Compensation Update

1. Compensation Update Brandeis University pays competitive base market salaries as part of a total rewards strategy to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified individuals. Lori Dougherty Director of Compensation December 8, 2009

2. Compensation History • FY2004 Turnover – Major reason for leaving was identified as a base pay issue. • FY2004 research identified approximately half of Brandeis’ positions as lagging the market in base pay. • University Adjusted increases were given January 2006, July 2006, January 2007 & January 2008 resulting in more than $1.3M in adjustments and affecting 392 staff or approx 35% of the staff population. Increases that were given were based on years of service in addition to market. • Additionally, 725 new hires since Jan 2006, both replacement and new positions, have been reviewed so as to hire at current market levels. • As a result of these adjustments our base pay position to market moved to approx 49%.

3. Compensation History(continued) Departments whose employees received increases included: • Students & Enrollment • Development • Provost Office – Biology, GSAS, Heller & IBS amongst others • Operating Areas – Finance, Facilities, HR In an update to the Board of Directors in October 2008, the following points were summarized: • University voluntary turnover had improved by 40% • Pay as a reason for leaving had decreased from 40% of all voluntary terminations to 5% of voluntary terminations • Average pay at Brandeis had improved from 8-10% below our peers to less than 1% below our peers.

4. Compensation Today • Market midpoints are reviewed on an ongoing basis when the position becomes vacant and at a department manager’s request. The midpoint may be adjusted according to the results of an external and internal market analysis. • Local area colleges (BACUS group) serve as one peer comparison group to our staff positions directly related to Higher Education. Other sources of market data are reviewed from Educomp (a cross section of colleges and universities across the US), CUPA, TSG (a local New England regional survey of all types of businesses) and Mercer. • Ranges are created around the midpoint with interval ascending range spreads e.g. an employee in a non-exempt grade 7 might have a range spread of 40%, an employee in an exempt director level grade E might have a range spread of 60%. Note: Identified a historical problem of department managers consistently elevating positions to the next highest level (or higher title) without sufficient justification, in order to warrant a pay increase instead of working within the current range and towards the midpoint or fully functional value for that position.

5. Compensation Today (continued) • A new JDQ form was created and streamlined in order to allow for more thought in the process of creating job descriptions and details (vs. canned check list). • Positions are being reviewed relative to each other regardless of the department e.g. an Associate Director in Mandel is being compared to an Associate Director level in Cohen center. Other Compensation activity: • Merits - With the exception of the unions, employees received no merit increases for FY2010 (effective 7/1/2009). The merit pool for FY2009 was 4%. • Adjustments - There were some adjustments and promotional increases given in FY2009 and to date in FY2010. Promotional increases were 5% on average compared to previous 10-15% (average 12% for FY2007 & 2008) promotional increases.

6. Compensation Today (continued) • Brandeis’ base pay position to market has continued to improve. As of 12/1/09, the average of our staff’s base pay is approx at 49% of market. This includes 1112 regular full time & part time staff.. • As can be expected, there are still employees who are below market midpoint. Reasons for this include (but are not limited to): • Hiring an entry level person close to the minimum of range due to the turnover of a position. • Employees promoted to a new position are typically positioned below the market midpoint. • Existing Research position salary ranges appear to be high for the job duties. Employees are being compared to the new ranges positioning them below midpoint. • Minimal increases have not allowed an employee to “catch up” to midpoint even though they may be fully functional in their job due to their expertise and length of service in that same job e.g. Facilities Supervisors.

7. Compensation Today (continued) • Reasons positions may be above the market median (but are not limited to): • Grandfathered employees are overpaid for the job and level e.g. past title promotions to justify increases • Research jobs categorized too high for the job duties –some employees have been moved to this high market position – Heller, Cohen • Length of service – an employee started high in the range and has been in the same job for many years so has moved beyond the market midpoint.

8. Compensation in the Future • Our base pay position to market is only one section of a total rewards strategy. Although we may want to consider reviewing groups of positions in the near future with possible base pay adjustments, we need to be mindful of the total package we are offering our current staff and how we are marketing to attract outside talent. • Should we decide to further review groups of positions and their base pay to market, recommendations include the Administrative Support Job Family, Non-Union Parking Monitors, Admissions Counselors and Biology Research Assistants. These recommendations are based only on anecdotal evidence and further research needs to occur. • We may also consider reviewing job titles and span of control in other departments

9. Compensation in the Future (continued) The following are ongoing issues we may want to target: • Create detailed, solid and distinguishing criteria for each of the positions and levels e.g. what makes an Associate director vs. Assistant director? • What happens when someone wants to create yet another management level and title? • Do we continue to reinforce equity between grant funded and university funded positions and pay? • Do we start to use bonuses as a way to attract, retain and reward vs. making adjustments to base pay? • How do we communicate with Management on a regular basis with regards to a total rewards strategy and goals? • How do we create a performance management system that connects pay to performance across the University?