Minnesota State
Colleges and Universities
Faculty Pay Equity Analysis - St. Cloud
Campus Presentations
March 31 - April 4, 2003
Agenda

Project objectives and project steps

Focus group and interview findings

Pay equity strategy recommendations

Statistical analysis, findings and recommendations

Alternatives for pay equity adjustments

Ongoing compensation administration recommendations
Draft/Confidential
1
Project Objectives
Project Objectives

The goal of the project is to identify any salary disparities and
make recommendations to address fixing them. Objectives are to:
 Identify disparities in salaries among all similarly situated nonadjunct university faculty.
 Present viable options for reducing disparities.
 Recommend changes that would reduce the potential for salary
disparities arising in the future.
 Clearly communicate the results to the SRC and each of the 7
campuses.
Draft/Confidential
3
Project Steps
1. Project planning (99-02)
2. Data gathering and cleaning (00-02)
3. Understanding the organization and develop
compensation philosophy (Nov - Dec 02)
4. Data analysis (Jan 03 - Feb 03)
5. Findings review and final report (Feb 03 - Mar 03)
6. Communication of results (Mar 03 - Apr 03)
Draft/Confidential
4
Roles

Salary Review Committee (SRC) – advisor to MnSCU & IFO.

Consultant – advisor to MnSCU and IFO, facilitator, expertise
provider.

IFO/Administration -- responsible for bargaining
compensation.

Administration – accountable for implementing the outcomes
from the collective bargaining process.
Draft/Confidential
5
Salary Review Committee (SRC)
Faculty
MnSCU

Pat Arseneault - IFO staff

Jan Anderson - Metropolitan

Vicky Brockman - Southwest


Ernie Grieshaber - Mankato
Chris Dale -- Office of the
Chancellor

Becky Omdahl - Metropolitan

Ken Gorman -- Winona

Pat Samuel - St. Cloud

Gary Janikowski -- Office of the
Chancellor

Tracy Scholl - Feminist Issues
Committee (Moorhead)

A.I. Musah -- St. Cloud

Karen Sterner - Multicultural Issues
Committee (Southwest)

Judy Strong -- Moorhead

Mandy Wick - Bemidji
Draft/Confidential
6
Consultants - HayGroup
Established in
Philadelphia in 1943
34 countries/70 cities
23 North American
locations
Human Resources &
Compensation
Consulting Firm
Draft/Confidential
7
Focus Group and Interview
Findings
Focus Group and Interview Process

Hay conducted two days of focus groups and interviews
with SRC members and other faculty and administrative
representatives to develop a better understanding of:
 Perceptions regarding pay equity.
 Issues impacting pay equity analysis and modeling.
 Perceptions about faculty salary administration
processes.
Draft/Confidential
9
Focus Group/Interview Participants
Faculty
MnSCU

SRC Members

SRC Members

Frank Conroy, IFO Dir Labor
Relations

Jim Lee, Compensation Specialist

John Shabatura, AVC Labor
Relations

Linda Skallman, AVC Personnel

Bill Tschida, Vice Chancellor

Jim Pehler, IFO President

Faculty Association Presidents
Draft/Confidential
10
Faculty Perceptions on Equity

Primary driver of project perceived to be pay equity along gender
lines.

Comments ranging from “there are inequities all over the place” to
“our campus doesn’t have any problems, but others do.”

Many believe pay disparities are caused by initial hiring salaries.

Some believe bias in administration of promotions.

Belief of compression in pay with longer service faculty.
Draft/Confidential
11
Faculty Perceptions on Equity (cont.)

Allow ALL faculty to be eligible for potential pay equity
adjustments, rather than restricting adjustments to members of a
protected class.

Provide for pay treatment on an individual (vs. member of a group)
basis.

We need to show evidence of reducing the pay equity gap over
time, not necessarily eliminating the gap. A multi-year phasing is
OK.
Draft/Confidential
12
Administration Perceptions on
Equity

Consider a broad based definition of equity, incorporating many
elements rather than just gender and ethnicity.

Allow ALL faculty to be eligible for potential pay equity
adjustments, rather than restricting adjustments to members of a
protected class.

Provide for pay treatment on an individual (vs. member of a group)
basis.

We need to show evidence of reducing the pay equity gap over
time, not necessarily eliminating the gap. A multi-year phasing is
OK.
Draft/Confidential
13
Administration Perceptions on
Equity (cont.)

Turnover in administrators impacts ability to adequately
understand the collective bargaining agreement and compensation
administration processes.

Most of the compensation administration policies are viewed as
reasonable. The primary concern is in the execution and
administration of the policies.

Improve system level value-added administrative processes.
Draft/Confidential
14
Collective Perceptions of Work
Culture/Climate

High levels of distrust in the organization.

Tension/animosity between the faculty and administration in many
facets of the employee/employer relationship.

This study needs to result in a calming of the waters. The study
needs to be received as credible and thorough.
Draft/Confidential
15
Pay Equity Strategy
Recommendations
Definition of Pay Equity

Working definition of pay equity:
 Parity in salaries when considering all pertinent factors influencing
pay, which can be objectively and consistently collected and which
are logically related and/or statistically predictive of salaries.
 These factors include:
Discipline
 Rank
 Tenure Status
 Highest Degree
 # Years in Rank
 # Years Other MnSCU Experience
 # Years Prior Experience
 # Years Since Highest Degree

Draft/Confidential
17
Definition of Pay Equity



This definition of equity will be monitored by these factors at both the
campus and system level
Equity will also be monitored by gender/ethnicity status at the
campus level.
This definition of equity does not include the following factors:
Campus location
 Rank at time of hire
 Other variables not collected by MnSCU because they are either not
relevant or not feasible to collect. For example,
– Scholarly reputation
– Salary at time of hire
– Employee performance ratings

Draft/Confidential
18
Statistical Analyses and
Findings
Statistical Analyses

Hay performed statistical analyses using the total population
model for purposes of identifying pay disparities for protected
classes within each campus.
 Used the following variables.


Checked academic rank variable for “taint”.


Discipline, Rank, Tenure Status, Highest Degree, # Years in Rank,
# Years Other MnSCU experience, # Years Prior Experience, # Years
Since Highest Degree
Taint in rank MAY mask statistically significant differences in pay
Checked for compression in salaries by rank.

Degree that incremental salary growth diminishes over time.
Draft/Confidential
20
Key Findings (2002)

Base salaries examined for 2001-02 and included lawsuit-related
adjustments for Bemidji, Moorhead and St. Cloud.

There are NO statistically significant negative differences in pay by
protected class status on ANY MnSCU campus.
 There were, however, negative differences in pay by protected class
status, but none were statistically significant.
 There were also some statistically significant positive differences in
pay.

Across all campuses, there are high levels of salary variance
explained by the independent variables, which suggests a strong
relationship between salary and predictor variables.
 Adjusted R2 ranges from .78 to .92 across all campuses.
Draft/Confidential
21
Key Findings (1997)

There are MORE statistically significant pay differences with
protected class faculty in the 1997 (vs. 2002) employee population.
 Four campuses (Bemidji, Moorhead, St. Cloud, Southwest) with
statistically significant negative differences in average salaries
between individual protected classes and white males.
 Two campuses (Bemidji and Southwest) with statistically significant
differences in average salaries between protected classes and white
males as a block/group.

MnSCU campuses have reduced protected class pay disparities
between 1997-2002.
Draft/Confidential
22
Key Findings (2002 and 1997)

Consultants assessed system and campus level changes over time
in R2 and the standard deviation of residuals.
 R2 have remained consistently high over time -- i.e., high
percentage of variance explained in salaries.
Campus
Bemidji
Mankato
Metropolitan
Moorhead
Southwest
St Cloud
Winona
System
2002
Adj.
R2
0.91
0.90
0.78
0.92
0.85
0.89
0.91
0.88
Draft/Confidential
1997
Adj.
R2
0.92
0.89
0.76
0.92
0.93
0.89
0.89
0.88
23
Campus Level Findings
Findings - St. Cloud (2002)

No statistically significant differences in average salaries between
protected classes and white males, as a block or by separate category.

High level of Adjusted R2 meaning that 89% of the variance in salaries is
attributable to independent variables.
Total Population Model
With Ethnicity Gender Variables.
white female
asian pac island female
hispanic female
african american male
asian pac island male
unknown
under-rep female
under-rep male
N
233
17
8
19
39
22
7
11
653
Unstdrzed
Beta
575
-325
42
463
585
746
2202
-1339
Variance Explained in 2002 Salary
By Structural and Ethnicity-Gender Variables
Sig.
0.15
0.76
0.98
0.65
0.44
0.44
0.18
0.31
Model R Sq
1 0.902
2 0.903
Adj
R Sq
Sig F
R Sq Change Change
0.893
0.902
0.000
0.893
0.001
0.623
Model 1: Total Population Model w/o Ethicity/Gender
Model 2: Total Population Model w/ Ethnicity/Gender
Conventional statistical significance of F Change is .05 or less.
Note: conventional statistical significance is .05 or less.
Reference category is white male
Draft/Confidential
25
Findings - St. Cloud (1997)

Statistically significant differences in average salaries between white
females and white males.

No statistically significant differences in average salaries between
protected classes and white males, as a block.

High level of Adjusted R2 meaning that 89% of the variance in salaries is
attributable to independent variables.
Total Population Model
With Ethnicity Gender Variables.
white female
asian pac island female
under-rep female
african american male
asian pac island male
under-rep male
Unstdrzed
Beta
-851
-37
-681
-532
303
-1133
Variance Explained in 1997 Salary
By Structural and Ethnicity-Gender Variables
Sig.
0.01
0.98
0.60
0.59
0.69
0.35
Model R Sq
1 0.898
2 0.899
Adj
R Sq
R Sq Change
0.887
0.898
0.887
0.002
Sig F
Change
0.000
0.366
Model 1: Total Population Model w/o Ethicity/Gender
Model 2: Total Population Model w/ Ethnicity/Gender
Conventional statistical significance of F Change is .05 or less.
Note: conventional statistical significance is .05 or less.
Reference category is white male
Draft/Confidential
26
Findings - St. Cloud (2002 & 1997)

We did not find statistically significant levels of salary bias by
protected classes after the rank variable was dropped from the
model in the 2002 data set.
 In the 1997 data set, we did not find significant levels of salary bias
in any of the other protected classes (besides white females) after
the rank variable was dropped.

In the 2002 data set, we found no statistically significant levels of
compression in salaries for any rank.
 In the 1997 data set, we found statistically significant levels of
compression in salaries for Professors.
 Reduction in compression likely attributable to retiring faculty
between 97 and 02.
Draft/Confidential
27
Additional Statistical
Analyses
Additional Statistical Analyses

Consultants completed the following additional statistical analyses
per MnSCU’s request:
 Analyzed 1997 and 2002 data sets at system AND campus level to
determine the effect of academic discipline on salaries.
 Analyzed 1997 and 2002 data sets at system level ONLY to determine
the effect of campus location on salaries.
Draft/Confidential
29
Effect of Campus Location
(2002 and 1997)

Consultants analyzed system wide data and found the following
average differences in salary across campuses when controlling
on all other variables.
 There is a $3,229 range of average difference between the lowest and
highest campus in 2002 and a $2,155 difference between the lowest
and highest campus in 1997.
 Bemidji is the lowest paying campus when controlling for all other
variables. St. Cloud (1997) and Southwest (2002) are the highest
2002 Data Set
1997 Data Set
paying campuses.
Diff From
Campus
Mankato
Bemidji
$
(1,404)
Mankato
$
Metropolitan
$
753
Moorhead
$
(742)
St Cloud
$
451
Southwest
$
1,825
Winona
$
(1,207)
(*) Mankato = reference campus
Draft/Confidential
Sig.
0.00
0.16
0.02
0.09
0.00
0.00
Diff From
Mankato
Sig.
$
(1,369) 0.00
$
$
177
0.71
$
(1,139) 0.00
$
786
0.00
$
143
0.72
$
(217) 0.41
30
Effect of Academic Discipline
(2002 and 1997)

At the System level, we analyzed the effect of discipline on salary
equity and found the following differences in average salary:
2002 Data Set
Discipline
LANGS
HOMEC
HISTY
MUSIC
SPECH
CHEMS
ENGL
PHILO
THETR
GEOGR
PHYED
COUNS
POLSC
SERFC
ARTFI
PSYCH
SOCAN
BIOLO
LIBRY
EDCGN
EDCSP
MEDIA
$$ Diff (*)
-744
-725
-713
-542
-414
-15
0
281
286
453
532
594
700
741
795
806
829
1,007
1,104
1,223
1,324
1,345
1997 Data Set
Discipline
COUED
ALHEL
MATHM
PHYSC
CULTR
CRMJS
SERDV
SOCWK
EDCAD
AVIAT
NURSE
TECHN
EDBUS
ECONO
BUSLW
CISCS
ACCTG
ENGIN
MNGMT
MARKT
FINAN
$$ Diff (*)
1,477
1,477
1,553
1,598
1,758
1,790
1,929
2,450
2,753
2,928
3,579
3,812
4,146
5,325
7,339
10,744
11,110
11,895
11,974
13,055
13,746
Discipline $$ Diff (*)
HOMEC
-544
COUNS
-285
SPECH
-217
PHILO
-6
ENGL
0
CHEMS
63
HISTY
354
LANGS
385
GEOGR
396
ALHEL
570
MUSIC
601
CULTR
670
COUED
724
LIBRY
777
BIOLO
912
EDCSP
960
PHYED
1,007
ARTFI
1,036
PSYCH
1,042
THETR
1,256
CRMJS
1,310
Discipline
EDCGN
POLSC
SOCAN
SERFC
MEDIA
MATHM
SERDV
PHYSC
SOCWK
TECHN
NURSE
AVIAT
ECONO
BUSLW
EDCAD
EDBUS
CISCS
ACCTG
MNGMT
ENGIN
FINAN
MARKT
$$ Diff (*)
1,318
1,356
1,377
1,578
1,628
1,872
2,066
2,475
2,511
2,928
3,297
3,468
3,663
4,200
5,080
5,113
6,558
7,849
8,588
8,641
9,184
9,186
(*) English is the reference discipline
Draft/Confidential
31
Effect of Academic Discipline
(2002 and 1997)

The following disciplines have increased in relative average pay between 1997
and 2002.







ALHEL- allied health (speech audiology; dental hygiene; communication disorders)
COUED- counseling education
COUNS- non-teaching counselors
CRMJS- criminal justice & corrections
CULTR- area, ethnic & cultural studies/humanities, multi & Interdisciplinary studies
TECHN- engineering related technologies - industrial technology, environmental
technology
The following disciplines have decreased in relative average pay between 1997
and 2002.








AVIAT- aviation
EDCAD- education administration & leadership
EDCGN- general teacher education at all levels
MEDIA- communications media; communications technologies
POLSC- political science; public administration; paralegal
SERFC- services provided to faculty, university & community
SOCAN- sociology; anthropology
THETR- theatre arts & stagecraft
Draft/Confidential
32
Effect of Analysis Without
Academic Discipline (2002 and 1997)

Consultants developed models at campus and system level, which
excluded discipline as an explanatory variable.
 The variance explained by the reduced set of independent variables
is considerably less than when including discipline.


System R2 reduction of 9% (2002)
Consultants do NOT recommend utilization of a statistical model
that excludes discipline because of its explanatory power.
2002 Data Set
Campus
Bemidji
Manakato
Metropolitan
Moorhead
St Cloud
Southwest
Winona
System
Adj R2
Adj R2
w/ Disc. w/o Disc.
0.91
0.85
0.90
0.80
0.78
0.66
0.92
0.88
0.89
0.83
0.85
0.78
0.91
0.82
0.88
0.80
1997 Data Set
Diff.
0.06
0.10
0.12
0.04
0.07
0.07
0.09
0.09
Campus
Bemidji
Manakato
Metropolitan
Moorhead
St Cloud
Southwest
Winona
System
Draft/Confidential
Adj R2
Adj R2
w/ Disc. w/o Disc.
0.92
0.89
0.89
0.80
0.76
0.63
0.92
0.89
0.89
0.83
0.93
0.92
0.89
0.82
0.88
0.82
Diff.
0.02
0.09
0.14
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.07
0.06
33
Pay Equity Increase
Alternatives
Pay Equity Increase Alternatives

The consultants have been asked to identify pay equity disparities
and how to fix them.
 The consultants take no position on the amount of total pay equity
increases to be considered -- we assume this part of the bargaining
process.
 The consultants have developed recommended pay equity increase
criteria in the event that MnSCU determines to authorize pay equity
expenditures through the collective bargaining process.
Draft/Confidential
35
Pay Equity Increase Criteria

Potential pay equity adjustments should be based on individual criteria rather
than group membership criteria.

Pay equity issues should be addressed through an examination of disparities
between actual and model predicted salaries (i.e., residuals).



Using the variables identified in the total population model.
Gender and ethnicity variables not included.
Any faculty member below a threshold (see next slide) will be eligible for a
potential pay adjustment, if adjustments are recommended.

We used the notion of a threshold (std error) due to the fact that there is a range of
acceptable variation in the model not explained by the predictor variables. Therefore,
adjustments to a predicted average salary are not recommended.

Potential pay equity adjustments will be scrutinized by a MnSCU/IFO salary
review committee for data verification purposes.

If required, consider a multi-year phase-in approach based on funding
availability.
Draft/Confidential
36
Pay Equity Increase Criteria

Analyze costs based on the following 3 thresholds, where residual = actual
salary - estimated salary:





Two models (*) alternatives utilized:




-1 standard error of the est.: If residual < 1 std error, adjust to 1 std error.
-1.5 standard errors of the est.: If residual < 1.5 std errors, adjust to 1.5 std errors.
-2 standard errors of the est : If residual < 2 std errors, adjust to 2 std errors.
Note: all adjustments rounded to closest 2.39% step.
Campus level total population models for all campuses.
System level total population model.
Note(*): due to small numbers of faculty within disciplines, there were coding
difficulties for Metropolitan and Southwest. Therefore, we developed a “Hybrid”
model alternative using system discipline estimated coefficients applied to the
campus model.
The IFO & MnSCU SRC will recommend the most appropriate threshold and
model to be utilized.
Draft/Confidential
37
Pay Equity Increase Example
Example: Using a threshold at -1 std error of the estimate,
Professors F, G and H would receive an adjustment and be
moved to the closest step.
Professor A ($74,303)
Threshold at +2 Std Error Est. ($67,399)
Professor B ($66,006)
Threshold at +1.5 Std Error Est. ($65,261)
Professor C ($64,461)
Threshold at +1 Std Error Est. ($63,123)
Professor D ($60,041)
Predicted Average Salary ($58,847)
Professor E ($58,636)
Threshold at -1 Std Error Est. ($54,571)
Professor F ($53,336)
Threshold at -1.5 Std Error Est. ($52,433)
Professor G ($50,868)
Threshold at -2 Std Error Est. ($50,295)
Professor H ($48,515)
Note: Example Std Error Est = $4,276
Draft/Confidential
38
Pay Equity Increase Model Findings
Headcount Analysis
Campus
Total
Faculty
Campus
1 Std 1.5 Std 2 Std
Err Est Err Est Err Est
System
1 Std 1.5 Std 2 Std
Err Est Err Est Err Est
Both
1 Std 1.5 Std 2 Std
Err Est Err Est Err Est
Bemidji
209
17
8%
5
2%
0
0%
34
16%
13
6%
5
2%
15
7%
3
1%
0
0%
Mankato
555
51
9%
18
3%
11
2%
37
7%
13
2%
5
1%
31
6%
8
1%
5
1%
Metropolitan
103
6
6%
3
3%
1
1%
5
5%
3
3%
2
2%
4
4%
2
2%
1
1%
Moorhead
344
24
7%
8
2%
1
0%
23
7%
5
1%
3
1%
11
3%
3
1%
0
0%
Southwest
149
10
7%
3
2%
2
1%
13
9%
8
5%
2
1%
4
3%
2
1%
0
0%
St. Cloud
653
53
8%
19
3%
6
1%
42
6%
11
2%
3
0%
34
5%
11
2%
0
0%
Winona
357
25
7%
10
3%
4
1%
41
11%
9
3%
7
2%
16
4%
5
1%
3
1%
Total
2370
186
8%
66
3%
25
1%
195
8%
62
3%
27
1%
115
5%
34
1%
9
0%
4
4%
15
10%
3
3%
10
7%
0
0%
3
2%
3
3%
11
7%
2
2%
7
5%
0
0%
1
1%
189
8%
73
3%
25
1%
121
5%
39
2%
9
0%
Hybrid Model Alternative
Metropolitan
103
Southwest
149
Total-B
2370
Note: Hybrid model alternative uses system discipline coefficients due to small campus coding issues.
Draft/Confidential
39
Pay Equity Increase Model Findings
Aggregate Cost Impact

The cost estimates on the next three slides were compiled by the
consultants and are based on 9 month base salaries that do not
include fringe benefits nor additional assignments.

Therefore, cost estimates may not accurately reflect the total
estimated adjustments for reporting to relevant parties in the
bargaining process.
Draft/Confidential
40
Pay Equity Increase Model Findings
Aggregate Cost Impact
1 Std
Err Est
Campus
1.5 Std
Err Est
2 Std
Err Est
1 Std
Err Est
System
1.5 Std
Err Est
2 Std
Err Est
Bemidji
$36,469
$6,484
$0
$108,349
$39,653
$20,529
Mankato
$152,710
$56,402
$24,909
$103,317
$35,273
$13,199
Metropolitan
$21,739
$5,800
$1,337
$26,796
$18,867
$9,310
Moorhead
$55,402
$14,671
$1,694
$66,857
$20,145
$10,310
Southwest
$24,417
$8,612
$2,407
$43,987
$17,490
$3,977
St. Cloud
$128,750
$43,705
$9,588
$93,403
$25,020
$5,989
Winona
$72,038
$25,437
$7,830
$107,400
$39,892
$24,781
Total
$491,525 $161,110
$47,765
$550,110 $196,340
Campus
Hybrid Model Alternative
Metropolitan
$13,810
$5,377
$0
Southwest
$63,221
$28,061
$3,668
Total-B
$522,400 $180,137
$88,094
$47,689
Note: Hybrid model alternative uses system discipline coefficients due to small
campus coding issues.
Draft/Confidential
41
Pay Equity Increase Alternatives
Findings

For the campus total population model:
 1 std error est. threshold, total adjustments of $491.5K (8% of faculty).
 1.5 std error est. threshold, total adjustments of $161.1K (3% of
faculty).
 2 std error est. threshold, total adjustments of $47.8K (1% of faculty).

For the hybrid total population model:
 1 std error est. threshold, total adjustments of $522.4K (8% of faculty).
 1.5 std error est. threshold, total adjustments of $180.1 (3% of faculty).
 2 std error est. threshold, total adjustments of $47.7K (1% of faculty).

For the system total population model:
 1 std error est. threshold, total adjustments of $550.1K (8% of faculty).
 1.5 std error est. threshold, total adjustments of $196.3K (3% of
faculty).
42
Draft/Confidential
Pay Equity Increase Model Findings
Campus Models by Gender/Ethnicity
Campus
Total
Faculty
White Males
# Facuty Treated
Cost of Increases
1 Std 1.5 Std 2 Std
1 Std
1.5 Std
2 Std
Total Err Est Err Est Err Est Err Est
Err Est Err Est
Protected Class
# Facuty Treated
Cost of Increases
1 Std 1.5 Std 2 Std
1 Std
1.5 Std 2 Std
Total Err Est Err Est Err Est Err Est Err Est Err Est
Bemidji
209
114
55%
11
5%
4
2%
0
$24,732
0%
$5,209
$0
95
45%
6
3%
1
0%
0
$11,738
0%
Mankato
555
276
50%
27
5%
12
2%
7
$92,964
1%
$40,473
$19,701
279
50%
24
4%
6
1%
4
$59,745 $15,929 $5,208
1%
Metropolitan
103
40
39%
3
3%
1
1%
0
0%
$8,919
$1,694
$0
63
61%
3
3%
2
2%
1
$12,820
1%
$4,106
$1,337
Moorhead
344
168
49%
19
6%
7
2%
1
$46,092
0%
$13,591
$1,694
176
51%
5
1%
1
0%
0
0%
$9,310
$1,080
$0
Southwest
149
80
54%
5
3%
2
1%
2
$14,962
1%
$7,396
$2,407
69
46%
5
3%
1
1%
0
0%
$9,454
$1,216
$0
St. Cloud
653
297
45%
36
6%
11
2%
3
$80,138
0%
$24,312
$5,193
356
55%
17
3%
8
1%
3
$48,612 $19,393 $4,395
0%
Winona
357
179
50%
13
4%
7
2%
4
$46,935
1%
$20,309
$7,830
178
50%
12
3%
3
1%
0
$25,103
0%
Total
2370
1154
49%
114
5%
44
2%
17
$314,742 $112,983 $36,826
1%
1216
51%
72
3%
22
1%
8
$176,783 $48,127 $10,939
0%
40
39%
80
54%
1
1%
10
7%
1
1%
8
5%
0
0%
1
1%
63
61%
69
46%
3
3%
5
3%
2
2%
2
1%
0
$10,383
0%
2
$17,369
1%
1154
49%
117
5%
50
2%
16
$340,140 $125,399 $35,401
1%
1216
51%
72
3%
23
1%
9
$182,260 $54,738 $12,288
0%
Hybrid Model Alternative
Metropolitan
103
Southwest
149
Total-B
2370
$3,428
$1,694
$0
$45,851
$19,812
$982
$1,275
$5,128
$3,683
$0
$0
$0
$8,249 $2,685
Note: Hybrid model alternative uses system discipline coefficients due to small campus coding issues.
%s are % of total faculty within a campus.
Draft/Confidential
43
Findings

In aggregate, while at 50% of the faculty population, employees in
protected classes receive less than 50% of modeled increases.

Remember that there were NO statistically significant negative
differences in pay by protected class status on ANY MnSCU campus.
 There were, however, negative differences in pay by protected class
status, but none were statistically significant.
 There were also some statistically significant positive differences in pay
by protected class.

At St. Cloud, modeled increases do not result in any statistically
significant negative differences in pay by protected class status.
Modeled increases include:
 2003 general increases and career step adjustments.
 Pay equity adjustments per three different equity adjustment thresholds.
Draft/Confidential
44
Ongoing Compensation
Policy Recommendations
Compensation Policies

More rigorous and more frequent training in compensation
processes is needed. Due to:
 Decentralized administration governance model.
 High turnover in campus administrators.

Consider the following training on a system-wide level:
 More consistency in determination of hiring salaries.
 More consistency in determination of market influences in pay.
Draft/Confidential
46
Compensation Policies

Consider bargaining any ongoing equity adjustments into the annual
general increase program.
 Provides those faculty with the most negative residuals the opportunity
to move closer to predicted salary faster.

Development of new or improved MnSCU information systems to
assist campuses in compliance with guidelines and the ongoing
effectiveness of program:
 Promotion application, acceptance and rejection rates.
 Compensation market analysis and support tools.
 In general, better information sharing across campuses (e.g.,
experience definitions by discipline).
Draft/Confidential
47
Hiring Guidelines

The hiring guideline (grid) is sound conceptually, but is perceived
to be administered/applied inconsistently.
 Across campuses and departments.
 Five steps variance in each cell.

Develop more consistency in hiring guidelines.
 More consistency in administration, training, communication on
relevant experience levels.
More robust definitions of relevant experience by discipline.
 Consider cross campus teams developing these definitions.


Consider multi-tier market-based hiring guidelines/grids.
Would likely reduce the range of steps within a cell.
 Would likely reduce the variance in starting offers.
 Monitor hiring guidelines against external survey sources.

Draft/Confidential
48
Salary Change at Promotion/
Degree Completion

Consider latitude in salary change at promotion to better enable a
narrowing of pay equity gaps.
 Consider moving from a current flat 2 step increase to an increase
system based on gap between current and predicted salaries at time
of promotion.

Consider adjustment upon receipt of a terminal degree.

Institutionalize annual campus reviews of promotion application,
acceptance and rejection rates and analyze by protected class
status.
Draft/Confidential
49
Ongoing Audit Process and
Measuring Effectiveness

A narrowing of the gap in salaries over time is viewed as the primary
measure of success.

MnSCU should consider an annual review of salary levels by key faculty
attributes (esp, protected class attributes) to verify that gaps in salaries are
indeed narrowing.

MnSCU should consider an annual review of salary levels against external
market data sources to ensure that salaries and hiring guidelines are
competitive.

Consider codifying a set of compensation principles and monitoring them in
the future vs. revisiting methodology every 4 years.

Continued utilization of a team (SRC) comprised of faculty and
administration to provide guidance to the analysis and monitoring of pay
equity issues.
Draft/Confidential
50
AAUP Recommended Best Practices
July - August 2001 Academe

Joint teams of administrators and faculty members working
together to resolve issues. Litigation should be last resort.

Establishment of a salary schedule that fairly sets starting salaries.

Conduct periodic salary and promotion equity studies (e.g,
American University, Kent State University, NC State Univ) Raleigh.

Consistent training on compensation administration practices for
all administrators with compensation management accountability.

Create equitable merit pay systems (where applicable).

Establish inclusive eligibility criteria for equity adjustments -includes males and females.

Provide briefings on salary practices for new faculty.
Draft/Confidential
51
Your Questions