New Data on Management Growth at UC 1991-2010
by Charles Schwartz, UC Berkeley
This is a subject I have written about several times in the past, based upon analysis of statistical data published by the University. Official response has been pathetic. Now, some new data not only extends the time frame over which we can see enormous growth in management positions but also lets us identify the main sources of funds paying for this estimated $1 Billion per year in apparent waste.
If you want to read a summary of my past studies of this subject, along with accounts of how UC officials have responded to these analyses, see http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~schwrtz/Seminar/Seminar10_13_09.pdf
While those earlier studies covered the time period 1996-2006, this new data spans a larger interval, 1991-2010, and shows overall even more excessive growth. Here is the latest picture for all of the University of California.
Source of data: http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/stat/
“Total” Employment numbers scaled (x0.0289) to match Management at 1991.
“Management” means the employment category:
SMG & MSP (Senior Management Group & Management and Senior Professionals)
“FTE” means Full-Time Equivalent positions
This data excludes DOE Laboratories but includes UC Medical Centers
To see the implications of this data, I have made the following summary table.
Table 1. Campuses Ranked by Management Growth 1991-2010
|UC Campus||% Growth in Management Personnel||% Growth in Total Employees||“Excess” Management FTE|
“Excess” Management FTE is calculated as follows:
(2010 Mngt FTE) – (1+% Growth in Total Employees)x(1991 Mngt FTE)
With an average compensation for MSP staff of $122,000 per year, this total Excess costs the University around $560 Million per year.
In my earlier studies I identified another employee category that showed exceptionally large growth. This is the sub category of PSS (Professional and Support Staff) positions labeled “Code-F” and named “Fiscal, Management & Staff Services.” It appeared that most of these positions were likely to be support staff (above the clerical level) for the Managers discussed earlier. Over the period 1993-2010, this category of employees at UC grew from 7,162 to 18,102 FTE, for an overall increase of 153%. Using the same method as above, this leads me to estimate a present Excess of (18102) – (1.46)x(7162) = 7645. Thus, with an average $63,000 per year salary for these positions, I estimate this Excess cost at around $480 Million per year.
Adding these two estimates together I get a cost to UC of just over $1 Billion per year for apparent bureaucratic bloat.
The next question is, What sources of money are used to pay these management and management-support positions? The University of California Office of the President (UCOP) publishes Compensation reports, which, it turns out, are not useful in answering this question. The whole MSP category is broken into several portions, some of which are shown there but others appear to be hidden within the PSS Code-F category.
Fortunately, I have been able to obtain some detailed payroll data from UCOP and the following tables show what we are interested in. These data cover only Base Pay for the fiscal year 2009-10.
Table 2. FY 2009-10 Payroll Data – Total UC
|Job category||FTE *||Total Pay||Annual Pay / FTE|
|PSS Code-F||17628||$1,109 Million||$63,000|
* Note. There are small differences between some FTE numbers shown here and those reported above; also, there was a recent move of Academic Deans, out of the SMG category. These quibbles are not important for our purposes here.
Table 3. FY 2009-10 Payroll Data – Total UC – by Fund Group
|Fund Source *||MSP||SMG||PSS – F||Totals|
|$ Millions||$ Millions||$ Millions||$ Millions|
|Contracts & Grants||38||0.1||75||670|
|Hosp/Health Sci Funds||308||14.5||236||3516|
|Tuition & Fees||50||1.0||56||381|
* For definitions of these categories, see http://www.ucop.edu/irc/dd/cps/cps4300s.html
(“Other Funds” are mostly Endowments, Private Gifts and some ICR.)
In Table 3 we see that State Funds are a major source of payroll for the Management positions under study here.
Therefore, this issue of Excess Management should be a major topic of attention in the University’s present budget crisis.
The distinction shown here between State Funds and Tuition & Fees is something I would question, since those two fund sources are largely intermingled.
Table 3 also shows that the Medical Enterprises are another big source of UC’s overall Management bloat (this was specifically detailed in one of my earlier papers). This observation serves to raise even higher the question of why the Berkeley campus, with no Hospital or Medical School, showed the largest overall growth in Management (see Table 1.)
With this new payroll data source one can also separate out information for the individual campuses. Table 4 shows what I get for my own campus; and anyone who wants to do an analysis for their own campus can download a copy of this 4857 line Excel data file here.
Table 4. FY 2009-10 Payroll Data – UC Berkeley – by Fund Group
|Fund Source||MSP||SMG||PSS – F|
|$ Millions||$ Millions||$ Millions|
|Contracts & Grants||7.1||5.8|
|Hosp/Health Sci Funds||0.4||0.8|
|Tuition & Fees||10.4||0.2||7.3|
|Total $ Millions||114||5.8||107|
|Annual Salary / FTE||$114,000||$240,000||$64,000|
A rough estimate of Berkeley’s cost for Excess Management: over $100 Million per year. In a recent report to The Regents, Berkeley officials state that they are in the process of eliminating 240 management positions, with an estimated savings of about $20 Million. My data says that they need to do a lot better than that.