 Good afternoon, and welcome to the ARL webcast using ARL salary data to establish and maintain an equitable salary structure for faculty librarians. This is the third in a series of four webcasts highlighting effective uses of data from the ARL annual salary surging. I'm Amy Yeager of ARL, filling in today for Martha Kira Lee Do. I'd like to go over a few logistical items first. First, as you heard, everyone has been muted to cut down on background noise, but we welcome your questions. Please type them in the chat box and the speakers will address them throughout the presentation. A recording of this webcast will be posted on ARL's YouTube channel in a few days, and slides and supporting documents will be available in the University of Florida institutional repository. We will provide URLs for these sites later in broadcast. The webcasts in this series highlight uses of data from the ARL annual salary survey, which reports salaries for more than 12,000 professional positions in the 125 ARL member libraries. The survey also tracks minority representation in ARL libraries in the United States and reports separate data for health sciences and law libraries. The series is conceived and hosted by Martha Kira Lee Do, the Senior Director of Statistics and Service Quality Programs at ARL. Martha unfortunately is unable to be with us today, but I know she's here with us in spirit. Today's speakers are Judy Rutenberg, Program Director for Transforming Research Libraries at ARL, and Brian Keith, Associate Dean for Administrative Services and Faculty Affairs of the University of Florida Libraries. On today's agenda, Judy will first provide an overview of ARL's Transforming Research Libraries program. Then Brian will give an in-depth demonstration of how he used data from the ARL Salary Survey to implement a salary structure for faculty librarians at the University of Florida. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce our first speaker, Judy Rutenberg at ARL. Thank you, Amy. I'm so pleased to be here today. Transforming Research Libraries focuses primarily on the often dramatic changes in the practices of research and teaching in the digital age that compel research libraries to examine and transform our services, our collections, and our workforce. Martha asked me to say a few words on today's webcast because TRL has been strategically focused on workforce transformation for several years. By looking at the new roles library professionals play in research institutions, new services they offer, and new skills required at those professionals. Our organizations approach workforce transformation by developing, retraining, and reskilling their existing staffs, bringing in new talent with diverse educational and work experiences, or both. For these transformative strategies to be successful, research libraries need tools, best practices, and data. Brian's presentation today brings together the data ARL gathers in its salary survey with the systematic, transparent method to rationalize compensation management, a critical human resources instrument. As we bring new kinds of professionals into our organizations and develop a system-wide understanding of the new competencies librarians need, such evidence-based human resources practices become even more essential. It is my great pleasure to turn the mic over to Brian Keith. And thank you very much for your kind introduction. This is Brian Keith from the University of Florida, and I am very excited to be participating in this webinar. And just to make sure that we provide you with the link, we're going to do it on the front end. All of the slides, and there are a lot of them, and the documents that I referenced, and the spreadsheets that I'm actually going to be opening up and showing you are available at this link. And that's the University of Florida's institutional repository, and we'll share this link with you after the webinar. Also, as was mentioned earlier, the recording of this webcast will be available online, and you can find it through ARL's YouTube channel, and this is the link for that. And we'll provide that for you also. And before we get started, I'd like to talk about the importance of compensation programs and just kind of focus on what compensation programs are designed to do. And they support a wide variety of human resources functions and institutional needs. And my intention is to touch on all of these as I go through my presentation. I hope you also will notice an author's name at the bottom right-hand corner of my slide. One of the things I'm going to provide are references, and where I'm using other people's works, I am citing them by providing the author's name. In this session, I'm going to start off with some concepts of equity and fairness, the elements and terminology that we use in salary plan design. For some folks, this will be a review. For some folks, this will be maybe applying concrete terms to some concepts that you just implicitly have. And then I'm going to move on to the experiences at the UF libraries, and the processes and key decisions that we took part in in coming up with a salary structure that is a reference to the external market using the ARL salary survey data. And why am I going to tell you guys about the University of Florida libraries and our process for a librarian salary structure design? Because I think it illustrates those concepts that compensation plans are geared towards. It also, I think, demonstrates some decisions and processes and outcomes that other institutions might experience. And also, because the resulting system I think is useful for folks to see because it has created a transparent and maintainable system, but also one where I think our process and the design can be transferred to other institutions where you could take elements of it or the whole thing or you could customize it to make sense. I hope you agree with that assessment at the end. The last thing that I'm going to share with you are the references. And so some of the concepts behind an equitable salary structure are the ideas of equity and fairness. And the literature tells us there are a variety of different types of equity and fairness. And the first type is an external equity, and that's how the way we pay positions within our individual organizations, how that compares to other organizations. The next is internal, how different job types within our own organization compare to each other. And so when I'm using the term internal or external equity, this is what I'm describing. But there are other less commonly used or cited forms of equity. And the first is individual equity, and this is how individuals based on their performance are paid compared to other people who do similar work in the same organization. And then there's also personal equity, which is based upon a person's perception of their own worth. For fairness, there's distributive fairness, which is the way in which pay is allocated by an organization and the perceived equity of that process. And then there's also procedural, which is the decision making that goes into and the procedures that are used to distribute pay. And we focus typically more on distributive, but the research has shown that procedural fairness is considered the most important to employees when they're determining how satisfied they are with their pay. And individual equity, which is how folks are paid by their own perceptions is the second most important. To continue with procedural fairness, the literature shows us that this has a strong influence on whether employees view their organization as trustworthy and whether they consider them to value their employees. And so, obviously, the processes by which we manage compensation are key. These perceptions of fairness can be increased through consistent processes, by designing systems that afford participation by employees, by having good communication practices, and also having an opportunity for people to address issues or perceived inequity. And moving on to salary administration, there are three fundamental issues that entities try and address through their pay policies. The first is setting pay levels in relation to other companies that's externally oriented, and then also evaluating individual jobs and determining the pay relationships between them and determining the pay relationships between individual workers in the same jobs. And these are concepts that are focused on internal equity. And these issues can be effectively addressed through well-designed salary structures. And what is a salary structure? It's the system where jobs of roughly equal value or worth are grouped into grades with competitive salary ranges, and an employer may have multiple models or approaches within this structure. And it's all shown just a moment, the University of Florida Libraries has a number of salary structures. Why is a formal or well-thought-out salary structure should be implemented? Because compensation decisions made solely to resolve individual issues or dissatisfaction on the part of employees create higher operating costs for the enterprise, and they also create an environment that rewards complaints. Individual compensation arrangements also eventually are likely to become known to other employees, and particularly for your public sector employee, and can usually create some dissatisfaction. And by creating compensation guidelines based upon the norms, before you recruit for a position, you can balance how much should we pay for a candidate and versus how much would it take to make this employee happy. And so it allows you to reconcile the worth of the position versus trying to gain a salary offer. And even though individual managers may be responsible for costs, there's a tendency amongst managers to provide the highest pay possible and ultimately in libraries and other entities, because they don't really suffer from these increased costs and they benefit from being considered a nice person. And when these individual managers can make decisions without a structure, every unit is likely to come up with its own system or there's some variance that makes it where the pay for comparable work in different units is inequitable. And the purpose of establishing a structure is to provide organizational consistency and also to give people reference as far as salary for career development and predicting pay increases that they might receive as an incentive for their work. And both of these go back to the prologue that I started with. And so how do you, if I've sold you on the idea that you really need a salary structure, how do you actually develop a salary structure? The two key elements of it are compensable factors and pay ranges. And a compensable factor is an attribute of a job that can be used as a basis for determining the worth of the job. And that might be based upon elements of the employee like experience or particular education or training or skills or abilities, SKA's that are required and they're sure the person should receive compensation for them or they can be based upon the job. And some of the common elements of a job that drive its compensation are the supervisory responsibility, the amount of direct supervision received, generally positions with more autonomy are more highly compensated. The complexity of the work, its authority or impact. And so these are probably pretty common factors that most managers are used to thinking about. But for the purposes of this, I think it's useful and for the examples I'm going to use later to differentiate between an employee-based compensable factor and a job-based compensable factor. And if you're going to use compensable factors, it requires some decisions regarding weight and also degrees or level. And a really straightforward example for degrees or levels would be education attained. And that could be an AA, a BS, a master's degree, maybe an MLS degree in your environment is worth more than other master's degrees. But these are pretty straightforward degrees. But if you wanted to have a system that rewards education and length of experience, then you have to come up with weights for those factors. And so those are two key decisions regarding compensable factors that permits them to be used to actually calculate compensation. And another key term concept for designing salary plans is a pay range, the minimum and maximum base rate of pay for employees in a job. And it's often expressed in pay grades. And an important element of pay ranges is the range width. And this is the percentage difference between the minimum to the maximum. The minimum compensation that makes sense for a position and the maximum that it makes sense to pay for someone doing a type of positions. These vary, but typically they're narrower for lower pay grades. For professional level positions, they tend to be broader. And the rate minimums obviously have to be good enough to attract qualified candidates. And the maximums should be effective at rewarding and retaining high achievers. And so these concepts were part of the consideration in defining our system at the University of Florida. So you'll see these in play in a little bit. And then there's range progression. And this is the difference or the jump from one grade to the next. And this is probably pretty common in libraries in the library assistant, library associate in those series as you progress. They vary by position type. They're typically smaller for lower pay grades and they tend to be larger for professional employees. And they need to be large enough to where they are effective in compensating people for progression and differentiating different job types. And at the University of Florida, we have a range progression for librarians. You'll see later we have ranks and promotion from one rank to the next has a longstanding reward associated with a 9% increase at the University of Florida. And a next key element which you'll see used in our model is a range midpoint for positions that are comparable. You use this for people who are in those positions. You use this to distribute the salaries for those individuals where this is the center of the distribution. And people that have more experience, for example, would be distributed above that midpoint typically. People with other compensable factors would be based upon their individual values would be above or below this midpoint. I'll show you what a distribution of this kind looks like when I get into the University of Florida example. Generally for white collar workers, the midpoint represents the jobs market value. And you'll see that we use for our midpoints a function of the average from the ARL salary survey. And once you've designed a system and you've created one that you feel is equitable, competitive, you have to be willing to adhere to it or there's really not a program at all. You had a market equity initiative or something along those lines versus an actual system. And you maintain the integrity of a salary structure through the ways in which you administer recruiting, counter offers for current employees, the way you handle promotions, lateral moves, and the way you handle merit and across the board increases. That's what ATB means, across the board. And I'll show you and discuss some examples of those when I get to the University of Florida. And so I wanted to address some of the concepts and some of the vocabulary that I would be using later in having achieved that. I am now going to move on to the University of Florida. And just to orient you to the UF libraries. The George A. Smithers libraries comprises the main campus and the medical libraries for the University of Florida. There are about 84 at the time of this market equity process. There are about 84 faculty and about 169 professional and paraprofessional staff and a large number of students for a total population of about 417. For the librarians, the majority of our librarians are 12 months, so we do have some other types of employees. And our librarians break into, our library faculty break into three rank series. And we have assistant Ns and assistant university librarians. The assistant N is the first of the non-tenure accruing series. The assistant UL is the first in the three ranks for tenure accruing library faculty. And so what you'll see is that we have some folks in the first rank, which is assistant about 26, and then we have almost about one and a half times that in our middle category, people who've made it to the associate level. And then in the highest rank, we have a relatively small number of people who have promoted through that process. The way people promote through ranks is through accomplishment in their primary responsibilities, scholarship and professional development, and the third criteria is service. And so these do not, these progressions do not necessarily reflect changes in assignments, but it's a progression through the career. And we have a number of salary systems at the University of Florida. By my count, we have seven. And we have ones for library assistants and associates that are here called library types. And then for other staff employees, we have, for people who are IT professionals, we have a salary structure for those folks. And we also have four positions that are not either library assistants or associates, or IT positions, but are other important paraprofessional or professional positions like accounting or grants management or clerical. We have a system for us determining salaries for those. For library faculty, we have a system for our associate deans and deans. And then we have a system that handles the compensation for the administrative responsibilities for chairs and associate chairs. And then we also have a system for all other library faculty. And these are circled in red because these are the ones that I'm going to focus on today. Regrettably, I will not have time to address all seven of these, though they all have their own fascinating stories to tell. I will be talking about our stipends for chairs and associate chairs and our base salaries for library faculty. And so, historically, library faculty salary administration at the University of Florida was not managed perfectly. We had compression. There were also inconsistent salary decisions that were based upon ranks where we looked at what all of the associate university librarians were being paid and we tried to consider variations from measures of central tendency. And there were assumptions about the market demand for certain types of jobs or what their worth was. And this was not a systematic process and there was a lack of transparency. So these were issues that when I came to work at the Smathers Libraries in 2005 and when our dean came to work at the Smathers Libraries in 2007, these were areas that we hoped to address. And so in 2008, a joint committee was formed and it was charged with establishing a market equity of design that would be internally and externally equitable. And the final report, this is an actual link. When you get the slides, you can go to the report and check it out yourself. That was delivered in March of 2009. A joint committee in the vernacular of the University of Florida Libraries is a committee that is made up of membership that is elected by the librarians and also appointed by the faculty. And our chair of the committee was the chair of our cataloging department and she did a remarkable job of shepherding the process and I was happy to also be a member of the committee. And there were some important findings that came out of the work of that joint committee. The first was to validate that the AOL salary survey is a serviceable system for orienting towards the external market. And the other was within the AOL salary survey and based upon its data that the committee felt that we should look at the public university libraries in the United States and that those were really the peers for the University of Florida and who we competed against. They also, our committee arrived at a decision that instead of just using the average salaries that are provided. And I'll show you one of the tables where AOL provides an average salary. These tend to include people with administrative responsibilities and so up to and including directors. And we felt in looking at the data that first of all that wasn't really the target group. It was a stipend system by which we assigned administrative salaries in addition to base salaries for library faculty. But also beyond that, it being a little bit outside of the scope, there was also the issue where deans and directors' salaries did not seem to have the same trends as the salaries for other folks if you looked at regions. In the South Atlantic, the deans and directors' salaries tended to be higher than other regions, but generally the salaries for the South Atlantic for rank and file librarians tended to be lower. So for a variety of reasons, the committee determined that we should look at non-administrative types of librarian salary data. And the committee also felt that you could start with the averages in the system, in the salary survey, and you could use that as a basis of a system, but really for internal equity, once you had that linkage to the outside, you would need to come up with some UF-defined compensable factors, such as advanced degrees. There are a number of librarians that have PhDs, and the idea was that if they were applicable, they should be compensable. There are also a limited number of our positions that require on common skills. One of them that was identified was foreign language fluency. Also discussed amongst the committee was music, the ability to read music, and then also there was the discussion that some subject areas such as engineering might be relatively uncommon skills that should be considered. But there was a pretty consistent understanding that that should at least be applied to foreign language. Also, there was a decision and recommendation from this committee that we should take into account differences in rank that university librarians should generally make more than the other ranks that associates should generally make more than assistants, and that length of service was shown in the salary data to be an important determinant. In reviewing the data in the system, we were able to calculate that the midpoint for the distribution for the ARL data tended to be in the experience band of 12 to 15 years. You'll see more on this in just a moment. This was also the average years of experience for UF librarians. As we were creating a new system, it kind of looked like we might be able to distribute our range of experience over the years of service data that's in the ARL salary survey. You'll see this in just a moment. Additionally, the idea was that the rank of associate university librarian was the midpoint, as I showed you before. That's where most of our librarians are. It's associated. It's intended to be a mid-career point. So the idea was that we should take into account the rank and that the midpoint of our ranks of structure would need to be at the University of Florida, the associate university librarian rank. The joint committee also pointed out that performance is an important component of equitable salaries. The dot, dot, dot underlined in red is for effect. I was on the committee, and that's pretty much as far as the committee is willing to go. They were unwilling to, and they were not in a position to make decisions about the weight that should be given to performance, and so they deferred on that. And so in establishing this new salary structure, because we were, it became clear beyond the charge that really we were going to come up with something quite different and create it new, that there were a lot of, these were important concepts that had come out of this committee, but it was really going to fall to the administration of the libraries to come up with a proposal, a design for discussion on what the salary structure would actually look like. And so when I looked at the salary survey while I was on the committee and then afterwards, there were some really great things about the ARL salary survey. And the first is that it's comprehensive. It covers the wide variety of professional level work, including a lot of functional areas, HR positions, IT positions. And then there's also, I believe, almost 100% participation amongst ARLs, and the ARLs are the peers of the University of Florida. So these were really important pluses. There's a large data pool, and so the idea in using statistics based upon the population in the thousands makes it more of a valid. And then there's also, in the position-specific data, there are descriptions, and the assumption is that those are used consistently by the people who submit the data. I know many of the HR officers, and so the idea was that we could rely on them because they would be legitimate data for certain types of positions. The other advantage is it's updated annually. We have revisited it, and it's easy to rework the figures to the current year data. The committee had used 0809. We implemented based on 0910, and those are the statistics I'm going to be pointing to. And it also includes data from law and medical libraries. Medical libraries report through our dean. The law library reports through the dean there, but it's still useful if the Legal Information Center were ever to want to look into adopting our system. Plus, the data is accessible. You can go online as an ARL, and you can actually get the data, which we spend a lot of time manipulating. All of these factors, in my opinion, it is the go-to point of reference for ARL institutions, in my opinion, but it's not perfect. The tables are numerous, but the statistics and the tables are limited for our purposes. As I mentioned before, you couldn't just go to table 25 and see what the average salary by region was, in our opinion, because it had administrative positions. And there were some instances where the data we wanted to get to was in a table that ARL was producing for the completely appropriate purpose of examining the difference between pay for the two genders. And what we really wanted was just the statistics so we could use it to calculate an average. And so there's some manipulation that you need to do. And I've provided a link of where the 0910 salary survey is if you actually want to look at the tables. The other challenge are the job codes. And I know ARL has done some work refining these, and I think that's terrific. I'm very excited to see what the statistics come out every year when those changes. But the job codes that were in existence in 0910 and to a certain extent, there's some legacy of this. For the majority of our positions, they handle some of the responsibilities in three categories. They're public services. They provide reference, both general and specialized. And we also consider them subject specialists. But someone may be a subject specialist that does all of these things. They may provide specialized reference and bibliographic services. But there are a lot of people that historically we've considered subject specialists that do not primarily build collections. And we spend a lot of time struggling with how to interpret those three words. I'm not going to belabor it here because essentially what we ended up doing was merging these job codes. You'll see that in a moment. And so without further ado, I'm going to get into the analysis. And so what this part is going to require is for me to flip back and forth into actual spreadsheets and to show you our calculation. As I mentioned before, the spreadsheets are available. And you can see them. You can see the actual calculations. And based upon feedback, I've also provided a primer on weighted averages because we use those quite a bit, as you'll see. And so if you're not familiar with that, or it's been a long time since you've calculated a weighted average, there's an example that'll get you up to speed on that. And so I'm going to start off with Table 25. But we're really going to bounce around amongst the tables that were of interest to us from the ARL salary survey. And the first is Table 25, looking at the average salary by position and region. Then we also look at Table 26, Figure 5, and Table 20. And again, I have a link to where you can get to these actual tables in their rough form. One of the primary things we wanted to look at, and we always work backwards to, is what should our pay be based upon our region. And so we derived this from Table 25, which is a table that's intended to provide that. But we established what we call core librarian positions for the purpose of the salary. And if you were to go to this link, and I'm going to open up the spreadsheet that you would find there, and look at the worksheet, Calculation of Regional Factor, you will see the following. Calculation of Regional Factor. And so this is the data, and as I mentioned, one of the great things about ARL is they provide the data. This is the data for Table 25 that is in these range of cells. And so these are the actual figures that are in the table. But one of the great things about ARL statistics is they also provide us the background, which are the number of salaries that were entered that actually resulted in this average. So for example, the average for New England for a functional specialist is 72,734. We know that there were 315 positions that actually went into that. And so this is a scaled down version. I've taken out the administrative positions and only included the core positions. If you could see me, you could see me doing the quotation marks with my fingers. The core librarians, which are functional specialists, subject specialists, reference, cataloging, and other. And ARL provides these broken down by age bands. That wasn't particularly of use to us. But the fact that we have all of these statistics, we use that to come up with an average for the South Atlantic. So the first thing we do is we start with the raw data on average salaries. As I mentioned, we're also provided with a number of salaries that are represented in those averages. And so by calculating, multiplying the average for each cell by the number of the salaries that were used to calculate that, we're able to come up with the total salary for each of these regions for each of these position types or years. And this is, if you can bear with me, what we end up with is the ability to calculate a weighted average for each region. And so without knowing the individual salaries, but by knowing the weight, how many proportionally went into each of these cells, we're able to come up with a weighted average, which should bear the same result as if we were calculating an average on all of these actual figures. And so the weighted average for salaries for all of these core librarian positions for the South Atlantic is 58,000. And we calculated that for every region. You'll see the highest is for New England. And we also calculated that for all of the positions that were included in this table. And that is the average for all of the United States is 62,000. By dividing each of these regional weighted average by the national weighted average, we're able to come up with a factor that represents how these different regions relate to the national average. And to cut to the chase, the South Atlantic for these types of positions in 09010 paid on average 94 cents on the dollar compared to the national average. So what this allowed us to do was to use, if we were so inclined to work backwards to our region, and these are regions that are defined by ARL, to work back to our region and to use national averages and to determine what our relevant market is. And so that was the first thing we calculated. We validated what the South Atlantic should pay. I always do that. I always go to the wrong one. And so, as I mentioned, we established core librarians and we calculated a regional factor. And so the next thing that we did was to calculate average salaries for subject specialists, reference public services, catalogers, and technical services. And we derived this from Table 26, which is the average salaries for U.S. librarians and based on years of experience. So I'm going to go back to my spreadsheet. Weighted average. And so we have, for the subject specialists, public services, technical services, references, and catalogers, these were the salaries that were provided in Table 26. And if you were to go to Table 26 in 0910, you would see these figures also online. Through ARL, you're able to get the number of salaries that feed into, that were used to establish these averages. And so by following the same process to establish weighted averages, multiplying the average salary by the weight or the number of figures that were used to arrive at that, and then by averaging those figures. So you are able to come up with weighted averages for technical services, catalogers, and subject specialists, references, and public services, which our decision, because these at the University of Florida libraries are so integrated, our decision was to merge these. And so basically what we have is the average that's represented. Now ARL wanted to depict the average for these positions over, for each of these periods of experience. And that's an interesting thing, and we used it later. But what we wanted to do was to arrive at what is the average salary for a technical services position, a cataloging position, and for a merged subject specialist reference and public services. And then once we arrived at that weighted average, we applied our South Atlantic factor of 94%. And so this is working us to the concept of do different types of librarianship based on these salary surveys. Do they get paid differently? And then the next is we wanted to look at the averages for the functional specialists. In figure five, I hope you guys are following me, there's a significant amount of calculations in determining what the averages were for catalogers and technical services, for example. The functional specialists are my favorite, because these are much more straightforward. These are just provided in figure five. And so we started with a mean for positions that vary from archivist curators to business managers. I have always been suspicious of why HR managers are amongst the highest average salaries, and we're the ones that submit the data. But that's a topic for a different webinar. And so these are other areas where we have representation amongst our librarians. And so you take that, what we did was we took that average and we applied, again, this South Atlantic factor and tried to work these backwards to a relevant, central measure of salaries that made sense for our region. Next up, we calculated experience. And we wanted to establish the experience midpoints and the fluctuations that we see based upon experience. And there's some great data that's provided by ARL for that. And what ARL provides us is a table 20 that for US, for librarians of different types, it tells us, on average, what they make at different times in their career. Now, the reason we didn't want to just use this data and we wanted to actually attempt to normalize it was I didn't really believe that these salaries should vary based upon length of experience for different positions. And some of these were genuinely counterintuitive. And it's just based upon the data. And so we wanted to bundle the data to try and get better results. So for example, if you were to go from this year from 16 to 19 years of experience and jump up to 20 to 23, the statistics would show us that on average you should take a $345 cut in pay. And we know that's not the case. You can see that in other examples. And so what we wanted to do was normalize it. So through the process that you guys have seen a couple times now of weighted averages and if you were to open up this spreadsheet, you could see the calculations. But the process of weighted averages, we were to able to come up with a weighted average for all of these positions for each of these bands, 0 to 3, 4 to 7, all the way up to over 35. These are the bands used by ARL. And we were able to come up with an average and very similar to the way we did the national average. For the purposes of regions, we came up with a national weighted average for all of these positions and that was $62,000 and just over $62,000. And that means all of these positions, all of these $5,900 positions, the average salary was $62,000. And when you compare these weighted average for each of these bands for all position types in these core librarian types, when you compare that to the national average, you get some interesting figures. And the first thing is, once you get past the first couple of bands, these progress between 3 and 6, typically about 4%. They go up by about 4%, 0.04%. And then early in the, there are some huge jumps early in the career cycle. And so that's one thing that's interesting. But the factor of 1.0 would be the central tendency as we calculated before the average length of experience is about 12 years. So not surprisingly, near the center is where the average salary of $62,000 is most closely hit. And that's the difference between 63 and 62. And so we thought that this range was pretty predictive and represented something that we could, without a lot of controversy, say that each one of these represented a 4% increase. So we start with the center of the distribution, which is 12 to 15 years, down 4% and up 4% for every increase in experience. And then we also found, if you look at where someone was 0 to 3 years, according to the salary surveys would start, they would come in at .79 of the average salary. And so that became our minimum salary. You'll see this in just a moment. And the increase is predicted by the salary data to go from .79% of the mean to 87% of the mean, based upon the jump from 3 to 4 years. And for us, one of the interesting numbers was the increase of about 9% from year 7 to 8. And that is the point at which we expect people to promote from assistant to associate. So it was a happy happenstance that it was a 9% increase, because that's what we see for rank promotions. And so moving on to the next thing, what we found from this is that there are actual variations between regions and types of entities. I didn't show you public versus private, but that also exists and not surprisingly, privates pay more. There's also our belief that the years of experience, as I showed you before, generally is a steady predictor of 4% increases. Also an analysis that I'm not going to show is that if you compare these statistics for medical librarians to those that are provided by MLA, they tend to do better under ARL. And so average salaries vary significantly by job type. And this was something that our joint committee happened on. And basically, if you were to look at the South Atlantic midpoint for a variety of different sorts of positions, there is significant variance. And I'm not talking about between where you're really getting into different career fields like IT. But if you were to look in between the differences between cataloging and tech services, for example. And so our perception was that these are significant and that these, per the recommendation of the committee, that these should be considered in salaries. And so some of the decisions that were necessary to create our salary structure were that we would use the South Atlantic and that we would use all libraries, not just the publics. And so we're applying a factor of about 94% to national averages. We would also come up with a base salary specific to each faculty member. And it would be based upon those types of compensable factors I described before, some specific ones to their jobs like cataloger versus tech services versus IT expert. And then also some individually specific factors like experience. And I've shown you, you've got a hint of how we're going to apply that. We also were decided to merge some job types that are not combined in the ARL salary survey. These are subject specialist reference and public services because there's a lot of overlap. No one that works for us does specifically one of these. And we were also, to be honest, the thought that people were interpreting subject specialists just be strictly those whose primary responsibilities are to build collections. We were skeptical. We also decided that we would maintain separately stipends for our department chairs and our associate chairs that these folks would have a base salary calculated. And then whatever stipend they received would be in addition to that. We also decided that each faculty members would not only have the job type but that we also give a 9% increase if foreign language was required. One of the recommendations was that unique positions should drive higher compensation. And our decision was to limit that only to foreign language, not music, which I thought was an interesting decision, and not other types of technical positions. And you'll see how that decision plays out in just a moment. And then the salary for each faculty member would also have some individual compensable factors, their rank, assistant, associate, or UL. And we would start with that associate in either factor up or down. And you'll see this in just a moment. And then also length of service using the 4% increase that we see from ARL. And so the resulting salary structure is such. And my hope is that you can see this. I'm going to zoom out for just a moment. And basically, and then I'll zoom back in so you can see, basically we start with a midpoint that is in this column. You start with assistants, associates, and university librarians. And so we started with a midpoint of around 12 to 15 years with a factor of 1.0 for our associates. And then we apply it to these other ranks. And so for every, our midpoint, and this ties back to those averages that I showed you before. For our midpoint, we have established what the midpoint of our structure based upon an associate is going to be for each of these job types. And it goes up by 4% or down by 4% for associates. As I mentioned before, there's a 9% pay increase. And so we've taken those figures and we've increased each of these by 9%. So for example, if we were to have a university librarian that was a cataloger, they would make 9% and they had 24 years of experience. They would make 9% more on average than the cataloger that's an associate. We distributed down, calculated down the center points of the distributions for these types of positions for the assistants. And then we also continued to use the proportion that's based upon the average salary from the ARL salary survey to establish the center points for our positions for people who are an assistant with less than 7 years of experience. We do not have associates with less than 7 years of experience. So those columns do not exist in this range. And so this information is available to you. You can work backwards how we got to this. And I can tell you that this is the basis that we use to establish salaries. So this is the center point of the average, this is the average salary for our employees that had those different types of jobs or experiences. And so the implication is that we are now grouping faculty, not based upon their rank solely, but the different types of positions. So our catalogers are compared to other catalogers and other factors differentiate their actual salaries. So if we have a cataloger that is at a different rank or that has foreign language requirements, they're going to be paid differently. Second, the advanced degrees, our decision was that we would give credit for an advanced degree beyond the required MLS degree up to a maximum of 5,000. And we also, in order to reflect performance, we decided to retain a 2010 merit increase. And I'll show you these calculations in just a moment. For feasibility, we capped all raises at 18%. And for folks who had achieved, which is a performance evaluation level, which is not in bad standing, but it's not in great standing, those folks would be capped at a 9% increase based upon the target for them. And that folks who had received a failing evaluation in the past two years would not be eligible for this round of market equity. They could go up later for an individual market equity. So I'm going to show you quickly some examples of these salary calculations. And so in this example, and this is available for you, there are five individuals and these have been given fictionalized names. They're catalogers, they're merged group. And in the information available to you, we start with, for each of these individuals, a fictionalized starting salary. One includes a stipend. And we work our way from these calculations. For those individuals, for each of these individuals, we established a job class midpoint. And this is based upon an associate with 12 to 15 years. We then apply a foreign language credit of 9%, if applicable, and come up with a factor for that. Those are their job specific compensable factors. Then we take into account their years of experience and their rank modifier. And for this, you may remember the .79, this is an assistant. They have between zero and three years of experience. So their factor is .79. So we apply it to the salary that was adjusted for foreign language. And we come up with an improved individual target for them that takes into account experience and rank. This person happens to have a PhD. And so we add 5,000 for that. We have other folks have a second master's, some who have only the required master's and they receive no adjustment. And so we end up with a salary based upon their education. Then we factor in any merit that they had received. We added that back into the system. And we calculated what the salary increase would be and what percentage it was of their current base salary. And then we took into account their performance. If they had an achieves, they were capped at 9%. And so you can see in this instance, someone's anticipated salary of $5,000 was capped at 4%, because that's 9% of their salary. We have instances where some folks might have received an increase of over 18%, but because that's our maximum, we factored that in. And we come up with a final increase for each of these individuals. And it's based upon modular cumulative calculations based upon a target from the salary structure that showed you before. And so we indicate to people the amount that is disqualified, if any. In this instance, we had a person who was over 18%. At this point, we had a person who was maxed at 9%. And so these are actually how we came up with our market equity targets for these individuals. And we communicated to folks an actual report that showed them what they could anticipate receiving. And this is for the individual who was capped at 9%. It goes through all of those things in a slightly different format and explains to them what our target is going to be for that individual. And so the intention was that this created transparency. So we have an externally equitable system based upon job type using midpoint point for the ranges. We've applied our geographic region. And we also used years of experience with ranks to differentiate along with special requirements of the position and administrative to create internal equity. And we used educational credentials and performance, including past merit and qualifiers. As a result of this, basically 64% of the eligible library faculty were targeted to receive raises. 25% were already at or above the target. Of the 49 targeted to receive raises, 7 were capped at the 18% because the size of the adjustment that was necessary and 7 were capped at 9 based upon performance. You can see how we actually use this going forward for search offers. We're still using these figures. I've provided an anonymized calculation. And one of the other ways that we're maintaining this is in October 2013, we are slated to receive merit and across the board funding. The merit will differentiate people based upon performance. And we're not going to make an adjustment to our salary structure for that. But we will have $1,000 across the board increase. In all of our figures, we are going to increase by 1,000 to maintain internal equity. And we'll use that to hire people to avoid either compression or those people being paid inadequately as we bring them in. So basically the across the board, we're going to maintain our system by increasing across the board. Lastly, I'm happy to share my references and turn it back over to the folks from ARL. Well, as we come to the end of the broadcast, I want to thank Judy and Brian for this terrific presentation and to all of you for your participation. There's one remaining webcast in the series on Suit State November 5th, which will focus on analyzing age, race, and ethnicity demographics. The presenters for that webcast will be Stanley Wilder, who's University Librarian at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, and our colleague here at ARL, Mark Quente, Director of Diversity and Leadership Programs. So this concludes today's ARL webcast. Thank you for joining us and have a nice afternoon. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.