��������Ƶ

• All regular faculty (i.e., tenured faculty, tenure-track faculty and instructor-track faculty) positions were reviewed and grouped into substantially similar job families by department, division or school/college.
• Salary differences could typically be explained by one of the following reasons:
  • Department
  • Years since highest degree
  • Years in position
  • One or more retention offers since 2011
  • Number of appointments
  • Average merit score over the past five years in comparison to the average score of other faculty members in the same department
• ​For a detailed explanation of the assessment methodology and the review process, see ��������Ƶ Boulder CEPEWA Faculty Methodology and Appendix A and Appendix B.
• Salaries for faculty in the research faculty series are being reviewed within each institute, school and college based on the type of work and the nature of the project and grant. Employees identified for adjustments will be notified directly on a rolling basis as each area completes its analysis.

The model takes into consideration average merit scores in each academic department. The average department score is compared to a faculty member’s average merit score and score dispersion over all faculty members in the department over the same period. Then this score is standardized to allow for use across academic units. The results of each department’s unique scoring system are reflected in the use of both the average department score and the score dispersion across the department.  

The CEPEWA review was specific to the law’s requirement to identify and address protected class gender and race/ethnicity pay inequities. This requires an internal analysis and comparison across employees performing substantially similar work on campus. Market forces and compression issues are outside the scope of this initial analysis. Units may continue to use existing resources and existing campus processes to address pay level concerns in their areas in collaboration with their school/college, the Office of Faculty Affairs and Academic Resource Management.

Faculty members may raise salary level concerns with their department chair or dean, who will review the concern and provide further information.

 A faculty member’s predicted salary is based on inputs including their primary unit (department/program), school/college, A&S division, years since highest degree, years in current rank, and number of total appointments (e.g., chair, associate director), plus additional factors for tenured and tenure-track faculty including the most recent five years of annual merit scores and whether the faculty member has received a retention offer. For a detailed explanation of the assessment methodology and the review process, see ��������Ƶ Boulder CEPEWA Faculty Methodology and Appendix A and Appendix B.

This methodology is a refinement of how the campus has previously reviewed faculty salaries for equity and also meets the requirements of Colorado’s law. It was originally developed a decade ago based on influential research by ��������Ƶ Boulder faculty members and with input from the faculty Academic Affairs Budget Advisory Committee.

��������Ƶ Boulder’s annual salary equity analyses have examined faculty salaries in larger aggregations (campus-wide, and by college/school) instead of assessing pay inequities related to gender and racial or ethnic group at the unit level. Due to the review requirements of the Colorado Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, the existing annual analysis model was enhanced to include additional variables relevant at the unit level and was used to assess faculty salary trends in individual departments/programs or in divisions of colleges/schools. For purposes of the EPEWA salary analysis, Institutional Research also extended the revised methodology to analyze the salaries of instructor-track and clinical faculty members along with those of TTT faculty members. This refined and more granular review revealed inequities specific to the unit level.

Institutional Research examined various options to see how merit scores predicted current salary. Five years of merit scores were more accurately predictive of current salary than longer spans of time (e.g., ten years, fifteen years, or entire career at ��������Ƶ Boulder). 

��������Ƶ does not have a mechanism as a normal part of the annual review process that recognizes exceptionally high merit. Responding to an external offer with a salary increase is a form of recognizing exceptionally high merit.

Employees eligible for an equity increase will receive a salary email notification by the end of January 2022.

The campus determined that increasing salaries to address pay inequities was a more appropriate means of complying with the law.

For faculty members who have salary grievances, the Boulder campus maintains a faculty salary equity appeals committee for the resolution of salary grievances and oversight of the appeals process. This committee reviews any appeal regarding salary equity that has not been resolved at either the primary unit or college/school level. Please refer to the Office of Faculty Affairs website for information about faculty salary grievance processes.

Eligible faculty will be notified by the end of January if they are receiving a salary equity increase. Faculty ineligible for a salary equity increase on the basis of the Colorado Equal Pay for Equal Work Act either had salaries at or above the predicted level or were not in the groups covered by the law for equity adjustments based on sex or sex-plus-protected-class. Going forward, the campus will work to support schools, colleges, and other academic units with additional analysis and tools to gauge factors affecting salary equity for all faculty, including compression and market forces. 

As of Jan. 20, 479 faculty members were identified for an equity increase.

The average increase to the base salary for faculty equity was $6,612.

Retention offers are still possible. Responding to an external offer with a salary increase is indicative of job-related experience, quality and quantity of production, and exceptionally high merit, all allowable under this law. In addition, as part of our further review of salary-related processes and procedures in spring 2022 and academic year 2022-23, we will examine retention offer practices.