Report from Pay Equity Task Force, Phase II

Summary

Phase II of the pay equity study adds three additional years of quantitative data and the results of a survey. The additional quantitative analysis supports the Phase I findings that indicate women rectors receive less compensation compared to similarly situated men rectors and the trend is generally consistent over time.1 Additionally,

Significant pay inequities exist in our diocese for women - both as rectors and associates Women are more frequently paid below diocesan minimum Women rectors start lower and do not catch up Women are over-represented in the lowest paying positions and vastly under-represented in the highest paying positions

Years of credited service, time in position and operating expenses were identified as factors most associated with compensation. Additional Phase II quantitative and qualitative analysis also showed that:

42% of female respondents to survey feel they are compensated unfairly. 49% of women clergy surveyed negotiated compensation in their current position. “Education & Empowerment” is the most frequently suggested improvement by clergy

Individual parishes’ ability to independently negotiate compensation remains a major confounding factor for the quantitative review.

Choice of Methodology

Phase II uses the same statistical methods used in the initial study and adds analysis to look for change over time. The survey results were coded and are reported using graphs. Word and phrase frequency analysis was used to search for trends in responses. Summaries of narrative responses are provided.

Data Sources

The data for this study was extracted from the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia files. The data represent “snapshots” of the clergy in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, and individual changes in status or incomes outside those dates were not evaluated. The survey data are responses from an online survey conducted between May 29 and June 19, 2018 open to ordained individuals within the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.

Population

Table 1 is the distribution of rectors in this review by gender. Table 2 on the following page is the distribution of assistant rectors by gender.

1 The point of our quantitative analysis is to determine whether a disparity exists, its magnitude and what factors may be contributing to the disparity. It does not imply conscious bias or illegal discrimination.

Table 1. Distribution of Rectors Year All Women Men2014 125 45 802015 120 43 772016 124 43 812017 118 39 79

Table 2. Distribution of AssistantsYear All Women Men2014 52 33 192015 50 33 172016 45 32 132017 37 24 13

Part time rectors and associates were omitted from the quantitative portion of the study because data was not available to allow like-kind comparisons. All respondents are included in the survey. Table 3 is the distribution of survey respondents by gender and response rate.

Table 3. Survey Response Rate by GenderResponse Availabl

eResponse Rate

Women 52 82 63.4%Men 66 100 66.0%Total 118 182 64.8%

Compensation and Benefit Guidelines

The Diocese of Virginia publishes “Compensation and Benefit Guidelines” annually. The Diocese sets out a model compensation plan (hereinafter “model”) for vestries to consider for initial salary and benefit setting and annual adjustments. Tables 4 through 7 are the model’s minimum total compensation for full-time clergy for 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014.

Table 4. Diocese of Virginia Model Minimum Total Compensation for Full Time Clergy 2017

Table 5. Diocese of Virginia Model Minimum Total Compensation for Full Time Clergy 2016

Table 6. Diocese of Virginia Model Minimum Total Compensation for Full Time Clergy 2014 and 2015

The Diocese of Virginia Model Minimum Total Compensation for Full Time Clergy 2014 table was not available at the time this report was completed but will be added as soon as possible.

Results

Comparison with the Diocesan Model

We compared Total Assessable Compensation with the diocesan model.

Table 8. Comparison of Rectors with the Model2014 2015 2016 2017

Women Met or exceeded model 18 21 26 25Did not meet model 27 22 17 14

Men Met or exceeded model 48 47 54 55Did not meet model 32 30 27 24

Table 9. Comparison of Assistants with the Model2014 2015 2016 2017

Women Met or exceeded model 15 18 17 18Did not meet model 18 16 15 6

Men Met or exceeded model 8 8 9 11Did not meet model 11 8 4 2

Projecting into the future is problematic, but taken at face value, this limited data shows recent interventions by the Office of Transition Ministry, coordination and training with search

committees, and ecclesial leadership has improved vestry adherence to the minimums over time. Simply relying on parish adherence to the compensation model, without continued support of such interventions and, perhaps, further intervention, is unlikely to yield additional progress on closing the gap between women’s and men’s compensation in the foreseeable future.

Descriptive Statistics

In Phase I we used a number of statistics to describe the data in order to get an overall view and to make simple comparisons. Data for the additional three years of data were analyzed using the same metrics and resulting in almost identical outcomes year to year.

Focusing on time series, Figures 1 and 2 show the year to year figures for maximum compensation, mean compensation and minimum compensation for rectors and associates, respectively. In Figure 1, notice the consistent year to year gap at the maximum and minimum levels and greater volatility at the minimum. This is evidence of a persistent state that is unlikely to correct without intervention. In Figure 2, the mean reversed in 2015 with women slightly exceeding men and remaining close for 2016 and 20172. There is much greater volatility in the maximum and minimum categories because changes in a single outlier greatly impact the trend.

Figure 1. Rector Total Assessable Compensation by Gender, Level and Time

2014 2015 2016 2017$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

Women MaximumMen MaximumWomen MeanMen MeanWomen MinimumMen Minimum

Figure 2. Assistant Total Assessable Compensation by Gender, Level and Time

2 See Phase I report regarding disparities in length of service as associates for women vs. Men.

2014 2015 2016 2017$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

Women MaximumMen MaximumWomen MeanMen MeanWomen MinimumMen Minimum

Survey Results

An online survey was offered for voluntary response to ordained individuals within the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. This form of survey is a non-probability sampling that involves the sample being drawn from that part of the population that is willing to participate. The response rate was 64.8%, with a slightly higher rate among men than women. This is a high response rate that indicates strong interest in the population.3 The primary limitation for this kind of survey is potential for bias, somewhat limiting generalization to the population.

The survey questions were:

Your gender? In your opinion, are you compensated fairly? Do you believe your Parish could afford to increase your compensation? When you were hired, during the search and recruitment and interview process, who did

you discuss compensation issues with? Did you negotiate, or accept what was offered? Is there anything about the process of negotiating compensation that could be improved,

based on your experience? If so, please explain. Are you willing to be interviewed? Do you have any additional comments?

Figures beginning on the next page illustrate the results. Figure 3 is data on the fairness of compensation question. In general, 72% of men reported believing they were fairly compensated compared with only 45% of women. Those believing they were not fairly compensated included 22% of men and 42% of women. Six percent of women reported being unsure and the balance is

3 The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey generally has response rates in the mid-40 percent range. “2017 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey – Government-wide Management Report” at page 4.

made up of equivocal responses. The gulf of perception between the two groups coupled with the quantitative realities confirms the existence of a challenge and need to implement corrective measures working toward compensation equity.

On the question of parishes being able to afford an increase in compensation, 55% of women and 43% of men believe an increase could be accomplished. See Figure 4. This belief is well founded in the quantitative data, which shows that on average women are paid a smaller portion of total operating budget than men. Assuming that the respondents are conversant with the assets and budget of their respective parishes, this perception is correct.

Figure 5 shows data on the question of who was consulted during the search, recruitment, and interview process. Women were more likely to speak with the Rector, Diocesan Officials and colleagues while men were more likely to speak to vestries, their family and search committees. This disparity may be due to the larger number of women in associate positions, though the survey did not ask respondents’ positions.

The responses concerning negotiation are in Table 10. While men negotiated rather than accept a first offer 5% more often than women, this alone is insufficient to explain the systemic difference in the year over year quantitative data.

Figure 3. In your opinion, are you compensated fairly?

Both No

Not Applic

able

Not Sure

Retired

Unsure Yes0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2%

42%

2% 2% 2%6%

45%

2%

22%

0% 2% 3%0%

72%

WomenMen

Figure 4. Do you believe your Parish could afford to increase your compensation?

Not Appli-cable

No Retired Unsure Yes0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

9%

30%

0%6%

55%

5%

46%

2%5%

43%

WomenMen

Figure 5. When you were hired, during the search and recruitment and interview process, who did you discuss compensation issues with?

Rector

Vestry

Family

Diocesan O

fficials

Search

Committee

Colleagues

None0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

21% 20%

16% 15% 14%12%

2%

9%

28%

20%

8%

21%

11%

3%

WomenMen

Table 10. Did you negotiate, or accept what was offered?Women Men

Accept 49% 45%N/A 0% 2%Negotiate 49% 54%No Response 2%

There were 40 responses from women and 54 from men on the question, “Is there anything about the process of negotiating compensation that could be improved, based on your experience?” The most frequent theme was education and empowerment for those involved in the process. Candidates need to know that they can negotiate and be provided the tools. Vestries need to better understand the total costs, especially where health insurance is concerned. A desire for transparency was expressed so that the existing market is available for all to consider. There are also calls for a formalized compensation structure, especially one that considers the cost of living differences across the diocese, and more direct support from the diocese during negotiations.

Table 11. General Themes in Negotiation of CompensationWomen Men

Education 16 17Transparency 12 8Formal rate structure 6 3Diocese support 1 8

When asked, “Are you willing to be interviewed?” 33 women and 38 men indicated they would be willing to be interviewed. This is an encouraging response and will be important as we move forward with our efforts.

The responses to, “Do you have any additional comments?” were varied. A few common themes could be identified that include gratitude that the issue of compensation equity was being worked on, a concern of erosion of compensation after hire due to lack of raises and a general call for greater transparency.

Conclusion

The additional quantitative data supports the conclusions from the first phase of the pay equity review. Women clergy are paid less now and through time. Women are called to rectorships later and at lower rates than men. The survey identified perceptions that are generally in line with the quantitative data and offers insight into some potential reasons that the disparity exists, that it begins at the clergy member’s first appointment to rector and persists throughout her career. The challenge now is to identify remedies, implement them and monitor results.