What were the overall findings of the independent market study?
The results of the represented faculty and staff compensation independent study affirm the significant progress the California State University has made in ensuring employees receive fair and competitive compensation. Building on the investments made over the past several years and previous collective bargaining agreements, the study found that total compensation for both CSU staff and instructional faculty is competitive with comparable employers and peer institutions – consistent with the principles of the CSU's Compensation Philosophy. This reflects meaningful improvement for staff, whose market competitiveness increased by approximately six percentage points since the 2022 study. At the same time, instructional faculty have maintained their market-competitive position identified in the 2023 study.
The study also reaffirmed that the CSU continues to provide a health, dental and retirement benefits package that is often more generous than those offered by comparable employers, underscoring the system's ongoing commitment to providing a highly competitive total compensation package that supports the recruitment and retention of an exceptional workforce throughout their careers and beyond. While the study found that total compensation is competitive, the study identified areas that warrant further review, including at certain universities and with certain positions in which base pay is at the lower end of the competitive range. The CSU will carefully analyze the study's findings to inform next steps and future proposals related to employee compensation. Consistent with its commitment to maintaining a fair and equitable compensation philosophy, the CSU will use the study's insights to strengthen its ability to recruit and retain talented employees in support of its 471,000 students.
Why did the CSU commission this independent study?
The CSU conducts compensation studies regularly for its employees to assess market competitiveness and inform equitable compensation practices. The CSU commissioned the current study to update prior market analyses that were conducted for represented staff (2022) and faculty (2023) and to provide an up-to-date, systemwide view of base pay and benefits (total compensation) competitiveness. The independent study is part of a broader phased review of compensation across the CSU. Compensation studies have now been conducted for campus presidents, system executives, instructional faculty and represented staff. Studies for non-instructional faculty, Management Personnel Plan (MPP) employees, and non-represented staff are ongoing and will be completed this fall. The study was conducted by The Segal Group (Segal), a nationally recognized compensation, benefits and human resources firm with special expertise in higher education.
What was the goal of this market study?
The goal of the independent study is to understand how the CSU's represented instructional faculty and represented staff's total compensation compares to the wider higher education external market total compensation. Total compensation is an employee's base pay plus medical, dental and retirement benefits.
What do “above median total compensation" and “at market" mean?
“Above median total compensation" means that, on average, the combined value of base pay and benefits is above the market median (50th percentile) for the groups analyzed. It does not mean each employee is above market median. “At market" describes how base pay compares to external benchmark data.
How is “competitive range" defined in this study?
The study uses a commonly accepted compensation practice of viewing pay within a range around the market median as generally competitive. In the findings, 85% to 115% of the market median is used as the competitive range, with 85% of median serving as the lower bound and 115% serving as the higher bound. This range is a commonly used framework to distinguish between normal market variation and more significant gaps that may warrant further review.
Why does the study use a ±15% range to define competitiveness?
A ±15% range around the market median is a commonly accepted compensation practice. It recognizes that market pay is a range—not a single salary—and that compensation appropriately varies based on factors such as experience, qualifications, job responsibilities and other legitimate business considerations.
What methodology was used?
The study, which commenced in early 2026, used CSU compensation and benefits data as of February 2026. Market data used in the study have been adjusted to reflect July 1, 2026, salaries using a 3.5% annual update factor. Geographic adjustments were applied to reflect cost-of-labor differences by university.
For instructional faculty, base pay comparisons used CUPA-HR's (College and University Professional Association for Human Resources) Faculty in Higher Education Survey. Faculty were matched to market data based on rank, tenure status and CIP (Classification of Instructional Programs) code. Faculty salaries were converted to academic-year equivalencies to align with market data.
For staff, base pay comparisons used multiple, reputable surveys, including CUPA-HR's Staff in Higher Education Survey, Western Management Group's EduComp survey, and CompData's Colleges and Universities survey. CSU classifications were matched to survey jobs based on job content and classification specifications. Higher education market data were used as the primary comparison. Staff salaries were converted to 12-month equivalencies to align with market data. Benefits were evaluated using Segal's Colleges and Universities Benefits Study (CUBS) database, focusing on medical, dental and retirement benefits.
Were the comparison institutions similar to the CSU in size, mission and complexity?
The study used comparisons that reflect relevant labor markets for CSU jobs. For faculty, salaries were compared to public Research 2 and Research 3 institutions, as well as the peer institutions included in the study of CSU presidents and executives. For staff, salaries were compared using national data from four-year public colleges and universities. Staff positions generally compete in a broader labor market than faculty positions, so the comparison group was designed to reflect the market for higher education rather than a specific set of peer institutions. For benefits, the peer group included the 21 largest systems or multi-campus public institutions in the nation, primarily defined by total expenses, with consideration for total employees and student enrollment – as well as available benefits peers from the prior study.
Why did the study use national market data instead of California-only salary data?
The study used national salary survey data because it provides a larger and more robust dataset across a wider range of positions than a California-only dataset, resulting in more reliable market comparisons. To ensure the comparisons reflected California’s labor markets, the national market data was adjusted using geographic cost-of-labor differentials. These adjustments account for differences in market pay across the country, allowing CSU salaries to be compared to market rates that reflect the labor market in which each university competes for talent.
How does geography factor in the study?
Because the market data was national, the study accounted for geographic differences by using cost-of-labor adjustments. CSU universities were assigned geographic adjustment factors, grouped into tiers ranging from 105% to 130% based on local labor costs, using data from the Economic Research Institute (ERI).
Does the study look at affordability or the cost of living?
The study does not measure affordability or cost of living. Instead, it uses cost-of-labor adjustments, which reflect differences in market wages employers pay for similar jobs across geographic labor markets. Cost of labor, rather than cost of living, is the generally accepted methodology to adjust compensation market data to account for geographic differences.
Why should benefits count when some employees may be struggling with housing and other immediate expenses?
Benefits are a real and significant part of employee compensation, which is why they are included in the total compensation analysis. The CSU contributes approximately $1.8 billion each year toward employee retirement, health care and dental benefits – equal to approximately 50% of pay. While these dollars don't appear in a paycheck, they represent real value the CSU provides on employees' behalf.
Why were community colleges not used as comparators?
The study focused on comparison markets aligned to the CSU's role as a four-year public university system.
Did the study examine pay equity by race and gender?
The study was an overall market competitiveness analysis and did not include a race or gender equity analysis.
How will this market study impact future employee compensation considerations?
The current findings identify where employees and groups fall relative to market, including those below 85% of the median. The CSU will review the results and determine appropriate actions to be taken through the collective bargaining process. Ultimately, changes to represented employees' pay must be negotiated with the union that represents that group. The CSU will therefore bring these findings to the bargaining table for consideration by all parties.
How do the results of this study compare to prior represented staff and faculty studies?
The study reflects the significant investments the CSU has made in employee compensation through successive rounds of collective bargaining since the prior represented employee compensation studies were completed.
For instructional faculty, consistent with the 2023 Mercer study, the results continue to show that CSU compensation is competitive with comparable employers. This finding reflects the CSU's continued investment in faculty compensation, including general salary increases of 13 percent in recent bargaining rounds and increases to Lecturer A and Lecturer B base salaries.
For represented staff, the study found that market positioning improved by approximately six percentage points since the 2022 study. This improvement reflects the substantial compensation investments made through collective bargaining, including multiple rounds of general salary increases of 17 percent and, for certain bargaining units, the implementation of salary step programs.
As of the 2025-26 budget year, the CSU now spends $4.3 billion on salaries and wages and $2.3 billion on benefits for our more than 61,000 employees. Combined, this is 74% of the system's annual operating budget.
Will the CSU release the study findings and supporting data?
Yes. The CSU will make available materials summarizing the study's findings, along with supporting reference materials that provide additional context regarding the analysis and methodology. They are available on our website
here.