Abstract Body: At the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, we recognize the importance of increasing the diversity of our institution, but are faced with limited resources for recruitment and pipeline programs. Consequently, our leadership decided to strategically focus recruitment efforts for a targeted approach to diversity, with the intention of enhancing quality and impact. To do this, we utilized an inclusive systematic, data-driven process to re-evaluate and re-define the institution’s diversity. We enlisted support from our main campus partners from the Center for Student Cultural Diversity to provide a deeper context surrounding diversity recruitment and retention. This process aligned our diversity efforts with the mission of the school to strategically focus on groups for which we can demonstrate a commitment through policies, procedures, resources, and outcomes. This presentation will describe: 1) how to redefine an institution’s diversity categories to guide recruitment and retention activities, 2) the results of our assessment, and 3) how to use results to implement change. Two methods were utilized to obtain input regarding our recruitment strategies: focus groups and a survey. Focus groups were used to promote open discussion about diversity and inclusion at our institution and how diversity efforts can be both narrowed and improved to further advance our school’s mission. To preserve the transparency of the discussion, our external partners from the Center for Student Cultural Diversity led our focus groups. For broader participation, an online survey was utilized to acquire data representative of the school of medicine community. The survey asked respondents to rate how effective the school has been in creating a diverse and inclusive environment, how diversity efforts can be improved, and then asked respondents to identify 3-5 groups that our school should focus on for recruitment. The survey was emailed to all students, faculty, residents, and classified staff. Overall 35 people participated in the focus groups and 400 responded to the survey, for a response rate of 33.5%. There was clear consensus from the focus groups and survey in terms of how the school should strategically focus diversity efforts. In addition, the focus groups and survey provided rich data on why particular groups should be the focus, as well as suggestions for how diversity and inclusion can be improved. These results will be discussed, along with an overview of how these data are informing subsequent diversity and inclusion efforts and how this process can be used at other institutions.
