(Fox/Lawson) + - Broward College

Report
BROWARD
COLLEGE
Fox, Lawson & Associates
Compensation Study 2012-2013
Summary Findings
STRATEGIC GOAL 4
ENHANCE THE COLLEGE’S STRATEGIC HUMAN CAPITAL AND COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE BY RECRUITING, DEVELOPING AND RETAINING DIVERSE AND
TALENTED FACULTY, STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERS WHOSE PRIMARY
FOCUS WILL BE TO PROMOTE STUDENT SUCCESS AND SUPPORT LIFELONG
LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS
 Hire best in the marketplace
 As part of this Goal 4 initiative, a comprehensive compensation study was conducted
inclusive of faculty, administrators, and professional staff
 The College will offer a competitive compensation package to attract and retain top
applicants and employees
 The College strives to be competitive with the local market and education
institutions
STUDY SUMMARY FINDINGS
 Salary Data collection from the following sources:
 CUPA
 Two-Year Faculty; Administrative; Mid-Level and Professional
 Economic Research Institute Salary Assessor
 Mercer
 Executive; Finance Accounting & Legal; Human Resources Management; Information
Technology
 Towers Watson
 Office & Business Support; Supervisory & Middle Management; Professional Administrative;
Professional Specialized; Human Resources; Technical Support & Production;Top
Management
 Benefits Data collection from the following sources:
 CUPA
 Towers Watson
 SHRM Employee
 Bureau of Labor Statistics
TOTAL COMPENSATION
 The analysis indicates how Broward College
compares to the market at the 50th percentile
FACULTY SUMMARY
 Findings suggest that faculty salary ranges are
competitive with the market at the 50th % and the
maximums of the range, but the minimums are
substantially lower than peer institutions (Fox Lawson)
 Per the Faculty Collective Bargaining Unit, new Faculty salaries
often begin above the minimum of the range based on the
individuals experience and educational rank
 The Faculty contract recent ratification increased the salary
grid at all levels by 3%
 Full time faculty salaries were adjusted retroactive to July 2010,
as applicable
ADMINISTRATIVE AND STAFF SUMMARY
 Aggregate representation of all non-faculty positions as compared to
market median of 50th percentile
ADMINISTRATIVE AND STAFF SUMMARY
(FOX, LAWSON & ASSOCIATES)
 An aggregate of all non-faculty positions indicate the
College’s salaries are 17.4% below comparable market
median (50%)
 While comparable up to the 25th percentile range,
employees are not moving through the range to keep pace
with the market; creating salary compression
 The College’s benefit package helps to bring its total
compensation package more in line with the market
BENEFITS SUMMARY
Employer cost of benefits for the significant
benefits offered by most employers were
compared
On an overall basis, the private sector spends
about 29.6% of payroll on all benefits; colleges and
universities spend about 30.7%; Broward College
spends 32.62%
FOX, LAWSON & ASSOCIATES
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
The College needs to determine where in relation to the market it
wants to set its pay strategy
2.
The College will need to consider if there are internal equity issues for
classifications to be addressed through job analysis
3.
The College should address pay compression
4.
The College should adopt salary administration practices that move
employees through the range based on satisfactory performance
and/or seniority
RECOMMENDATION #1 The College needs to determine where in relation to the
market it wants to set its pay strategy (Fox/Lawson)
 + / - 10% = competitive
 A review of the benchmarked positions by job family and
pay grade was conducted and the average (where
applicable) of the 50th percentile provided by Fox/Lawson
was used to adjust the mid-point on the College salary
schedule structure. Further review and costs may
dictate that a point between the 25th and 50th percentile
of salaries is an appropriate goal (per Fox/Lawson).
 Benefits unchanged
RECOMMENDATION #2
The College will need to consider if there are internal equity
issues for classifications to be addressed through job analysis
(Fox/Lawson)
 Large variances between the 50th percentile and the
College’s actual salary(ies) indicate further review of
position specific responsibilities and possible movement
to a new job family and band within the College salary
structure.
 Classifications have begun to be addressed
RECOMMENDATION #3
The College should address pay compression - the extent of
this impact was not examined in the Fox/Lawson study
(Fox/Lawson)
 The College should define a standard by which to indicate
an employee should be at least to the mid-point of the
salary range (at market)
 The last salary schedule adjustments for staff in 2010 did
not address compression
 Funds were budgeted within the FY 13-14 budget to
reasonably address compression
RECOMMENDATION #4
Adopt salary administration practices that move
employees through the range based on satisfactory
performance and/or seniority (Fox/Lawson)
• Pay-for-Performance Plan
• Allows for salaries to advance toward the pay grade
midpoint (market rate)
• Applying a tiered percent-based program will assist
the College in addressing and not further
exacerbating salary compression
RECOMMENDATION #4
• Merit Plan Constraints
• Merit plans that rely on bonuses must be available to all
employees per Florida Statute 215.425 which was passed in 2011.
 This statute specifically states that :
 Any policy, ordinance, rule, or resolution designed to implement a
bonus scheme must:
 (a) Base the award of a bonus on work performance;
 (b) Describe the performance standards and evaluation process
by which a bonus will be awarded;
 (c) Notify all employees of the policy, ordinance, rule, or
resolution before the beginning of the evaluation period on which
a bonus will be based; and
 (d) Consider all employees for the bonus.
PAY FOR PERFORMANCE PLAN
 For Non-represented employees, at mid point of year:
 If the employee has an evaluation on file within the last year that is an
overall rating of “Proficient” for Administrators or “Satisfactory” for PTS
employees, and
 The unit is responsible in some way and met (above target, at target, or
within 5% of reaching target) one of the Strategic Initiatives of the Strategic
Plan or if not directly responsible for a Strategic Initiative, the unit
successfully met the “Acceptable Target” on at least 50% of their stated
Institutional Effectiveness (IE) Targets between July 1st and November 30th,
2013 (this will change to at least 75% for the next fiscal year and cover July
1st through June 30th.)
 This same proposal will be presented in bargaining for both UFF and FPE.
OUTCOMES
 Broward College has already begun reviewing position that
showed large variances between current salary and market
50th percentile
 A Pay-for-Performance initiative is being rolled out beginning
fiscal year 2013-2014
 Future enhancements to Pay-for-Performance may be able to
assist with overall pay compression
BROWARD COLLEGE
PROPOSALS & COST ESTIMATES
1.
Adjust salary ranges – modify all
salaries to retain placement within
salary range
 $4,030,751
 $ 608,645
2.
Adjust salary ranges – bring to new
minimums only
3.
Adjust salary ranges – bring 5 year
static employees to mid-range
 $1,650,000(estimat
Adjust salary ranges – bring 10 year
static employees to mid-range
 $ 550,000
4.
e)
(estimate)
“Static” employee = no classification change
BROWARD COLLEGE
PROPOSAL & COST ESTIMATES
1. Increase salary ranges and
bring employees to minimums
$ 608,645
2. Bring 10 years in current classification
to 25th percentile
Total FY 13-14 cost
$ 225,000
$ 833,645
Note: Health Care increases to individual employees will need to increase
by roughly 3% per average salary.

similar documents