Advisory recommendation / Arizona Department of Administration, Human Resources System

              State of Arizona
Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
Betsey Bayless
Director, Department of Administration
Arizona Department of Administration
HUMAN RESOURCES SYSTEM
2003
ADVISORY RECOMMENDATION
BETSEY BAYLESS
DIRECTOR
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
100 NORTH FIFTEENTH AVENUE, SUITE 401 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 PHONE (602) 542-1500 FAX (602) 542-2199
September, 2003
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor, State of Arizona
The Honorable Ken Bennett
President, Arizona State Senate
The Honorable Franklin “Jake” Flake
Speaker, Arizona House of Representatives
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Governor Napolitano, President Bennett and Speaker Flake:
It is my pleasure to share with you the 2003 Annual Advisory Recommendation on the salaries
of our State employees.
We face a difficult challenge. Due to the financial crisis, we have reduced staff and increased
workload stress for those remaining workers, thereby slowly eroding the very foundation that
delivers the most critical services that comprise our state government. Our need to attract and
retain professional, highly trained employees is paramount. Although the State is still
considerably behind the Arizona market, our overall position has not deteriorated since last
year’s report (-16.4% in 2002 vs. -16.3% for 2003). Several factors have contributed to this,
foremost being the general increase of $1450 per employee in June 2002.
I know the financial crisis the State faces makes it difficult to increase salaries; however, we
must weigh the options and establish State employee pay as a priority. We simply cannot allow
employee pay to erode further without severe negative implications on our ability to deliver even
the basic of State government services.
We are hopeful the Annual Advisory Recommendation will provide the information you need
when making decisions regarding Arizona State government and its employees’ compensation.
Very truly yours,
Betsey Bayless
Director
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
2003 ANNUAL ADVISORY RECOMMENDATION
GENERAL
Last year the Annual Advisory Recommendation was prepared in the midst of a sluggish
economic situation and uncertainty as to when, and to what extent, the economy would
recover. The 2002 Recommendation noted the challenge the state of Arizona would face as
the demand for services continued to grow. This year, the economy remains slow and the
budget situation has worsened, as State agencies struggle to provide meaningful services to
more citizens with less funding available. The employees of the State of Arizona continue to
provide services to their fellow citizens while their own salaries continue to lag behind in the
market.
FINDINGS
The average salary for covered Arizona State employees as of June 30, 2003 was $31,859.
According to data from the last ten years, State employee salaries continue to trail those in
the public and private market place.
STATE OF ARIZONA vs. SALARY SURVEY RESULTS
The following information compares State salary averages to those of other organizations
using benchmark classifications to compare pay practices. The information is divided into
three segments that focus on geographical comparisons and a specific analysis of the major
city governments in Arizona. The intent is to provide the best picture of the State’s market
competitiveness as we attempt to attract and retain valued employees.
Overall variances in the salary surveys show a sustained trend below market for the State.
Both the Joint Governmental Salary and Benefits Survey (JGSS)1 and the Western States
Salary Survey 2 show:
• State employee salaries remain below market.
• Salary range minimums remain below market.
• Thirty-three survey benchmark classes have average salaries more than 25% below
market average salaries (Total survey benchmarks: JGSS, 128; Western States,
133).
1 The JGSS, conducted annually, compares State of Arizona salaries to public and private employers in Arizona.
The 2003 survey, conducted in March, had 188 participants.
2 The Western States Salary Survey, conducted annually, compares State salaries to other public employers –
cities, counties, and states -- in 12 western states. The 2003 survey, conducted in March, had 28 participants.
2
Western States Salary Survey
The annual Western States Salary Survey is a companion survey to the Joint Governmental
Salary Survey, providing benchmark job comparisons at the higher level professional
classifications in government, e.g., State Auditor, Park Manager, and Grants Coordinator.
Following are the key measurements:
2002 2003
State Average Salary vs. Market Average Salary -26.3% -21.3%
State Midpoint vs. Market Average Salary -13.5% - 8.5%
Although the State is still behind the market, the State’s position did improve with the
general increase granted to all State employees in June 2002. A chart detailing the results
of the survey is provided in Attachment #1.
Joint Governmental Salary and Benefits Survey (JGSS)
This survey is the Department of Administration’s most widely referenced tool for assessing
the Arizona market position and represents a broad cross section of public and private
employers of all sizes. The degree to which the State salaries are below market has not
changed since 2002.
It should be noted that a technical correction has been made to more accurately show the
State’s relationship to the market. Specifically, the classification of “Habilitation Technician”3
has consistently been used as a benchmark, but in the last two years a dwindling number of
employers have used it, making comparisons less reliable. Therefore, these charts indicate
the percentages with and without the Habilitation Technician classification.
2002 2003
State Average Salary vs. Market Average Salary -16.4% -16.3%
State Midpoint vs. Market Average Salary - 5.8% - 6.3%
Without Habilitation Technicians:
State Average Salary vs. Market Average Salary -19.5% -19.0%
State Midpoint vs. Market Average Salary - 9.4% - 9.0%
Arizona City Governments vs. State Salaries
A comparison of State salary averages to average salaries in nine Arizona cities4 shows that
the State lost more market position. In 2003, the State is significantly behind the average of
these cities’ salary programs: -33.2% for 2002, and -35.4% for 2003.
The JGSS has continuously exceeded the State employee average salary in double-digit
percentages since 1993, when it was 19.6%. It has not been in single digits since 1988,
when it was 7.2%. A history of the JGSS market variance is shown in Figure 1.
3The Habilitation Technicians work with developmentally disabled persons in a structured program, training
clients in vocational, socialization and independent living skills.
4 Information from JGSS, 2002 and 2003, including Avondale, Chandler, Flagstaff, Glendale, Goodyear, Phoenix,
Scottsdale, Tempe, and Tucson.
3
Figure 1
History of JGSS Market Variances
Average Average Salary
Year Actual Salary Range Midpoint
1988* -7.2% -0.6%
1989 -13.9% -4.8%
1990 -13.9% -3.9%
1991 -19.6% -7.5%
1992 -22.5% -9.3%
1993 -20.6% -12.9%
1994 -22.5% -10.6%
1995 -22.5% -9.4%
1996 -25.7% -12.2%
1997 -22.5% -9.9%
1998 -17.5% -7.5%
1999 -11.5% -6.8%
2000 -13.2% -1.6%
2001 -14.0% -2.2%
2002 -16.4% -5.8%
2003 -16.3% -6.3%
* Step plan ended July 1, 1987
STATE OF ARIZONA vs ARIZONA MARKET WAGE INDICATIORS
As shown in Figure 2, State Employee Salary Comparison, the Average State Employee
Salary trend line continues to fall below all other Arizona market wage indicators – JGSS,
Eller College of Business, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).5
Of the salary trend lines shown in this figure, the information from the JGSS provides the
most equitable job comparison survey in terms of the types of jobs included. Both the Eller
and BLS information include full- and part-time workers in seasonal and temporary jobs, in
construction, manufacturing, retail, and (in the case of BLS), agriculture.
5 JGSS figures include occupational groupings of clerical, food services, skilled/trades, unskilled, information
management/communication, medical, professional, and miscellaneous (such as investigator, paralegal,
interpreter, graphic artist, etc.) Eller College of Business figures include total Arizona non-agricultural workers.
BLS figures include all types of employment for full- and part-time workers, including seasonal and temporary, in
construction, manufacturing, retail, finance, transportation, government, and services in large Arizona cities.
HRMS figures include covered, permanent full-time employees
4
Sources: Average JGSS Salary, March 2003
Average Civilian Wage in Arizona, Eller College of Business, March 2003
Average Worker in Arizona, BLS, December 2002, aged 1%
Average State Employee, HRMS, State of Arizona, June 2003
STATE OF ARIZONA TOTAL COMPENSATION vs OTHER STATE GOVERNMENTS
Total compensation is defined as the total value of an employee’s direct and indirect
compensation provided by the employer. The State’s total compensation package is
important on an individual basis and should be promoted to employees as a solid,
competitive plan. Since the State spends a significant amount of money on benefits,
employees should understand that it is an expenditure in their behalf, just like salary is an
expenditure. Employees should realize the cost of benefits is far greater than just the
employee portion.
According to the 2002 Central States Compensation Association survey (which includes all
Western states except California), Arizona is third from the bottom of the twenty-three state
governments. The State of Arizona contributes an additional 33% of each employee’s
salary toward benefits, far less than the average 40%. The following chart, Figure 3, shows
the specific comparisons from the survey:
Figure 2
State Employee Salary Comparison
$22,000
$24,000
$26,000
$28,000
$30,000
$32,000
$34,000
$36,000
$38,000
$40,000
1993 2003
Average JGSS Salary
Average Civilian Wage in Arizona
Average Worker in Arizona
Average State Employee Salary
5
Figure 3
Benefit's
Total Average Benefits * Percent
State Compensation Salary of Salary
Illinois 64,741 44,607 20,134 45%
Michigan 62,712 43,618 19,094 44%
Colorado 60,213 47,088 13,125 28%
Minnesota 58,115 43,493 14,622 34%
Iowa 57,763 41,289 16,474 40%
Wisconsin 54,927 39,618 15,309 39%
Oregon 52,382 38,508 13,874 36%
Nevada 51,948 37,554 14,394 38%
Idaho 49,238 34,075 15,163 44%
Wyoming 48,810 35,020 13,790 39%
Utah 48,183 35,433 12,750 36%
New Mexico 46,244 32,558 13,686 42%
Louisiana 44,220 30,014 14,206 47%
Arkansas 43,975 29,831 14,144 47%
Nebraska 43,627 32,000 11,627 36%
Oklahoma 43,039 29,935 13,104 44%
Montana 42,998 30,580 12,418 41%
Kansas 42,722 30,575 12,147 40%
North Dakota 42,671 32,292 10,379 32%
South Dakota 42,651 29,859 12,792 43%
Texas 42,562 31,039 11,523 37%
Arizona 42,286 31,824 10,462 33%
Indiana 41,054 28,553 12,501 44%
Missouri 40,284 27,950 12,334 44%
Average 48,916 35,021 13,895 40%
The State will be conducting further research in FY 2004 to assess the overall
competitiveness of the State’s employee benefits to those offered by other organizations
located in Arizona.
* Benefits include: health, dental, life, vision, sick hours,
vacation, holidays, retirement, and Social Security
6
NATIONAL MARKET TRENDS
In spite of the troubled economy, nationally organizations continue to budget for salary
increases as shown in the chart below.
According to these national survey sources, businesses are finding it difficult to balance
salary budgets with the rising cost of benefit plans, particularly in a depressed economic
climate that will not tolerate significant increases in product or service pricing. Unfortunately,
the pressure is often released through layoffs, which in turn create a surplus of labor and
reduced turnover. Employees with jobs are simply not inclined to seek other job
opportunities, which works well for those employers that typically pay below market, as the
State does.
Inflation is expected to average 2.6% for 2003 and 2.7% for 2004. In most cases, these
percentages will net workers about 1% in increased pay. However, rising benefit costs are
not necessarily factored into the equation because of the infinite ways benefit packages are
configured and the variety of arrangements for sharing the expenses between employees
and employers.
ARIZONA MARKET TRENDS
The information for the Arizona market trends shown in the chart below were obtained from
the Joint Governmental Salary Survey conducted by ADOA each year. The survey is
completed early in the year and projections for 2004 were made in March.
2003 2004
Arizona Actual Projected
Comparison % Increase % Increase
Public (51) 4.1 3.7
Private (127) 4.0 3.9
Overall 4.0 3.9
State of Arizona 0 0
6 Mercer Human Resources Consulting, Inc. - international human resources consulting firm recognized for its
work in compensation and benefits; provider of salary surveys, studies, and trend analysis for the private and
public sectors. WorldatWork - world wide nonprofit association dedicated to compensation, benefits, total
rewards, and HR professionals. Conference Board - nonprofit organization that creates and disseminates
information about management and the marketplace to help businesses assess the current economic picture and
intelligently forecast trends.
2003 2004
Actual Projected
Source6 % Increase % Increase
Mercer 3.6 3.6
WorldatWork 3.5 3.6
Conference Board 3.5 3.5
State of Arizona 0 0
7
The “Projected Increases” in the charts above do not reflect those organizations, that have
“zero budgets” or salary freezes. Thus, the percentages only reflect those employers with
salary increase budgets. If “zero budget” organizations were included, the percentages
would likely be two to three tenths less than shown.
Of the 188 participants in the 2003 Joint Governmental Salary Survey, 15 (8%) have frozen
their salary budgets, and an equal number have either postponed or canceled their general
or merit increases for 2003.
Nationally, the percent of organizations surveyed by the Conference Board that are in a
freeze status is 12%, which is down from 16% in 2002. The actual number may be much
higher than reported, because some organizations do not participate in surveys when no
money is budgeted.
CHANGES IN EMPLOYEES WAGES
In the April 2003 issue of Arizona’s Economy, Alberta H. Charney writes, “While private
sector employees enjoyed a 20% increase in real income from 1990 to 2001, State and local
government employees suffered a 14.9 percent decline in purchasing power.” 7
This decline in purchasing power can be shown through a comparison of real examples of
current employees’ take home pay in 1998 versus what they took home in 2002. The
numbers in this chart are directly from payroll records for three ADOA employees:
98/net 02/net Variance Job Title
$13,851 $13,908 $56 Admin Asst I
$16,526 $16,864 $338 Custodial Wrkr II
$21,813 $22,481 $668 Bldg Maint Tech II
In the first example, this employee receives $2.15 more per check than he or she did in
1998, even after several general increases in salary. Unfortunately, the upward movement
in benefit premiums and retirement contributions, coupled with inflation, has offset the
general salary increases. The 02/net figure shown above does not reflect the increase in
retirement contributions that was effective July 1, 2003; the net earnings of State employees
will decrease further as a result of the increased retirement contributions.
To further reinforce this point, interview results from employees leaving State service make it
clear that they are critical of the State’s compensation programs. For instance, the
Department of Juvenile Corrections systematically conducts exit interviews with employees
terminating “in good standing” in order to identify employee issues and detect negative
trends. One question dealing with the reasons for leaving has “insufficient pay” as the
second most frequent answer (“better job” being the first), and another question has “higher
pay” as the most frequent response.
7 “The Budget Crisis Was Predictable,” Alberta H. Charney, Ph.D., Arizona’s Economy, April 2003.
8
TURNOVER
Turnover limits the State’s ability to provide superior customer service, disrupts programs
and operations, and is very costly. The cost impact of turnover is both direct – in
compensating departing employees for accrued leave and in recruiting and training
replacements – and indirect, in increased workload demands, need for overtime, and in
slower service delivery.
The State’s turnover rate has returned to a rate typical of the years prior to 2002. The
current rate for covered (merit system) employees is 15.4%, compared to 12.7% last year.
Figure 4
Separation Rates of Covered Employees
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Average Annual Separation Rate
Source: HRMS June 2003; includes voluntary and involuntary separations
9
COMPENSATION OPTIONS
There are three basic components of any organization’s compensation plan: to attract new
employees, to retain current employees, and to motivate employees to consistently perform
and contribute at their highest levels.
For the State’s compensation plan(s), the lack of funding has seriously eroded the ability to
fulfill these objectives. The following information identifies several options to address the
objectives. Options include three possible models for improving the State’s market position
and an approach for addressing critical market positions, as well as other possibilities such
as performance recognition and non-compensation based options.
IMPROVE THE STATE’S MARKET POSITION
In the Annual Advisory Recommendation for 2002, the Arizona Department of
Administration offered three models for improving the State’s market position to be at 95%
of the overall market salary rates. These three alternatives have been reviewed and
updated.
Model #1:
Since 95% market parity was the five-year plan implemented in 1998, this objective has
been interpreted as a target the State still hopes to achieve. In order to achieve this goal in
the next year, $181,559,710 is the amount necessary to reach the target.
Model #2:
A second cost estimate, utilizing a five-year implementation strategy, has been developed.
This proposal starts with FY 2004 and ends FY 2009.
FY 2004 $ 52,954,916
FY 2005 $ 55,179,022
FY 2006 $ 57,496,541
FY 2007 $ 59,911,396
FY 2008 $ 62,427,674
Total $287,969,548
Because the State is in a “catch-up” mode, 4.2% is necessary each year. This reflects the
amount required to match the projected market movement over the five-year period, as well
as the 16.3% deficit that needs to be erased starting in 2004.
Model #3:
Building on the concept proposed in Model #2, an approach that further reduces the initial
funding requirement but keeps the State on track for achieving the target. This approach
simply defers the funding requirements to the end of the five-year plan period when the
revenue stream may be more favorable.
FY 2004 $25,216,626 2.0%
FY 2005 $38,581,438 3.0%
FY 2006 $52,985,176 4.0%
FY 2007 $75,768,801 5.5%
FY 2008 $94,469,919 6.5%
Total $287,021,960
10
ESTABLISH A PERFORMANCE RECOGNITION FUND
Recognition can be a more powerful motivator than money.
The idea of recognizing top performers is very important and should not be overlooked when
funding is scarce; in fact, it may be more important in these times. There needs to be a way
to reward those who make significant contributions in their respective areas of expertise and
are obviously outstanding performers. Following is a recommendation to address this need
at minimal expense:
• Studies have repeatedly confirmed that employees rank recognition higher than
financial rewards, which is the premise for recommending a “Performance
Recognition Fund” be established at the agency level for top performers.
• Performance pay will be lump sum payments (not added to base salary).
• Funding can be limited to less than one percent of the agency’s base annual payroll.
• Agency managers will be allocated a portion of the funds to award as they deem
appropriate.
• Guidelines will be given to managers to assure consistency in the performance
criteria and selection methodology.
• This program will be performance driven, not an incentive plan similar to “PIPP.”
The cost of a performance fund can be relatively insignificant when compared to the total
payroll, but for purposes of illustration a very simple formula is suggested. Starting with the
premise that a 5% lump sum award is significant in the eyes of employees, and estimating
that the State wants to target 10% of the employee population for an award, the funding for
all agencies, state wide is $6 million.
OFFER NON-CASH COMPENSATION OPTION
With the understanding that no budget dollars exist for base salary increases, there are
other alternatives that should be considered for recognizing State employees’ contributions
and their loyalty to State service. Following is one example of a high value, non-cash
benefit.
Paid Holiday Added
Based on the average number of paid holidays for the twenty-five Western state
governments, Arizona’s ten paid holidays is one day short of the average. The common day
missing from Arizona’s schedule is the day after Thanksgiving; another option is a “floating”
holiday, or personal business day. Many of the other states have local holidays not
recognized across the nation, such as Texas Independence Day, Mardi Gras Day, LBJ’s
Birthday, or Pioneer Day.8
According to a survey of the State’s human resources managers, time off is a very desirable
non-cash commodity for the following reasons:
• Two income families have little time for family or personal obligations.
• Stress induced by hectic schedules leads to health problems that manifest in higher
medical costs and absenteeism.
• Emotional stress due to guilt over not being available for family.
8 2002 Central States Compensation Association Survey
11
ADDRESS CRITICAL JOBS
It is clearly understood that funding for any broad based salary adjustments, such as
general or merit increases, is essentially not available short term. But with the thought that
limited compensation funding may become a reality at some point in the future, the most
vulnerable and market sensitive job families have been identified in this section of this
Recommendation. To be included in this section, the State’s benchmark job must fall into
one of two groups.
Group 1
The first group meets the following criteria:
• Salary range midpoint at least 20% below the survey’s average midpoint,
• Employee average salaries at least 20% below the survey’s actual average
salaries,
• Represent a significant number of employees.
The broader job families identified and justified as “critical” are:
o Professional and Administrative
o Paraprofessionals and Clerical
The tool used to isolate the market critical classifications is the “Market Index.” Briefly, the
“Market Index” is a simple numerical calculation that combines the salary survey information
on benchmark classifications, including average salary comparisons, midpoint comparisons,
and the number of employees in the classification.
Standard salary survey practice matches one classification in a family of jobs, such as “Child
Protective Services Specialist III.” This benchmark classification is then used as the basis
for adjusting the other classifications in the family, e.g., I, II, and supervisor. The broader
grouping presented in this section may include multiple benchmark jobs.
The costing estimates for the recommendations are based on bringing the average salaries
for State employees to 10% below the market average salaries for the job family.
Professional and Administrative
This category encompasses more than 15,000 employees. Within the category,
classifications that meet the criteria above include such classifications as Child Protective
Services Specialists and Supervisors, Human Service Specialists, Social Service
Administrators, and Environmental Program Specialists. Approximately 2,600 employees
populate these classes, which have salaries that fall 29% to 33% below market.
Ideally, funding would be approved to bring these classifications to within 10% of the market
midpoint according to the detailed survey results and salary survey analysis completed by
compensation staff. The first year expense for bringing the average salary of employees in
these classifications to within 10% of the respective market rates would be approximately
$15,000,000. A lower funding amount could be used to prioritize the classifications based
on highest vulnerability to turnover, focusing on those with greater risk to State services if
significant vacancies occurred, e.g., Child Protective Services.
12
Paraprofessionals and Clerical
These broad job families represent over 8,700 employees, or approximately 25% of all State
workers. Classifications in this group include Executive Staff Assistants, Administrative
Assistants, Legal Assistants, Human Service Workers, Secretaries, Administrative Support
Supervisors, and Clerk Typists. State salaries for these classes are 30% or more below
market.
The backbone of the State’s workforce is represented here because of their support role in
almost every agency. Because many are at or near the entry level classifications in State
service, they are the most susceptible to excessive turnover, high training expenses, and
are very difficult to recruit for when pay is low and locations are not convenient.
Ideally, funding would be approved to bring these classifications to within 10% of the market
midpoint according to the detailed survey results and salary survey analysis completed by
compensation staff. The first year expense for bringing the average salary of employees in
these classifications to within 10% of the respective market rates would be approximately
$867,000. A lower funding amount could be used to prioritize the classifications based on
highest vulnerability to turnover, focusing on those with greater risk to State services if
significant vacancies occurred, e.g., Administrative Assistants.
Group 2
The State’s benchmark must meet the following criteria to fall into the second group:
• Turnover identified as a significant problem for the agencies utilizing the positions.
• Market factors indicate a pending recruitment/retention issue.
• Identified as Critical Services offered by the State.
The broader job families identified and justified as “critical” are:
o Protective Services
o Nursing Professionals
Protective Services
These classifications, in the ADOA payroll system, include Correctional Officers and Youth
Correctional Officers, and represent approximately 7,300 employees. Turnover for Youth
Correctional Officers was 48.7% last year. Average salaries by classification are 23% to
40% below the local market.
Protective service positions are critical to the mission of State government and fulfill one of
the highest needs for its citizens. In order to attract and retain employees with these skills,
the State has to compete with other governmental agencies having similar staffing needs,
e.g., the police departments, sheriff offices, and probation functions.
Currently, Correctional Officers, both adult and youth, utilize special pay plans. An
extensive study of these plans, paired with analysis of the market situation, will result in a
determination of the functionality of these “step” plans. This determination will lead to a
recommendation for the future salary plans for these classifications.
.
13
Nursing Professionals
All registered nurses and related nursing classes are included in this general group.
Currently, State nursing salaries are close enough to market levels to be considered
competitive IF base salaries plus stipends and other special pay are included. However,
vacancy rates remain very high, and vacancy savings have been utilized to fund the
stipends for many agencies.
Other factors adding to the criticality of this group include:
• The limited supply of nurses in Arizona, which makes it a very competitive market;
• Planned new beds in the Phoenix metro area
o 74-bed acute care facility at West Valley Hospital Medical Center opening
September 2003
o Banner Health Systems plans for 120 beds in East Phoenix this year
o New Maricopa County Jail in South Phoenix, with 2300 inmates requiring 60
nurses
o Banner Estrella Medical Center opening November 2004.
• Turnover rates above 30% for nursing professionals.
The Department of Administration plans to complete an extensive study of nursing positions
in Arizona, to include salaries, benefits, incentives, perquisites, and staffing forecasts. Upon
completion of this study, ADOA plans to design and recommend an inclusive, total
compensation plan for the nursing professionals.
Attachment 1
VARIANCE COMPARISON 2003
JGSS SALARY SURVEY RESULTS
The variances displayed below reflect a comparison of State Service pay practices to the labor
market throughout Arizona for six (6) occupational groupings. The data utilized is obtained from the
Joint Governmental Salary and Benefits Survey (JGSS) Survey. The negative variances in red
reflect how much the market exceeds State salaries; positive variances in green indicate that state
salaries exceed what the market is paying. Variance is calculated using weighting by number of
state employees in the benchmarks.
STATE SERVICE VS JGSS VARIANCE *
St Actual Midpoint St Actual St Avg
Occupational Mn to Mkt to Mkt Mx to Mkt to
Group Avg Mn Average Avg Mx Mkt Avg
Technical
2003 -35.0% -19.1% +10.5% -27.7%
Prof/Admin
2003 -36.6% -12.0% +0.5% -22.8%
Clerical
2003 25.9% -6.9% -0.9% -20.8%
Trades
2003 -16.6% -5.6% +5.6% -15.4%
Medical
2003 -3.5% -10.9% +3.8% -2.5%
Service/Maint
2003 -7.3% +9.3% +9.6% -1.6%
Overall Variance
Without Hab Techs -27.4% -9.0% +1.6% -19.0%
With Hab Techs -24.5% -6.3% +3.9% -16.3%
STATE SERVICE VS WESTERN STATES VARIANCE *
St Actual Midpoint St Actual St Avg
Mn to Mkt to Mkt Mx to Mkt to
Avg Mn Average Avg Mx Mkt Avg
Western States 2003 -20.4% -8.5% -1.1% -21.3%
(Excludes Director, Asst. Director Benchmarks)
STATE SERVICE VS COMBINED WESTERN STATES/JGSS VARIANCE *
Western & JGSS
Combined
2003 -22.2% -8.6% -0.4% -20.7%
* * “Actual Minimum” refers to the Hiring Rate or Lowest Salary Paid; “Actual Maximum” refers to the highest salary paid
Front and Back Cover Photography by Human Resources employee Ed Miksch