- performance in research, publication, teaching, outreach, and service;

- record of obtaining grants or other outside additional funding for programs;

- market demands for particular skills and specialties, including a record suitable for attracting offers of employment from other universities or research institutions;

- assumption of administrative or supervisory duties that normally merits additional salary;

- actual outside offers;

- additional factors (other than sex) that normally determine merit pay in the unit.

1. The identification of comparable male faculty members is a key to the process. It is unlikely that each woman faculty member can be matched to three male faculty members who are exactly comparable in the variables listed below for consideration. The deans are asked to find the three most comparable male faculty members, restricting the choice to faculty members within the department unless the male faculty members in the department are so unlike the female faculty member with respect to the listed variables that valid judgments could not be made on those comparisons. If one or more comparable males must be found outside the department, the dean must explain in the justification to the Provost why he/she did so and on what basis the selection was made.

2. For each female faculty member, select three male faculty members who are comparable in the following respects:

a. Years since degree; years of work experience relevant to the position; years of service at UW-Madison.

b. Responsibilities of the position, nature of work performed (example from within one department: laboratory research as opposed to extension/outreach)

c. Rank. (If there are not a sufficient number of comparable males within the school or other unit used, comparable males at a higher rank can be utilized.)

d. Affiliation with a particular department, program, center, office, etc.

4. If you cannot identify three comparable males within the department, seek them from units in which a female faculty member has a formal faculty relationship (e.g. is a voting member of two executive committees, a voting member of two departments or an affiliate), and/or from units that do work similar to hers. They need to be units with a similar market value in salaries.

5. A decision as to comparability at this step of the analysis should not include merit or performance. That comparison is to be done at the next step.

6. Gather current curriculum vitae and activity report(s) on the three male comparables.

1. Identify the dollar amount of any difference in salary between the female faculty member and each of the comparable males.

2. Articulate justifications for the differences where justifications exist. The first significant task of evaluation is to determine, for the female faculty member and each of her comparable males, what amount of total difference in salary (if any) is justified. A number of factors may have created differences between the salary of a female faculty member and comparable males. Possible causes of salary difference include but are not limited to:

a. Differences in degrees attained, years since terminal degree, years of relevant experience and years at UW-Madison;

b. Differences in responsibilities of the position and in work performed, both currently and in the work history (e.g., a faculty member who has served as an administrator in the past, versus one who has not);

c. Differences in market, e.g., a difference in the prevailing market for salaries if the female faculty member and her otherwise comparable male(s) were not hired in the same year; administrative salary increases retained by a faculty member upon return to the department; salary adjustments made to respond to outside offers; and differences in the market demand for the work performed by the female faculty member and her otherwise comparable male(s); and

d. Differences in performance. Judgments about such differences should be based on evidence of the faculty member’s cumulative career merit:

- performance in research, publication, teaching, outreach and service (quality and quantity)

- record of obtaining outside grants or other outside funding for progress. (The dean’s office may request additional data from the department on the female faculty member and the male comparables such as five years of activity reports, student teaching evaluation scores, records of effectiveness in outreach/extension, etc.)

(1) Observe the principle that the personnel data gathered by the deans (with the exception of the curriculum vitae) are confidential during the entirety of the gender-equity review process. Only persons performing the review and the person to whom the data pertains have access to the data at this time.

(2) Though you will work with a current curriculum vitae, consider as relevant that data relevant to performance through December 1999 (or through the date used for the 2000/2001 merit exercise) since this is the data upon which past merit determinations have been made.

(3) For budgeted tenured or tenure track split appointments between schools, consider only the merit data relevant to performance within the school. The dean of the other school(s) is/are expected to consider the merit data relevant to performance within his/her school. Where a female faculty member has a tenured or tenure track appointment in more than one school, the respective deans should work out an agreement on provision of the recommendations.

(4) Consider, also, any supplemental evidence provided by a female faculty member who requested the dean to review her. As with all other data, the dean’s office is responsible to determine which data are relevant and persuasive, and which not.

3. Assign a dollar value collectively to all justifiable differences based on the evidence available for the female faculty member and the comparable males.

4. If the value of justifiable differences account for all the differences in salary between the female faculty member and the comparable males, then the determination is no increase in base for the female faculty member and the written justification should articulate the reasons for arriving at this result.

5. Where there are any unexplained or unjustified differences, then calculate the value of those differences and recommend an adjustment to current salary, articulating the justifications for the calculation.

6. The written justifications for the recommendation shall reflect an examination of the female faculty member’s cumulative career merit (based on qualitative and/or quantitative assessments of performance in teaching, research, outreach, and service as appropriate to the departmental mission, and in comparison to the comparable male faculty members).

7. Include in justifications the reasons for selecting the three comparable males.

8. Address any issues raised by the female faculty member if she submitted supplemental evidence.

9. Each recommendation for adjustment and each justification is accessible only to the persons performing the review and to the female faculty member concerned. Any other faculty member or member of the public may not access the recommendations concerning other female faculty members until the entire gender-equity adjustment process is completed and pay increases have been finally decided upon.

10. Have the school equity committee (or a subset of it) review the justifications prepared, unless that committee was involved in the review in Steps One—Three above. (See II.D.)

11. Send the dean’s office report on the recommendation(s) for review by Associate Vice Chancellor Linda Greene.