cheryl John Coordinator Native American SUNY ‐ Western Coalition SUNY Fredonia

Robert Jones President University at Albany

Peter Knuepfer President, University Faculty Senate and Member, SUNY Board of Trustees

Fred Kowal President United University Professions

Bonita London Associate Professor Stony Brook University

Laurel McAdoo Human Resource Associate Research Foundation for SUNY

Teresa Miller Vice Provost for Equity and Inclusion Professor, Law School University at Buffalo

Terrence Mitchell Chief Diversity Officer SUNY Oneonta

Lori Mould President, SUNY Student Assembly and Member, SUNY Board of Trustees

of 78

Kevin Railey Associate Provost and Dean, Graduate School Buffalo State College

Daryl Santos Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusiveness Binghamton University

Justin Shanley SUNY Fredonia SUNY Student Assembly

Susan Stebbins Special Assistant to President for Diversity and Affirmative Action Officer SUNY Potsdam

Christina Vargas Affirmative Action Officer, Title IX Coordinator, Suffolk County Community College

Leanne Wirkkula Chief of Staff Office of the President University at Albany

Task Force Subcommittees

Student Recruitment & Retention ‐ Joel Frater, Chair Faculty, Staff & Sr. Administrator Recruitment & Retention ‐ Teresa Miller, Chair

Climate ‐ Noelle Chaddock, Chair Structure ‐ Kevin Railey, Chair

System Administration Staff

Robert Anderson Director of State Relations SUNY System Administration

Elizabeth Bringsjord Vice Provost and Vice Chancellor SUNY System Administration

Jim Campbell Director of Legislative Relations SUNY System Administration

Elizabeth Carrature Diversity Associate for Research & Development Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion SUNY System Administration

Curtis Lloyd Vice Chancellor for Human Resources SUNY System Administration

Gloria Lopez Director of Affirmative Action Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion SUNY System Administration

Phil Ortiz Assistant Provost for Undergraduate and STEM Education SUNY System Administration

Cynthia Proctor Director of Communications/Chief of Staff Office of the Provost SUNY System Administration

Sally Crimmins Villela Assistant Vice Chancellor for Global Affairs SUNY System Administration

of 78

Appendix F

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 9, 2015

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009‐2013 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

of 78

Appendix G



% Pell % URM % Pell % URM

Albany 42.2% 33.7% Adirondack 48.7% 8.4%

Alfred State 51.7% 17.6% Broome 54.7% 8.3%

Alfred‐Ceramics 25.8% 10.3% Cayuga County 61.4% 10.7%

Binghamton 30.6% 20.0% Clinton 54.2% 8.2%

Brockport 39.9% 17.3% Columbia‐Greene 44.5% 18.0%

Buffalo State 48.6% 39.8% Corning 56.1% 8.9%

Buffalo Univ 35.2% 18.7% Dutchess 34.0% 31.7%

Canton 58.2% 25.9% Erie 51.2% 25.6%

Cobleskill 52.3% 24.3% Fashion Institute 33.3% 34.0%

Cornell Stat 18.4% 26.8% Finger Lakes 55.7% 11.8%

Cortland 29.4% 18.0% Fulton‐Montgomery 64.1% 22.0%

Delhi 47.4% 32.1% Genesee 60.8% 12.6%

Downstate Medical 0.0% 36.0% Herkimer County 65.9% 13.3%

Empire State 38.1% 29.5% Hudson Valley 38.6% 18.0%

Envir Sci & Forestry 27.2% 8.5% Jamestown 60.0% 12.5%

Farmingdale 31.9% 29.6% Jefferson 56.8% 20.4%

Fredonia 37.9% 14.6% Mohawk Valley 64.9% 16.6%

Geneseo 21.4% 12.8% Monroe 49.9% 33.4%

Maritime 22.8% 13.2% Nassau 39.4% 46.6%

Morrisville 60.2% 27.6% Niagara County 52.1% 16.4%

New Paltz 32.2% 23.5% North Country 54.0% 6.1%

Old Westbury 48.4% 55.4% Onondaga 48.4% 21.5%

Oneonta 29.0% 15.6% Orange County 30.3% 38.2%

Oswego 40.1% 18.5% Rockland 29.1% 39.4%

Plattsburgh 36.8% 19.5% Schenectady County 56.2% 23.5%

Potsdam 43.9% 22.5% Suffolk County 31.5% 26.7%

Purchase 33.3% 33.3% Sullivan County 58.5% 40.0%

Stony Brook 34.8% 22.2% Tompkins Cortland 58.7% 19.4%

SUNY Poly 42.4% 15.8% Ulster County 43.0% 20.5%

Upstate Medical 25.3% 11.2% Westchester 39.5% 56.0%

Of Matriculated

Undergraduate US Citizens:

Community Colleges:State‐Operated Institutions:

Fall 2014 Fall 2014

Of Matriculated Undergraduate

US Citizens:

i. diversity, equity inclusion - suny systemsystem.suny.edu/.../diversity-data-brief-aug2015.pdf ·...

Documents