presentation to chuuk campus compensation & benefits study results of stages one & two...

Presentation to Chuuk Campus

Compensation & Benefits Study

Results of Stages One & Two

September 2010

College of Micronesia-FSM

Background Overview

COM’s current compensation model has four classifications of employees : Classified, Professional, Management and

Faculty.

Since their adoption in 1996 the classifications have not been adjusted to reflect appropriate labor markets and relevant

economic standards.

Background Overview

In brief, the study is to address the following areas:

a) accurate classifications and compensation

b) sustainable and competitive pay schedules

c) incentive program(s) linking directly to pay schedules

d) investigate duplicate and nonessential services

Background Overview

Project Overview

Stage 2 : External Analysis

Stage 1 : Internal Analysis (including Streamlining

Supp. Projects : Performance Management

Stage 3 : Implementation

Project Overview

Committee Results / Instructional Master Plan)

a) Current Compensation

b) Job Evaluation

c) Regression Analysis (Internal)

Stage One : Internal Analysis

d) Job Audit / Streamlining Results

a) Current Compensation

Base Salary 5,893,634 69.7

Sp. Contract Services 935,640 11.0

Housing 822,000 9.7

Social Security 379,737 4.5

Health 198,669 2.3

Retirement 175,583 2.0

Life 40,073 0.4

8,445,336 100.0

$ %

a) Current Compensation Budget - F/Y10

Instructional Affairs 2,660,647 44.4

Administration 1,752,563 29.3

Student Services 954,917 16.9

CRE 519,610 9.7

Presidents Office 100,776 2.7

5,988,513 100.0

$ %

a) Current Compensation Departments - as at 4/7/10

National 2,788,258 47.6

Pohnpei 1,044,568 17.4

Chuuk 789,416 13.2

Kosrae 577,552 9.6

Yap 518,761 8.7

FMI 269,958 4.5

5,988,513 100.0

$ %

a) Current Compensation Campuses - as at 4/7/10

Sp. Service Contracts - Budget (F/Y09) 864,198


$

a) Current Compensation Special Service Contracts



Sp. Service Contracts - YTD (F/Y10) - six months 782,179

$





Sp. Service Contracts - YTD less UB & TSP 695,048

$





Sp. Service Contracts held by full-time employees (29%) 227,533

$


Instructional Affairs 202,313 89.0

Administration 21,674 9.5

Student Services 1,816 0.8

CRE 1,730 0.7

227,533 100.0

$ %


b) Job Evaluation

Job evaluation is a process that re-examines the internal equity of all positions based on job size

b) Job Evaluation

It achieves this by assessing the ‘job size’ of individual positions within an organization

using a number of measurement factors

b) Job Evaluation

Each factor provides a point value with their sum representing the total “points”

value of the job

b) Job Evaluation

• Education• Experience• Complexity• Scope of Work• Problem Solving• Supervision Received

• Work Environment• Physical Demands• Authority Exercised• Results of Decisions• Contacts• Sup. & Man. Resp.

b) Job Evaluation Criteria

147 Positions Evaluated

b) Job Evaluation Results

Range Max

Range Min

1600 -

198 -

Job Evaluation Points

Average

Median

638 -

589 -

b) Job Evaluation Results

c) Regression Analysis

Company Regression Analysis (Base Salary)


Exponential Regressione.g. Position X = 450 JE points

Company Regression Analysis (Base Salary)


Exponential Regressione.g. Position X = 450 JE points

Plot the base salary of all employees with the job title of Position Xagainst 450 JE points

COM-FSM


Regression Analysis

COM-FSM

Regression Analysis

Student Services

Instructional Affairs

Administration Services

CRE

Regression Analysis

FMI Campus

Chuuk Campus

Pohnpei Campus

National Campus

Yap Campus

Kosrae Campus

Regression Analysis

Food Services

Maintenance

Bookstore

Accounting

Information Technology

Human Resources

IRPO

Dev. & Comm. Relations

Regression Analysis

LRC

Agriculture

Maths & Science

Education

Hotel Management

Vocational EducationBusiness

Academic Programs

Social Science

Language & Literature

Regression Analysis

Peer Counseling

SSSP

FAO

Sports & Recreation

ARO

Student Life

Counseling

Dispensary (Plots Only)


This stage also provided the ideal opportunity to

collectively review the organizational structure

of the College.

The focus here was :

a) to investigate duplicate and non-essential services b) to integrate results with the work being undertaken

by the College’s Streamlining Committee


e) Cost Reduction / Management

a) Stakeholder Management

d) Master Plan(s) c.f. Instructional Programs

f) Performance Management

d) Job Audit ResultsKey issues that need to be addressed :

c) Centralization of Supp. Services (where possible)

b) Optimization of Regional Campuses

Management StructureCurrent

Vice President Administration

President

Vice President Stud. Services

Vice President CRE

Vice President Inst. Affairs

Exec. Director Land Grant


Campus DirectorPohnpei

Campus DirectorChuuk

Campus DirectorKosrae

Campus DirectorYap

Campus Director

FMI


President


Vice President CRE




Campus DirectorPohnpei

Campus DirectorChuuk

Campus DirectorKosrae

Campus DirectorYap

Campus Director

FMI


President


Vice President CRE



Programs & Supp. Services





CRE Co-ord.S.S. Co-ord.Inst. Co-ord.

Management StructureProposed

Ext. C. DirectorPohnpei

Ext. C. DirectorChuuk

Ext. C. DirectorKosrae

Ext. C. DirectorYap

Ext. C. DirectorFMI ?


President


Vice President CRE



Management StructureProposed


President


Vice President CRE








CRE Co-ord.Inst. Co-ord.

Ext. C. DirectorPohnpei

Ext. C. DirectorChuuk

Ext. C. DirectorKosrae

Ext. C. DirectorYap

Ext. C. DirectorFMI ?

Nat. Directors Nat. Directors

Chuuk Extension Center


Program/Services Pros Cons Recommendation Comments

Carpentry & Cabinet Making

Small business opportunities.

Support for capacity building.

Equipment on the Ground

Maintain as a cohort

Cohort

AA in Teacher Prep Demand is high for certification

Resources - having enough faculty to deliver the

courses

MaintainStrategic scheduling of courses needed.

First priority for distance learning

CA in Agriculture & Food Tech

On going agriculture. CRE has staff to support

the program.We have space now

CRE space needs to be relocated to

center

Keep at CC

CA in Secretarial Science

There is a large work sector that needs

training/retraining.Potential for adult

education development

Keep at CC Cohort


Program/Services Pros Cons Recommendation CommentsDevelopment Ed. Achieving College Excellence (ACE)

There is always a need for Dev Education.

Pell eligible High demand on

resourcesKeep at CC

CA in Law EnforcementThere is a need.

Professional Dev.Career Ladder

Limited teaching faculty

Keep at CC as a cohort

Cohort

Short Term Training There is a high demandAdditional funding

Keep at CCSector Dev Grants

possible.Center Dir. to be

proactive

Public Health Capacity building.Potential for

PDP AHEC funding


Cohort

Nursing Demand and the need is there.

National priorityPotential for PDP

AHEC Funding.

Keep at CC as a cohort and strategic

scheduling

CohortHigh school

graduates to National Campus



Community Health Assistant Program/Health Worker

On-going training/retraining need. Sector Dev.

Grants?

Change in State plan focus for

Dispensary staffing

Keep as PDPCohort

Dispensary worker

TRIO Programs Added value to our services.

Indirect cost

Soft money Maintain at CCUB

Do we have any plans if soft money

runs out?

Financial Aid Maintain 1 Centralized services

Admissions & Records1 x personnel for

Admissions & Financial Aid

Centralized services

Counseling/Tutoring/Advising2 x counselors for

counseling, tutoring, advising, peer

counseling

Business OfficeRecreation/Activities

Dispensary



LibraryResources are on

the ground.Essential for

supporting our curriculum programs

Keep at CC

Needs to be expanded to meet student enrollment

and needs.Collection should reflect program

offerings

BookstorePlace duties under the Fiscal Officer

Hire a part time clerk to help the fiscal

officer

TYC in Teacher Prep There is a need.Potential for DL

delivery

Limited teaching faculty and

course load for existing faculty


Cohort, strategic scheduling,

CA in Trial Counselor There is an on going need.

Potential for PDP

Limited teaching faculty.

Relies on lawyers in the

workforce

Maintain at CC as a cohort

Cohort

CA in Bookkeeping Potential for PDP.There is an on going

need

Program maybe outdated Keep at CC

Graduation rate is low



CA in Building Maintenance There is a high demand on and off

island.Potential for PDP

Limited teaching faculty

Keep at CC High demandProactive

recruitment

Apprenticeship Program Potential for PDP Get it off the ground Get something started as requested

e) Cost Reduction / Management

a) Stakeholder Management

d) Master Plan(s) c.f. Instructional Programs

f) Performance Management

c) Centralization of Supp. Services (where possible)

b) Optimization of Regional Campuses

Summary of Key Issues

- increased confidence in COM-FSM

Stakeholder Management

- development of partnership(s) c.f. industry

- closer relationships / improved communication

- collective needs assessment /continuous improvement

- greater student focus / preparation / opportunities / jobs

- business development / vocational awareness / education

- centralized support services (where possible)

Extension Centers

- increased enrollment / increased revenue

- improved operational efficiency

- wider curriculum (academic / voc. programs)

- optimization of infrastructure / resources

Centralized Support Services

- consistency of service delivery (current)


- optimization of resources

- coordinated development of new services

- timely procurement / delivery of resource materials (special focus)

- integrated approach to program development / delivery

Master Plan(s)(in particular Instructional Master Plan)

- balanced mix of quality academic and voc. programs

- Instructional / Information Tech. / Infrastructure

- collective needs assessment /continuous improvement

- enhanced program evaluation / assessment / delivery

- improved performance management (faculty)

Cost Reduction / Management

- improved fiscal management


- optimization of resources

- improved budgeting process

- greater accountability / managed expectations

Performance Management

- enhanced work planning

- provision of constructive feedback mechanism

- link to performance pay

- link to training and development

Obtaining and analyzing market compensation data

Stage 2 Compensation Structuring

Market Data - Sources


1. Regional Comparisons

Guam Community College

Palau Community College

College of the Marshall Islands

American Samoa Community College

Northern Marianas College (unable to participate)

a) National Faculty Survey 2007 - 2008 (CUPA)

b) Community College Faculty Survey 2007 - 2008 (CUPA)

c) Mid Level Admin & Professional Survey 2007 - 2008 (CUPA)

d) Administrative Compensation Survey 2007 - 2008 (CUPA)

2. U.S. Comparisons (GCC Report)


Regional Market Percentiles

5th - 95th

Market Data

Regression Analysis

COM-FSM

Regression Analysis

PCC

COM-FSM

GCC

CMI

ASCC

Regression Analysis

PCC COM-FSM

GCC

CMI

ASCC50th

25th

5th

75th

95th

Regression Analysis

50th

25th

5th

75th

95th

15th

10th

5th

Regression Analysis

50th

25th

5th

75th

95th

In developing a revised compensation model :

KEY QUESTION

Where in the market “should we / can we” position the College to be more externally competitive i.e. in attracting and retaining employees ?

Stage 2 Compensation Structuring

Regression Analysis

50th

25th

5th

75th

95th

Structural Adjustment Cost

Current Base Salary Total

Increase to 10th Market Percentile

New Base Salary Total

Estimated Adjustment Cost(10th Market Percentile - Region)

$ 5,988,513

$ 79,991

$ 6,068,504

Current Total Compensation


New Total Compensation

$ 7,630,563

$ 101,925

$ 7,732,488 (1.3%)

Number of Employees (< 10th)

Total Full-Time Employees

Number of Employees (> 10th)

43 (11.8%)

320 (88.2%)

363 (100.0%)

Estimated Adjustment(10th Market Percentile - Region)





$ 5,988,513

$ 204,272

$ 6,192,785




$ 7,630,563

$ 260,283

$ 7,890,847 (3.4%)




103 (28.4%)

260 (71.6%)

363 (100.0%)






$ 5,988,513

$ 464,105

$ 6,452,618




$ 7,630,563

$ 591,363

$ 8,221,926 (7.7%)




185 (51.0%)

178 (49.0%)

363 (100.0%)






$ 5,988,513

$ 871,158

$ 6,859,671




$ 7,630,563

$ 1,110,030

$ 8,740,593 (14.5%)




243 (66.9%)

120 (33.1%)

363 (100.0%)






$ 5,988,513

$ 1,400,322

$ 7,388,835




$ 7,630,563

$ 1,784,290

$ 9,414,853 (23.3%)




303 (83.5%)

60 (16.5%)

363 (100.0%)


Note : the transition to

a more competitive market position may take

over a number of years e.g.

FY11 - 10th market percentile




Option 1

Note : the transition to

a more competitive market position may take

over a number of years e.g.


FY12 - standard increment


FY14 - standard increment

Option 2

COM-FSM (full-time employees) No %Base Salary

Increase

Administration Employees < 10th Market Percentile 21 5.8 30,803

Administration Employees > 10th Market Percentile 106 29.2 7,886

Instructional Affairs Employees < 10th Market Percentile 13 3.6 14,274

Instructional Affairs Employees > 10th Market Percentile 118 32.5 12,427

Student Services Employees < 10th Market Percentile 6 1.7 3,903

Student Services Employees > 10th Market Percentile 63 17.4 4,572

CRE Employees < 10th Market Percentile 2 0.6 342

CRE Employees > 10th Market Percentile 30 8.3 2,541

Presidents Office Employees < 10th Market Percentile 1 0.3 2,977

Presidents Office Employees > 10th Market Percentile 3 0.8 266

TOTAL 363 100.0 79,991

Target a Specific Group for an Initial Adjustment e.g.

Option 3

New Pay Schedule Options


Pay Schedule Option

6.2% 5.8% 5.5% 5.2% 4.0% 3.8% 3.7% 3.5%

Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8

3.8% A $13,990 $14,865 $15,739 $16.614 $17,488 $18,188 $18,887 $19,587

4.1% B $14,534 $15,443 $16,351 $17,260 $18,168 $18,895 $19,621 $20,348

4.6% C $15,133 $16,079 $17,024 $17,970 $18,916 $19,673 $20,429 $21,186

5.1% D $15,840 $16,830 $17,820 $18,810 $19,800 $20,592 $21,384 $22,176

5.8% E $16,656 $17,697 $18,738 $19,779 $20,820 $21,653 $22,486 $23,318

(Traditional Approach)

Pay Schedule Option

+ 1% + 1% + 1% + 1% + 1% + 1% + 1%

Step 1 Step 2 Step 20

A B C D A B C D

Grade A 11,000 11,110 11,221 11,333 11,447 11,561 11,677 11,793

+ 14% B 12,540 12,665 12,792 12,920 13,049 13,180 13,311 13,445

+ 14% C 14,296 14,439 14,583 14,729 14,876 15,025 15,175 15,327

+ 14% D 16,297 16,460 16,625 16,791 16,959 17,128 17,300 17,473

+ 14% E 18,579 18,764 18,952 19,142 19,333 19,526 19,722 19,919

Z

(New Approach)

Every employee would have a :grade, step and sub-step

e.g. Employee X Grade I, Step 6, Sub-step B

Pay Schedule Options

Transition Process toNew Compensation Model


Competitor’s Approach

600 JE Points

500 JE Points


600 JE Points

(20 Positions)

500 JE Points


600 JE Points

(20 Positions) e.g. Grade K (Step 1)

500 JE Points


600 JE Points


500 JE Points 505 JE Points

595 JE Points


600 JE Points



595 JE Points

605 JE Points e.g. Grade L (Step 1)


700 JE Points

Our Approach

600 JE Points

(20 Positions)

500 JE Points

Our Approach

600 JE Points

(20 Positions)


595 JE Points

Our Approach

600 JE Points

(20 Positions)


595 JE Points e.g. Grade K (Step 5)

e.g. Grade K (Step 2)

Our Approach

Let’s look at the mechanics of this process

(Two Step Process)

Our Approach

Step 1 - Identification of an implementation range

Step 2 - Migrate all employees into the new model

Our Approach

Regression Analysis

50th

25th

5th

75th

95th

Base Salary Regression Line (15th Market Percentile)


$ U

S

Implementation (Step 1)

$ U

S

Position A - Mkt Base Salary



Position B - Mkt Base Salary


B





$ U

S

A


B

CAP (Pay no more than 105%)




CAP (Pay no less than 95%)

$ U

S

APosition A - Mkt Base Salary


D

B






$ U

S

A

CAP (Pay no less than 95%) C


D

B

$ U

S


CCAP (Pay no less than 95%)






F E

D

B

$ U

S


C





CAP (Pay no less than 95%)


We next identify a base salary value (for each position) that we can then transpose to the new pay schedule in order to identify

the upper end of an implementation range

We do this by initially identifying the midpoint




$ U

S

CAP - 95% C

A

B



A

B


the cap so we take themidpoint value and transpose this to the new pay schedule



falls between the market and

$ U

S

In this example, the midpoint

CAP - 95%

D (Midpoint)

C




$ U

S

CAP - 95% C

A

B



A

B


In this example, the midpoint

take the cap value and transpose this to the new pay schedule



falls below the cap so we

$ U

S

CAP - 95%

D (Midpoint)

C


Conversion Process

Example

e.g : Position X

468


Mkt Base Salary $30,527

$ U

S


e.g : Position X

$ U

S


CAP (95%) $29,001

468



e.g : Position X

CAP (95%) $29,001

468



$ U

S


$29,463 (Regression Intercept)

e.g : Position X



$ U

S



CAP (95%) $29,001

Midpoint $29,995

468

e.g : Position X



$ U

S



CAP (95%) $29,001

Midpoint $29,995

468

We transpose $29,995

to the new Pay Schedule

e.g : Position X

Using the new Pay Schedule identify the closest base salary sub-step

(on the lower side)

$29,756

Grade G

Step 6

Sub-Step C

$29,995

e.g : Position X

Note : this forms the high end of the implementation range (25th Market Percentile)

e.g : Position X

$29,756

Grade G

Step 6

Sub-Step C

$29,995

Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6

C D A B C D A B C D A B C D A B

GR. G 25,630 25,886 26,145 26,407 26,671 26,937 27,207 27,479 27,754 28,031 28,312 28,595 28,881 29,169 29,461 29,756

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

$25,630 $29,756

The low end of the implementation range is 16 sub-steps from the high end

e.g : Position X



GR. G 25,630 25,886 26,145 26,407 26,671 26,937 27,207 27,479 27,754 28,031 28,312 28,595 28,881 29,169 29,461 29,756

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

$25,630 $29,756

e.g : Position X

$29,756 (Grade G, Step 6, Sub-Step B) - Range Max

$25,630 (Grade G, Step 2, Sub-Step C) - Range Min

Implementation Range

Now that we have an implementation rangefor each unique position the final

step is to migrate all employees into

the new compensation model

Implementation

1. Performance 8 Points 50%2. Education 5 Points 31%3. Experience 3 Points 19%

TOTAL 16 Points 100%

Implementation Criteria

1. Performance 8 Points 50%2. Education 5 Points 31%3. Experience 3 Points 19%

TOTAL 16 Points 100%

This corresponds to the implementation range

Implementation Criteria

1. Performance 9 Points 8 Points

2. Education 4 Points 4 Points

3. Experience 3 Points 3 Points

TOTAL 16 Points 15 Points

Employee

e.g : Position X



GR. G 25,630 25,886 26,145 26,407 26,671 26,937 27,207 27,479 27,754 28,031 28,312 28,595 28,881 29,169 29,461 29,756

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

$25,630 $29,756

e.g : Position X

Finally, in comparing this to the employee’s current salary there are two scenarios :

Score of 15 = $29,461



GR. G 25,630 25,886 26,145 26,407 26,671 26,937 27,207 27,479 27,754 28,031 28,312 28,595 28,881 29,169 29,461 29,756

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

$25,630 $29,756

e.g : Position X

Score of 15 = $29,4611. Where the employee’s current base salary

is below this amount



GR. G 25,630 25,886 26,145 26,407 26,671 26,937 27,207 27,479 27,754 28,031 28,312 28,595 28,881 29,169 29,461 29,756

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

$25,630 $29,756

e.g : Position X

Score of 15 = $29,461Emp X : Current Base Salary = $26,000



GR. G 25,630 25,886 26,145 26,407 26,671 26,937 27,207 27,479 27,754 28,031 28,312 28,595 28,881 29,169 29,461 29,756

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

$25,630 $29,756

e.g : Position X

Score of 15 = $29,461Emp X : Current Base Salary = $26,000 Emp X : New Base Salary = $29,461 (13% inc)

Grade G, 6, A

2. Where the employee’s current base salary is above this amount

Score of 15 = $29,461


D A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C

GR. G 29,169 29,461 29,756 30,053 30,354 30,657 30,964 31,274 31,586 31,902 32,221 32,543 32,869 33,198 33,530 33,865

14 15 16

$29,756

e.g : Position X



GR. G 29,169 29,461 29,756 30,053 30,354 30,657 30,964 31,274 31,586 31,902 32,221 32,543 32,869 33,198 33,530 33,865

14 15 16

$29,756

e.g : Position X

Emp X : Current Base Salary = $31,500

Score of 15 = $29,461



GR. G 29,169 29,461 29,756 30,053 30,354 30,657 30,964 31,274 31,586 31,902 32,221 32,543 32,869 33,198 33,530 33,865

14 15 16

$29,756

e.g : Position X

Emp X : Current Base Salary = $31,500

Score of 15 = $29,461

Emp X : New Base Salary = $31,586 (0.3% inc)

Grade G, 7, D

Stage 2 : External Analysis

Stage 1 : Internal Analysis

Supp. Projects : Performance Management / (optional) Development of Pay Incentives


Typical Project Overview

Integrated Performance Management System

Review

Performance PayTraining

Work Planning

Integrated Performance Management System

10 + Steps

7 - 9 Steps

1 - 6 Steps

Performance Management e.g. Guam Community College

e.g. GCC under previous compensation model

- 24 months

- 18 months

- 12 months

10 + Steps

7 - 9 Steps

1 - 6 Steps

Old Compensation Model

- 24 months

- 18 months

- 12 months

New Model

Everyone will be reviewed annually


Three new performance management tools are being implemented :

a) Academic Administrators

b) Faculty

c) Staff (classified positions)


One of the benefits of the new pay schedule

is that a performance range is made available

i.e. as a performance incentive on an

annual basis


+ 1% + 1% + 1% + 1% + 1% + 1% + 1% + 1% + 1%

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

A B C D A B C D A B

Grade A 11,000 11,110 11,221 11,333 11,447 11,561 11,677 11,793 11,911 12,031

+ 14% B 12,540 12,665 12,792 12,920 13,049 13,180 13,311 13,445 13,579 13,715

+ 14% C 14,296 14,439 14,583 14,729 14,876 15,025 15,175 15,327 15,480 15,635

+ 14% D 16,297 16,460 16,625 16,791 16,959 17,128 17,300 17,473 17,647 17,824

+ 14% E 18,579 18,764 18,952 19,142 19,333 19,526 19,722 19,919 20,118 20,319

+ 14% F 21,180 21,391 21,605 21,821 22,040 22,260 22,483 22,707 22,934 23,164

+ 14% G 24,145 24,386 24,630 24,876 25,125 25,376 25,630 25,886 26,145 26,407

Performance Management

Thank You / Questions

presentation to chuuk campus compensation & benefits study results of stages one & two...

Documents

service contracts ytd

resultsa current compensation

current compensation

compensation b sustainable

job size b job evaluation

internal analysisd job

classifications of employees

ub tsp