Budget Office. Faculty Salary Study FY

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Budget Office. Faculty Salary Study FY"

Eustace Beasley
5 years ago
Views:

1 Budget Office Faculty Salary Study FY

2 FORT LEWIS COLLEGE Faculty Salary Study FY Table of Contents Page Narrative Appendices A Summary by School and Department...9 B Public Baccalaureate Peer Institutions...10 C Model Assumptions...12

3 FORT LEWIS COLLEGE Faculty Salary Study FY This study is the 16th annual update of the original Faculty Salary Study, which was first issued in October, The original study and those updates prior to, used information compiled by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and analyzed average salary information for all faculty members at each rank, regardless of discipline. However, the study methodology changed in the FY / update. The study now uses survey information from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CU) that considers discipline, rank and years at rank. The methodology employed in the study was reviewed and refined in the academic year by the Equity Subcommittee of the Task Force on Hiring and Retaining Quality Faculty. Further refinements were made by the subcommittee in the fall of 2010, incorporating feedback received from the faculty regarding the results. Purpose of the Study The CU-Based Faculty Salary Analysis was developed in an effort to determine how individual Fort Lewis College (FLC) faculty salaries compared to peer averages. This analysis compares FLC salaries for Tenured, Tenure Track, and One Year Renewable faculty members to peer information by discipline and rank, and incorporates years in rank. Description of the Data and Assumptions The analysis uses data from the CU annual National Faculty Salary Survey by Discipline and Rank in Four-Year Colleges and Universities. The Budget Office subscribes to the CU Data on Demand service which allows for customization of peer groups and reports. Peer Group The peer group utilized consists of 134 public baccalaureate institutions (Public Bac), listed in Appendix B. Where Public Bac data are not available for a discipline or rank, the peer group moves to all baccalaureate institutions, public and private. If no data are available in this second category for a discipline or rank, the study uses all public institutions as the peer group. For School of Business Administration faculty members, the first peer group used is Undergraduate only AACSB institutions. If no data are available for a particular comparison, the peer group moves through the peer groups in the order listed above. Base Salaries Historically, faculty salary increases have been allocated using two parts; Merit Level I and Merit Level II. Typically, Merit Level I takes the form of an across the board percentage increase for all or nearly all faculty. The percentage is based upon 80% of the overall increase established for faculty and exempt staff. For instance, if the average increase is 3.0%, the percentage allocated to Merit I would equate to 2.4% (3.0% X 80%). The remainder of the salary increase is then allocated to Merit Level II increases. Merit II recommendations are made through a School-based process usually involving the department and/or school Personnel Committee and its Dean. The Provost and the President review and approve or deny Level II Merit recommendations. Merit II awards are intended to Page 1

4 reward exceptional performance and, as such, Merit II is awarded to a maximum of 20% of each school s faculty. The following chart shows maximum Merit I increases and Merit II allocation over the last ten years: Fiscal Year Merit I 3.00% 0.00% 4.00% 0.00% 3.00% 2.40% 2.40% 2.40% 3.20% 0.00% 0.00% Merit II.75% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.60% 0.60% 0.60% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% Further Refinements Incorporated in FY Based upon feedback received from various faculty members regarding the information released in May 2010, the following refinements have been incorporated into the study. Study results for are shown as originally reported and adjusted for this feedback. FY results include the adjustments. Issue 1: The percentages used to determine starting salary of an Associate or Full professor could lead to that starting salary being lower than the Maximum of the next lowest rank. Refinement: Where the calculated starting salary of a rank is lower than the calculated ending salary of the next lowest rank, establish a new starting salary for the higher rank. The new range starting salary will equate to the ending salary of the lower rank increased by the promotion increment for the appropriate rank. Issue 2: Peer group data from the Public Baccalaureate group was not available for some disciplines. When data was not available from this peer group, the next peer group used was All Baccalaureate institutions and then All Public institutions. The second two peer groups produced salaries that were considerably higher than the main peer group. When comparing those disciplines that had data in all three peer groups the following variances (by average and median) were calculated. % Change from Public Baccalaureate Average Salary ( ) All Baccalaureate Institutions All Public Institutions Average Professor 4.2% 16.7% Associate 2.7% 12.0% Assistant 0.9% 10.9% Instructor 0.1% 1.9% Median Professor 3.2% 15.6% Associate 3.3% 11.3% Assistant 2.9% 9.7% Instructor 0.2% 2.2% Page 2

5 Refinement: Where comparison data is not available in the Public Baccalaureate peer group, choose the next available peer group and reduce the peer group data by the factor contained in the table below. All Baccalaureate Institutions All Public Institutions Professor 3% 16% Associate 3% 11% Assistant 3% 10% Instructor 0% 2% Issue 3: Long time Full Professors are penalized in that years of service above the maximum years used in the study are not counted in the equity calculation. Refinement: The maximum range of full professors exceeding max years at rank is increased by 3% per year above the maximum years. Applying the Model to Individual Salaries Utilizing the assumptions shown in Appendix C, a peer salary and an adjusted salary are calculated for each faculty member. In determining the peer salary for an individual faculty member, the CU average for the specific discipline and rank is multiplied by a factor, found in Appendix C, based upon that individual s number of years at rank. The adjusted salary is then calculated by subtracting the value of Merit II increases received by an individual since FY from the individual s actual salary. Finally, the adjusted salary is divided by the peer salary to determine how an individual s salary compares to peer average. The resulting figure, expressed as a percentage, is called the Peer Ratio. Summary of Peer Comparison Salaries of permanently budgeted faculty members for and were analyzed using the methodology and adjustments outlined above. Two results are shown for, the original methodology and the methodology adjusted for feedback. FY figures reflect the adjusted methodology only. The following tables reflect summaries for the entire institution, by school and rank, by gender and rank and by ethnic origin and rank. Because of the limited number of Instructors, information regarding gender and ethnic origin is not calculated for this group. Information regarding peer ratios by school and departments can be in found in Appendix A. Page 3

6 Fort Lewis College Faculty Peer Ratio by Rank Original Adjusted FY Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Overall Tenured/Tenure Track Fort Lewis College Faculty Peer Ratio By Rank and School/Division Original Adjusted FY Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Overall Tenured/Tenure Track Business Administration Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Overall Tenured/Tenure Track Page 4

7 Fort Lewis College Faculty Peer Ratio By Rank and School/Division (continued) Original Adjusted FY Natural & Behavioral Sciences Instructor Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Overall Tenured/Tenure Track Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs Instructor n/a n/a 91.4 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Overall Tenured/Tenure Track Page 5

8 Fort Lewis College Faculty Peer Ratio By Rank and Gender Original Adjusted FY Assistant Professor Female Male Associate Professor Female Male Full Professor Female Male Overall Female Male Fort Lewis College Faculty Peer Ratio By Rank and Ethnic Origin Original Adjusted FY Assistant Professor Ethnic Origin Non-ethnic Origin Associate Professor Ethnic Origin Non-ethnic Origin Full Professor Ethnic Origin Non-ethnic Origin Overall Ethnic Origin Non-ethnic Origin Page 6

9 FY Salary Action As part of the FY budget process, the President s Budget Committee developed the following goal: The College should strive to raise faculty salaries to an average of 100% of peer salaries within the next three to five years, while also accounting for the higher cost of living in Durango by adding a dollar amount, to be known as the Durango Factor, to each faculty member s salary. The Budget Committee should annually review the CU Based Faculty Salary Analysis and adjust planning efforts as necessary. After considering a number of allocation methodologies and the amount of funding available for equity increases, the Subcommittee recommended to the Budget Committee, who recommended to the President and Board of Trustees the following equity increases to FY faculty salaries: If The Current Peer Ratio Is: Then The Equity Increase Is: Less than or equal to 80% 8.0% Greater than 80% and less than or equal to 85% 6.0% Greater than 85% and less than or equal to 90% 4.0% Greater than 90% and less than or equal to 95% 1.5% Greater than 95% 0.0% Based upon FY comparison data, and assuming peer institutions did not provide faculty salary increases in FY above the merit increase awarded to faculty, the recommended increases should raise the overall Tenured/Tenure Track Peer Ratio from 88.6% to an estimated 92.1%, with individual salary comparisons ranging from a low of 80.8% to a high of 110.6% of Peer Ratio. The anticipated distribution by rank is shown below: FY FY (est) Instructor Assistant Associate Full Professor Overall Tenured/Tenure Track Page 7

10 Additionally, the equity adjustments should narrow the variances between schools, gender and ethnic origin. Projecting into FY and FY , an average faculty equity adjustment of 3.5%, in addition to the regular Merit increases, should result in increasing the Peer Ratio to approximately 95.0% and 99.0%, respectively. Page 8

11 APPENDIX A Summary by School and Department Original Adjusted FY School of Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences Sociology & Human Services Art English Writing Program Theater Modern Language Philosophy Political Science Music History Southwest Studies School of Business Administration Accounting Business Management Computer Science Economics Finance International Business n/a Legal Studies Marketing School of Natural & Behavioral Sciences Anthropology Mathematics Biology & Agriculture Physics & Engineering Chemistry Geology Exercise Science Pyschology Adventure Education Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs Teacher Education Page 9

12 APPENDIX B Public Baccalaureate Peer Institutions Alfred State College Athens State University Black Hills State University Bluefield State College California Maritime Academy California State University- Channel Islands California State University- Monterey Bay Central State University Chadron State College Charter Oak State College Christopher Newport University City University of New York Medgar Evers College City University of New York York College Clayton State University Coastal Carolina University Colorado State University-Pueblo Concord University Dakota State University Dalton State College Dickinson State University Dixie State College of Utah Elizabeth City State University Fairmont State University Farmingdale State College Fashion Institute of Technology Fort Lewis College Georgia Gwinnett College Glenville State College Granite State College Great Basin College Harris-Stowe State University Indiana University East Indiana University Kokomo Kent State University Ashtabula Kent State University Geauga Kent State University Stark Kent State University Trumbull Kentucky State University AL SD CA CA CA NE CT VA GA SC CO SD GA ND UT NC CO GA NH NV MO IN IN KY Lake Superior State University Lander University Langston University Lewis-Clark State College Louisiana State University at Alexandria Lyndon State College Macon State College Maine Maritime Academy Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts MI SC OK ID LA VT GA ME MA Massachusetts Maritime Academy MA Mayville State University Mesa State College Metropolitan State College of Denver Missouri Southern State University ND CO CO MO Missouri Western State University MO Montana State University - Northern Montana Tech of The University of Montana Nevada State College New College of Florida New York City College of Technology/City University of New York Northern State University Northwestern Oklahoma State University Ohio University Chillicothe Ohio University Eastern Ohio University Lancaster MT MT NV FL SD OK Ohio University Southern Ohio University Zanesville Branch Oklahoma Panhandle State University Oregon Institute of Technology Penn State Abington Penn State Altoona Penn State Beaver Penn State Berks Penn State Brandywine Penn State DuBois OK OR Page 10

13 Penn State Erie, The Behrend College Penn State Fayette, The Eberly Penn State Greater Allegheny Penn State Hazleton Penn State Lehigh Valley Penn State Mont Alto Penn State New Kensington Penn State Schuylkill Penn State Shenango Penn State Wilkes-Barre Penn State Worthington-Scranton Penn State York Pennsylvania College of Technology Peru State College Purdue University North Central Rogers State University Shawnee State University Shepherd University Southern Arkansas University State University of New York College at Old Westbury State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill State University of New York College of Technology at Delhi St. Mary's College of Maryland Texas A & M University at Galveston The Ohio State University at Marion The Ohio State University Mansfield The University of Maine at Augusta The University of Montana - Western The University of Virginia's College at Wise Thomas Edison State College University of Arkansas at Fort Smith NE IN OK AR MD TX ME MT VA NJ AR University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff University of Hawaii at Hilo University of Hawaii - West Oahu University of Houston - Downtown AR HI HI TX University of Maine at Farmington ME University of Maine at Fort Kent University of Maine at Machias University of Maine at Presque Isle University of Minnesota- Crookston University of Minnesota-Morris University of New Hampshire at Manchester University of North Carolina at Asheville University of Pittsburgh at Bradford University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma University of South Carolina Aiken University of South Carolina Upstate University of Wisconsin-Green Bay University of Wisconsin-Parkside Utah Valley University Valley City State University Vermont Technical College Virginia Military Institute Western State College West Liberty University West Virginia State University West Virginia University at Parkersburg West Virginia University Institute of Technology Winston-Salem State University ME ME ME MN MN NH NC OK SC SC WI WI UT ND VT VA CO NC Page 11

14 APPENDIX C Model Assumptions In order to account for experience, the study makes assumptions regarding the maximum years at rank and the starting and ending salaries as a percentage of the CU average. The assumptions are as follows: Max Years at Rank Starting Salary as a Percent of CU Average Ending Salary as a Percent of CU Average Instructor 12 85% 117% Assistant Professor 6 93% 108% Associate 7 91% 109% Professor Full Professor 18 81% 122% In determining the target salary for an individual faculty member, the CU average for the specific discipline and rank is multiplied by the percentages above to establish a Starting (A) and Ending (B) salary. The number of years an individual faculty member has been at rank is divided by the Max Years at Rank to determine the Percent of Maximum (C). The formula for an individual faculty member is calculated as follows: Starting Salary + ((Ending Salary Starting Salary) * Percent of Maximum) = Target Salary Page 12

Exempt Staff Salary Study FY

Exempt Staff Salary Study FY 2016-17 Budget Office FORT LEWIS COLLEGE Exempt Staff Salary Study FY 2016-17 Table of Contents Page Narrative... 1-4 Appendices A Public Baccalaureate Peer Institutions...5