Human Resources Planning 2010 Planning Task Force Report January 2009

INTRODUCTION The quality and expertise of the faculty and staff is crucial to the continuing success and excellence of Grand Valley State University. Grand Valley is often recognized for its overall excellence. As with any institution of higher education, this standard of excellence directly relates to the faculty members, whose efforts support the Grand Valley mission of “educating students to shape their lives, their professions and their societies,” and to the senior management and staff of the university, who lead and support these efforts. A key part of success is the stability of the workforce and the implementation of the transference of leadership and the community culture to those who will be members of the faculty and staff in 2010 and beyond. Compounding the need for planning is the widespread concern that the imminent retirement of the “baby boomers” will cause an exodus of talent in a very short timeframe. Without a firm plan, such turnover of talent could make it difficult to sustain the quality of the faculty, leadership and staff of Grand Valley. To assure university leadership, our community, and stakeholders that Grand Valley is prepared for its workforce of the future, President Haas charged the Human Resource Planning Task Force to study this important issue and report to the campus community. The task force studied Grand Valley data, considering projections of retirements, faculty growth, and programmatic needs of the university. Additionally, we considered compensation, benefits and the budgetary impact of our planning. While retirement is voluntary with no mandatory or encouraged age of retirement, the typical retirement age for Grand Valley faculty and staff members is 64 years old. In reviewing our demographics, particular attention was paid to units in which more than one-third of the faculty is 59 years of age or older. Task force committee members selected age 59 because we felt that this is an age group that would likely be planning for retirement within the next five to seven years. However, the recent economic contagion may delay the retirement plans of many faculty and staff members.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Grand Valley has experienced rapid growth unparalleled by other Michigan universities in recent times. Many of the baby boomers were first joining university workforces in the late 1960s. At that time GVSU was a young college with a few hundred faculty and staff members. That can be contrasted with today’s employment levels of almost 800 faculty members and a total employee population approaching 2,500. Grand Valley, therefore, did not experience the large volume of “boomer” hiring in the ’60s and ’70s, but rather had much of its steady growth beginning in the mid-1980s, as shown in Figure 1.

1

GVSU Employment Growth: 1980 - 2008 2500

2000 1500

1000 500

0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Figure 1: GVSU Employment Growth

The result of this large growth, spread over an extended period of time, is that Grand Valley will not be impacted by the retirement of the baby boomers to the extent that many other universities may be experiencing or predicting. Steady growth at Grand Valley has more evenly distributed the ages of our workforce and their anticipated retirement dates. Therefore, our review does not show a retirement crisis on the horizon. Still, there are a few units that need to be aware of potential turnover issues. This report provides data (Appendix A) for all university units so senior management, deans, and appointing officers can do the appropriate level of planning for their area or division. As we reach our 50th anniversary, the committee recognizes that there are areas of concern that will need our attention in the coming years. These areas include the appropriate size of the faculty and staff along with benefit and compensation issues. Grand Valley has a unique culture and it is important that university leadership takes efforts not to let our “small college” appeal be lost with the maturing of a large university. Our report discusses each of these areas in more detail. THE FACULTY This section discusses issues related to faculty retirements and compensation as well as the size of the faculty. The age of the faculty does not appear to be a significant issue, though there are some departments (Nursing, Accounting) where the age of the faculty may

2

present unique problems. Grand Valley continues to lag behind Michigan peer institutions in faculty compensation in spite of several recent years of above average salary adjustments. Efforts should continue to move faculty compensation toward the median of Michigan institutions. The size of the faculty is small relative to peer institutions and that differential should continue to be addressed over a period of years with the addition of 20 faculty members per year beyond proportionate growth in the student population. Faculty Retirements Figure 2 is a histogram showing the relative age of the faculty as a whole. Of the 789 faculty represented in the histogram, 465 (59%) are under the age of 50. One hundred twenty (120) faculty members (15%) are over the age of 60.

Age of Tenured / Tenure-track Faculty: Fall 2008
20 18 16 14 % of Faculty 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50 51 - 55 56 - 60 61 - 65 66 - 70 71 - 75

Figure 2: Age of Tenured / Tenure-Track Faculty

We do not believe the age of the faculty presents any unique problems other than in a few units. Table 1 identifies units with a high percentage of faculty members who are 59 years old or older. Nursing is perhaps most in need of acute care as it is difficult to recruit terminally qualified nursing faculty members and a large percentage of the nursing faculty are nearing retirement age. Two faculty members are currently on a phased-retirement program lasting through 2012. Initiation of the Doctor of Nursing Practice program creates additional need for terminally qualified nursing faculty in the near future.

3

Table 1: Units with High Percentage of 59+ Yr. Old Faculty

Kirkhof College of Nursing Management School of Criminal Justice Marketing College of Education Finance School of Accounting School of Computing and Information Systems School of Social Work English School of Public and Nonprofit Administration

N 28 26 18 12 48 10 17 25 15 36 12

59 + 14 9 6 4 15 3 5 7 4 9 3

% 59 + 50% 35% 33% 33% 31% 30% 29% 28% 27% 25% 25%

One response to the nursing faculty issue has been to search continuously for nursing faculty, as opposed to searching for discreet lines. We believe Grand Valley could absorb three to five additional nursing faculty members and the Kirkhof College of Nursing Dean has been authorized to stay in continuous search mode. If this does not meet our needs, other strategies, such as signing bonuses, may need to be considered. Three units in the Seidman College of Business also have high proportions of faculty members who are nearing retirement age. Management, Marketing, and Accounting all have one faculty member currently on phased retirement for the next several years. Management is a combination of several sub-disciplines such that the concentration of skill sets is widely dispersed through the department. As a result, we believe that the age issue may not be as acute as the high percentage suggests. However, it does merit watching. Marketing has two new faculty starting fall of 2009, which should attenuate some concerns. However, these hires were based on student demand and some problems could present if two or more faculty members retired or entered a phased-retirement program. The School of Accounting may present the greatest challenge in Seidman. While hiring has taken place during the last couple years to right-size the school, it is likely two or three faculty members will retire or reduce their workload in the near future. Coupling retirements with a very tight supply of terminally qualified accounting faculty candidates suggests we need carefully planned remedies. Attempting to hire ahead of retirements may be one response to this situation. At a minimum, the issue may merit some uncomfortable discussions about retirement plans with existing faculty members. Accreditation standards dictate the proportion of tenure-track faculty members at Seidman. In addition, the accrediting body, AACSB, has recently shortened the review period from 10 years to five years. This shortening of review periods makes it more difficult to smooth out disruptions caused by retirements. That difficulty arises because Seidman cannot always fill

4

a retiree vacancy by simply hiring an adjunct to teach classes and still meet faculty ratios in the accreditation standards. Other units on the list do not seem to present similar problems. While an isolated case may present itself, recruiting in these units is not as difficult as it is in those mentioned above. We expect these units will be able to replace retiring faculty members in a timely fashion. Grand Valley’s phased-retirement program presents a double-edged sword but is still a valuable tool for planning. On one hand, some faculty members may continue longer, although at a reduced load. On the other hand, some faculty members may withdraw a portion of their workload earlier than they might otherwise fully retire. Currently there are 26 faculty members on phased retirement. Six are in their final year. We believe the program does provide an opportunity for individual units to better plan for retirements by reducing the number of faculty members who delay retirement notification to the last minute. Faculty Compensation The objective of the university’s compensation program for faculty members is to attract, retain, motivate, and reward equitably and competitively, reflecting market levels, the responsibilities of the position, and the performance of the incumbents. Faculty compensation considers both internal and external pay equity. Internal equity involves adjusting individual faculty member salaries for compression unless the compression is created by performance issues. Compression occurs primarily from promotional increments, which could cause a promoted faculty member’s salary to jump over a previously promoted faculty member. External equity involves comparing salaries to external benchmarks where available. The most comprehensive external benchmark is the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) salary surveys. CUPA-HR provides salary data for faculty members by rank and discipline. These data can be reported by type of institution, by region, or by particular universities. These data are aggregated so a minimum of five schools need be in a cohort in order to prevent identification of a particular university. Grand Valley selects data from Master’s Comprehensive Universities for both the Midwest and for the entire nation for comparison purposes. Data for Michigan institutions alone is not available because less than five Michigan universities report data to CUPA-HR. Some units provide data from faculty associations for benchmarking purposes. Examples include Kirkhof College of Nursing, University Libraries, and the Seidman College of Business. All of the benchmarking data is used during the hiring process and during salary adjustment time. This involves making available comparisons at the college, departmental and individual level to promote internal and external equity. Table 2 shows how Grand Valley salaries compare to the CUPA-HR benchmarks in 2007. Three comprehensive university comparison groups are identified. These are universities in the Midwest, the nation, and a select group of universities that make up identified peer institutions, plus a couple more to offset for peer institutions that do not report data. It shows 5

that in most cases, Grand Valley has average salaries at or above those in the study. It also shows that we have areas that need consideration.
Table 2: Comparison of GV Salaries to CUPA-HR Data - 2007

Focus: # Participating # of Comparisons @ discipline/rank # Comparisons where GV 79 108 42 Average Salary is greater (78%) (79%) (53%) than median value for comparison schools Overall comparison of our 103.8% 106.8% 100.7% average to median value of comparisons (2) (1) Selected institutions are those that have been identified as peer institutions plus a couple more in order to have enough so that CUPA-HR minimum comparison levels of five institutions were present. (2) Where comparisons are made at a discipline-rank level, our average salary at that discipline rank is divided by the median salary for comparison institutions. These numbers are the average of that division calculation.

Public-Master’s Degree Granting Institutions (Peers) Midwest National Select (1) 20 151 9 101 137 80

Grand Valley compares favorably with both the Midwest and national groups. We are able to make comparisons on a large number of disciplines and ranks and, in many cases, our salaries exceed the medians of these groups. However, many of these schools are much smaller than Grand Valley. The peer group contains universities that are closer to Grand Valley’s size and complexity. For that group, Grand Valley salaries are above or below those institutions on about half the discipline/rank comparisons. Another very important comparison group is the other Michigan institutions, particularly those other than UM-AA, MSU, and Wayne State. However, data is not available at the discipline/rank level for these institutions, making comparisons somewhat more complicated. Data is available that may provide some guidance, especially when ranks and discipline salaries can be tempered by CUPA-HR relationships. Table 3 shows the average faculty salary at various ranks as collected by the AAUP for Michigan universities. These data are sorted based on assistant professor salaries. This table allows us to make statements about the relationship of salaries at each rank. However, we are unable to make statements about relationships within particular disciplines. It is also difficult to make global statements about faculty salaries. For example, relative to Ferris State, Grand Valley’s average salary for assistant professors is considerably less.

6

The salary for associates is about the same, while the salary for full professors is higher at Grand Valley than at Ferris. Weighted average salaries are calculated for each of the universities in an attempt to make a global comparison. For Grand Valley, this process involves multiplying the average salary at each rank by the number of faculty members at that rank and then dividing the sum of the rank products by 730. The weighted average faculty salary at Grand Valley was $64,389. Other institutions are not the same size as Grand Valley, complicating comparisons. However, Table 3 attempts to same-size institutions by multiplying the average salary at each rank by the number of faculty at that rank at Grand Valley. The sum of these rank products is again divided by 730. We perform this calculation for the overall mean of all other (smaller) Michigan universities resulting in weighted average salaries of $73,000 ($68,741).
Table 3: Average Faculty Salary by Rank: 2007-08

Sort on Weighted Source: AAUP Professor Associate Assistant Instructor Average U of M -AA $137,000 $89,100 $79,300 Michigan Tech 89,100 71,900 67,900 47,400 U of M-Dearborn 95,300 76,000 67,000 Wayne State 105,600 80,400 66,800 62,100 Michigan State 116,000 82,800 64,200 38,600 Oakland 91,400 69,900 60,500 51,800 Eastern Michigan 86,000 68,100 59,600 52,700 U of M-Flint 83,400 66,000 58,400 49,100 Ferris State 80,900 65,500 57,100 53,300 Central Michigan 89,700 68,300 55,100 38,400 Western Michigan 92,600 69,100 54,700 42,800 Grand Valley State 84,700 65,700 52,400 41,600 Northern Michigan 80,400 62,800 51,900 43,100 Weighted Average Calculations Mean for Michigan ** 95,617 72,492 61,875 47,930 $73,000 Mean Without Big 3 ^ 87,644 68,622 59,133 47,325 $68,741 Grand Valley State 84,700 65,700 52,400 41,600 $64,389 GVSU – TT Only 85,700 66,200 56,300 50,500 $66,454 Difference all Schools 10,917 6,792 9,475 6,330 $8,611 Difference Without Big 3 2,944 2,922 6,733 5,725 $4,352 Number of GVSU faculty 158 293 256 23 730 ** Does not include GVSU, LSSU & SVSU. ^ Excludes UM-AA, MSU, and WSU The weighted average data suggests that GVSU salaries were, on average across all ranks and disciplines, $4,352 below other, smaller Michigan institutions during the 2007-2008 academic year (FY08).

7

Similar calculations were performed for each year back to FY03. Figure 3 shows calculations for prior years and also provides estimates of values for future years based on the assumption that Grand Valley’s average salaries grow by 1 percentage point more than the mean for the two comparison groups. This chart assumed that growth at other institutions would average 4%, with Grand Valley at 5%. However, the results would be the same as long as Grand Valley exceeds the average salary increases at the other institutions by 1 percentage point. If that happens, we expect Grand Valley to catch up to the average of other smaller Michigan universities by 2014. Making up for salary differences requires a combination of estimating salary increases at other institutions, to stay ahead of them, while also looking in the rear-view mirror to adjust for variances between estimates and actual increases. This will all be complicated by daunting near-term economic realities.

Figure 3: Weighted Average Salaries - All Faculty Ranks

Data in Figure 3 uses AAUP data as reported. AAUP collects salary data for both tenured/tenure-track faculty members, as well as for visiting faculty members. If we make the tenuous assumptions that other institutions either pay visitors amounts comparable to tenure-track faculty or that other institutions have no visitors, then the AAUP data would likely lead to a difference in estimated weighted average salaries that is larger than exists. We also calculated the weighted average salary for tenure-track faculty at Grand Valley as $2,287 less than the average for other Michigan institutions, excluding the Big 3. To the extent that the assumptions regarding pay level and existence of visiting faculty are true, achieving pay parity with other Michigan schools could occur sooner than 2014.

8

Other factors that may bias these estimates include the relative time in grade for faculty at each rank and the mix of high- and low-paid disciplines at the institutions. Because Grand Valley has grown faster than most schools suggests that faculty members may be younger than they are at other schools. Faculty Size In the 2007-2008 budget year, the university began a plan to hire 100 faculty members in excess of proportionate growth in the student population over a five-year period. The target of 100 additional faculty members was set conservatively and in consideration of the ability to provide office space as well as political realities surrounding budget increases. We believe we should continue the plan to hire 100 additional faculty members over the next five-year period. Abundant literature exists regarding the value of full-time faculty. This group is often described as tenured or tenure-track and is characterized as being terminally qualified (usually Ph.D. prepared) for their discipline. The university has also employed a second group of full-time faculty (affiliates), who generally are not terminally qualified and have teaching schedules that are restricted to lower-level classes and certain clinical or laboratory settings. Table 4 shows the percentage of undergraduate student credit hours (SHC) taught by tenure-track faculty at 10 Michigan universities. Based on this data, as well as a belief in the value of full-time faculty, we believe that a target of 65% coverage of total student credit hours by tenure/tenure-track faculty, and 75% coverage by tenure/tenure-track faculty plus affiliate faculty is an appropriate and conservative target that will help ensure quality.
Table 4: Undergraduate Instruction by Tenured or Tenure-Track Faculty: 2006

Lake Superior State Michigan Technological Ferris State Northern Michigan Western Michigan Michigan State UM – Ann Arbor Grand Valley State U Oakland UM – Flint

77.1% 71.1% 69.5% 69.2% 69.0% 68.4% 66.3% 54.2% 51.8% 46.3%

Table 5 provides a university-wide projection for the number of faculty members needed to achieve target SCH percentages. As of Fall 2008, there are 789 tenured/tenure-track faculty members teaching 55% of the SCH at the university. Inflating 790 by 65/55 yields 934 faculty needed to teach 65% of SCH. Similar calculations suggest that the number of tenured/tenure-track plus affiliate faculty would need to grow from 898 to 1,020 to yield 75% of SCH.

9

Table 5: Global Projection of Faculty Needed - Fall 2008

Faculty Type Tenured-Track Tenured-Track & Affiliate

Faculty Target Needed % % for Number SCH SCH Target 790 55% 65% 934 898 66% 75% 1020

Additional Faculty needed for Target 144 122

Table 6 provides a department-by-department look at the need for additional faculty members. Projections are provided based on target student credit hour percentages for each discipline. We considered maturity of the discipline, accreditation standards, and availability of terminally qualified faculty in setting targets. The final two columns show the number of faculty that would be needed to achieve respective targets.
Table 6: Department by Department Assessment of Faculty Need
Number Faculty TT 18 6 12 15 38 9 21 40 31 7 27 36 21 10 8 22 29 16 31 24 15 12 15 38 19 14 13 47 TT+Affil 21 6 12 16 38 9 21 43 36 7 29 38 28 11 8 22 29 16 42 29 17 13 15 39 20 15 29 68 TARGET SCH % TT 65% 60% 65% 65% 75% 65% 50% 60% 60% 65% 50% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 65% 60% 50% 65% 60% 65% 65% 60% 60% 40% 55% TT+Affil 75% 70% 75% 75% 80% 75% 60% 70% 70% 75% 60% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 75% 70% 60% 75% 70% 75% 75% 70% 70% 50% 70% Faculty Needed for Target % TT 17 8 11 29 36 9 25 39 32 5 40 33 47 10 6 17 36 24 54 40 17 13 11 27 19 17 42 48 TT+Affil 19 9 13 35 38 11 29 49 34 5 47 38 40 10 7 19 42 28 47 35 18 14 13 31 23 17 26 58 Difference From Target TT -1 2 -1 14 -2 0 4 -1 1 -2 13 -3 26 0 -2 -5 7 8 23 16 2 1 -4 -11 0 3 29 1 TT+Affil -2 3 1 19 0 2 8 6 -2 -2 18 0 12 -1 -1 -3 13 12 5 6 1 1 -2 -8 3 2 -3 -10

Fall 08

SCH Total TT

SCH % TT+Affil 85% 45% 70% 34% 79% 62% 43% 62% 74% 97% 37% 70% 49% 76% 81% 79% 48% 43% 62% 50% 71% 67% 87% 93% 61% 61% 55% 81%

Department
CRIMINAL JUSTICE HTM SPNA SOCIAL WORK HEALTH PROF ANTHRO ART & DESIGN BIOLOGY CHEMISTRY CLASSICS COMM ENGLISH MLL GEOLOGY GEOGRAPHY BMS HISTORY MOVEMENT SCI MATH MUSIC PHILOSOPHY PHYSICS POLITICAL SCIENCE PSYCHOLOGY SOCIOLOGY STATISTICS WRITING EDUCATION 7254 3483 2760 5036 7198 4091 5975 14754 15683 1289 15848 7439 11087 3971 3065 12156 10048 7286 17245 6539 5410 4108 4731 14689 8442 6141 11971 17313 67% 45% 70% 33% 79% 62% 43% 61% 58% 97% 34% 65% 27% 62% 81% 79% 48% 43% 34% 30% 57% 55% 87% 90% 59% 51% 13% 54%

10

Fall 08 AFRICAN AM ST LATIN AM STUDIES LIBERAL STUDIES WGS NURSING COMP SCI & INFO SYS SCH OF ENGINEERING ACC & TAX ECONOMICS FINANCE MANAGEMENT MARKETING Totals

SCH Total 207 135 5759 1011 4813 5952 2980 6816 5766 3580 8162 4696

SCH % TT 43% 82% 34% 64% 87% 64% 98% 65% 45% 74% 64% 64% TT+Affil 43% 82% 57% 64% 89% 80% 98% 78% 53% 84% 69% 70% TT 1 1 7 2 29 25 22 17 12 10 26 12

Number Faculty TT+Affil 1 1 13 2 39 28 22 19 13 11 27 13 866

TARGET SCH % TT 65% 65% 50% 65% 75% 65% 75% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% TT+Affil 65% 75% 60% 75% 85% 75% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%

Faculty Needed for Target % TT 1 1 10 2 25 25 17 17 17 9 26 12 878 TT+Affil 1 1 14 2 37 26 19 21 21 11 33 16 960

Difference From Target TT 0 0 3 0 -4 0 -5 0 5 -1 0 0 120 TT+Affil 0 0 1 0 -2 -2 -3 2 8 0 6 3 94

758

One confounding factor is that some departments provide faculty members to the Honors College or other units in the College of Interdisciplinary Studies, making it appear that they are overstaffed. On the other hand, some units are overstaffed and efforts will continue to reallocate faculty positions as available. In the aggregate, this data suggests that 120 additional tenured/tenure-track faculty members are needed, or a combination of 94 tenured/tenure-track plus affiliate faculty members. Both Table 5 and Table 6 assume that new faculty would teach courses in the same proportion as existing faculty members. However, this is unlikely. A number of current faculty members have administrative assignments as coordinators, chairs, associate deans, etc. We believe these functions are fairly well staffed currently, meaning that new faculty members could be expected to devote themselves to a full schedule of classes. This should reduce the need for additional faculty members from the numbers indicated. As a result, we believe that staying the course of hiring 20 faculty members in excess of proportionate student growth over the next five years provides a disciplined approach.

THE STAFF This section discusses issues related to staff retirements, compensation and the size of the staff. Staff positions include Executive, Administrative/Professional; Clerical, Office and Technical; Maintenance, Grounds and Service; Department of Public Safety and Security employees. The age of the staff does not appear to be a problem, with no units singled out for mention. Unit leaders should still take the time to discuss potential retirements with any staff members who are approaching the targeted age range. Also, while a very few outliers are identified to appointing officers each year, the compensation programs in place appear to be doing their job in maintaining appropriate compensation levels. Staff size seems to be at minimal levels for a university of our student size. While not detailed separately, the task force reviewed these issues related to the Grand Valley leadership team. We find the projection for the next five years not to be a concern, but any concerns after that period are not predicted by this report. The university president 11

should review the information in Appendix A and have retirement discussions with his leadership team as he feels appropriate. Staff Retirements A review of the data considering staff reveals findings similar to those of the faculty, with only a few areas of concern. Steady growth of the staff has had the impact of diversifying ages, as it did with the faculty. Figure 4 shows relative age of the staff in total. Of the 1,111 staff members, 665 (60%) are under age 50. Just 74 (6.7%) are over age 60. Appendix A shows the data for all GVSU areas.

Age of Non-Faculty Staff: Fall 2008
25

20

Hourly Salaried

% of Employees

15

10

5

0 Under 26 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71 +

Figure 4: Age of Non-Faculty Staff

Staff Compensation Similar to the faculty, the objective of the university’s compensation program for staff members is to attract, retain, motivate, and reward equitably and competitively, reflecting market levels, the responsibilities of the position, and the performance of the incumbents. Compensation for Executive, Administrative and Professional staff is determined using market analysis, by annually comparing salaries to external benchmarks using local, regional and national survey data and secondarily, comparing similar positions and incumbents for internal Grand Valley equity.

12

This annual review considers incumbent salaries, years of experience, performance, educational credentials, and the market range for each position. In reviews, we identify anyone who is below market, compressed by a new hire, or is an internal equity concern. This analysis identifies two potential salary problems. 1) Staff members whose salaries are below market; and 2) staff members with salaries lower than the median market salary. All those falling below minimum are adjusted to the minimum and those falling below the market median are reviewed for possible adjustment. Compensation for hourly staff, including Clerical, Office, Technical; Public Safety; and Maintenance, Grounds and Service positions are collectively bargained, typically every three years, with the respective labor union. In preparation for negotiations, analysis of pay similar to that of professional staff is conducted. Current compensation levels compare very favorably with our market. Staff Size As Grand Valley has experienced explosive enrollment growth over the past 25 years, financial limitations have kept the university from increasing the size of the staff that serves the student body as quickly as the student population has grown. Additionally, as the size of our faculty grows, the university has the need to employ more staff to support them. Grand Valley prides itself on being able to do more with less across the university. The size of the staff is just one of many examples. The Grand Valley staff serves more students per staff member than the average of the 12 regional universities in Michigan. This is a measure of our efficiency. We can use this as a possible benchmark for determining how many additional staff positions are appropriate for a university our size. It is difficult to rely on any single data analysis to determine the correct size our non-faculty staff, but below is one possible measure. An analysis of comparative data from Michigan’s Higher Education Institutional Data Inventory Collection System (commonly referred to as HEIDI) indicates the average number of students per non-faculty FTE at the 12 regional universities in the state is 19. At Grand Valley, that ratio is 21 students per staff member. If Grand Valley were to increase its student/staff ratio to 19, we would need to add 89 staff positions. Then, as the student body continues to grow by approximately 1% per year, we would add 11 or 12 additional staff positions each year. Where these positions would be added is not pertinent to this analysis, only to point out that the university is understaffed in non-faculty as well as faculty members. The average total compensation for staff positions is approximately $60,000. Therefore, an addition of 89 staff positions would cost the university $5.3 million.

13

BENEFITS The benefits program is also a key component of the Grand Valley compensation strategy. The objective is to provide broad-based, market competitive programs that both attract highquality job candidates and retain our current faculty and staff members. Grand Valley provides faculty, staff, and their dependents with the following key benefit program components: • • • • Physical Health – Medical, Dental, Vision, Pre-Tax Flexible Spending Accounts, Long Term Care Income Protection – Salary Continuation, Short Term Disability, Long Term Disability, Life Insurance Retirement Financial Assistance – Collectively Bargained Defined Benefit & Defined Contribution Plans, 403b Salaried Base Retirement Plan, 403(b) and 457b Supplemental Retirement Plan. Personal Well-Being – Work Life Connections, Employee Assistance, Comprehensive Wellness Program, Holidays, Vacation, Academic Participation, Tuition Reduction, Adoption Assistance

At Grand Valley, as with most other employers, the pressures of limited financial resources and benefit costs growing above inflationary rates are ever present. To impact this, Grand Valley has and needs to continue to apply the principles of health management in an effort to maintain a broad spectrum of value-added benefit options. Our focus is on three core elements: • • • • Individual Health Management – Providing the necessary tools for faculty and staff members and their dependents to take an active role in managing their personal well being by promoting and encouraging healthy lifestyles. Plan Management – Continually evaluating appropriate plan design elements, in an effort to promote maximum faculty and staff compliance. Vendor Management – Working with existing vendors, or seeking out new partnerships as needed, ensuring that they provide a high level of value added services to Grand Valley’s faculty and staff members. Benchmarking and Surveys – Grand Valley competes for talent on both a local and national level. In order to understand each of those unique markets, we participate in several benefit-related surveys. Information from the surveys helps us determine how our program ranks with our competitors. Coalition – Grand Valley is a member of the Michigan Universities Coalition on Health, Inc. Its mission is to leverage the knowledge, resources and influence of its members to improve the value of employee benefit plans and services through better quality and contained costs for educational institutions, their employees, retirees and dependents.

•

Grand Valley’s comprehensive Health and Wellness program is aimed at helping faculty and staff members to understand their current health status and provide the tools needed to maintain good health and make improvements where possible. This program is a long-term commitment by the university that reflects our belief that a physically and mentally well workforce is fundamental to meeting the goal of maintaining a productive and successful work environment that ultimately benefits students. While a comprehensive wellness

14

program is good for the university and individual well being, it is also critical to maintaining our excellent medical plans in the most cost-effective way. Figure 5 shows the anticipated savings related to the current wellness program that was initiated this year. Annual savings are more than $110,000 as early as 2010 and more than $3,300,000 by 2016, a combined savings of more than $9,800,000 during this period.
Estimated Impact of a Wellness Program
$45

$40

Total Health Cost (Millions)

$35

$30

$25

$20

$15

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

W ithout W ellness Program

W ith W ellness Program

Figure 5: Estimated Impact of Wellness Program

With annual costs potentially in excess of $37 million by 2016 for medical coverage alone, it is imperative that the university continues its discussion with the Benefits Committee and employee groups regarding the best practices for these resources. Levels of coverage and the current university/staff member cost sharing percentage (90/10) should receive annual review.

15

SUMMARY As reported, Grand Valley is not expected to face a baby boomer retirement crisis. We have identified our few areas of concern. However, as we plan for a workforce of highly qualified faculty, leadership and staff, the task force has the following recommendations. Our recommendations are overarching in nature, anticipating that those charged with these various actions will take the leadership in developing and furthering them. All deans and unit heads should review the retirement data in Appendix A as it applies to the unit they lead. In doing so, they should consider the impact of retirements in the next few years and plan accordingly. This will necessitate discussions with faculty and staff members who are approaching retirement. Faculty and staff members need not feel any pressure from such conversations, but these conversations are necessary for appropriate planning. If a dean or a unit head feels that potential retirements pose a problem, the issue should be reviewed with the appropriate vice president. Grand Valley is known for many things, including its work culture, support for students, and efficiencies. Often the complexities that nurture this culture are taken for granted, but are unknown to those we hire. It is important that Grand Valley continue to develop and offer leadership and unit head training to pass on and build upon this culture with our future leaders, unit heads, committee members, and the entire Grand Valley community. Diversity is imperative to Grand Valley’s first-rate educational environment. The university has taken many significant steps to embrace a community of intercultural competence, including the formation of a Division of Inclusion and Equity to lead these efforts. According to the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, diversity “is represented in many forms, such as differences in ideas, viewpoints, perspectives, values, religious beliefs, backgrounds, race, gender, age, sexual orientation, human capacity, and ethnicity of those who attend and work in the organization.” It is important that we continue these efforts to foster and develop a community in which differences are respected and valued. To do so, we need to expand our programming that explores the differences in perspectives, backgrounds and experiences of all cultures and helps faculty and staff members and students learn about and embrace diversity. While this may be led by the Division of Inclusion and Equity, success will depend on the involvement and efforts of all members of our community. The Taskforce also recommends that the data in this report be updated in five (5) years to reflect demographics at that time. Finally, this Human Resources Planning Report cannot stand alone, but rather must be considered along with the other Strategic Imperatives: Diversity, Enrollment Management, the Comprehensive Capital Campaign of Building the Base, and Facilities Master Planning.

16

Appendix A – Employees Approaching Retirement, by Unit
EAPs Approaching Retirement: by Division and Department Overall N Senior Management Team Academic & Student Affairs Appointing Officers Other Appointing Officers Central Admin Division Central Admin Office Charter Schools Office Office of University Counsel Office Subtotal Academic & Student Affairs Academic Services Information Tech Advising Resource & Special Program CE - Continuing Education CHP - College of Health Professions CLAS College Liberal Arts & Science COE - College of Education COIS - College of Interdisciplinary College Community Public Services Graduate Studies and Grants Admin KCON - Kirkhof College of Nursing Padnos Engineering and Computing SCB Seidman College of Business Student Services University Libraries Vice Provost for Health Office Subtotal Budget / Financial Analysis Office Business and Finance Economic Development Facilities Planning Facilities Services Fieldhouse and Athletics Human Resources Pew Campus and Regional Centers Public Safety The Meadows Subtotal Affirmative Action Office Disability Support and ADA Subtotal Alumni Relations Office Hauenstein Center Presidential Stud University Development Office Subtotal Institutional Marketing News and Information Services Public Broadcasting University Relations Subtotal 59 + % 59 + 8 3 38% 17 7 41% 3 0 0 0 0 2 8 2 2 0 6 3 3 2 2 1 0 3 5 2 0 41 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 1 4 N Female Minority

59 + % 59 + N 59 + % 59 + 4 2 50% 1 0 0% 9 4 44% 4 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 2 1 0 5 3 2 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 0 29 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 . 2 . 0 0 0 . 2 2 0 0 2 . 2 9% 29% 20% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 9% 12% 14% 0% 18% 43% 25% 11% 29% 13% 0% 13% 5% 40% 0% 14% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 1 1 0 1 2 1 13 9 2 0 5 1 1 10 0 1 1 7 16 0 1 68 0 6 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 12 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 3 . 1 . 1 0 0 0 . . . 2 0 . 0 0 . . 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0% . . 0% . . 0% . 0% 0% . . . 17% 0% . 100% 0% 0% 0% . 17% . 0% 4% . 0% 0% 0% 0% . 0% 100% 0% 10% . 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 100% 0%

Academic & Student Affairs Division

Finance & Admin Division

Inclusion & Equity Division

University Development Division

University Relations Division

15 3 3 3 9 9 85 23 9 4 56 12 10 30 8 8 6 25 62 9 5 361 3 35 4 7 12 36 10 5 4 3 119 1 2 3 4 2 11 17 15 8 28 1 52

20% 5 0% 2 0% 1 0% 2 0% 5 22% 5 9% 45 9% 17 22% 7 0% 2 11% 28 25% 7 30% 8 7% 19 25% 7 13% 8 0% 1 12% 15 8% 37 22% 5 0% 3 11% 214 0% 1 3% 22 50% 2 14% 1 8% 2 3% 8 0% 8 0% 2 25% 2 0% 0. 6% 48 0% 0. 0% 1 0% 1 0% 3 0% 0. 18% 7 12% 10 0% 5 0% 7 11% 10 100% 0. 8% 22

Employees in Selected Hourly Categories Approaching Retirement Overall N 59 + % 59 + 19 2 11% 24 2 8% 8 2 25% 10 1 10% Female Minority N 59 + % 59 + N 59 + % 59 + 19 2 11% 3 0 0% 5 0 0% 3 0 0% 8 2 25% 1 0 0% 0. . 0. .

All Depts

C5 Engineers & Adv. Tech Senior Executive Secretaries Skilled Trades

Appendix A – Employees Approaching Retirement, by Unit
Faculty Approaching Retirement: by College and Unit Overall N CHP - College of Health Professions CHP Clinical Lab Science Admin CHP Deans Admin CHP OSH Admin CHP OT - Occupational Therapy Admin CHP PAS Admin CHP PT - Physical Therapy Admin CHP Radiologic and Imaging Sciences CHP Therapeutic Recreation Admin Subtotal CLAS AD - Art and Design Admin CLAS ANT - Anthropology Admin CLAS BIO - Biology Admin CLAS Biomedical HS Admin CLAS CHM - Chemisty Admin CLAS CLA - Classics Admin CLAS COM Admin CLAS Deans Admin CLAS ENG - English Admin CLAS GEO - Geology Admin CLAS GPY and Planning Admin CLAS HST - History Admin CLAS HST - History Office CLAS MLL Admin CLAS MOV - Movement Sciences Admin CLAS MTH - Mathematics Admin CLAS MUS - Music Admin CLAS PHI - Philosophy Admin CLAS PHY - Physics Admin CLAS PLS - Political Science Admin CLAS PSY - Psychology Admin CLAS PSY - Psychology Office CLAS SOC - Sociology Admin CLAS STA - Statistics Admin CLAS WRT - Writing Admin Subtotal COE Faculty Subtotal COIS AAA Admin COIS LAS Admin COIS LIB - Liberal Studies Admin COIS WGS Admin Subtotal CCPS CJ - Criminal Justice Admin CCPS Dean Admin CCPS HTM Admin CCPS JC - Johnson Center Admin CCPS Public and Nonprofit Admin CCPS SW - School of Social Work Subtotal KCON NUR - Nursing Subtotal Padnos Computing Info System Admin Padnos Engineering Admin Subtotal SCB ACC Admin SCB ECO Economics Admin SCB FIN Finance Admin SCB MGT Management Admin SCB MKT Marketing Admin Subtotal University Libraries Admin Subtotal 3 1 3 4 7 11 6 3 38 21 9 40 22 31 7 26 2 36 10 8 28 1 21 16 32 24 15 12 15 38 1 19 14 13 461 48 48 1 1 7 2 11 18 1 6 1 12 15 53 28 28 25 25 50 17 12 10 26 12 77 25 25 Female Minority % 59 + . . . . 0% . 0% . 0% 33% . 0% 0% 0% . 0% . 20% . 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 25% 0% 50% 0% 17% . 0% 0% . 9% 22% 22% 0% . 0% . 0% 100% . . . 25% 33% 36% 0% 0% 20% 0% 8% 33% 0% 0% 33% . 19% . .

CLAS College Liberal Arts & Science

COE - College of Education COIS - College of Interdisciplinary

College Community Public Services

KCON - Kirkhof College of Nursing Padnos Engineering and Computing

SCB Seidman College of Business

University Libraries

59 + % 59 + N 59 + 0 0% 3 0 1 100% 1 1 2 67% 0. 2 50% 3 2 0 0% 1 0 2 18% 6 1 0 0% 5 0 0 0% 2 0 7 18% 21 4 5 24% 11 3 2 22% 6 2 4 10% 15 2 2 9% 6 0 4 13% 12 0 1 14% 4 0 5 19% 9 1 1 50% 2 1 9 25% 22 6 0 0% 3 0 0 0% 2 0 6 21% 7 1 0 0% 0. 2 10% 12 2 2 13% 8 1 4 13% 14 0 3 13% 8 2 2 13% 3 1 1 8% 2 0 1 7% 5 1 6 16% 16 3 0 0% 1 0 4 21% 8 2 0 0% 3 0 2 15% 5 1 66 14% 184 29 15 31% 28 10 15 31% 28 10 0 0% 0. 0 0% 0. 1 14% 4 0 0 0% 2 0 1 9% 6 0 6 33% 7 0 1 100% 0. 1 17% 3 0 0 0% 0. 3 25% 4 1 4 27% 9 3 15 28% 23 4 14 50% 28 14 14 50% 28 14 7 28% 1 0 2 8% 4 0 9 18% 5 0 5 29% 6 1 1 8% 3 0 3 30% 1 0 9 35% 11 1 4 33% 3 0 22 29% 24 2 5 20% 19 4 5 20% 19 4

% 59 + N 59 + 0% 0 . 100% 0 . . 0. 67% 0 . 0% 1 0 17% 0 . 0% 1 0 0% 0 . 19% 2 0 27% 3 1 33% 0 . 13% 6 0 0% 3 0 0% 4 0 0% 0 . 11% 3 0 50% 0 . 27% 5 1 0% 0 . 0% 4 0 14% 5 0 . 1 0 17% 5 1 13% 1 0 0% 5 0 25% 4 1 33% 3 0 0% 2 1 20% 2 0 19% 6 1 0% 0 . 25% 4 0 0% 3 0 20% 0 . 16% 69 6 36% 9 2 36% 9 2 . 1 0 . 0. 0% 1 0 0% 0 . 0% 2 0 0% 1 1 . 0. 0% 0 . . 0. 25% 4 1 33% 6 2 17% 11 4 50% 3 0 50% 3 0 0% 5 1 0% 8 0 0% 13 1 17% 3 1 0% 5 0 0% 4 0 9% 9 3 0% 0 . 8% 21 4 21% 0 . 21% 0 .

TASK FORCE MEMBERS Jeanne Arnold, Vice President for Inclusion and Equity Philip Batty, Director of Institutional Analysis Joe Godwin, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs Jeff Musser, Assistant Vice President for University Budgets Scott Richardson, Associate Vice President for Human Resources, Chair Linda Yuhas, Director of Compensation and Employment Services