Editors' Note
The Community Association Manager Compensation and Salary Survey 2007 is the third salary survey conducted by the Foundation for Community Association Research. The first was conducted in 2000 and the second in 2003. With each edition, survey results have increased because the profession continues to grow and gain recognition, industry data becomes more important and more readily available, and the knowledge of the professionals in the industry increases.
Although we modeled the 2007 survey on the 2000 and 2003 editions, we added many new questions and sought responses from a much larger group. Consequently, the 2007 survey results provide much more data and more detail.
While it's good to have more data, we strongly urge caution when comparing 2007 data with 2003 data. The amount of change in the profession and in the survey makes an accurate comparison very difficult. For example, in 2007 many more professionals—and, presumably, survey respondents—held professional certifications or designations than in 2003. Also, the 2003 survey collected data primarily from management company CEOs and large-scale community managers, whereas the 2007 survey also collected responses from individual managers. Consequently, the 2007 survey includes data from significantly more participants—triple the number in 2003.
Perhaps the most significant change in 2007 is your ability to access the survey data online for more data comparisons that are not included in this bound copy. For example, the online survey results allow you to sort manager's salaries not just by region of the country, but to breakdown that data further by major metropolitan area. Additionally, you can sort survey data by your own criteria on this secure site.
We thank the members of the Foundation board for their support of this project, and the members of the salary survey task force for their guidance and professional expertise. We also thank the respondents who took the time to complete the salary survey and make this valuable tool possible. Finally, we thank the staff at CAI, especially Debra Lewin, Director of Community Associations Press, for their expertise on this project.
We welcome your questions and comments.
David Jennings, CAE, Executive Director
Foundation for Community Association Research
Jacob B. Gold, CAE, Director
Foundation for Community Association Research
About This Report
The Community Association Manager Compensation and Salary Survey 2007 is another important service provided by the Foundation for Community Association Research to its members. The information contained in this report represents complete, accurate, and up-to-date compensation data on the community association industry.
The report is designed to allow a company to easily compare its compensation levels with its peers.
The data have been aggregated in the following groupings so companies can compare their own data to the results of similar operations. These aggregations include:
All Respondents By Respondent Type
- Managers
- Management Companies—Overall and by Budget Size
- Large Scale Managers-Overall and by Budget Size
By Geographic Region
- California
- Florida
- Northeast (CT, MA, MD, PA, NH, NJ, NY, VT)
- South (AL, AR, DC, DE, GA, LA, NC, SC, TN, VA)
- Midwest (IL, IN, KY, MI, MN, MO, OH)
- West (AZ, CO, HI, NV, OR, TX, UT, WA)
As a company compares its compensation information to that of the industry, it is important to remember that the statistics published in this report should be regarded as "guidelines" rather than "absolute standards." Since companies will differ, depending upon their location, size, and other factors, any two companies may offer their employees a reasonably attractive compensation package and yet be very different. For example, duration of employment and nature of prior experience will obviously influence the compensation offering for a particular individual. Thus, a deviation between any one company's figures and a number appearing on a table in this report is not necessarily good or bad; it is merely an indication that additional scrutiny may be warranted.
A minimum of 5 responses was required to show data. Throughout the report, a "*" indicates that there was insufficient response data to provide a meaningful statistic for that measure.
This study was conducted for the Foundation for Community Association Research by Industry Insights, Inc., an independent professional research and consulting firm located in Columbus, Ohio. The company specializes in conducting industry operating surveys, compensation and benefits studies, and member attitude surveys for trade and professional associations.
The Foundation for Community Association Research is proud to present the enclosed insights into the compensation levels of the community association industry. We wish to thank the CAI members who submitted data for the study. Your support was essential in making this study a success.
Survey Methodology
In January 2007, a survey questionnaire was mailed to approximately 7,500 CAI members. In total, 1,449 completed survey forms were returned by late February, representing a response rate of 20.0%. Forms received after the final deadline and questionnaires with incomplete information were not included.
Upon receipt, all questionnaires were assigned a confidential identification number, and any reference to the company was removed from the survey form. All data were checked both manually and by a specially designed computer editing procedure. Strict confidence of survey responses was maintained throughout the course of the project. Final results were tabulated by Industry Insights, Inc., and the report was completed in April 2007.
Definitions
Average (mean): the arithmetic average obtained by adding the individual values for all responses to a particular question and dividing by the total number answering; a measure of central value that can be distorted by extreme high or low values.
Median: a measure of central value that is not affected by extreme values; calculated by arranging all responses in numerical order and selecting the value that falls exactly in the middle, with half higher and half lower.
25th Percentile: when responses are ordered from lowest to highest, the lower quartile is the response 25% from the bottom. In other words, 75% of the responses are higher than this measure.
75th Percentile: when responses are ordered from the lowest to highest, the upper quartile is the response 25% from the top. In other words, 25% of the responses are higher than this measure.