UCSF 2014 Faculty Salary Equity Review Summary and

UCSF 2014 Faculty Salary Equity Review: Summary and Results Brian Alldredge, Pharm. D Vice Provost – Academic Affairs 10/19/2021

FSER Historical Overview Date Activity July 2011 Academic Senate Report on faculty salary equity issued: "Analysis of UC Pay Equity by Sex and, among Men, Ethnicity, 2009 -2010" [note: UCSF excluded from study] Oct. 2012 President Yudof calls for campus-based plans to implement salary equity study Jan. 2013 UCSF submits initial campus plan for equity study outlining committee membership, report, timeline May 2013 Academic Council responds to campus plans with recommendations for additional components to review Aug. 2013 UCSF plan approved with recommendation the methodology allow for creation of a campus-wide report. 2 UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

Highlights of UCSF's Senate Response to UCSF FSER Proposal - April 2013 § CAP: school-by-school review could lead to inherent disparities in evaluating the campus as a whole; recommends standardization across the campus; recommends consideration of site equity, e. g. VAMC § EQOP: recommend consideration of VAMC/HHMI in analysis; noted that different methodologies by each School would result in a campuswide report that was a conglomeration of 4 separate studies with different metrics used for each § CFW: recommended inclusion of Z salary in review in addition to X+Y 3 UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER Committee Charge Each campus to convene a committee that will conduct a faculty salary equity review. The steering committee will: - determine the methodology for the analysis - develop plans for addressing and reporting any pattern of discriminatory salary difference based on gender and/or race/ethnicity (if found) - ensure that any findings are transparent and accessible to the campus 4 UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER Committee convened to conduct study included broad representation from UCSF: § Associate/Vice Deans of Academic Affairs from all 4 schools § Academic Senate representatives from CAP, EQOP, CFW § Vice Chancellor- Office of Diversity and Outreach § Vice Provost- Academic Affairs § Others 5 UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER Committee Timeline Date Activity Nov 2013 Dec 2014 Review methodologies that have been used at UCSF (School and Department-based) as well as on other campuses Jan - Jun 2014 Determine UCSF methodology for campus-wide equity study Jul 1, 2014 Faculty data provided by VPAA office Oct 2014 Data analysis completed Jan 31, 2015 Full report due to UCOP ** Repeat study may be required in 2018 ** 2018 6 UC Provost and Academic Council Chair will determine usefulness of continuing these studies UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER Methods: Study Population Included Excluded - Exclusion Faculty appointed. Inclusion in the Ladder Instructors rank, In Residence, Clinical X, HS Clinical or Adjunct series at the Assistant, Associate, or Professor ranks Faculty appointed at least 75% time criteria Faculty paid less than 75% effort Faculty for whom the X, Y, and Z Faculty paid partially or fully by salary components could be an affiliate (e. g. Veterans individually identified Administration Medical Center, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Gladstone Institute) 7 UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER Methods: Study Outcome Variables Variable Definition Faculty salary (X + Y) Sum of components X (APU base salary) and Y (negotiated salary); annual rates obtained in July 2014; adjusted to full-time for those <100% time Presence of a Z payment Whether BYZ payment received for clinical incentives between 7/1/13 -6/30/14 Faculty salary from a Z payment BYZ amount for clinical incentives between 7/1/13 -6/30/14 of those who received a Z payment Presence of an 2 years’ data: whether received accelerated academic advancement in 2012 -13 and/or 2013 -14 advancement cycles 8 UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER Methods: Study Comparison Variables Variable Definition Underrepresented minority (URM) URM • Black or African American, Hispanic, Native American/Alaskan Native, Filipino, or Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Non-URM • White, Asian, declined to state Gender Female Male 9 UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER Methods: Study Control Variables (Covariates) Variable 10 Definition Rank Assistant, Associate, Professor Step 1 to Above Scale Degree Type Clinical (e. g. , MD), Research (e. g. , Ph. D), Both (e. g. , MD + Ph. D), Other Series Ladder rank, In Residence, Clinical X, HS Clinical, Adjunct School Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy Department Within each school UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER Methods: Analysis Plan Adjusted analyses were considered the primary results for outcomes Analysis Variables Multiple linear regression (adjusted) Log transformed salary amounts- X +Y and Z, if present. Multiple log-binomial regression (adjusted) Presence of a Z payment and presence of an accelerated advancement Heterogeneity analyses across schools Interaction term of school by gender or URM tested to determine if results varied significantly by school, for imbalances found at campus level. 11 UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER Results: Population FSER Population Totals URM Status Gender Status Total N URM N (%) Non- URM N (%) Female N (%) Male N (%) Campus 1, 943 137 (7%) 1, 806 (93%) 885 (46%) 1, 058 (54%) SOM 1, 717 SOD 73 SON 75 SOP 78 119 (7%) 5 (7%) 9 (12%) 4 (5%) 1, 598 (93%) 66 (88%) 74 (95%) 754 (44%) 31 (42%) 65 (87%) 35 (45%) 963 (56%) 42 (58%) 10 (13%) 43 (55%) 12 UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER Results: Salary and Accelerated Advancement by URM/Non-URM status Unadjusted Analysis Adjusted Analysis 13 Ratio Confidence interval Statistical Significance Ratio Confidence Interval Statistical Significance Salary (X + Y) pay 0. 97 (0. 91, 1. 04) Not significant 1. 00 (0. 97, 1. 04) Not significant Presence of Z payment 1. 01 (0. 77, 1. 32) Not significant 1. 05 (0. 85, 1. 29) Not significant Z payment 0. 85 (0. 52, 1. 39) Not significant 1. 10 (0. 74, 1. 64) Not significant Presence of accelerated advancement 1. 58 (0. 99, 2. 54) Not significant 1. 56 (0. 99, 2. 47) Not significant UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER Results: Salary and Accelerated Advancement by Female/Male Status Unadjusted Analysis 14 Adjusted Analysis Ratio Confidence interval Statistical Significance Ratio Confidence Interval Statistical Significance Salary (X + Y) pay 0. 82 (0. 79, 0. 85) Significant 0. 97 (0. 95, 0. 98) Significant Presence of Z payment 0. 77 (0. 67, 0. 89) Significant 0. 92 (0. 82, 1. 02) Not significant Z payment 0. 54 (0. 42, 0. 69) Significant 0. 71 (0. 57, 0. 89) Significant Presence of accelerated advancement 0. 85 (0. 63, 1. 15) Not significant 1. 01 (0. 73, 1. 39) Not significant UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER: Summary of Results § URM status • No statistically significant imbalance in salary, presence of Z payment or accelerated advancement by URM status § Gender • Statistically significant imbalance in X+Y salary- females earned 3% less than males • Statistically significant imbalance in Z salary - females earned 29% less than males • No statistically significant imbalance in presence of Z payment or accelerated advancement • Tests of heterogeneity found that there was not evidence that the male/female salary imbalances differed by school 15 UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021

FSER Action Plan Recommended to Chancellor to charge each Dean with creating a school-specific action plan by July 2015 that, at a minimum, addresses the campus finding of a gender imbalance in salary § If School-level analysis finds no imbalances, the action plan report must justify this finding § If School-level analysis find an imbalance: • Determine if the imbalance can be attributed to non-discriminatory legitimate business practices (i. e. , inequity vs non-inequity) ‒ If inequities are found, action plan must include: • specific strategies to address inequity • specific time frames for addressing inequity ‒ If inequities are not found, action plan must justify this finding 17 UCSF 2014 Faculty Equity Salary Review 10/19/2021