College & University Staffing and Human Resources Support Trends

Transcription

1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCANNING REPORT College & University Staffing and Human Resources Support Trends January 2009 The University of Scranton Planning Office

2 Overview This scan summarizes and describes trends related to college and university staffing and human resources support. Demographic data and contemporary scholarship are considered with respect to the current state of higher education as a profession and other developments. The scan may be considered in tandem with PAIRO s 2008 scan of Faculty Trends 1. Executive Summary Analysis of key data and recent trends in higher education human resources and non-instructional staffing indicate that Key trends including rising health care costs, new technologies and increasing technology dependence, global competitiveness, increasing emphasis on safety & security issues, and demographic changes are driving issues in HR policy and employer/employee relations. Though much of the research on employment trends in higher education focus on faculty, noninstructional and educational support staff (ESPs) comprise the majority of those working in higher education today, creating a considerable impact on institutions. o About 3.6 million persons are employed in higher education. Of these, 1 million are employed at private, not-for-profit institutions. Over half of these are non-instructional staff. Numbers of full-time staff continue to outpace part-timers; however, both employment groups continue to grow nationally. o At the University of Scranton, 1,206 individuals were employed in fall Of these, 55% were non-instructional. The majority of this group is comprised of professional staff, followed by those in the clerical/secretarial and service/maintenance fields. Little research has been conducted regarding the work life and work trends for non-instructional higher education staff. Member surveys by the National Education Association reveal that educational support personnel are generally satisfied with their jobs, but do have some concerns regarding their work climate. Research regarding diversity in higher education asserts the value of faculty and staff diversity for institutions and the students they serve. Colleges and universities are more diverse in terms of gender and race/ethnicity than ever, but many still struggle with diversity and diversity support issues. Legislation and legislative debates continue to guide policy development in higher education related to a number of employment issues. In today s economic climate, institutions are carefully considering costs and costs-savings measures. Most have stopped short, however, in laying-off masses of employees. Partial hiring freezes appear to be the most prevalent staffing issue to date. 1 See to view this report. 2

3 Key Trends in Human Resources According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a small number of key forces are driving issues within the human resources profession, guiding its support of the nation s workforce: The rising cost of health care New technologies and greater dependence on technology to communicate with employees The implications of increased global competitiveness, especially the need for an educated and skilled workforce An emphasis on safety and security from threats such as natural disasters, terrorism, cyber attacks, identity theft, and intellectual property theft Demographic changes, especially the aging of the workforce, the impending retirement of the baby boom generation and the greater demand for work/life balance from younger generations of workers (Workplace Visions 1-2) SHRM describes top workforce trends, which, in addition to the topics listed above, have expanded over the past several years to include issues related to the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, new attitudes regarding aging and retirement, rising number of individuals and families without health care, increases in identity theft, and work intensification as a result of employers efforts to increase productivity with fewer employees (Workplace Forecast 5). According to the Workplace Forecast survey report, although employers continue to worry about issues they have faced throughout this decade, today, concerns appear to be concentrated around a smaller group of factors relating mainly to health care access, an aging population, and for the first time since the survey began, the threat of an economic recession (7). Coupling the costs of health care with the aging demographics of higher education faculty and staff, as reported by TIAA-CREF, makes providing retiree health care and benefits and covering retirement health care expenses in an environment of escalating health care costs are front-burner issues for the higher education community (5). Higher Education Staffing Demographics As observed by Reindl, among all industries, higher education is easily one of the most human resource-intensive it is a common rule of thumb that 75 to 80 percent of the average American college or university s resources are committed to staffing and related expenses (53). To understand how colleges and universities work, it is important study this population. Staff at colleges and universities are commonly broken into two large groups: instructional staff whose duties are primarily instruction, research and/or service and non-instructional staff, who generally make up the majority of employees. Often, relationships between the university and its faculty and students receive the most attention on campus. But the quality of the relationships between the university and its support personnel are critical to the smooth operation of the multiple services [they provide] (Johnsrud and Banaria 85). According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) [Knapp et al], 3.6 million individuals were employed by Title IV 2 institutions in the United States in fall (Knapp et al); this number was 2.6 million in 1997 (Higher Education Staff 1). Of 2 Title IV institutions are those which are accredited or recognized by the U.S. department of education, have a program of more than 300 clock hours or 8 credit hours, have been in business for at least 2 years, and have signed a PPA agreement with the Office of Postsecondary Education. 3 Most recent data from NCES IPEDS surveys is from fall The fall 2008 data collection process is currently underway. 3

4 these, just over 2.3 million (64%) were full-time employees. Slightly more than one million of these were employed by private not-for profit institutions; about 213,000 were employed by private forprofit institutions, and the remainder worked at public institutions. Table 1 describes these data, by employment category, for Title IV private not-for-profit institutions 4 : Table 1: 2007 Staff by employment category, Title IV private, not-for-profit, degree and non-degree granting Staff Category 5 Total Total Full-Time Total Part-Time Primary responsibility instruction, research, and/or public service 388, , ,944 Non-instructional: Executive/Administrative/Managerial 95,752 92,315 3,437 Other Professional 208, ,222 27,278 Graduate Assistants 62,440-62,440 Technical & Paraprofessional 47,601 40,425 7,176 Clerical & Secretarial 139, ,136 22,601 Skilled Crafts 15,177 14, Service/Maintenance 75,839 62,751 13,088 Total non-instructional 645, , ,722 Grand Total 1,033, , ,666 As table 1 shows, the majority of staff at private, not for profit institutions are non-instructional staff. Of these, the category with the highest percentage of employees (32%, or just under one-third) is other professional, which includes the majority of institutional support staff; these include anyone with a job that requires a bachelor s degree but who is not an administrator (Lee). This category is followed by clerical & secretarial staff (22%) and the category of executive/ administrative/managerial (15%). NCES (Knapp et al) data show that the numbers of clerical/secretarial, service and maintenance, and skills crafts have generally decreased since 1993, which may be the result of the displacement of regular employees in these occupations by increasing use of computers or contracting with outside organizations for these services (Higher Education Staff 3). Table 2 shows these categories (excluding graduate assistants) staffing levels for staff at the University of Scranton for 2007 as reported to the NCES s data collection arm, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). 4 Includes both degree-granting and non degree-granting. 5 Categories follow IPEDS reporting categories. 4

5 Table 2: Staff by employment category, University of Scranton, fall 2007 Staff Category 6 Total Total Full-Time Total Part-Time Primary responsibility instruction, research, and/or public service Non-instructional: Executive/Administrative/Managerial Other Professional Technical & Paraprofessional Clerical & Secretarial Skilled Crafts Service/Maintenance Total non-instructional Grand Total As these data describe, the staffing patterns at the University of Scranton generally mirror those nationally. Non-instructional staff make up the majority of those employed (60%). Of these, the largest population for the University is the other professional staff category, followed by clerical & secretarial. For the University, the third highest percentage of employees is the service/maintenance group, rather than the executive/administrative/managerial population, which was third-highest nationally (see table 2). The table below describes full time equivalent (FTE) staffing levels for the University of Scranton and the median FTE count for its self-selected IPEDS Data Feedback comparison group for fall 2006 and fall Table 3: FTE Staff by Broad Category, Scranton and Comparison Group 2006 and 2008 Scranton, Comparison Scranton, Broad FTE Staff Category 2008 Group, Primary responsibility instruction, research, and/or public service Comparison Group, Non-instructional: Executive/Administrative/Managerial Other Professional Non-professional Total As compared with our peer group median, the University has a generally smaller faculty group and executive group; however, the University has employed more professional and non-professional staff than the peer group median for the selected years. While the number of instructional staff increased for the comparison group between these two years, the number decreased for the University, driving an overall decrease in positions over this span. 6 Categories follow IPEDS reporting categories. 7 These data are from the IPEDS Data Feedback Reports for the selected years. Note that the University s comparison groups may fluctuate from year to year. 5

6 Research shows that growth in faculty positions in American higher education is dominated by parttime faculty; part-time staff numbers have also increased overall. According to the NCES (Knapp et al), 232,001 staff were designated as part-time workers in fall 2002 in private, not-for-profit institutions; this number reached 306,666 in fall 2007, a percent increase of 32%. The total number 8 of full-time staff in these institutions increased by 12% over that span. For non-instructional staff, these percent increases are 28% for part-time staff, and a decrease of 2.5% for full-time staff. However, the total number of full-time non-instructional staff remains consistently higher than that of part-time by a ratio of roughly five to one. The total number of staff employed in higher education in 2002 was slightly more than 2.9 million; this total has increased by 24% through Total Compensation Trends Direct Compensation: Wages The compensation trends of non-instructional staff in higher education are monitored each year by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR). Current survey reports describe salary data for mid- and senior level administrative positions at 1,307 institutions for According to CUPA reports, as it has now for many years, the overall median salary increase continued to outpace inflation salary increases this year were slightly greater at public institutions than at private institutions in most categories (CUPA-HR Survey Finds). Administrative salaries at public institutions had a median increase of 4% from to (Administrative Compensation Survey 13); mid-level administrative and professional salaries showed a median increase of 3.9% (Mid-Level Administrative & Professional Salary Survey 11). Again, the increase at public institutions was slightly higher than for private (11). Table 4 lists median salary increases for these two survey groups for the past four years: Table 4: Median Salary Increases by group, by year CUPA-HR Survey Category Administrative 3.3% 3.5% 4.0% 4.0% Mid-Level/Professional 3.0% 3.3% 3.8% 3.9% According to NCES data, after adjusting for inflation, the overall average full-time postsecondary staff salary increased by 13% between 1993 and 2003 (from $41,700 to $46,900 in 2003 dollars). This increase is slightly higher than the growth rate in the annual salary of full-time-equivalent employees in U.S. domestic industries (11%) during the same time period but fairly comparable to the rate of increase in the median family income (14%) (Li and Carroll 87). Salary gaps still appear to exist for women and minorities 9 ; even though female postsecondary staff experienced a slightly higher increase in their average salary, they still lagged behind male staff as a whole in what they earned; the average salary for women was roughly 77% of that for men in 2003 (Li and Caroll 115) NCES data indicate that Asian postsecondary staff earned the highest salaries, followed by Whites, nonresident aliens, staff whose race/ethnicity is unknown, American Indians, Hispanics, and Blacks (119). 8 Includes instructional staff. 9 Note that these salary differences, and those between racial groups, may be the result of other factors, such as rank, years of service, and field (Li and Carroll 118). 6

7 AFT Higher Education (a division of the American Federation of Teachers) suggests several factors which have accounted for the growth of professional staff in higher education: one is the growing size and diversity of the student body and the addition of student services to support these students, including racial and ethnic minorities, adult, low income and other non-traditional enrollees. Other reasons include the fact that, for better or worse, many colleges have become multifaceted organizations encompassing job training, entertainment, food services, sports, housing, healthcare, and private research and development. The classroom mission of the institution is just one aspect of the total higher education experience. Professional staff are a key means of ensuring students are well-served Also contributing to the rise in professional staff numbers are the accountability and reporting requirements imposed by state and federal funding agencies...[and,] the decline of public support has led colleges and universities to adopt a more corporate managerial model (6). Non-direct Compensation: Benefits Selected key trends from the CUPA-HR benefits survey include: 48% of responding institutions have a wellness program in place 16% offer a defined contribution program to help meet future retiree medical expenses; 8% without such a program are considering implementing one 86% of respondents offer one or more PPO (preferred provider organizations) health plans; these are the most commonly offered type of health insurance Depending upon health plan type, total monthly premiums for employee only coverage rose by as much as 7% over the previous year; this increase was as much as 8% for employee + family plans Almost all institutions provide basic life insurance, long term disability, paid time off, tuition assistance, and retirement benefits; 60% provide short term disability Of the 96% of institutions that provide tuition benefits for full-time employees, only 34% provide these benefits toward coursework at other institutions 26% provide child daycare benefits 48% of respondents have a defined benefit plan for retirement; 96% offer a defined contribution plan, generally a 403(b). Mandatory participation in these contribution plans varies greatly amongst respondents. Employees at colleges and universities tend to be appreciative of what are considered to be strong benefits packages, as compared with other companies. As many corporations struggle to continue certain benefits programs, colleges and universities may not be immune, particularly as health care costs continue to rise. Dotinga (2008) reports that while employees aren t likely to lose existing perks with the possible exception of retirement health care experts say they ll be taking on larger shares of the costs. Colleges and universities are engaging in a number of practices designed to help staff understand the impact of costs on the institution and are educating them as to what they can expect regarding future retirement costs, including segmentation (targeting messages about certain care elements to specific groups), wellness and prevention programs, and risk management (Hignite 2008). 7

8 Diversity & Gender Table 5 lists numbers of higher education employees 10 broken down by gender and race/ethnicity 11 : Table 5: Higher Education Employees by gender and race/ethnicity, selected years Category % Change Gender Male 1,229,449 1,459,992 1,674,034 36% Female 1,316,471 1,648,309 1,956,922 48% Race/Ethnicity White 1,976,208 2,323,377 2,496,754 26% Black 267, , ,146 31% Hispanic 99, , , % Asian 94, , , % American Indian 12,288 17,803 21,057 71% Nonresident Alien 69, , , % Unknown 25,770 96, , % As these data show, racial diversity has increased in each racial/ethnic category from 1993 to 2007; however, the majority of employees in American colleges and universities are white. The minority racial/ethnic group with the largest increase during this time span is the unknown category; that with the smallest percent change is the white racial/ethnic group. Women continue to comprise the majority of overall non-instructional staff; however, more males than females continue to comprise the nation s faculty (Knapp et al 7). There is significant higher education research highlighting the benefits of institutional diversity. Institutions are considering ways to ensure that not only their student bodies are more diverse, but that their faculty and staff populations reflect a variety of backgrounds. In addition to racial/ethnic and gender diversity, definitions of diversity have expanded to include issues related to individuals with disabilities, generational representation and issues, as well as those of sexual orientation. Smith and Wolf-Wendel note that the call for more diversified faculty and staff in the literature is viewed almost universally as important (50-51) for five key reasons: To provide support for the benefit of students from particular groups Diversification is an important symbol to students from these groups about their own futures and the institution s commitment to them Diversification creates a more comfortable environment for students, faculty, and staff Diversification of faculty and staff is likely to contribute to what is taught, how it is taught, and what is important to learn A diverse faculty and staff reflect one measure of institutional success for an educational institution in a pluralistic society. Alvin Evans and Edna B. Chun explored the status of diversity in today s higher education institutions, along with challenges in achieving and sustaining diversity. In referencing their 10 Includes faculty. 11 All data from IPEDS and 2003 data as presented in Li and Carroll, data from Digest of Education Statistics

9 publication, Are the Walls Really Down?: Behavioral and Organizational Barriers to Faculty and Staff Diversity, the authors observed that while many institutions talk a good game, the attainment of concrete outcomes was slow at best The subtle behavior and organizational barriers to diversity still impede the success and progress of women and minority faculty and staff (32). Institutions in urban areas tend to be more diverse racially; isolation and lack of services for members of minority groups can be real hurdles for colleges in small towns and rural areas that want to diversity their work forces, (Fogg) but there a number of steps both small and large that they can take to be more appealing to diverse employees, including community engagement and partnerships. Generational Diversity As babyboomers near retirement age, higher education institutions are concerned about increasing numbers of retirements of older faculty and staff. Generational diversity is also becoming an issue for the higher education workforce as various age groups collide within the workplace. One external threat to the future of higher education as identified by the CUPA-HR 2006 Think Tank Report on the Future of Higher Education is this changing workforce, as retirees are being replaced by a younger cohort with different values and workplace expectations (Table 1). Bartley et al and Hignite identified the four main age groups in the workforce today: veterans (also referred to as traditionalists), baby boomers, generation X and millenials (also known as generation Y). According to Hignite, the traditionalists group constitutes about 10% of the current workforce; the baby boomers 46%, generation X constitutes 29%, and the millennial group comprises 15% of the workforce. Each of these groups has unique characteristics that can conflict with the characteristics of the other groups; each generation that tries to work and succeed in today s marketplace harbors starkly different attitudes and morals (29), and differ when it comes to their degree of technological skill. Younger employees are often looking for different experiences in the work environment, much of it informed by their experience as students in today s service-to-student-oriented higher education world. Younger staff relate differently to authority than do older staff and have different motivations. One key problem that institutions are facing is that the higher education environment has been largely built around loyalty to the institution this ethic is based on employee longevity and on individuals taking time to learn the institution s quirks and to adapt to processes that aren t always linear or smooth, a foundation that younger hires may not be willing to base their career on, negatively impacting staff retention (Hignite). And, as babyboomers and traditionalists retire, ensuring that effective leadership remains in place for institutions during this transition will be critical. Some institutions view these impending retirements as an opportunity to reshape their organizational structure to some extent. A recent survey by the Chronicle of Higher Education further complicates generational issues in the higher education workplace, identifying a midlife crisis within the academy: with babyboomers on college campuses getting ready to retire, those next in line professors, administrators, and staff members in the middle of their careers feel somewhat dispirited. They are more likely than anyone else to harbor negative feelings about their jobs, career advancement, and the fairness of the workplace (Selingo B1). The Chronicle survey, which targeted 89 four-year colleges and universities, public and private, based on specific Carnegie classifications, sought to identify the best colleges and 9

10 universities to work for, rating satisfaction on twenty-seven categories 12. Though the University of Scranton did not take part in this survey, it may be worthwhile to measure how staff perceptions of these categories at the institution compare with the overall survey findings; to some extent, this information may be available from the University s recent campus climate studies of faculty and staff perceptions of the workplace. The categories included in the Chronicle survey: Healthy Faculty-Administration Relations Collaborative Governance Professional/Career Development Program Teaching Environment Compensation and Benefits Facilities and Security Job Satisfaction Work-Life Balance Confidence in Senior Leadership Internal Communications Connection to Institution and Pride Tenure Clarity and Process Vacation or Paid Time Off Life Insurance Physical Workspace Conditions Health Insurance Tuition Reimbursement Housing Assistance Programs Supervisor or Department Chair Relationship Perception and Confidence in Fair Treatment Respect and Appreciation Policies, Resources, and Efficiency Career Development, Research and Scholarship Engagement Index 403b or 401k Disability Insurance Post-retirement Benefits Other Issues Another issue that is important to colleges and universities is ensuring access and support for persons with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991 (ADA) mandates the elimination of discriminatory behaviors and practices against persons with disabilities, and provides standards for non-discriminatory treatment of and accommodation for the disabled; almost all colleges and universities, as employers, are covered entities under this law (Underwood 31). The act presents legal requirements that employers must follow the hiring and employment of disabled persons; to remain compliant with the law, college and universities should ensure that employment administrators, and the policies and procedures they establish, are sensitive to the needs and requirements of employees and applicants (Underwood 37). Pending proposed amendments to the act though currently tabled 13 - may increase requirements, and if they do, colleges and universities will have to provide reasonable accommodations to more students and employees (Bakst 1). In addition to the ADA Act, other legislation that has a significant impact on the employment operations of higher education institutions include the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which ensures employees the right to specific amounts of unpaid leave for particular medical and medical care circumstances, and the Health Insurance Portability and Information Act of 1996, which guides 12 Though the inaugural survey was by invitation only, institutions interested in taking part can contact the Chronicle of Higher Education. Each institution receives an individual survey report. For more on the categories and rankings within this survey, see 13 For status of this bill, see 10

11 the collection, use, and release of private information about individuals. Both of these laws, in addition to the ADA, provide mandates for higher education policies and procedures. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act (EEOC) structures federal requirements prohibiting discrimination on number of these issues, including gender, diversity, religion, sex, or national origin. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits discrimination based on age. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 continues to guide policy and legislation regarding discrimination in the United States; its Title VII prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace. Recent legislative debates regarding the rights, or lack thereof, of single-sex partnerships will likely remain an issue in the coming years. Climate & Work Life As Johnsrud observes, most statistics on educational support personnel (ESP) focus on demographics size, salary, education, sex, and race not on work life issues (101). A commonly referenced source for data is the periodic survey of National Education Association 14 ESP members; the association surveyed 1000 ESP members in spring The majority (74%) of the respondents were female and the mean age was 54; 40% worked in four-year colleges (Rosser 114). Respondents largely satisfied with their jobs, their work schedules, the hours they work, and the level of personal fulfillment provided by the job. They were also satisfied with their salaries and wages, job security, health and safety, retirement and health insurance benefits. ESPs reported mixed results with employer provided vision care plans, opportunities for job promotions, and their job descriptions, both in terms of how accurately the description reflected their current responsibilities and the degree to which they were involved in revising those descriptions (Rosser 125). Rosser has also studied opportunities for professional development for this group, finding that one key issue affecting the quality of ESP work lives is the right to pursue skills training and professional development (2006, 113). Lack of professional development programs and support is identified as an internal challenge for higher education institutions by CUPA: successful organizations offer regular opportunities for employees to enhance their knowledge, skills and abilities. Employee development is generally a challenge for higher education institutions (Think Tank Report, Table 2). A focus group of ESP staff conducted at an NEA 2001 conference suggested issues faced by ESPs in particular (Johnsrud 2002, 99): The impact of technology on their work lives Inadequate classification systems, adopted from the k-12 sector, that do not reflect the realities confronted by higher education support staff The lack of competent, well-trained supervisors Inattention to discrimination and sexual harassment faced by ESPs The lack of recognition and regard felt by ESPs for their contributions to their campuses. Though these findings reflect the experience and opinions of a small subset of higher education staff within American higher education, the extent to which these experiences and concerns are shared by others within the enterprise should be explored. A number of other work life issues are part of dialogues regarding human resources support and planning in higher education today. Some of these 14 The NEA is the nation s largest professional employee organization, with 3.2 million members working in various sectors of public education, according to its Web site, 11

12 include alternative work schedules and other flexible schedule practices, programs for improving family/work life balance issues of rising importance as a growing cohort of employees, the sandwich generation, struggle to balance both child and elder care and employee wellness programming. Additional attention is given to effective succession planning, professional development, leadership training, and other performance development programs. Job transitions and succession emerged as one of five top concerns of HR professionals at a NACUBO roundtable session 15 (Yimam). Staffing & the Current Economic Crisis In the current economic climate, many institutions are considering ways in which to cut back on spending, but this does not appear to be resulting in widespread staff layoffs, though partial hiring freezes are not uncommon. Although the many mass layoffs that are currently being seen in corporate American have not yet and may not reach higher education, many institutions are tightening their belts. According to Blumenstyk, a survey conducted by The Chronicle and Moody s Investor services of 200 public and private four-year colleges shows that slightly more than one in ten colleges had laid off employees, and another 12 percent were considering doing so few institutions have imposed total freezes on hiring faculty members (7%), more than 40% said they had imposed partial freezes on faculty hiring, and nearly 60% had done so for other staff positions. One positive effect the troubled economy may have is increasing enrollments, particularly as out-of-work individuals consider returning to school. Conclusion Johnsrud and Banaria state that relationships between the University and its faculty and students receive most attention on campus. But the quality of the relationships between the University and its support personnel (ESPs) are critical to the smooth operation of the multiple services [they provide] (85). These relationships serve to provide both tangible and intangible benefits to the employee, from compensation and tuition benefits to a work environment that contributes to the employee s overall job satisfaction. Non-instructional staff comprise the majority of those working in higher education, and with a number of demographic, social, and economic issues impacting this employee group, institutions need to carefully consider how they hire, retain, and support them. 15 At the NACUBO 2007 annual meeting. 12

13 References AFT Higher Education. (January 2006). Standards of good practice in the employment of professional staff in higher education. Bartley, Sharon J., Patrick G. Ladd and M. Lane Morris. (Spring/Summer 2007). Managing the multigenerational workplace: answers for managers and trainers. CUPA-HR Journal 58 (1), Bakst, Daren. (2008). The ADA Amendment Act: An overview and analysis. Council on Law in Higher Education. CUPA-HR Salary Survey Finds Overall Median Base Salary for Senior-Level Administrative Positions in Higher Education Increased by 4%. (February 25, 2008). CUPA-HR Administrative Compensation Survey. (2008). CUPA-HR Mid-Level Administrative & Professional Salary Survey. (2008). CUPA-HR Comprehensive Survey of College and University Benefits Programs Survey Fact Sheet. (2008). CUPA-HR Think Tank Report on the Future of Higher Education. (2006). Dotinga, Randy. (July 18, 2008). The benefits of college life. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Ehrenberg, R.G. (2004). Don t blame faculty for high tuition: the annual report on the economic status of the profession Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Evans, Alvin and Edna B. Chun. (March 6, 2008). Demythologizing diversity in higher education. Diverse Issues in Higher Education 25 (2), Fogg, Piper. (October 6, 2008). Catering to a diverse crowd. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Higher Education Staff. (September 1999). National Education Association Update 5 (2). 13

14 Hignite, Karla. (July 2007). The world on generational diversity. HR Horizons 2 (3). National Association of College and University Business Officers (April 2008). Taking health care head-on. HR Horizons 3 (2). National Association of College and University Business Officers. Johnsrud, Linda K. and Jocelyn Surla Banaria. (2005). Higher education support personnel: trends in demographics and worklife perceptions. The 2005 NEA Almanac of Higher Education, Washington, D.C.: The National Education Association (2002). Higher education support staff: the impact of technology. The NEA 2002 Almanac of Higher Education, Washington, D.C.: The National Education Association. Knapp, Laura G., Janice E. Kelly-Ried and Scott A. Ginder. (December 2008). Employees in post-secondary institutions, fall 2007 and salaries of full-time instructional faculty, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C. Lee, John. (February 2003). The other staff. NEA Higher Education Research Center Update, (9) 2. National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). IPEDS Data Feedback Report 2008: The University of Scranton. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). IPEDS Data Feedback Report 2006: The University of Scranton. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Digest of Education Statistics Washington, D.C. Reindl, Travis. (2006). More than a body count: trends in higher education staffing. College and University Journal (4) 81, Rosser, Vicki J. (2008). ESP benefits and job satisfaction: an update. The NEA 2008 Almanac of Higher Education, Washington, D.C.: The National Education Association (2006). ESPs: Professional development opportunities. The NEA 2006 Almanac of Higher Education, Washington, D.C.: The National Education Association. Selingo, Jeffrey. (July 18, 2008). A midlife crisis hits college campuses. The Academic Workplace, B1-B35. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Smith, Daryl G. and Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel. (2005). The Challenge of Diversity. ASHE Higher Education Report 31 (1). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 14

15 TIAA-CREF Institute. (2005). Financing retiree health care. Underwood, Daniel. (1997). The Americans with disabilities act and employment practices in higher education. CUPA-HR Journal 48, Yimam, Tadu. (October 2007). Top of mind HR issues. HR Horizons 2 (4). National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). Workplace Forecast. (June 2008). The Society for Human Resource Management. 15