| | | 20,000+ Fresh Resumes Monthly | |
|
|
| |
Click here or scroll down to respond to this candidateLast Updated: April 25, 2024Candidate's Name
Employers who post jobs on ADPs recruiting platforms may refer to an applicants Candidate's Name provide additional information about the data these tools collect, store, and retain, and the results of the most recent impartial evaluations of these tools. 1. What is Candidate Relevancy?ADPs Candidate Relevancy and Profile Relevance tools (for ease of reference both will jointly be referred to as Candidate Relevancy unless otherwise noted) use artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms to conduct an initial review of an application, and are designed to be utilized by employers as one tool, among others, in the hiring process.1 Specifically, Candidate Relevancy conducts a mathematical assessment of how close the skills, education and/or experience on an applicants resume match the skills, education, and/or experience listed on the relevant job description. This process quantifies the relevance between the applicants resume and the job posting. The Candidate Relevancy model also leverages past decisions derived from millions of resumes and job descriptions where the selection decision is already known. The scores are intended to be used as one of many factors by an employer in determining who to advance to the next round in the hiring process. Candidate Relevancy is not intended to replace human judgment during any step of the recruitment process and is designed in such a way that there are no cut-off scores that would eliminate applicants from being visible to employers in the user interface. Employers are provided access to all applications, enabling them to make human decisions on which candidates to pursue.2. How is the Candidate Relevancy score determined? The Candidate Relevancy model first parses the information concerning the education, experience, and skills contained in the applicants resume or application and in the relevant job description. This information is formatted to allow a mathematical assessment to be conducted of how close the applicants education, skills, and experience match those found in the relevant 1 The Candidate Relevancy score is displayed to employers using ADPs Recruitment Management product, while the Profile Relevance score is displayed to employers using ADPs WorkforceNow Recruitment platform.job description. Candidate Relevancy does not extract or utilize the applicants name, address, race, ethnicity, gender or protected demographic information. Each job requisition is classified using a job and sector taxonomy. The Candidate Relevancy model creates three sub-scores indicating how close the applicants education, skills, and experience matches those found in the job description. The three scores are then weighted to create the Candidate Relevancy Score. The weights sum to 1 and reflect the relative importance of each component. Since the job descriptions do not define the importance of each component, the importance (i.e., the weights) must be estimated empirically from the data. Separate weights are created for each sector in which the open job resides. The weights are determined by a machine learning model.The resulting weighted score (the final Candidate Relevancy score) is intended to be used by an employer as only one tool, among others, to aid in the selection of whom to interview or prioritize during the hiring pipeline.3. What data does Candidate Relevancy collect and what are ADPs retention policies regarding the information?Type of Data Collected from Retention PolicyResume data ADP Workforce Now Recruitment or ADPRecruitment ManagementThree yearsJob descriptions ADP WorkforceNow Recruitment orADP Recruitment ManagementThree years4. Is Candidate Relevancy an automated employment decision tool covered by New York City Local Law 144 (the NYC Ordinance)?The NYC Ordinance covers automated screening or selection tools that provide outputsuch as scores, classifications, or recommendationsto an employer, and which are used to significantly assist or substitute a humans decision-making process. Under the NYC Ordinance, to substantially assist or substitute a humans decision-making process means: (1) to rely solely on a simplified output without consideration to other factors; (2) to use a simplified output as a consideration in a list of criteria but weight the output more heavily than other criteria the set; or (3) to use the output to overrule human decision-making conclusions. Candidate Relevancy is not intended by ADP to be relied upon solely by employers in making employment decisions and is not meant to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making in employment decisions. Moreover, Candidate Relevancy is not intended to be used as a criterion that is weighted more than any other criterion in making employment decisions and is not intended to be used to overrule conclusions derived from other factors, including human decision-making.Candidate Relevancy is intended to be one source of assistance in helping to prioritize candidates selected for next steps. Education, skills, and experience must be evaluated and validated by employers through person-to-person interviews and background checks, among other things. Candidate Relevancy is not intended to replace human judgment during any step of the recruitment process and is designed in such a way that there are no cut-off scores that would eliminate candidates from being visible to employers in the user interface. Employers are thereby provided access to all candidates, enabling them to make human decisions on which candidates to pursue.If Candidate Relevancy is used as intended by ADP, ADP does not believe Candidate Relevancy to be an automated employment decision tool as defined by the New York City Ordinance and its related final rules.Nothing herein is intended to be a legal opinion and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with an attorney before taking any action in reliance on the information provided herein including whether Candidate Relevancy is an automated employment decision tool. 5. Did ADP conduct a bias audit on Candidate Relevancy? Yes. At ADP integrity is everything and is at the foundation of how we design and develop our solutions and services. Although ADP believes that Candidate Relevancy, if used as intended by ADP, does not fall within the scope of the NYC Ordinance, ADP is committed to ensuring that transparency and accountability is embedded in ADPs offerings. ADP obtained an independent bias audit of Candidate Relevancy and Profile Relevance from BLDS, LLC, an independent auditor, in April of 2024. The independent auditors concluded that no valid statistical evidence of bias is present in the scoring produced by Candidate Relevancy or Profile Relevance.6. What was the result of the bias audit conducted on Candidate Relevancy? In April of 2024, an independent auditor, BLDS, LLC, performed an impartial evaluation of Candidate Relevancy. The independent auditors concluded that no valid statistical evidence of bias is present.A summary of the scoring rates and impact ratios2 based on sex and race/ethnicity and the intersection of sex and race/ethnicity, and adjusted for Simpsons Paradox, are set forth in the following charts:Sex CategoriesApplicants Scoring Rate Impact RatioFemale 1,030,417 49.6% 1.000Male 868,162 48.5% 0.979Unknown Gender 1,838,419 -- --Race/Ethnicity CategoriesApplicants Scoring Rate Impact RatioAsian 233,768 45.6% 0.874Black or African American 452,625 48.9% 0.938Hispanic or Latino 320,000 49.7% 0.954Two or More Races 72,612 50.4% 0.966White 716,986 52.2% 1.000Unknown Race/Ethnicity 1,948,813 -- --Intersectional CategoriesApplicants Scoring Rate Impact RatioFemaleAsian 98,422 47.0% 0.905Black or AfricanAmerican 278,254 48.7% 0.937Hispanic 159,439 49.4% 0.950Two or More Races 39,307 50.3% 0.968White 368,641 52.0% 1.000MaleAsian 125,704 43.7% 0.840Black or AfricanAmerican 159,754 47.7% 0.919Hispanic 145,714 48.9% 0.941Two or More Races 25,232 49.2% 0.947White 346,179 50.5% 0.972Unknown Intersectionality 1,988,994 -- --American Indian or Alaska Natives or the Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders were not included in computing the Impact Ratio because both categories had less than 1% of the population and the New York City Ordinance does not require their inclusion when computing the 2 Consistent with the New York City Ordinance, impact ratio means either (1) the selection rate for a category divided by the selection rate of the most selected category or (2) the scoring rate for a category divided by the scoring rate for the highest scoring category. Impact Ratio. In the opinion of the independent auditors, the inclusion of such small numbers would allow the race/ethnicity or intersectional categories of American Indian or Alaska Natives or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders to be the highest selection rate based on a small number of cases. Allowing such a small sample as the reference group to judge other categories is questionable as the standard for judging the results of other categories for many jobs/sectors would be set based on only a handful of cases. The table below reports the data adjusted for Simpsons Paradox on the categories that were not used in computing the Impact Ratio. Populations Less Than 1%Applicants Scoring RateNative American / Alaska Native 6,382 48.1%Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 4,667 50.8%Female Native American / Alaska Native 3,508 48.5% Male Native American / Alaska Native 2,276 48.6%Female Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 2,073 45.8% Male Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 1,765 50.8% This analysis was conducted across all uses of Candidate's Name should be taken as a guarantee that a particular clients use of Candidate Relevancy will never result in adverse impact or bias. 7. What was the result of the bias audit conducted on Profile Relevance? An independent bias audit of Profile Relevance was also conducted by BLDS, LLC in April of 2024.3 The independent auditors concluded that no valid statistical evidence of bias is present. This analysis defined selection as candidates placed in the High category and in the High or Medium category. A summary of the selection rates and impact ratios based on sex and race/ethnicity and the intersection of sex and race/ethnicity, and adjusted for Simpsons Paradox, are set forth in the following charts:Sex CategoriesSelection Classified as HighApplicants Selections Scoring Rate Impact RatioFemale 5,633,755 2,285,051 40.6% 1.000Male 4,667,322 1,874,397 40.2% 0.990Selection Classified as High or MediumApplicants Selections Scoring Rate Impact RatioFemale 5,767,615 4,267,458 74.0% 1.0003 Candidate Relevancy and Profile Relevance rely on the same algorithm to produce a numerical relevancy score (1 to 100). Candidate Relevancy displays the numerical score (1 to 100) to recruiters, while Profile Relevance converts the numerical score into a High, Medium, or Low relevancy category. Because the interface is different at this time, ADP obtained separate independent bias audits for Candidate Relevancy and Profile Relevance.Male 4,798,518 3,536,508 73.7% 0.996Unknown Sex 4,031,410 -- -- --Race / Ethnicity CategoriesSelection Classified as HighApplicants Selections Scoring Rate Impact RatioAsian 692,402 268,583 38.8% 0.934Black or AfricanAmerican2,374,766 969,379 40.8% 0.983Hispanic or Latino 1,646,306 678,113 41.2% 0.992Two or More Races 371,327 154,249 41.5% 1.000White 3,587,705 1,470,600 41.0% 0.987Selection Classified as High or MediumApplicants Selections Scoring Rate Impact RatioAsian 718,638 524,534 73.0% 0.972Black or AfricanAmerican 2,414,565 1,795,712 74.4% 0.990Hispanic or Latino 1,676,917 1,253,999 74.8% 0.996 Two or More Races 375,123 281,717 75.1% 1.000White 3,683,029 2,754,906 74.8% 0.996Unknown Race/Ethnicity 6,116,411 -- -- --Intersectional CategoriesSelection Classified as HighApplicants Selections ScoringRateImpact RatioFemaleAsian 302,583 118,824 39.3% 0.926Black orAfricanAmerican946,081 384,014 40.6% 0.957Hispanic/Latino 861,334 356,765 41.4% 0.977Two or MoreRaces 207,645 88,041 42.4% 1.000White 1,885,642 770,850 40.9% 0.964MaleAsian 357,504 136,710 38.2% 0.902Black orAfricanAmerican946,081 384,014 40.6% 0.957Hispanic/Latino 730,545 299,231 41.0% 0.966Two or MoreRaces 133,167 56,023 42.1% 0.992White 1,637,864 661,369 40.4% 0.952Selection Classified as High or MediumApplicants Selections ScoringRateImpact RatioFemaleAsian 312,571 229,396 73.4% 0.933Black orAfricanAmerican1,395,522 1,040,362 74.6% 0.963Hispanic/Latino 874,174 653,795 74.8% 0.954Two or MoreRaces 209,140 157,712 75.4% 0.984White 1,932,941 1,440,814 74.5% 0.950MaleAsian 370,579 268,744 72.5% 0.928Black orAfricanAmerican962,302 714,221 74.2% 0.961Hispanic/Latino 743,116 554,810 74.7% 0.958Two or MoreRaces 134,099 101,607 75.8% 1.00White 1,688,353 1,254,615 74.3% 0.947Unknown Intersectional 6,286,786 -- -- --American Indian or Alaska Natives or the Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders were not included in computing the Impact Ratio because both categories had less than 1% of the population, and the New York City Ordinance does not require their inclusion when computing the Impact Ratio. In the opinion of the independent auditors, the inclusion of such small numbers would allow the race/ethnicity or intersectional categories of American Indian or Alaska Natives or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders to be the highest selection rate based on a trivial number of cases. Allowing such a small sample as the reference group to judge other categories is questionable as the standard for judging the results of other categories for many jobs/sectors would be set based on only a handful of cases. The table below reports the data, adjusted for Simpsons Paradox, on the categories that were not used in computing the Impact Ratio. Populations Less Than 1%Selection Classified as HighApplicants Selections Selection RateNative American / AlaskaNative 44,790 20,129 44.9%Native Hawaiian / PacificIslander 26,195 12,309 47.0%Female Native American /Alaska Native 22,379 10,263 45.9%Male Native American / AlaskaNative 15,442 7,505 48.6%Female Native Hawaiian /Pacific Islander 12,875 6,314 49.0%Male Native Hawaiian / PacificIslander 8,963 4,647 51.9%Selection Classified as High or MediumApplicants Selections Selection RateNative American / AlaskaNative 44,865 34,595 77.1%Native Hawaiian / PacificIslander 26,214 20,793 79.3%Female Native American /Alaska Native 22,415 17,349 77.4%Male Native American / AlaskaNative 15,442 12,210 79.1%Female Native Hawaiian /Pacific Islander 12,903 10,319 80.0%Male Native Hawaiian / PacificIslander 8,978 7,296 81.3%This analysis was conducted across all uses of Profile Relevance where sufficient self-ID information was available. Nothing in these FAQs should be taken as a guarantee that a particular clients use of Profile Relevance will never result in adverse impact or bias. 8. Can applicants opt out of having their resume reviewed by Candidate Relevancy? What happens if someone opts out?All applicants are included in the applicant queue for a recruiter to review. Individuals applying through ADPs recruiting platforms can choose not to have their application reviewed by Candidate Relevancy or Profile Relevance tools. Each opt-out choice is job-specific and opts the candidate out for the specific job posting only. For applicants who have chosen to opt out, their score will be listed as Not Available, which is the same indicator used if a relevancy score is unavailable for reasons other than opt-out (e.g., technical issues, poor resolution on resume pdf, etc.).ADPs Commitment to Ethical Artificial Intelligence For more information about ADPs commitment to ethical artificial intelligence please refer to https://www.adp.com/about-adp/artificial-intelligence.aspx. For any questions or inquiries, please contact AIEthics@adp.com. This document and all of its contents is the property of ADP, Inc. This document is for information purposes only. Diagrams, tables, percentages and/or outcomes used in this document is for illustration purposes only. Individual outcomes vary by customer. ADPs customers are solely responsible for its use of ADP technology. ADP will not be responsible for any liability, loss or damage of any kind resulting from or connected with the use of this document. |
