University of Vermont

College of Arts and Sciences

Salary Increase Guidelines

CAS Performance-Based Awards

The College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) aims to maintain fair labor practices in all respects, including the assessment and evaluation of job performance. To this end, an important goal is to treat faculty equitably across academic departments and fields of study. The current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) requires that the annual evaluation of faculty be used to assign performance increases (a.k.a. performance-based awards). The CBA dictates that

  1. Performance-based increases fall within the purview of the dean;
  2. The methodology for assigning such increases must be announced before the assignment of workload plans; and,
  3. The performance awards must be based on performance evaluated against workload expectations and assignments.

The relevant text is found in section 18.3b. FY 14, Increases: Performance Increases:

Performance-based awards shall be made according to the following procedure: In consultation with the department Chair, the Dean of the school or college shall determine the performance-based distributions to individuals in each department. The methodology that will be used by the college/school for allocation of performance-based distributions in the following academic year will be determined and announced to the faculty prior to preparation of workload plans in the Spring. The Chair's recommendation shall be forwarded to the Dean by the Department Chair in a timely fashion. The performance-based awards shall be based on performance evaluated against the workload expectations and assignments of the individual for the preceding academic year but also taking into account the preceding two years, if employed in the bargaining unit. Performance-based awards are not grievable.

The size of merit raise pools will likely vary from year to year. Likewise, the number (distribution) of faculty achieving various levels of merit and accomplishment will also vary from year to year. Therefore, the method for allocating performance-based awards must be reasonably flexible to accommodate year-by-year variations in the availability of funds for performance increases and variability in the distribution of achievement.

  1. Individuals who demonstrate extraordinary levels of achievement will be recognized with substantially larger awards than those who exceed expectations but without extraordinary distinction.
  2. Faculty who exceed expectations will be recognized with substantially larger performance awards than those who meet but do not clearly exceed departmental expectations.
  3. Faculty who meet expectations should and will be eligible for performance-based awards.
  4. Faculty who do not meet minimum performance expectations will not be eligible for performance increases.

 

I. Fiscal Year 13 Increases

Annual Reviews & Performance-Based Awards.
The allocation of performance-based distributions that will become effective in Fiscal-Year 2014 (FY14) will follow the same methodology that was used last year for the allocation of performance awards that became effective in FY13.

II. Fiscal Year 14 Increases

Performance-Based Awards.
According to the CBA (18.2b), the responsibility of allocating performance-based awards resides with the dean, who must indicate prior to the assignment of load distributions how awards will be distributed in the following review period. In addition, performance-based awards shall be made in consultation with department chairs and based on performance evaluated against the workload expectations and assignments of the individual for the three most recent review cycles.

Chairs will classify their faculty into one of following categories:

  1. Does Not Meet Expectations (needs improvement): score = 1
  2. Meets Expectations (does good work) (Individuals who fail to meet expectations in either teaching or research/art cannot meet expectations for the purposes of performance based raises irrespective of performance in other categories): score = 2
  3. Clearly Exceeds Expectations (meets expectations with some distinction or clearly beyond normal expectations): score = 3. (Individuals who fail to meet expectations in service cannot receive an overall 'Exceeds Expectations' rating.)
  4. Extraordinary and Distinctive Performance. Chairs may nominate anyone who clearly exceeds expectations for extraordinary recognition of their accomplishments.

Categorization guidelines:

  1. Each faculty member must have assigned a % load for each: teaching, advising, research/art, and service (advising can be combined with either teaching or service according to departmental FEGs).
  2. Each faculty member should be assigned a score from 1 (Does Not Meet Expectations) to 3 (Clearly Exceeds Expectations) for each: teaching, research/art, and service.
  3. Calculate the total score: [Teaching % * Score] + [Research/Art % * Score] + [Advising % * Score] + [Service % * Score] = Total Score.
  4. Meaning of Total Score (see Table below):
    1. Does not meet expectations = weighted average < 1.91, or does not meet expectations in either teaching or research/art.
    2. Meets expectations = weighted average of 1.91 to 2.39, or a weighted average > 2.39 but not meeting expectations in service. (Not meeting expectations in either teaching or research/art = "does not meet expectations.")
    3. Exceeds expectations = weighted average score > 2.39 and at least meets expectations in all categories.

Allocation of performance-based awards:

  1. Faculty who do not meet expectations will not be eligible for performance-based awards.
  2. No more than 80% of the available merit pool will be used to distribute performance awards as follows:
    1. Faculty with extraordinary and distinctive performance will receive between 120% and 200% of their corresponding performance-based award. For example, assuming a CBA mandated 1% performance-based raise, a faculty member earning $100,000 per year would receive a raise between $1,200 and $2,000.
    2. Faculty who exceeds expectations will receive no less than 80% of their "corresponding" performance-based award, or no less than $800 for a salary of $100,000.
    3. Faculty who meet expectations will receive between 20% and 40% of their corresponding performance-based award, or between $200 and $400 for a salary of $100,000.
  3. Unallocated funds from the 80% pool + the unused 20% of the pool will be converted into shares and distributed among the faculty as follows:
    1. Total number of shares will be = (# of faculty who met expectations x 1) + (# of faculty who exceeded expectations x 2) + (# of faculty with extraordinary performance x 3).
    2. The price per share will be = unspent pool divided by the total number of shares.
    3. The distribution of shares will be as follows:
      • Meets Expectations = 1 share;
      • Exceeds Expectations = 2 shares;
      • Extraordinary Performance = 3 shares.
  4. We have modeled the new system using last year's distribution of scores and applied the same 1% performance-based pool. On the average, assuming a $75,000 average salary, faculty who met expectations would have received a 0.7% performance-based raise (1.7% total raise); faculty who exceeded expectations would have received a 1.8% performance-based raise (2.8% total raise); and those with extraordinary distinction would have received a 2.6% performance-based raise (3.6% total raise). Because the model continues to partially use a share system, those with lower salaries would continue to receive salary raises that are relatively (percentage wise) favorable with respect to higher paid faculty. On the other hand, faculty who exceed expectations will never receive performance-based raises that are below that of the raise of the pool.
Table 1: FY14 PERFORMANCE-BASED EVALUATION RATINGS
Teach Rsch Srvc 40:40:20 45:45:10
  Exceeds Expectations 3 3 3 3 3 Exceeds Expectations:
3 3 2 2.8 2.9

* Weighted average score > 2.39 and at least meets expectations in all categories.

2 3 3 2.6 2.55
3 2 3 2.6 2.55
2 3 2 2.4 2.45
3 2 2 2.4 2.45
  Meets Expectations 3 3 1 2.6 2.8 Meets Expectations:
  2 2 3 2.2 2.1

* Meets expectations = weighted average of 1.91 to 2.39, or a weighted average > 2.39 but not meeting expectations in service. (Not meeting expectations in either teaching or research/art = "does not meet expectations.")

  2 3 1 2.2 2.35
  3 2 1 2.2 2.35
  2 2 2 2 2
  Does Not Meet Expectations 3 1 3 2.2 2.1 Does Not Meet Expectations:
1 3 3 2.2 2.1 * Does not meet expectations = weighted average < 1.91, or does not meet expectations in either teaching or research/art.
1 3 2 2 2
3 1 2 2 2
2 2 1 1.8 1.9
1 2 3 1.8 1.65
2 1 3 1.8 1.65
1 3 1 1.8 1.9
3 1 1 1.8 1.9
1 2 2 1.6 1.55
2 1 2 1.6 1.55
1 1 3 1.4 1.2
1 2 1 1.4 1.45
2 1 1 1.4 1.45
1 1 2 1.2 1.1
1 1 1 1 1

Last modified July 03 2014 05:36 PM

Contact UVM © 2014 The University of Vermont - Burlington, VT 05405 - (802) 656-3131