Performance+analysis+of+screening+process

Mary Burns Prine EdTec540 s2 (online) mprine@sdccd.edu 10/21/07


 * The Screening Process of Applicants for Faculty Positions: Performance Analysis **

All applicants desiring to teach for my organization must submit an application to be screened. If the individual is qualified to teach, their names and subject matter is made available to the dean, who will then help them to complete the paperwork necessary to add them to the sub list and consider them for any immediate openings. Unfortunately, the actual performance strays far from the optimal. The process of moving the application along the steps, the determination of the applicant’s qualifications, the notification of the applicant, and the ultimate meeting of the dean is plagued by delays. A process that should take a month is taking several months. Confusion of responsibilities exists, as do the equivalencies of applicants in the absence of actual educational achievements. Our department has several subjects, each subject requiring a different set of equivalencies. Applicants are approved by faculty members, only to be told by HR that the applicants do not meet qualifications. To analyze this problem, several key stakeholders were interviewed. In addition, key documents which would help clarify the situation were located. We will look at the barriers that faculty members face while serving on the screening committee, and will attempt to find solutions to help faculty and HR speed the process, and increase the accuracy of screening, as well as to determine a satisfactory protocol for faculty and staff. Since the primary responsibility of determining qualifications of applicants rests on faculty, four faculty members and an instructional leader were interviewed. All faculty members serving on the committee are contract faculty, meaning that they have worked in higher capacities for the college and would have more information about hiring than the average adjunct faculty member. The instructional leader is the most versed of those polled, and was able to provide written data to increase the clarity of the qualifications. However, even this instructional leader had some confusion regarding qualifications. Questions to faculty involved protocol, their understanding of qualifications, and their suggestions of how to improve screening. The instructional leader was questioned on the importance of the screening process and implications for hiring a less qualified instructor. Finally, Human Resources (HR) was interviewed to clarify protocol and offer ways to improve the process. Extant data used to determine qualifications include the minimum qualifications page attached to the application, the __Equivalence to Minimum Qualifications as established by Academic Senate for California Community Colleges__ (Spring 2006), and the __Minimum Qualifications for Faculty and Administrators in California Community Colleges__ (January 2006). It is important to note that of the three documents, the only one which was available to our screening committee for Academic year 2006-2007 was the first document, a single page with only 12 lines outlining the procedures for our discipline.
 * Introduction:**
 * Sources of Information**
 * Defining the Gap and Possible Barrier **
 * ** Optimal ** || ** Actual ** || ** Barrier ** ||
 * Applications are accurate 100% of the time || All polled had confusion at least some of the time || Skills/knowledge ||
 * Applications are sent through the process and applicants notified within 30 days of submission || Faculty felt that too much time was spent, that there was a lack of protocol. Instructional leader expressed concern that there is no permanent administrative assistant to our department to follow up with applicants. || Environmental ||
 * All steps in process are defined; each step is unique and important, and monitored by time || Faculty misunderstood role of HR. Faculty does not receive applications from business office as they come in. || Organizational Support ||
 * Faculty feels that this process is important, and that their role is necessary. Faculty is rewarded for efforts. || Faculty receive no feedback from organization regarding their participation, unless their applicants are rejected. || Motivation ||

While all of the above were mentioned by faculty, the most important factor is the qualifications of the applicant. The financial outcome if an applicant is improperly screened can be substantial. Inaccuracy also increases the amount of time spent with the application, as it is resent to committee for verification, as well as time spent locating sources of information to verify equivalencies. All interviewed, from faculty to instructional leader to HR, expressed concern about the time involved. Most felt that our department lacked professionalism when too much time passed from submittal of application to letter to applicant. Delineation among departments were only mentioned by two faculty, and although three of the four faculty felt that their performance was not valuable, it was not viewed as a major factor in their own performance. Based on the results of the questionnaire and the suggestions by faculty and HR, the following recommendations are suggested for each barrier: 1. Training materials are created which summarize minimum qualifications and equivalencies as outlined in the three documents received. 2. Check list is created which will accompany each application to include time spent, as well as duties filled within each step of the process. 3. For each application, a subject matter expert is present to ensure accurate equivalencies. 1. Department is assigned an administrative assistant to help improve communication between committee and applicant. 2. Letter to successful applicant is revised to direct applicant to contact dean for completion of paperwork. 1. Most pertinent improvement would be the implementation online application. 2. Temporary solution would be for business office to send applications directly to screening committee, instead of waiting for screening committee to contact them. 1. Although there are no means for financial reward to committee members, there could be department recognition (at end of the year) 2. If feasible, it would be advised to offer a dedicated room for screening, complete with a computer, all screening materials, and comfortable seating to make the process more enjoyable. Further recommendations: It is recommended that faculty compile list of questions during screening process, to help evaluate above teaching aids and to add clarity where needed. It is also recommended that data is kept of each application which includes time spent in process from submittal of application to signing of hiring paperwork to test effectiveness of intervention. Lastly, data can be compiled as to the number of qualified applicants compared to nonqualified applicants, which would illuminate the effectiveness of the minimum qualifications page attached to each application.
 * Solutions**
 * //Skills/Knowledge//**
 * //Environmental//**
 * //Organizational Support//**
 * //Motivation//**