The document provides a summary of a project conducted by GLW Consultants for the UC Davis Academic Affairs department to develop best practices for academic recruitment. It includes: 1. An introduction describing the objectives of identifying common practices and inconsistencies across UC Davis schools to develop recruitment best practices. 2. A description of the challenges faced, including limiting participation in focus groups and the decentralized structure of academic recruiting at UC Davis. 3. The outcomes of best practices charts, tip sheets for the UC Recruit system, and a draft online toolkit. 4. Recommendations to conduct additional focus groups to develop a more comprehensive best practices list, and to organize resources into an online toolkit to increase accessibility.

1. Academic Recruitment Best Practices Project
Report Summary for Academic Affairs
Defining the Position
Description
Recruiting
with Impact
Selection
Action
Making the
Appointment
GLW
Brian Groeschel
Elizabeth Lincoln
Christine Wolle

2. Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs
Table of Contents
Executive Summary as presented to Panelists ............................................................................................. 2
Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs............................................................................................. 4
Introduction/Background ............................................................................................................................. 4
Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
Challenges..................................................................................................................................................... 4
Outcomes/Deliverables ................................................................................................................................ 5
Recommendations........................................................................................................................................ 5
Project Presentation PowerPoint ................................................................................................................. 6
Appendix....................................................................................................................................................... 7
1

3. Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs
Executive Summary as presented to Panelists
General Information
UC Davis is proud to count amongst its faculty recipients of a broad spectrum of top awards for exceptional scholarship,
teaching, mentoring and service to the professions to fulfill its’ mission of teaching, research and public service. This
summary presents research, analysis and provides recommendations to improve the academic recruitment process at UC
Davis.
Uniform standards and criteria are applied for all the recruitment of personnel at UC Davis. The paramount consideration in
the appointment of personnel shall be the highest standards of competence and integrity, with due consideration given to
geographical diversity and gender balance. Recruitment for each established post shall follow the Academic Personnel
Manual (APM-500) and shall be based on appropriate job description and selection criteria. All recruitment activity shall be
made on an open and competitive basis.
UC Davis aspires to be recognized as one of the nation’s top-tier public research universities. As such, we choose to be
regarded, both domestically and globally, as a pre-eminent leader of higher education. By engaging our “Vision of
Excellence,” UC Davis will be known for its diverse educational opportunities, its’ innovative, interdisciplinary and
collaborative research endeavors, and its distinction in leading enterprises that support social responsibility and a sustainable
global environment.
The costs associated to recruiting are a significant budget challenge. In a recent study by Oracle, they found: “By
implementing recruiting best practices and supporting technology, you can potentially reduce your time to hire by up to 50
percent, reduce cost per hire by up to 70 percent, and improve recruiter efficiency while finding the talent you need for
driving business results.” The Harvard Graduate School of Education estimated the cost of recruiting a professor at $96,000.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison estimated that it was spending an astonishing $1.2 million across all disciplines to
replace a faculty member. Through the implementation of uniform best practices in recruitment, UC Davis will reduce
recruitment costs and continue to demonstrate accountability and sound judgement as stewards of University resources.
Introduction
Academic recruiting is critical for the continued success of the University of California at Davis (UC Davis). The overarching
objective of this phase of the project was for a diverse group of academic leaders representing Academic Affairs and analysts
from the Dean’s Offices to document “best practices” that could potentially be established centrally or within each
department or schools/colleges. Specific objectives included:
 Conducting a series of focus groups to identify commonalities or inconsistencies across the schools/colleges.
 Identifying potential best practices that the Dean’s Offices and Academic Affairs need to communicate across the
schools/colleges.
History and Current State
Academic Affairs and the individual schools/colleges are responsible for designing the recruitment, recruiting with impact,
selecting the ideal candidate, and for making the appointment. Historical recruitment for recent academic years represents a
significant effort for the schools/colleges and Academic Affairs:
Academic Year 2013 - 2014
Recruitments in Recruit = 88
Total applicants = 6,164
Academic Year 2014 – 2015 (AY ends 6/30/2015)
Recruitments in Recruit = 106
Total applicants = 7,044
2

4. Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs
Project Approach and Collaboration
GLW worked with Academic Affairs and coordinated a series of focus group meetings to discuss the current academic
recruiting process. The focus group included individuals from the School of Veterinary Medicine, Letters and Science, School
of Education, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences and Academic Affairs from UC Davis and the UC Davis Health
System. The focus group discussions focused on Academic Affairs training, the Academic Personnel Manual (APM-500) and
the UC Recruit USER MANUAL. These documents provided the framework for developing UC Davis best practices and GLW’s
recommendations. Our group also reviewed Academic Affairs Help Desk tickets to further refine the framework of our
recommendations.
Overall project high level strategy:
Recommendations
GLW encourages the UC Davis Academic Affairs Department to work with the schools/colleges and explore the following
recommendations:
1. Utilize documented “best practices” to conduct additional focus groups with the schools/colleges to capture a more
comprehensive list of best practices from all involved in the recruitment process. The feedback we received from the
original focus group suggested that in-person discussions on the topics produced more value-added data. Increasing
participation will also assist in identifying additional resources/reference materials to enhance the recruitment process.
a. If time and workload constraints continue to limit focus group participation, the documented “best practices”
could be sent out in a survey format for areas to provide written responses. Though not the preferred method,
the survey results would still allow for more participation as well as keep all areas apprised of any suggested
changes for the recruitment process.
b. In addition, Academic Affairs may want to consider creating an Academic Recruitment Forum as a natural
progression from the initial focus group (quarterly, bi-annually or annually). This forum would allow the
schools/colleges a continued opportunity to submit feedback on existing processes and/or collaborate on
suggested changes.
2. Organize FAQ’s and other resources into a web-based “tool kit”. The feedback we received from the original focus
group combined with the scope of the questions submitted to Academic Affairs Help Desk, highlighted a need for access
to the information present in the training presentation from Academic Affairs and UC Recruit User Manual. As this
information is available but not easily accessible, we recommend a reorganization of the resources on the web to
increase customer access and awareness. One method would be to create a UC Recruit Tool Kit linked on the UC Recruit
web page to include:
FAQ’s UC Recruit Tip Sheet
Link to APM-500 Link to finalized Best Practices document
Link to UC Recruit User Manual Links to Academic Advisories
Sample Letters and Templates Link to the Help Desk
Link to Academic Affairs training materials (complete
and abbreviated versions)
Academic Affairs online training
Focus Groups -
gather current
best practices
Consultants
validate best
practices and
current state
environment
Consultants
provide
Academic
Affairs with an
Executive
Summary -
Academic
Recruitment
Best Practices
Academic
Affairs reviews
GLW's
recommendati
ons and
validates/com
municates
future state
environment
Optimize
3

5. Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs
Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs
Introduction/Background
GLW Consultants was retained by the UC Davis Academic Affairs department through the Administrative Officers for the
Future Program to engage in a project to assist UC Davis in enhancing their academic recruiting process. This engagement
began in March 2015 and ended in July 2015. The culmination of this project was three-fold:
1. To provide Academic Affairs with a Project Summary for the project – Academic Recruitment Best Practices. This
document includes the presented Executive Summary, recommendations, meeting, notes, etc.
2. To provide an Executive Summary for the panel evaluating the Project Presentation and,
3. To provide a 15 minute presentation of our findings and to address panel questions during a ten minute question
and answer session.
GLW Consultants represented non-represented staff from both the UC Davis Campus and the UC Davis Health System. The
consultants were:
Brian Groeschel, Analyst VI, Information Technology, Enterprise Applications, UCDHS
Christine Wolle, Collective Bargaining Coordinator, Employee and Labor Relations, UC Davis
Elizabeth Lincoln, Analyst IV-Supervisor, Center form Musculoskeletal Health, SOM
UC Recruit is the “source of truth” for the UC Davis recruitment process. It has been in use by the University for a number of
years. The instance of Recruit at UC Davis is supported by two members of Academic Affairs. GLW reviewed a significant
number of Recruit Help Desk – Incident emails and noted that a majority of the questions be addressed either through a
“best practices” tool kit or FAQ’s. The objectives of this project outlined below addressed this specific finding and provided
guidance for the overall development of our recommendations.
Objectives
The stated objective of this project was for GLW to work with a small group of analysts from the Dean’s Offices and Academic
Affairs to develop a set of best practices or guidelines. GLW was tasked with:
 Conducting a survey and gather responses.
 Looking for commonalities and inconsistencies across the schools /colleges.
 Meeting with the subcommittee to review findings and identify best practices that can be further developed by
Academic Affairs and,
 Reviewing the OFCCP regulations pertaining to recruitments.
Challenges
As with any project of this size/scope, we did experience several challenges. The core group that represented the various
school/colleges was outstanding. Their discussion proved invaluable to the project and the process of developing our
recommendations. This type of discussion should continue with Academic Affairs holding additional focus group sessions
with more groups from UC Davis. The sharing and further discussion of each individual group’s best practices can only
improve the overall recruitment practice.
Academic Affairs is structured at most universities as the central repository for recruiting activities across the university. At
UC Davis this is not the case. This may hinder the effectiveness of the recruiting process as the recruitment process is
decentralized and the opportunity to fully utilize the best practices is limited. As part of our recommendations, we
encourage UC Davis to consider the overarching mission of the recruitment process and determine the best structure to
support it.
4

6. Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs
5
Although the overarching mission of the recruitment process was clearly understood by the focus groups, each
representative noted their areas “uniqueness” and stated that there were multiple instances where the opportunity for
consistent best practices was not possible. While there may be subtle nuances to the process within each school/college,
there is truly a tremendous opportunity to expand on the Academic Affairs best practices and strengthening of the
recruitment process. This will provide for a more streamlined process and will enhance the recruitment experience and could
potentially lead to efficiencies in the overall process and potentially lead to cost reductions.
Most projects of this size/scope are “time” challenged. We were very pleased that the focus group and Academic Affairs
placed a high priority on this project. Schedules were opened to us and we were able to schedule focus group meetings with
little difficulty.
Outcomes/Deliverables
The following deliverables are attached in the Appendix of this report:
1. Best Practices Chart based upon feedback from initial focus groups ending June 18, 2015 (Appendix A).
2. Tip Sheet for UC Recruit based upon feedback from initial focus groups ending June 18, 2015 (Appendix B).
3. Draft web page sample of a possible “UC Recruit Tool Kit” based upon feedback and customer questions (Appendix
C).
Recommendations
As previously stated, we have two primary recommendations:
1. Utilize documented “best practices” to conduct additional focus groups with the schools/colleges to capture a more
comprehensive list of best practices from all involved in the recruitment process. The feedback we received from the
original focus group suggested that in‐person discussions on the topics produced more value‐added data. Increasing
participation will also assist in identifying additional resources/reference materials to enhance the recruitment
process.
a. If time and workload constraints continue to limit focus group participation, the documented “best
practices” could be sent out in a survey format for areas to provide written responses. Though not the
preferred method, the survey results would still allow for more participation as well as keep all areas
apprised of any suggested changes for the recruitment process.
b. In addition, Academic Affairs may want to consider creating an Academic Recruitment Forum as a natural
progression from the initial focus group (quarterly, bi‐annually or annually). This forum would allow the
schools/colleges a continued opportunity to submit feedback on existing processes and/or collaborate on
suggested changes.
2. Organize FAQ’s and other resources into a web‐based “tool kit”. The feedback we received from the original focus
group combined with the scope of the questions submitted to Academic Affairs Help Desk, highlighted a need for
access to the information present in the training presentation from Academic Affairs and UC Recruit User
Manual. As this information is available but not easily accessible, we recommend a reorganization of the resources
on the web to increase customer access and awareness. One method would be to create a UC Recruit Tool Kit linked
on the UC Recruit web page to include:
FAQ’s UC Recruit Tip Sheet
Link to APM‐500 Link to finalized Best Practices document
Link to UC Recruit User Manual Links to Academic Advisories
Sample Letters and Templates Link to the Help Desk
Link to Academic Affairs training materials (complete
and abbreviated versions)
Academic Affairs online training

7. Project Report Summary for Academic Affairs
Project Presentation PowerPoint
Project results presented in-person on Tuesday, July 14, 2015. Please see Appendix D.
6

8. GLW Consulting
AOFTF Academic Best Practices
Step in
Recruitment
Process
Best Practices from Focus Group Discussions
Position Upgrade Upgrade in rank should be based on programmatic reasons and should not impair diversity in
pool. Please refer to the Upgrade Request Form.
Appointment of
Search Committee
For Search Committee Membership –
• Should be comprised of 3 to 7 members with at least 1 from outside department for
Senate Recruitment.
• Committee membership should reflect a diverse cross section of the faculty.
• Should include those who understand discipline/specialty.
• Should include members who will monitor the Affirmative Action efforts of the Committee.
• Should have enough members to have a diverse perspective but not interfere with getting
meetings scheduled.
• Consider including Junior Faculty.
• Dean’s Office appoints committee.
Search Committee Training –
• All search committee members/chairs are required to attend a Faculty Search Committee
Workshop
• STEAD: Strength Through Equity & Diversity-
http://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/training-and-
development/stead/index.html
• Enhanced Training for Faculty Search Committee Members- offered through Faculty
Development -
https://somapp.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/academicaffairs/courses/secure/Courses.cfm?Stat
us=10
• Training is valid for 3 years from date of workshop attended.
Search Committee Duties –
• Search Committee and staff support may meet with Dean’s office to clarify and agree on
expectations of: Recruitment Goals, Search Process, & Search Plan Components.
• Maintain communication throughout the process between the Department and the Dean’s
office.
• Search Committee Members must disclose any potential conflict of interest with
applicant(s) See related Academic Advisory (Insert link or Academic Advisory Number).
• Applicant Pool Report should be reviewed about a week before the “closing” date; if pool
looks small or lacks diversity, the Search Chair should consult with the Dean’s Office
regarding options. Consider whether recruitment and outreach efforts were sufficiently
broad and if not, consider adding a new review date.
Position
Description/Job
Announcement/Ad
For writing the position description or job announcement –
• Always include Affirmative Action statement.
• Consider including broader definitions to attract larger pools of candidates meeting the
criteria, but not to the detriment of the true needs of the department.
• Enter PD in “Description” field under “Details” section of the Basic Recruitment so it can be
used as an advertising board.
Appendix A

9. GLW Consulting
AOFTF Academic Best Practices
• Consult with Dean’s Office for discipline and specialty requirements.
• Consider template language found at the following link (insert link).
Review dates • Strongly recommend use of Initial Review Date/Open until filled; additional review dates
must be approved by Dean’s Office (*required to upload to Letters & Memos in RECRUIT-
Documentation).
• With Initial Review Date/Open Until Filled – final date should not be for more than 1 year.
• Reminder – Employment cannot be offered after April 30th
to members of AAU and other
Cal institutions without a waiver. Consult Dean’s Office (See APM 501).
• Reminder – Intercampus Transfers – Employment cannot be offered after April 1st
without
a waiver. Consult Dean’s Office (See APM 510-16c).
• Consult Dean’s Office before using Open/Closed/Final.
• Applicant requests to replace application materials after review date, will be considered
only in unusual circumstances. For example, updates to CV will be denied.
Search Plan –
Selection Criteria
For the selection criteria -
• Establish criteria before files are screened so that they are all screened consistently.
• Criteria should be specific, directly related to the position description, can be assessed
and/or quantified based on the application materials, and reflect requirements of the
title.
• Selection criteria and position announcement congruent
Search Plan –
Evaluation/Ranking
Process, Search
and Selection
Process
For the Search and Selection Process
• Define Selection Plan in Search Plan to help avoid misunderstandings and mis-steps.
• Describe how Search Committee Members and faculty will be involved in screening files,
interviewing candidates, voting.
• Include a provision for preliminary interview process. Refer to VP Advisory for process
(insert link)
• Reminder - Applicant requests to replace application materials after review date, will be
considered only in unusual circumstances. For example, updates to CV will be denied.
• Search Committee Members must disclose any conflicts of interest with applicants
during applicant screening and define process moving forward. See Academic Advisory
(Insert link or Academic Advisory Number).
• Remind all reviewers (Search Committee & additional reviewers) how and when to
utilize Personal Note versus Public Comments in RECRUIT. Public Comments are
available to all reviewers and all notes are potentially discoverable. Limit comments to
those that are job related.
For Advertising –
• APM 500 requires that you advertise the position to internal potential candidates, i.e., Unit
18 appointees, those finishing their Ph.D.s, Post Docs.
• Recommend advertising through faculty colleagues by e-mail, letters, phone calls, or at
professional meetings.
• Recommend using national publications, personal contacts, listservs, mailing lists,
professional and academic conferences, and websites as it enhances the quality of the
applicant pools.
• Recommend advertising to diverse pool of applicants as well as utilizing diversity

10. GLW Consulting
AOFTF Academic Best Practices
journals/web sources.
• All advertisements must state that the University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative
Action employer.
• See Academic Advisory for additional recommended language in RECRUIT posting (Insert
link or Academic Advisory Number).
Shortlist Report(s) • Shortlist Report(s) must be approved prior to contacting applicants for both
Preliminary Interview and Campus Interview.
• See Academic Advisory for Preliminary Interview instructions for report submission
(See Academic Advisory 2015-05).
• Pool should reflect availability data and if not, next steps must be identified and
documented per School/College practice.
• Disposition reasons and/or non-selection documents must be clear and defensible.
• Recommended candidates for interview must have met qualifications regarding
specialty area.
Search Plan –
Interviews
• Interview process must follow what was described in approved Search Plan.
• Search Committee Members and additional reviewers must disclose any conflicts of
interest with applicants and define process moving forward. See Academic Advisory
(Insert link or Academic Advisory Number).
• Every candidate should be treated similarly.
• No personal questions may be asked. For example, don’t ask about marital status,
family, etc. (Refer to Recruitment & Retention of Academic Personnel Training
Presentation –Do’s and Don’ts (slide 51) or Tool Kit link when created).
• Recommend to send message to reviewers to be mindful about note taking because
notes are discoverable.
• UCOP General Counsel recommends during the interviews, hand out a form for note-
taking that says “This will be collected” at the top so that the reviewers understand
their notes will be collected for the recruitment record.
• Reminder - Remind all reviewers (Search Committee & additional reviewers) how and
when to utilize Personal Note versus Public Comments in RECRUIT. Public Comments
are available to all reviewers and all notes are potentially discoverable. Limit
comments to those that are job related.
Search Report • Recruit Analyst should preview Search Report to ensure all components are complete.
Any concerns should be highlighted and discussed with appropriate leadership.
• Search Report should be routed for approval process per School/College practice.
Record-Keeping • Recruitment records should be consolidated. Record keeping is critical if a search has
to be revisited.

11. GLW Consulting
AOFTF Academic Best Practices
UC RECRUIT Tip Sheet
Step in Recruitment
Process
Tips for using RECRUIT
Position Upgrade • Upgrade to position should be completed and approved prior to upload into
RECRUIT.
Appointment of
Search Committee
• Search committee should be listed in “Core Committee” in RECRUIT.
Search Committee
Duties
• Designate Completed Applicants as Meets Basic Qualifications or Does Not
Meet Basic Qualifications based upon minimum qualifications as Advertised.
• After Initial/Final Review Date, no additional Completed Applicants can be
moved forward in the process without prior approval from Dean’s Office.
Position
Description/Job
Announcement/Ad
• Everything must be included in the description field or it will not be viewable
by applicant.
• All versions of advertisement, need to be uploaded in RECRUIT under
Advertisements-Ad Documents
• All academic recruitments, as a default, require the Statement of
Contributions to Diversity to appear as an optional document upload for
applicants.
Search Plan –
Selection Criteria
• There are multiple disposition reasons that have been standardized across all
10 UCs and UCOP. For each category, five additional, customized disposition
reasons must be established at the time of the search plan submission.
• If it is decided to extend the deadline date for submitting applications, do not
request changes in RECRUIT until approval from Dean’s office is received.
Search Plan –
Evaluation/Ranking
Process, Search and
Selection Process
• Recommend entering the names and department affiliations of reviewers in
Selection Process-Selection Plan
• If you have a sample of ranking sheet or grid, recommend including it in the
Search Plan for approval in Documentation – Search Plan Documents.
Advertising • Until your Search Plan is approved in RECRUIT, you cannot conduct a Search
and you will not be allowed to publish and advertise your recruitment.
• Upload a proof of each ad, email or other advertising source in
Advertisements-Ad Evidences.
Shortlist Report(s) • Actual Search and Recruitment Efforts field under Advertisements section
must be completed prior to generating Shortlist Report(s).
Appendix B

12. GLW Consulting
AOFTF Academic Best Practices
Search Plan –
Interviews
• All notes that are taken should be uploaded into Interview Notes in Recruit.
• Search Committee evaluative notes should be uploaded in RECRUIT under
Interview Materials.
Search Report • Ensure Disposition Reasons are assigned to all interviewed applicants.
• Ensure applicants’ status has been updated throughout the process.
• Search Outcome section must be completed prior to generation of Search
Report.
Record-Keeping • Recommend uploading all documentation in Recruit in Documentation
– Letters and Memos and Documentation – Interview Materials.

13. GLW Consulting
AOFTF Academic Best Practices
UC RECRUIT Toolkit - DRAFT
Faculty recruitment has long been a paper-intensive process, creating an unnecessary
administrative burden both to the increasingly over-assigned staff and faculty committees
juggling multiple priorities. In 2011, the University of California selected UCI’s AP Recruit
system – used on that campus since 2006 – for system-wide deployment at all ten UC
Campuses.
Recruit provides for secure online academic employment recruitment management,
supporting the entire recruitment workflow form early approvals, opening recruitments,
applications, reference gathering, reviewing by the search committee, and, finally, selecting
a hired candidate. Reports are built-in to the system, providing for an easy way to create
the reports tha6t the University of California’s Office of the President uses to ensure all
campuses meet their requirements as equal opportunity employers. Recruit also ensures
the security and integrity of all applicant, reference, and related recruitment data.
Tips and FAQs
• Frequently Asked Questions and Answers
• Best Practices
• UC Recruit Tip Sheet
• Interviews – Do’s and Don’ts
• Help Desk
• UC RECRUIT Manual
Academic Advisories
• Fiscal Year 2014-15
• Fiscal Year 2013-14
Letters / Templates
• Sample Job Descriptions
• Sample Letters to Applicants
Note: All letters should be copied to ____
Training
• Online RECRUIT Training Presentation
Miscellaneous
• RECRUIT
• APM-500
Appendix C

14. GLW Consulting:
• Brian Groeschel
• Elizabeth Lincoln
• Christine Wolle
Project Sponsor
• Kelly Anders
Academic Recruitment Best
Practices Project
UC Davis Administrative Officers for the
Future Program
Appendix D

15. Project Background
• UC Davis Academic Affairs project to enhance
academic recruiting process
• UC Recruit - System-wide academic applicant
management and search committee tool
• Academic Affairs Help Desk Data supports
need for:
• Documented best practices
• Thorough set of FAQ’s

16. Project Objectives
• Conduct a series of focus groups to identify
commonalities or inconsistencies across the
schools/colleges.
• Identify potential best practices that the Dean’s Offices
and Academic Affairs need to communicate across the
schools/colleges.

17. Project Challenges
• Need consistency
• Need flexibility
• Recruit is used for all academic titles
• Time constraint
• Guiding focus group

18. Project Approach
• Training
• Academic Affairs Training - Recruit
• Academic Personnel Manual (APM -500)
• UC Recruit User Manual
• Help desk tickets
• Volunteer Participants
• College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
• College of Letters and Science
• School of Education
• School of Veterinary Medicine
• UC Davis Health System
• Focus Meetings
• April 20
• May 27
• June 8
• June 18

19. Deliverables
• Chart of Best Practices
• UC Recruit Tip Sheet
• Toolkit (Web based) – reorganize existing resources
to include:
• FAQs
• UC Recruit Tip Sheet
• APM-500
• UC Recruit User Manual
• Academic Affairs on line training
• Training Materials
• Templates

20. Project Deliverables
Best Practices

21. Project Deliverables
Tip sheet

22. Project Deliverables
ToolKit

23. Recommendations
• Utilize documented “best practices” in additional focus
group(s).
• As an alternative, consider written survey
• Consider transitioning focus group into academic forum
• Organize FAQ’s and relevant resources into a web-
based “tool kit”.
• Connects those using UC Recruit with resources and answers
• Links to relevant policies/procedures
• Showcases available training materials
• Provides useful sample letters and templates

24. THANK YOU!
Sponsors AOFTF
Kelly Anders Carina Celesia Moore
Kim Poole Kelly Crabtree
Marla Dolcini
Focus Group Participants
Annie Caruso
Cherie Felsch
Julie Fritz-Rubert
Jenni Mattheis
Mari Royer

25. Questions?