Faculty Compensation

1 / 18

# Faculty Compensation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Faculty Compensation. John Day Associate Provost for Academic Budget and Planning. Faculty Compensation Task Force. Provost Krendl - chair Deans Ben Ogles Charles McWeeny Renée Middleton Faculty Senate Nominations Molly Morris Shawn Ostermann Rajesh Narayanan Staff Support

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Faculty Compensation' - semah

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

### Faculty Compensation

John Day

Associate Provost for Academic Budget and Planning

• Provost Krendl - chair
• Deans
• Ben Ogles
• Charles McWeeny
• Renée Middleton
• Faculty Senate Nominations
• Molly Morris
• Shawn Ostermann
• Rajesh Narayanan
• Staff Support
• Michael Williford
• Greg Fialko
• John Day

Vision OHIO Goal

“Compare salary and compensation with peer institutions and meet the goal of raising our percentile rank among peers by 15 points by 2010.”

Key Concepts
• Totalcompensation approach
• Salary
• Benefits
• Continuing Full-time Group I Faculty
• AAUP ranking among our peer institutions
Defining 15% increase

Rank among peers is sensitive to the number of peers ranked – 1/11 = 9% and assumes the distance between each rank is equal which is not the case.

Cumulative compensation differentials can be used to create a continuous distribution which can then be used to create a percentile rank.

To move above Missouri requires \$2,400 increase in Total Compensation

Faculty Compensation Adjusted for Cost of Living

Source: Appendix B Final Report Faculty Compensation Task Force

• Merit raise pool process should continue as in the past: 3% merit raise pool with a minimum of a 0% increase and a maximum of 7% for each faculty member. Exceptions to the maximum would require provost approval.
• Structural Realignment Funding, awarded differentially to individual faculty who have demonstrated sustained past performance in achieving college and institutional goals over the previous five years and who show the promise of continuing contributions in the future. Faculty members who have been here for less than five years would be evaluated on the basis of the promise they have demonstrated in their contributions to date.
• Faculty members who qualify for consideration must be tenure-track Group I faculty working full-time as instructors and scholars.
• Engaged in the full mission of the institution – teaching, conducting research/creative activity, and serving their units
• The funding cannot be distributed across-the-board to all faculty in a given unit.
• The minimum amount that a faculty member may receive from the structural realignment pool is therefore 0%; there is no maximum amount specified.
• For each of the next five years, the same separation of allocation of the raise pool funds from the structural realignment funds would be followed with an adjusted five-year window for the review of each individual faculty member’s contributions.
• A proportion of the total structural realignment funding would be allocated to each college based on a detailed formula. That formula takes into account both
• the total FTE of each college as a proportion of the entire faculty FTE
• and also the total disparity in faculty salaries based on discipline-specific market comparisons.
• The dean of each college would then work with chairs and directors to identify the appropriate distribution of the funds among the various schools and departments and to identify the individuals who qualify for the additional funding.
• Each dean would present his or her college plan for allocation of the funding to the provost for approval.
Implementation
• Task Force recommends a method for determining how to divide the \$1.2M pool across the seven colleges
• Market disparity
• This has no relationship to how compensation was allocated to faculty within a college
• Simply a way to divide funds into 7 “buckets”
Implementation
• Distribution of the college allocation to faculty is left to each college
• Can’t be across the board
• Based on five years of performance
• Deans work with Chairs/Directors
• Allocation can be based on factors determined by the college
• Equity/Market
• Merit
• Future Potential
• Other
Computation

Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, based on data from AAUP Academe

Use of Market Data
• The purpose of the market computation is simply to introduce a rough estimate of market into the distribution across colleges
• It is NOT used in the actual distribution of raises to faculty within a college
• Grouped by department – not attempting to get to sub-disciplines or disciplines with few national peers
• No attempt to compare just to universities similar to OU or to peer groups
• Many OU department + rank groupings have only 1 faculty member so distortion is possible
• Many disciplines have extensive salary studies that are much better at measuring market but others have nothing
Salary Control Total

\$1.2M in total compensation would include \$1,033,821 in salary

In FY08, 50% was allocated on headcount and 50% on market

In FY09, the current proposal is 60% headcount, 40% market

Market Allocation

Total Market disparity for FY08 was \$1,960,091 compared to \$1,306,886 now - getting closer to market

FY08 3% Salary Pool Distribution

CPI

52% of the raises were between 2.7% and 3.3%

83% of the raises were between 2.4% and 4%