Annual report Arizona Dept. of Administration human resources system

              · State of Arizona
Jane Dee Hull
Governor of Arizona
J. Elliott Hibbs
Director, Department of Administration
JANE DEE HULL
GOVERNOR
J. ELLIOTT HIBBS
DIRECTOR
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
100 North l 51h A venue, Suite 40 I
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 542-1500
September, 2002
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull
Governor, State of Arizona
The Honorable Randall Gnant
President, Arizona State Senate
The Honorable Jim Weiers
Speaker, Arizona House of Representatives
1700 West Washington
Phoenix,Arizona 85007
Dear Governor Hull, President Gnant and Speaker Weiers:
It is my pleasure to share with you the 2002 Annual Report on the Arizona State Service Human Resources
System.
The format of this year's report has changed significantly from prior years to provide you with more meaningful
data regarding the status of the State's workforce and the operation of the State Human Resources System. Given
the limitations of the current payroll/personnel system, we are unable to conduct a thorough analysis of the
workforce. However, we are looking forward to the new Human Resources Information System to be fully
implemented in July 2003 that will facilitate the collection and analysis of accurate and timely data for future
reports and assist us in effectively and efficiently managing our human resources.
This report was prepared in the midst of a sluggish economic situation and uncertainty as to when, and to what
extent, the economy will recover. The State of Arizona is facing a serious challenge with less money available but a
higher demand for state services. The state workforce is shrinking, state salaries continue to be significantly below
the market (10% below the average Arizona worker), overtime costs are rising, and 42% of the state workforce has
4 years or less of experience. This information demonstrates the difficulty we are facing in attracting and retaining
employees.
We are hopeful that the information in this report will assist you when making your decisions regarding Arizona
State government and its employees.
Sincerely, *~ ~lliott Hibbs ·
Director
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Overview
fsernoN ONE~.ZoveRVIEW''OF''liii'MANRESOURcE'o'P'ERATIONs•< ··· ''''.''>···
State Human Resources Operations Profile
Saguaro Benefits Program
Arizona Government University
Human Resources Information System
~ . ·····~. ...· :·:·~·.:··~::~:.;.:.:-:·:·!·'.·~=;~:~-:::.;.;.;::~,:::•:;:::::.::::::~:::·::~::::::::::;:;:::::::~:-:~:~:·::::~..~..;· ··. ··''''·:::;;.·.:::·:·:::;~~::::;:;:.:.:~;:;:::::::::;:t.::~::::::::;::~=~::;:;:~::::::;::·::::;:;:{::::::·:::::~:;.:;:·:~···::;:::::x.;.:~~· 'se'crioN rifi(j:J<6eNER.AL EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Filled Salaried and Wage Positions 1997 - 2002
Filled Salaried and Wage Positions by Agency 2001 and 2002
Covered/Uncovered Filled Positions by Agency 2002
Rank Order of All States by Ratio of State Employment to State Population 2000
Ratio of All State Employment to State Population 2000
Rank Order of All States by Ratio of Total State Payroll to State Population 2000
Ratio of Total State Payroll to State Population 2000
ii
f"'
2
6
7
8
,.,,·,··9··
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Distribution of State Government Employees by Ethnic Group 2002
Changes in Salaried Employment by Race and Gender 1997 - 2002
Changes in Salaried Employment of Minorities 1997 - 2002
Minority Representation by Agency - Salaried Employees 2002
Gender Representation by Agency - Salaried Employees 2002
Occupational Grouping by Race and Gender 2001
Distribution of State Government Employees by Occupational Group 2001
18
19
19
20
21
22
23
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Changes in Separations by Wage & Salaried Employees 1997 - 2002
Separation Rates of Covered, Salaried Employees by Agency 1997 - 2002
Separations of Covered, Salaried Employees by Type by Agency 2002
Most Populous Class Titles 2002
Classes With The Highest Separation Rate 2002
26
27
28
29
29
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Table 20
Table 21
Table 22
Table 23
Table 24
Table 25
Table 26
Table 27
Agency Comparison of Average Wages per Employee 1997 - 2001
Average Overtime Hours per Employee by Agency 1997 - 2001
Total Overtime Costs by Agency 1997 - 2001
Average Sick Leave Use and Costs Per Employee by Agency 1997 - 2001
Age Distribution for All Employees 2002
Length of Service Distribution for All Employees 1998 - 2002
Employee Survey 1999 - 2001
State Employees by County 2002
ii
Overview
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) §41-763.01 requires
the Director of the Arizona Department of
Administration (ADOA) to provide a report to the
Governor and the Legislature on the status of the
state's human resources and the operation of the state
human resources system. The statute requires that the
report include information on the following:
• All state employees including employees of all
executive, legislative and judicial branch agencies.
• The number of employees affected by and reasons for
turnover within state service.
• Overtime pay requirements of all state agencies.
• Other information as determined by the Director.
In Arizona State government the majority of
agencies are subject to the jurisdiction of the
ADOA Human Resources System. However, there
arc 23 agencies that are not included in this System.
These 23 azencies have been informally grouped 0 into 11 separate human resources systems. Each
system develops its own employment,
compensation, attendance and leave, and employee
relations policies and procedures. Table A identifies
all of the human resources systems within Arizona
State Government and the number of employees
within each of these systems.
Agency
Appropriated Full-Time
Equivalent Positions
ADOA Human Resources System 31,127.7
Governor's Office Personnel System
Governor's Office NIA
Governor's Office of Equal Opportunitv 19.0
Governor's Office of Strategic Plannina & Buooenno 24.0
Board of Reoents & Universities Personnel Svstem
Board of Reaents 29.4
Arizona State Universitv 6.964.5
Northern Arizona University 2.304.8
Universitv of Arizona 6.239.1
Leoislative Personnel System
Auditor General's Office 203.5
House of Representatives 231.0*
Joint Leaislative Budget Committee 35.0
Leaislative Council 54.0
Librarv & Archives 123.1
Senate 200.0*
Community Colleqe Board Personnel Svstem 13.0
Courts Personnel Svstem
Court of Aooeals 140.5
Suoerior Court 199.0
Suoreme Court 247.4
Department of Gamino Personnel System 75.0
Governmental Information Technoloav Aaencv Personnel System 21.0
Department of Public Safety Personnel System
Law Enforcement Merit System Council 1.0
Public Safetv, Department of 1.840.8
Public Safetv Personnel Retirement Svstem NIA
Arizona Schools for the Deaf and Blind 608.4
State Compensation Fund ass.o-
Office of Tourism 28.0
Table A
Source: Joint Leg1slat1ve Budget Committee- Fiscal Year 2003 Appropnanons Report.
Numbers reflect FY02 appropriations. Items marked with an asterisk indicate that
numbers of employees were solicited from the respective agency.
The largest of the human resources systems within
Arizona State Government is the ADOA Human
Resources System, also known as the Arizona State
Service. The ADOA Human Resources System and
the Law Enforcement Merit System Council (the
Department of Public Safety's personnel system)
are the State's only merit systems established by
statute. Merit system employees may only be
separated from service for cause. Non-merit
employees of the other systems serve at the
pleasure of the appointing authorities and can be
separated without the right of appeal. They are
considered .. at will" employees.
The primary focus of this report is the ADOA
Human Resources System. The report is comprised
of five sections.
Section One provides an overview of the ADOA
Human Resources Operations. The responsibility of
the ADOA Human Resources Operations resides
with the ADOA, Human Resources Division
located at 100 North 15111 Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona
85007. This section describes who receives services
provided by the ADOA Human Resources
Division, the services provided, the organization of
the division, functional highlights and recent and
future human resources innovations.
Section Two provides demographic information of
the employees within the ADOA Human Resources
System. The demographic information includes
filled salaried and wage positions, covered and
uncovered filled positions by agency, state
employment in relation to state population, and
total state payroll in relation to state population.
Section Three provides statistical information of
the employees within the ADOA Human Resources
System by race, gender and ethnic group. The
statistical information includes distribution of
employees by ethnic group compared to the state
population, trends in salaried employment by race
and gender, trends in salaried employment of
minorities, minority representation by agency of
salaried employees, gender representation by
agency of salaried employees, occupational
g;ouping by race and gender, and distribution of
employees by occupational group.
Section Four provides data on the mobility patterns
of the employees within the ADOA Human
Resources System. The data in this Section includes
the trends in the separations (turnover) by wage and
salaried employees, trends in the separations of
covered, salaried employees by agency, most
populous classes and the classes with the highest
separation rate.
iii
Section Five provides information on employment
characteristics. The majority of the information is
presented by agency with five years of historical data.
This section includes average covered employee
wage, average overtime hours per employee, total
overtime costs, average sick leave use and costs per
employee, average age of employees, average length
of service of employees, employee satisfaction
survey results, and percentage of employees by
county.
The source of the information presented in Sections
Two through Five is the state's Human Resources
Management System (HRMS). This is a
decentralized record-keeping and tracking database,
and the accuracy of the data in the system is
dependent upon the personnel in each of the state
agencies to enter information into the system in a
timely manner. Maintenance and reporting functions
of the system reside within the authority of ADOA.
The HRMS system captures information from
roughly 100 different agencies, boards, and
commissions that are included within the ADOA
Human Resources System. Many of these
organizations are quite small in size. For many of the
tables contained herein, organizations with less than
50 allocated positions (at the end of fiscal year 2002)
have been consolidated into one line item at the top
of the table, noted as "small agencies". In addition,
the charts represent filled positions as of the date
referenced when the reports were generated. Tables
do not include vacant positions.
Section One
State Human Resources
Operations Profile
2
State Human Resources Operations Profile
The lar~est government human resources system in Arizona is managed by the Arizona Department of
Administration, Human Resources Division.
Established: 1968 as the Arizona Personnel Commission
Location: 100 North is" Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona
Employees: 153.5 full-time positions
Budget for FY 2003: $9,817,900 (ProRata),
$4,600,000 (HRIS),
$4,834,800 (Health Insurance Trust Fund)
Mission: ... provide efficient, timely customer-driven professional
human resources services ...
The Division consists of six functional areas: Benefits, Classification and Compensation, Employment, Satellite
Offices/Employee Relations, Planning and Quality Assurance, and Consulting Services.
Human Resources Director - Kathy Peckardt
Benefits/Insurance - Susan Strickler, Manager
Classification/Compensation - Joanne Carew, Manager
Employment - Linda Herold, Manager
Satellite Offices/Employee Relations - Laura Krause, Manager
Planning and Quality Assurance - Greg Carmichael, Manager
Human Resources Consulting- Denny Flaherty, Marie Isaacson, Claudia Smith, Clarence Williams
Customer Base includes over 9,000 retirees and over 62,000 active employees from 100 state agencies, boards
and commissions and 3 state universities.
• Health and welfare agencies (e.g. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Economic Security, Health Services)
• Protection and safety agencies (e.g. Adult and Juvenile Corrections)
• Transportation agencies (e.g. Department of Transportation)
Inspection and regulation agencies (e.g, Board of Accountancy. Real Estate. Insurance and Medical Examiners)
Education agencies (e.g. Department of Education. State Universities 1. Arizona State Schools for the Deafand Blind)
Natural resource agencies (e.g. Game and Fish, State Land. State Parks)
General government agencies (e.g. Revenue, Commerce)
State retirees1
•
•
•
Summary of Services
• A b~nefits program is offered that includes medical. dental, vision. basic and supplemental life insurance, dependent life insurance,
flexible spending accounts. short-term and long-term disability for active. benefit-eligible employees.
An on-site childcare center located on the capitol mall is available to state employees .
An Employee Assistance Program is available that offers counseling services and referral services .
Wellness Program is available that offers:
o Health Education classes tailored to each individual worksite.
o Free or low-cost screening programs.
o An inter-agency wellness resource center with books, videos and audiotapes. .
o A monthly newsletter full of wellness information and a listing of upcoming events in worksites statewide.
Human resources professionals are located on-site within the eizht larzest state agencies .
A team of human resources professionals is dedicated solely to ~ervin; the 92 small and mid-sized agencies. to take advantage of
economies of scale.
•
•
•
•
•
• A centralized database of applicants is maintained for hiring supervisors to utilize to fill positions.
• A pool of candidates is maintained to fill the temporary staffing needs of state agencies. .
• The recruitment strategy includes a variety of methods including coordinating and hosting job fairs and commumty events and
participating in community outreach programs. . .
• An up-to-date website ww\\'.hr.state.az.us is available containing information relating to job opportumt1es and employee benefits.
• Consulting services are offered to provide human resources expertise in such areas as employment law and Arizona State
government rules. policies and practices. .
• Market surveys are conducted annually and outside salary surveys are utilized to evaluate market position of state Jobs to ensure
external competitiveness. . .
• Jobs are analyzed and evaluated to determine appropriate salary ranges and job classifications to ensure internal equity.
1 These customers utilize the services of the Benefits Program only.
Benefits
The Benefits section fulfills the statutory
responsibility to provide health and welfare benefits
to the State of Arizona employees, retirees, long­term
disability recipients, COBRA participants and
their eligible dependents. The "Saguaro
Program" brand was selected to identify the
ADOA benefits from other benefit
programs offered to employees and
retirees within the state of Arizona.
The Saguaro Program is
comprehensive and consists of medical,
dental, vision, basic life, supplemental life,
dependent life, short-term disability, long-term
disability, and flexible spending accounts. Although
recent comparisons have not been conducted, a 1998
study by Watson & Wyatt indicated that the State's
employee benefits were competitive with other large
Arizona employers. The table below provides a
breakdown of the enrollment for each of the
program components for the October 2001 through
September 2002 plan year.
Benefit Enrollment
!Plan Enrollment Percent of Eliaible
I
i Basic Life 62.497 100%
Medical 61.347 98.6%
Dental 61138 97.8%
Short-Term Disabilitv 24.993 40.0%
Lona-Term Disabilitv 58.575 93.7%
Vision 28.710 45.9%
suooernental Life 32 278 51.6%
Deoendent Life 22 909 36.7%
Medical FSA* 2,338 3.7%
Deoendent FSA* 392 1.0%
I • FSA Accounts do not inelude un1vers.itics
The Benefits section also offers a Wellness Program.
The Wellness Program provides services at no or
low cost in order to improve the health and wellness
of our employees. This program is available for
employees and families who work for the State of
Arizona. Retirees of the State of Arizona (and their
spouses) are also welcome to use wellness resources.
The program includes publishing a health newsletter
Arizona Healthways, workshops/training, a library
of materials, flu shots, and mammography,
osteoporosis, and stroke risk assessment screenings.
As we move forward into the future, wellness will
become a vital function to educate and promote
preventative measures to reduce health care claims
costs. Diabetes screening, disease prevention
classes, and disease management will be necessary
to incorporate into the wellness program. The
following table provides data regarding the number
of services provided for the past three years.
3
Wellness Data
Service 2000 2001 2002
Classes/Screentnas
i
935 1.324 1.360 I
Emotovees Attenomo 35.007 41.640 42.205
Flu Shots Administered 12.799 14.147 15.421 !
Flu Shot Works1tes 229 282 306
I
We1ahtWatchers Sessions 111 135 137 I
Ernotovees Anenomo 3.045 3.828 4.080
Pounds Lost 18.978 23.339 23.689 I
Mammooraohv Screernnos 370 546 631
Referred to doctor 28 44 59
Osteooorosis Screen1nas 630 734 666
Abnormal 173 194 149 I
Another component of the Benefits section includes
the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). EAP
offers counseling services, referral services and
management/employee workshops. The types of
workshops offered include EAP Service
Introductions and Crisis Debriefing. The table below
provid~s information for the past two years
regardmg the number and types of issues where
intervention was provided.
EAP Services
2001 Total 2002 Total
/
Phone Contacts 5.301 3.681
Referral 3,690 3,183
Counseled 634 553
Issues:
Substance Abuse
Psychological
Physical/Medical
Legal
Work Related
Financial
Marriage/Family
101
74
38
49
168
92
112
58
38
27
38
182
84
126
42 65
350 385
~'"" Of 1'11-l&OMI'
£,.?u•~c 'fl~••,.cu v .. 0"10 ....
juLV ~002. ff ARIZONA
• [ HEAUHWAYS
I~...,....,.
I.,.~ ........ _, _. ~1""'"""7~-.J,6 -.J!;..,. I~~{~-
4
Classification & Compensation
The Classification/Compensation section
administers job evaluations and compensation
programs for the ADOA Human Resources System
while maintaining internal and external equity. In
addition, this section conducts and/or participates in
salary benefit studies, evaluates covered and
uncovered positions using the whole job
classification method, determines FLSA designation
for all positions, prepares the annual salary
recommendation, and administers and interprets
salary policy. As can be seen by the accompanying
chart, the number of classification action requests
has significantly increased. While the classification
and compensation section continues to administer
the system, it is in vital need of restructuring. The
current system is cumbersome and is not perceived
by employees as fair and equitable.
Number of Classification Actions
•Established
~Reclassified
•Abolished
[]Returned
•Review
~Other*
fl Desk Audits
•e.g. Title changes,
FLSA designation,
2002 2001 location changes, etc
Employment
The Employment Section maintains a centralized
applicant database, provides training and conducts
inform~tional sessions for agency staffing
professionals, manages community outreach,
coordinates/hosts job fairs and community events,
man~ges turnover data and manages temporary
services.
The following graphic highlights the sources of
resumes. The use of the Internet and job fairs as a
source has grown over the past years, while the more
traditional sources such as newspapers and mail
have declined.
Source of Resumes
/
/
16000-i-r---------------.
)4000
12000
IOOOO
8000
6000
4000.J..+--ll• ~'4~
2000
0
•Internet
~Job Fairs
• Newspapers
[]Walk-in
•Fax
~Mail/Other
FYOO FYOI FY02
Satellite Offices
The Division has nine satellite offices that provide
professional human resources services to state agencies.
Eight large agencies, Department of Administration:
Department of Corrections, Department of Economic
Security, Department of Health Services, Department of
Juvenile Corrections, Department of Revenue,
Department of Transportation and ~CCCS have an
on-site human resources office dedicated to the agency.
The remaining 92 agencies are provided dedicated
human resources services through· the Capitol Mall
Personnel Office.
These offices provide a myriad of services including:
rule interpretation, consistency in human r~s?urces
practices, compliance with laws, rules, policies ~nd
procedures, recruitment/staffing, employee relations,
operations, classification/organization consultati?n and
consultation regarding human resources-related issues.
Employee Relations
This section provides rule interpretation to agency
human resources professionals, management and
employees, assistance with policy development;
guidance on employee relations issues, investigates
and prepares responses to 4th level grievances
submitted by agency employees and 3rd level
grievances submitted by ADOA employees, and
investigates and prepares recommendations in
response to requests for 2nd level classification
reviews.
The following graphic provides information on the
number of 4th level grievances processed by the
Employee Relations section for the past four years.
4th Level Grievances
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
,,- L'·.'i.Zy:
.·•· /
... ~= - .
c ........... }l!llll
"' .... F < ! "' ..... :
"'- ? ... ,..- ~
:• ~
"=iii 1· ' ·u11
.,,
I 0 4th Level Grievances I
FY99 FYOO FYOI FY02
5
Planning & Quality Assurance
This section was recently established to assist State
agencies in reviewing their policies, practices and
procedures to provide consistent human resources
practices throughout Arizona State Government. The
section will also provide data analysis of key human
resources information and will focus on strategic
planning and best practices research which will
assist the Division in becoming proactive partners
with its customers.
Consulting Services
This area provides both in-house and external
services regarding various human resources related
issues, such as, pending and/or changes to existing
legislation, inquiries from the public, legislature and
other state agencies, design, development and
oversight of pilot programs and special projects.
HUMAN RESOURCES - INNOVATIONS
The Human Resources Division continues to work toward
modernizing and improving service delivery to its customers. Great
strides have been made in the areas of Benefits and Training. In
addition, the future holds great promise in the area of technology.
The following pages provide a glimpse of just some of the
improvements that have been made and the improvements of
tomorrow.
6
SAGUARO BENEFITS PROGRAM
The Benefits Unit recognized opportunities for improvement during last
year's open enrollment process. Feedback after the process demonstrated
that customers were not provided sufficient notification, materials were
confusing, inaccurate, and incomplete, document management was
inadequate, and staffing levels were inadequate to answer customer
questions while maintaining normal operations. As a result, a wide range
of new approaches was implemented to make the open enrollment process
run more smoothly for our customers.
Some of the improvements include:
I) Establishment of a paperless enrollment process. Customers have the option of using the enhanced
ArizonaBenefits@YourService website or using a vastly improved interactive voice response (IVR)
system.
2) Formation of a customer satisfaction council to ensure appropriate communication was taking
place at all levels in state government.
3) Establishment of a dedicated call center to answer customer's questions promptly and accurately.
4) Development of a partnership between the State and the Federal Office of Personnel Management to
provide a single automated source of enrollment and premium data.
Arizona Benefits@
Your Service
Wt1tlcom• to Arizon.a Benefits ·Th• S;19uaro Program
Wo hope YQU '°''" flnd this web site an easy and conv11nlent way to select your
~11:~~e~1111aftllo. Prior to beginning your online ennillnHml: p1oc1u;~ you wiU nct'1d
• V::iut Se(llll Steurtty Nu"'t>~r (Em;:iioyo :o fe~ AS u or UAl
• Your f>trsona! 1oe1'ttlfit:te:m Numbtr (i>IN) tn.1r-.vas mal!!!d to your l!om• aadrtn
• Reviewed Y'"'" ber.crot :no11:es ¥1.a tne i3endlts w•b 11•1• Ill ~:~:stste:az.:~l"l9fitll.
Ult Bt,,..ru Gu1<it. or Univemryor P.Tfzona w.b Sitt •t ~'-1(:..r.ii~!t.«I· · · ... , ·
it is important that v<>u n<'·(to tvai;,<11ttd your l:coeflt cP'.o•Ct$ PR!OR to fflte-1ir111 the onlmt .,•
:tj'~--:r~'.'.···:r·cT77'.~F:·.7::··,•r·:-;-;;·r'T.7.'•'::.:.'.'.''.T''?;':".':·'.:·::.:;'77'.T''.'.?''.77:T7.·;;'f'?C7!~'~J'.'77?7?~··l
Although the open enrollment process is currently
taking place, the efforts are not going unnoticed by
our customers. Many agency management staff as
well as employees have commented on how this
open enrollment process is much more customer­focused.
A Department of Economic Security .
manaeerwrotc to "recognize the excellent service
provided". University personnel are ~lso ~leased
with the process. One member of university
management stated, "I commend you and ADOA
for the excellent preparation for Open Enrollment
this year and appreciate our inclusio~ as a partner
in this preparation. We really appreciate the
attention ADOA is paying to this area that
falls into a black hole each year."
7
Best in Class Workforce Development Program
Arizona is the first state to take a corporate university model and build a collaborative, across agency boundaries,
systemic approach to workforce development. Arizona Government University (AzGU) was established to provide
a statewide tracking of training; web-based calendar and scheduling system; a centralized registration;
standardized curricula; a vendor management system (STARS) and a standardized evaluation instructor/vendor
system.
The Statewide Training and Registration System is an electronic data system designed,
developed, and implemented to track all training and development for every employee in
the ADOA human resource system. This on-line system includes a web-based calendar
with a total learning management system and facilities management capabilities.
State Registration &
Training System
AzGU sponsors Educational Fairs for state employees. In 2001, over 25 educational
institutions were represented, employees were able to obtain information to begin,
continue, or complete, their educational requirements for Associates, Bachelors or
Graduate degrees. Over 3000 employees attended the first event.
Key strategic relationships have been formed with colleges and universities. Thirty-three AzGU courses are now
accredited through the 10 community college districts statewide.
To assure quality and accountability, performance measures have been developed and implemented. Committed to
performance excellence, AzGU focuses on customer satisfaction, process improvement and
workforce/organizational development.
Vision:'' bt·i;t ind.is.• w<>rkforce.
l\1i~sionl:o 171.".tlt!, , wuri..forcr ,,,,,.d,>r.mt•ntpror,ram
th<1t Jel.-'<!fs ~'riti.:.•l ~t>m~1'!t!'nciE<> otnd ~kill oets I<• enable
.,mpln~·ll<i'S tu d,,,.•c.>lt'I' pr<>J,,.,."1unall y ;ond '"~"°'"' <~l
t"ffidt.".11~ .. <u.o;.tmm:~ foc.."u~~i. ~lA1!&.1'I go\:t~nmt~t st~rH(.'t~:it.
Overview: The ,\ri:t.nn<1 Gc:m•riun~'"Lt niw~I~ i~"
n\udd for St.olh~ c;,-,"·~t!Ul'\L>f'tt nt tln: b'.1UUU!( 3.lhi
J,"-ek•p~nt c>t it> must criti<:.sl core romf"'len~·· the ··'
off'Sbrthlrc.:.J r .. wty·t,..-n thr.ml'ld'rui ~to.l:t•~ emplo.°""t'!t':!'o and 1't~;1lt ,.
public P"""'"''"'' t!Mt ""''""rt .. , i\ri1.<ll1<l con~titwncy.
To increase career pathing, recruitment,
and professional development, AzGU
designed a no cost/low cost professional
development program for employees in
the accountancy profession. Plans are in
.progress to provide other professions
similar continuing education
opportunities.
AzGU sponsors a quarterly conference on
topics of concern to state government, and
makes them available to all state
employees. In 2001, Dr. Barry Lurrie
from Unisys and Dr. Blain Lee from the
Covey Institute have appeared. More
exciting and high quality presenters will
be scheduled in the future.
8
The Future of Human Resources
In 1989, the current HR/Payroll system (HRMS) was purchased. It brought a
1970's technology with an expected life span of 10 years. Many custom
modifications were made over the years to meet the changing business needs of
the state. Despite modifications, the system's overall complex processing
requirements and the inability to retain employee/payroll history or to provide
management reporting tools remained as major shortfalls. To meet their
business needs, agencies developed and maintained their own in-house
systems. This resulted in duplication of work and redundant information.
-s- ""Q ~ • "
0
''\ e- With the extraordinary technological advances that have occurred since the
. e of A rt "' purchase of the current system, the overall benefits of maintaining it became
quest1?nab~e. Co~sequently, the State is in the process of implementing a new Human Resources Information System
that will bnng Arizona to the forefront of states with browser-based Internet-delivered human resources services. This
system is scheduled for full implementation in July, 2003. '
HRIS Business Objectives
• Improve HR/Payroll processing reliability.
• Replace an existing aging HR/Payroll application.
• Fulfill business and technical requirements.
• Eliminate duplicate automated systems and processes within the State of Arizona.
• Reduce HR/Payroll technical support effort and software maintenance effort.
• Provide a solution that is flexible, scalable, and supportable.
• Interface with Arizona Financial Information System (AFIS) or a future financial application and support
interfaces with other external systems.
• Provide a user-friendly ad-hoc reporting tool.
• Provide the foundation for e-Govemment.
For a number of reasons, the time to change to the HRIS is right. It is universally apparent that the time has come
to replace the Payroll System (HRMS) and to provide Human Resources with an adequate system that centrally
captures all the unique functions of manazinz a larze and diverse workforce. Furthermore, the Legislature's
reques~ for a centralized data base and reporrln; capability for ALL state entities has become even more critical in
these times of fiscal uncertainty.
Vision
The State of Arizona will have an integrated Human Resources Management Solution that delivers payroll,
personnel, and employee benefits functionality to manage the dynamic State workforce of the 21st Century.
Project Overview
In early 2002, the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) awarded a contract to replace the current
HR/Payroll/Benefits system. The new Human Resources Information Solution (HRIS) will replace existing
applications with a single, integrated system that will be shared by all branches, departments, and agencies in State
Government. HRIS will provide a sincle system for administering payroll, personnel, employee benefits, and other
related needs for similar existing automated systems. IBM was awarded the contract and will assist the state in
implementing Lawson software. The Lawson products include Human Resources, Benefits, and Payroll software
applications and tools that will be used as a foundation for the new system. To ensure that the State of Arizona is
well-prepared to meet business needs for the future, process reengineering and cultural change management
initiatives to support best business practices will be implemented.
HRIS will provide opportunities to streamline current HR/Payroll processes, reduce costs, provide improve~ ..
access to HR/Payroll information for managers and employees, improve customer service, and enhance flexibility
to manage a rapidly changing workforce.
Section Two
General Employment Trend
10
Table 1 - Filled Salaried and Wage Positions
1997 - 2002
40,000 .,..-----------------~
OWage
•Salaried
34,000 ---
38,000
32,000 --
30,000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. 1997 through 1999 data represents calendar year-end (Jan - Dec);
2000 thr~ugh 2002 ~ata represents fiscal year-end (July 1 _June 30). The majority of employees hired with the State of Arizona
a~e considered salaried employees, including covered and uncovered employees. Wage employees are == employees who are
hire~. on a temporary basis and earn an hourly wage. This table represents filled positions only - it does not include vacant
positions.
/
Comments: The total number of employees has increased every year, although there was essentially no growth
from 2001 to 2002 (less than 0.05%). Wage employees accounted for 5.6% of the workforce in 2002 which is a
decrease from the past (roughly 6.0-6.5%). Although the total number of salaried employees has increased every
year, the rate of growth has decreased from a high of 1.8% in 1999 to 0.9% in 2002.
11
Table 2 - Filled Salaried and Wage Positions by Agency
2001 and 2002
Agency Name~ . KS •
I I I I . .. . . -
. 315
1,305 9 1,379 7
711 60 721 54
50 1 51 1
AHCCCS
Attorney General
Banking Department
• .. -
4~60/oi;/ /f3 .. t%·····:
;2~3%. 8 .. 80/o .
-7.4% .. 20]%
5.7%
1.4%
2.0%
-22.2%
-10.0%
0.0%
Corporation Commission
Corrections
Economic Security
275
9,754
9,025
11
95
819
275
9,298
9,811
7
36
741
0.0%
-4.7%
8.7%
-36.4%
-62.1%
-9.5%
... .. •'•'-:•'•'•':··~:·:-:-::·:•.•.·:·-:-···-:-~:·:·: ... ;.~:-·.;.· ·: r < 3~6o/ti •. S4s~oo/oi
-2.3% : '"'.50.0%
0.8% 13.9%
Health Services
Historical Society
Industrial Commission
1,728
77
295
110
58
409
97
14
5
14
21
85
1,756
72
283
105
55
410
92
14
8
12
20
97
1.6%
-6.5%
-4.1%
-4.5%
-5.2%
0.2%
-14.3%
-4.8%
14.1%
Lottery Commission
Medical Examiners Board
Military Affairs 'C.'.· i:; ~i;·~]~~~~·~~B~ri~:·•;;c······ ·~H·r:·:··rn'·•··•••·••••·r• nY r · ·r·( ···.:rci6···:··· ··;·;·u.: ····••••·••••• ·:3·!~ ·;re·: H'<.•• •······· ··· 1o'3 · ·;·r·;.,.·r:··rn··rn·•:;·3a·;···•"••. ·· ··;· ·~·:·::~~-!·:·.2:·=·=.·:·;·:·:8~·:·::0·:·:-~1~·:·~~=·=· ::~-:·'.= ·.-..,.. }1·~·~!·:·=4·:·:·:·:~:.-3.·~·:·:%~·=~:··- ·-~·-···
;;,7.5% : .. ··~4~2%
0.0% 0.0%
Registrar of Contractors
Retirement System
Revenue
137
149
1,009
0
12
14
134
163
982
0
7
16
-2.2%
9.4%
-2.7%
0.0%
-41.7%
14.3%
T;:1t:i:£ (;~~:;3~o·o·;:;')";··•;.·····10········,···r7··n····~·•xn )' ,'}.·······•'•:••••o·j~;;t·z··;,o·:··:•=·.-····)·.· Y~lf'.'••t.''>.•.•• ;:r .i. ·Jj·~·;;x·7·····;······;·:' ··Ji~iO''·'t .: "-Q;7% • ~23 :4%
2.4% ;24~9%
Veterans Service
Water Resources
Totals .
267
232
12
33
18
38
276
229
3.4%
-1.3%
-33.3%
-13.2%
Source: The state's Human Resources Managemen~ System. 2001_ and 2002 ~ata represents fiscal year-end (July 1 -June 30).
The majority of employees hired with the State of Arizona are ?onsrdered salaned em~loyees, including covered and uncovered
employees. Wage employees are those em~loyees who are h1~~d on a temporary basis and earn an hourly wage. This table
represents filled positions only - it does not include vacant positions.
Comments: The majority (over 60%) of state agencies (excluding the small agencies) remained the same or
experienced a decrease in the number of filled positions. The Dept ofE~~nomic Security (DES) and AHCCCS
experienced increases in the numbe!" of employees as a result of Propos1t10? 204 that transferred hundreds of
county workers to the state. Excludmg DES and AHCCCS, the state expenenced a nearly 3% reduction in
workforce.
Table 3 - Covered/Uncovered Filled Positions by Agency
2002
Pioneers Home
Racing
Real Estate
Registrar of Contractors
Retirement System !ltJllf•
Revenue -
State Parks
Transportation
Veterans Service Comm
Water Resources
TOTAL
Increase in % of
Uncovered from
FY 01 to FY 02
Small Agencies ========;;;;;5~1.-.'"Y;;;"/{;;;;0======;:;;;;;;~. , 5.8%
Administration ~~~~~~~~~~:;;::;;;;;;:::=:::::3:3::.2::"::?o::=:::::=:::· ··=1· I 2.2%
Agriculture 59.Qo/O >I 6.1%
AHCCCS :Je"I@. 14.§% ·•·I 0.9%
Attorney General pb 2% .... . I 3.2%
Banking Department •JtP...lE. .•· Q.$% . I -2.2%
Building & Fire Safety •ltQ. ·QA%.· I 1.9%
Coliseum & ~~~::;~: !m.i,1% 29.;!% l · ::!:~
Corporation Commission ;:::;:=::==:=:=::==::=:=::=:=::=:::::::::3;;·1;< :;5:n-z;:0...= =.. ==:::==_:::;_I 4.4%
Corrections ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;·Iidi=ii~·iiiiililllllllllliEconomic Security •11!1$. 21l$fl -0o..1i %%
Education 39.2% · j 2.4%
Environmental Quality a:ti'A. 21.8% ···I 2.9%
Game & Fish ., ...•1, ,:,m E· ..:.z,y~A 1.5%
:11100. 19.4''/0 I i.3% ·m•w. tidYJ> 1.6%
2?.9% ··I 7.s%
&.2~jJ -~:~~:
:tl•W· 19;0% I o.9%
=~;;;~~~;;;~==:========::::==···~96~~·4~· ·~%~·::· 5;;;:;;;::;:::;:;::::::::::::=77=~~~7r111 1~:~~: l;:!.4% l•i!. 0.0%
2h6% •I 1.6%
16.9"10 · I o.oss
12'7% I LO%
19]% ' :::J ~:~~:
20.§% I -0.2%
1u.2% I -o.8%
$2.2% I i.2%
, $Q.9% I 3.0%
12;0"/o .... i o.7%
••M·
26.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
.• Covered a Uncovered I
s.o~rce_: T~e state's Human Resources Management System. Table includes all salaried positions (full-time and part-ti~e). The ,,
distinction rs made between "covered" employees (employees in positions covered by the ADOA personnel rules) and uncovered
employees (employees in positions not covered by the ADOA personnel rules).
Comments: Over 88% of the workforce in the ADOA Human Resources System is covered by the merit system.
Of the larger agencies (excluding the small agencies), twenty-seven out of thirty-three have the majority of their
employees covered by the merit system.
13
Table 4 - Rank Order of All States by Ratio of State
Employment to State Population
2000 .
Source: State Employment data from U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division. March 2000. Population data from U.S.
Census Bureau, Population Divisio~. April 2000. Emplo~ent refers to all persons gainfully employed by and performing services
for a state government. Employees include all pe:sons pa1~ for personal. serv1c~s performed, including persons paid from
Federally funded programs, paid ele~ed or appo1nt~d official~, persons in a paid leave st~tus, and persons paid on a per meeting,
annual, semiannual, or quarterly basis. Unpaid officials, pensioners, persons whose work rs performed on a fee basis, and
contractors and their employees are excluded from the count of employees.
-:
Comments: Arizona ranks 43rd in the nation i~ the ratio of state employees as compared to overall population of
the state. Of the Western States, only California and Nevada have fewer employees as compared to overall
population of the state.
Table 5 - Ratio of All State Employment to State Population
2000
Employees per 10,000 Population
fi) ~ WA
191
WY
227
MT
199
co
153
NM
263
Source: State Employment data from U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division. March 2000. Population data from_ U.S. .
Census Bureau, Population Division. April 2000. Employment refers to all persons gainfully er:nploy~d by and perf~rmmg services
for a state government. Employees include all persons paid for personal services performed, including persons paid from .
Federally funded programs, paid elected or appointed officials, persons in a paid leave status, and persons paid on ~ per meeting,
annual, semiannual, or quarterly basis. Unpaid officials, pensioners, persons whose work is performed on a fee basis. and
contractors and their employees are excluded from the count of employees.
Comments: Arizona ranks 43rd in the nation, and 91h out of the 11 Western states in the ratio of state employees as
compared to overall population of the state.
15
Table 6 - Rank Order of All States by Ratio of Total State
Payroll to State Population
2000
43 .
· 44~: o .Texas
45 L Tennessee.
46.~ 0hio
. 47 Arizona
48 Nevada
49 Florida
50 Illinois
Source: State Payroll data from U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division. March 2000. Population data from U.S. Census
Bureau Population Division. April 2000. Data in these files are based on information obtained in the Annual Survey of
Govern~ent Employment and Payroll. Approximately one-half of the state governments provided data from central payroll records
for all or most of their agencies/institutions. Data for agencies and institutions for the remaining state governments were obtained
by mail canvass questionnaires.
Comments: Arizona ranks 47th in the ratio of total state payroll as compared to overall population of the state. Of
the Western States, only Nevada has a lower ratio of total state payroll compared to the overall population of the
state.
Table 7 - Ratio of Total State Payroll to State Population
2000
Dollars per Citizen
WA
$63.31
MT
$56.57
OR
$48.88
NV
$36.86
ID
$49.53
UT
CA $60.64
$44.62
WY
$57.59
co
$56.34
NM
$72.03
Source: State Payroll data from U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division. March 2000. Population data from U.S. Census
Bureau, Population Division. April 2000. Data in these files are based on information obtained in the Annual Survey of
Government Employment and Payroll. Approximately one-half of the state governments provided data from central payroll re~ords
for all ?r most of their agencies/institutions. Data for agencies and institutions for the remaining state governments were obtained
by mail canvass questionnaires.
Comments: Arizona ranks 4th in the ratio of total state payroll as compared to overall population oft~e state. Of
the Western States, only Nevada has a lower ratio of total state payroll compared to the overall population of the
state.
Section Three
Equal Employment
Table 8 - Distribution of State Government Employees
by Ethnic Group
2002
American Indian
4.9%
White
63.8%
2.0%
American
3.2% Unreported
1.3%
American
6.8%
General Arizona
Demographics
Asian American
1.9%
American Indian
3.0%
Hispanic
23.5%
State Government
Employees
Source: State Government Employees data comes from the state's Human Resources Management System. Percen~ages are .
bas~d. upon all full- and part-time salaried employees responding - a small percentage of employees choose ~ot to disclose the.1r
ethnicity. 2001 data compiled in October. Table includes both covered and uncovered employees. General Arizona Demographics
data comes from Independent Redistricting Commission, Final Congressional Plan. Adopted Nov. 9, 2001
Comments: The majority of the state's workforce is comprised of Whites. Hispanics, and African Americans.
Overall. the state's workforce is very comparable to the demographics of the entire state.
19
Table 9 - Changes in Salaried Employment
by Race and Gender
1997 -2002
Non-Minority
Male Female
Number Percent Number :Percent
Minority
Male remale
Number Percent Number l'ercent
:Total
Male · Female
Number :Percent Number l'ercent
':199]< :11~B{}ti~~+~~(o ·;~~19~ 91~?~<o· .: ~}450 :1322% :: 6prrs·· ·l.§·.30/9 f~9i¥~11~·PO/o t.1/JSBf s2~0% ·
1998 11;731343°/o 11)349 L332% 4,679 13]% 6,454 18.9% 16,410 · 48.0% 17,803 52.0%
1999 11,868 34.0% 11,439 32.7% 4,885 14.0% 6,758 19.3% 16,753 47.9% 18,197 52.1%
2000 11,732 33.4% 11,447 32.6% 4,962 14.1% 6,942 19.8% 16,694 47.6% 18,389 52.4%
' • • •' '., ,. • ·~ •' '• • ' , ._, ~V ' •,•~·'•"•'•'•'•'••'•'' ' ' " ' • ' • '• ·.:.;•:•:-:-':>'.>:•:•':"'.>:<;~'.>:•:•':.;::.:··::·:~:!-:• :·:>':X:!0:•!-:•:•:•:•:•!-:•:•»:0'.•'.·:•:·'.~·:•:0:>:0:0:.•. :-'!·:-:•:•:•:•'•'.•:·'.•»:·:•:•:•:-!<•:•!•!•: . ·:0'• ,•,•.•,•,•,•,,.... 'N• d , ·. > ' •,·.·~:'.<:'::::::•!::::;:·;•:•'··,•,•,• '' •
'2002 H,483 .32.0%. 11,660 .32A% 5,147 l4.3% . '7,645 21.3% 16,630 46.3% ·19,305 .53.7%
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. Percentages are based upon all full- and part-time salaried
employees responding - a small percentage of employees choose not to disclose their ethnicity. 1997 through 1999 data
compiled in December; 2000 through 2002 data compiled in July. Table includes both covered and uncovered employees. This
table represents filled positions only - it does not include vacant positions.
Comments: The percentage of minority employees (both male and female) has experienced a steady increase in
the past five years. In addition, since 1997 the percentage of females has experienced a steady increase.
Table 10 - Changes in Salaried Employment
of Minorities
1997 - 2002
Others
Male 'Female
Number Percent Number Percent
··. 866 . T2.6% .
914 .2~7°/o
.·0.3,020 YS.90/o . 9lg3~·;11~6~/o;: 564' H70lo ( . 900 2.7%
> 3,168 gjo/~ 4,139 12.1% 597 · 1:7% ·927 2.7%
1997
'1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
935
938
2.7% 1,422
2.7% 1,441
4.1% 3,310
4.1% 3,376
9.5% 4,355 12.5%
9.6% 4,501 12.8%
640
648
1.8% 981
1.8% 1,000
2.8%
2.8%
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . • ... · ... ·., .· •.. ·.·, • • .·... •c •. · .• • ·• '" ·~·'.·'• .. '•'·'.·Y·'.·'·'•'·~"·-.··''"•'•·'·"•'•'·'·"•"·~·
3;37§ /9.6o/oi 4,501 t:i.8°16 ' 648 'H8% •~· 1;000 <2.8%·
4.2% 3,525 . 9.8% 5,036 14.0% 672 1.9% 1~092 3.0%
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. Percentages are based upon all full- and part-time salaried
employees raspondinq+ a small percentage of emplo~ee~ choose not t~ disclose their ethnicity. 1997 through 1999 data
compiled in December; 2000 through ~002 data c?mp1led in July. Ta_~le includes both covered and uncovered employees. This
table represents filled positions only - it does not include vacant positions.
Comments: Over the past five years, the number of minority employees in all classes has steadily increased, with
the largest increase observed in the percentage of Hispanics, especially among female employees.
Table 11 - Minority Representation by Agency
Salaried Employees
2002
Small Agencies iiiiiifJtli~·!~~i·~. (5A% I
Administration :J.11cij. ' 64.f % I
Attorn:yg=:~~~ !,; ;;;;;;·t:;I/~~~· ~· ~~~;;~;533352~~~/~.U~-·~1i8~.9~%;·~····· /~.;~B~'M~o~~~55~55 . ~-":.-.-;···~·····~',~,Jj
Banking Department ==~~==;=:=:=:=:=::==============8;6;·::3;"ti;o;:::=:=:=:==:=::==::=:::::;:=:;;::::;;:::~·I Building & Fire Safety 84.8% · I
Coliseum & ~::::~~: !!!§~~!!!§~~~~~~~~~§§~§··~8~~~·:~~.~~7'~·~g.~. ·~~~~~~~§~§~§~···~··~···<•§n~'l
Corporation Commission 74#5% i
Corrections 66. I "/o .i. f
Economic Security 54.9% I
Education 7L2% f
Environmental Quality {6.6% / I
Hea
GltahmSee&rvF1·cisehs:ll=:;:•I::~:~:;;;· ;;:;~~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;::;;:=::::::;=:=::=::=:==9=0=·=9=o/i=o:::~;;;:;;;;;;::::6::8::.:0::%:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::=::;;':.I. ,
Historica I Society :IE::•!:·=~:'•:• =:;;;;;;;;;;;;;,;;;;::=:::=::=:==:::;::==::;:90:=· ::.4:;"::10:::;::::::=:::==;;;:;;:::::::::::::;;=;::;:;:::;:::;:::;:::;::;· 1
Industrial Commission . 5B.5o/o I
Insurance Dept 8 Lb% · I
Juvenile Corrections ===~:==~~:;;;;:;:;::=:=::;::=============:;64;=. ... ;;=.~8~~~0.:: ,: .::::::::::::::::;:::;::::::;:::;:::;;:::~. : ::. : :;I
Lottery CoLmanmd1·sDse1·apnt :•:l:!i~·~:·~~· ~;:;;;;:;;:::;:==:=:=:=:=::=:=:=:::;:=3::B::··::5::i:;o:::;;~;;;;=:===:::;:::;::=:::;:;::::::;:77777....7r ..r.;.r ., l; ·14.3%··• 1.1 . • 0 '
... ··90.9%
..... , . i
68.9%
19.6%
... 91.9%············
J% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
• Mnorities O White
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. Percentages are based upon all full- and part-time ~ala~ed
employees responding - a small percentage of employees choose not to disclose their ethnicity. 2002 data compiled m July.
Table includes both covered and uncovered employees.
Comments: The table above shows the proportion of minority employees of each of the large state agencies.
21
Table 12 - Gender Representation by Agency
Salaried Employees
2002
Small Agencies 43.5% I
Administration 51A% I
Agriculture 6Bi'/o ' · I
AHCCCS ~~~~~~~~~~~~;, .. ;·;"*';·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~22~-~5!%~~~·1 Attorney General ! "1:J. · 34.1% I
Banking Department 5t0% · I
Building & Fire Safety 6(1&/o I
Coliseum & Exposition 51J2U/o •· I
Commerce ;JIW• 35~bV/o I
Corporation Commission ··41.1% I
Corrections tkkzv/o I
Economic Security 41:1". · · 25.2"/o f
Education ll!'Q. i'9.3% f
Environmental Quality 51.4"'/0 ·I
Game & Fish ,.. ilr•'!•7.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii\iiiii·';65;·;3-Z;Q;;:::=:;;;;;:=:=:=:::=:dl Health Services •Jti!•J. 36.1% ··I
Historical Society ;j("~ 38.4% I
Industrial Commission f'ill1 &tbV/o ·I
Insurance Dept il'..l'fl, 37.3% j
Juvenile Corrections 53J00o j
Land Dept 512"/o · · I
Lottery Commission · · 49.5% · I
Medical Examiners Board · 43.6% I
Military Affairs ?J.'Jel}. 14.1% · ·I
Pioneers Home =!:JSI. 31.1% · I
Rea I
REasctaintge ~ •• ......,.. 64~9'/o ·. JI ~~ . 4t5%~· .
Registrar of Contractors :.f(IR~ 53.0'"lo J
Retirement System 41.1"'/0 : ··I
Revenue ftJrM. 39.3"'/o f
State Parks · til5% f
Transportation ~~..P..ol. "'• 5h8% · f
Veterans Service Comm • •
Water Resources
TOTAL
. 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
I • Ferrales Cl Nlales I
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. Percentages are based upon all full- and part-time salaried
employees responding - a small percentage of employees choose not to disclose their ethnicity. 2002 data compiled in July.
Table includes both covered and uncovered employees.
Comments: Nineteen of the thirty-four agencies (including the combined small agencies) have over 50% females
representing their workforce.
22
Table 13 - Occupational Grouping by Race and Gender
2001
Officials/
Administrators
Professionals
Technicians
Protective
Services
White
Male Female
Hispanic
Male 'female '
African
American
Male Female
; /1;161; '759 •;· : < 54 /:/•·'•7·'·'' ·~I.I"\• .·:. ')117 :•: 120) ' ':' /58 ·i\:{i:/·•.· .: •:·;·:. . 4'.V i:( 1;·390f .. r :;947
49.7% 32.5% •.. 2.3°/~ 5.bo/o'··: s.iss 25% 40~5%
4,448 6,180 313 683 781 1,931 273 531 5,815 9,325
29.4% 40.8% 2.1% 4.5% 5.2% 12.8% 1.8% 3.5% 38.4% 61.6%
•····.n ;:·:~43:
35.9%.
-: ·. '· .. , ..... - ..... ):'·')·;·~7~ ,,,,.,,,., . ,,,.,,.,.,.,,,.,,, . , ....•. , .. ..,. •······· .. ,.,.. . ..,,:••••::•••·••.·•<An :·:··¥·~·1·~:~: :::::t•'<<>ncn'"'7
13.5% '>s6.2%
3,587 1,238 387 152 1,596 485 142 70 5,712 1,945
46.8% 16.2% 5.1% 2.0% 20.8% 6.3% 1.9% 0.9% 74.6% 25.4%
?''•?t': }i'':•::'•?'('C.?' K} )\•: •t•':')'•:•:::;··:::: :•:::•·;,:::•.•::·:•••••••.:·····•··•. '''' ..........•... .,.. , .. ,. , .. ,.,., ··::.:.:574 :;.:,:; . : ••:.••: . ,r.., .• iy ;··::~;··~·~·~
·2.4~5% 763%
w.• ·: ,., .... ,. ;.;; .... ,, ..... ··•·. . ;·· :::;:•: ;:;:·•·:··::::•:•:· •:•::::·:••M•::::·;::., w:··:<··:·.·::·:•:". ,,.,. . ,.,., .. ,.w.• f?"(i·::;:•:·::y:·:;:•;:•·•:::·:::·:::
Parapr~fessib~~1i.': <4-i:3 !
.15.0%
Office &Clerical
Skilled Craft
Service/
Maintenance
··:I~:1: ·.·~ ·-
6.6%
208 1,764
5.3% 44.8%
46 304 89 1,253
1.2% 7.7% 2.3% 31.8%
20
0.5%
255
6.5%
363 3,576
9.2% 90.8%
;·.·~····::·····,··•:·~· rr::·:··::-·.,::x· • , . , , . ··•············
24
3.9%
702 97 46
48.7% 6.7% 3.2%
!! i:l.;678 f iit658
32.5% 32.40/o
13 372
0.9% 25.8%
110
7.6%
91
6.3%
10 1,211 230
o. 7% 84.0% 16.0%
u::1ros3 ;{1~;87~ : 19;~79
: 2.9%···46.9% 53.1% i,sio ••r 3;s20 ··'· "f·c0'"9
4.2% 9.8%
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. Percentages are based upon all full- and part-time salaried
~mployees resp.anding - a small percentage of employees choose not to disclose their ethnicity and/or the system does not
include occupational grouping infonnation. 2001 data compiled in July. Table includes both covered and uncovered employees.
Comments: The table above displays employment by race and gender for the eight standardized U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission occupational groupings.
23
Table 14 - Distribution of State Government Employees
by Occupational Group
2001
Officials &
Service Administrators
Office & Clerical
11%
4% 7%
Skilled Craft
2%
Professionals
42%
Paraprofessionals
8%
Protective Services
21%
Technicians
6%
Source: The state's Human Resources Manageme_nSt ystem. Percentages are based upon all filled full- and part-time salaried
employees. 2001 data compiled in Octobe'.. ~ab!e includes_b oth covered_a nd uncovered employees. Categories are based upon
the Equal Employment Opportunity comrnissron s Occupational Categories for State and Local Government (EE0-4 }.
Comments: State employees categorized as profess_ionals comprise the largest percentage (42%) of the eight
occupational groupings. Skilled craft (2%) and service workers (4%) encompass the smallest percentage.
Section Four
Employee Mobility
26
Table 15 - Changes in Separations from State Service
by Wage and Salaried Employees
1997 - 2002
Year
Total 'Turnover
Number Percent
Resignations
Number Percent
Terminations
Number Percent
Other
Number Percent
1997.
Wage < · ..• · . ·•. . 2. · .·.• . ·•. ·.a.· ..... 6· .....• ..o... ·. · .• ·.... •. ·f•!·•.•1·• ii o;. · .·so.·.1.zo' i •i. /. .·•..•.3. 2· ·7. · ..• .•.· "3·.·.·.•9. 0.. 1 1.0>.r•·· ·/·•·.'.•.·.··.·s·S.·.· .• ·..:... · . · · .2· .•• ·s0. . 1z.·o· •• , • • " ..L 11 • /.1 ·u·.7, 3 · .5 r·· ·3·1· ··~··•• ·1°110 -; ,F,. ··1··i· ··1·3·. 1··· '·4· ·7··+9· o{i?: ..
co~er~d .f 31,942 · ·:\334 • i.0010:: 3;301 · 1Q.3C>/0 · <732 •·.·. 2:3% : < 342: .1.1% · • 4;709 14:7°/o
Uncovered 1,960 20 1.0% . 318 · 16:2% 45 2.3% 59 3.0% 442 22.6%
Wage
1998 Covered
Uncovered
2,248
32,261
2,193
19
273
16
363 16.1% 54
712
23
2.4%
2.2%
1.0%
820 36.5% 1,256 55.9%
282 0.9% 4,599 14.3%
44 2.0% 280 12.8%
')'.•'.·»:·:««···:-:·:·.·'··:· !«·:·:·:·~:·:·:~.·~·:.'.·:·:·:·:~·:·:·:·:·:·:·:-;·
H 1;?34 s:2;6°1c>
5;148 15:9%
431 15.6%
861 37.3% 1,362 59.0%
244 0.8% 5,295 16.5%
72 2.1% 550 15.9%
0.8%
0.8% 3,332 10.3%
0.7% 197 9.0%
Wage
2000 Covered
Uncovered
2,308
32,072
3,469
13
309
18
407 17.6% 81
838
63
3.5%
2.6%
1.8%
0.6%
1.0% 3,904 12.2%
0.5% 397 11.4%
'.> y···:.···:·•.••;·r··;:?.[?':('5'.''~\7)'.} nnt:?(JTY •'£:}'•• q·n:··r:y;T• ) 'F•UH··•·•t}?":!'? c··yp·•?~tt·)••t )F'W'•m•m?'.7" ::<YV':7•;m····D:•• •••. ,.., < ••••••• ,., •••• , ••• ,, •••• , •• , ,, •••••.•. .,, , •• , •• :w.•·""'''"••·••·•··'''••·•••:·•.: ,,,,,., ...•.•. ~,, •. ,'.., •.. ,., ,, ,.,., .• , .•. ,.,, .•••.••.• ,.,;.·~·••~···•
••••••••••..•• "-.., r. ..J •.•.•••••. .,.. ,..., ~ ~.n, ': c506~20.s<>iri· 816 :33.0%
. 233. 0~7% .. 4,864 · 15~2%
57 1.4% 584 14.4%
Wage
2002 Covered
Uncovered
2,160
31,986
4,360
7
249
19
0.3% 120
0.8% 2,897
0.4% 284
5.6%
9.1%
6.5%
45
638
67
2.1%
2.0%
1.5%
390 18.1% 562 26.0%
292 0.9% 4,076 12.7%
63 1.4% 433 9.9%
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. 1997 through 1999 data represents calendar year-end (Jan - Dec);
2000 through 2002 data represents fiscal year-end (July 1 _June 30). The majority of employees hired with the State of Arizona
are considered salaried employees, including covered and uncovered employees. Wage employees are those employees who are
hire~. on a tem~orary b~sis and earn an hourly wage. This table represents filled positions only - it does no~ include vacant
positron~. The rnformatron reflected herein for separation rates may be different than the data reported previously based on a
change m methodology used to gather the information for this report.
Comments: In all three categories (wage, covered-salaried, and uncovered-s~laried) there has been a downward
tren~ in the number of separations over the past three years. Among salaried employees.' resignations remain the_
leadmg category of separations. The state is experiencing some effect from the economic downturn as reflected m
the lowest separation rates experienced in the past six years.
27
Table 16 - Separation Rates of Covered, Salaried Employees
by Agency
1997 -2002
Agency
AHCCCS
Attorney General
Banking Department
i3!ili·i1:~1·~~z&"'f iri~·:~r;t91t:r:;r'-· . ·•· •coliseum & Exposi~~()~ >
Commerce
Corporation Commission
Corrections
Economic Security
3.3%
15.9%
7.3%
9.9%
13.8%
4.7%
13.4%
13.5%
2.1%
12.2%
17.3%
6.5%
15.9%
20.4%
13.6%
11.5%
13.5%
2.2%
10.3%
16.7%
16.1%
iEaci~~tirifilj0i:·::r:·~+r''8.r~,1·:]~·j·;1~·s·1s•[ ;;·~;"1;i:;!•s 0n<:r;~,·~2;rr·:-; :;::·;·:;~-j~·r;~31;;1~r-·;r:j : 2.oicW~ < ) ;:rn!H :;-;;Ygn:~~;w:zr 1xn···1 ··'n·2:Tnn , .. , ,..,~.,.,.,,,,,., ..........•........... , .
li10/o'
11.4%
13.4%
19.5%
16.2%
0.0%
16.4%
14.0%
14.5%
20.4%
13.0%
11.4%
17.7%
10.7%
8.7%
17.2%
10.7%
21.6%
14.3%
15.9%
rnmr·:,·~r g~;r;·w:rn }<> .L. .1. .••.. i.:z~~ . .-.:.:: wn••:·;~·;r·;~iDm·r: >Lfaij.4o/~:\ .· :ncFr2;;n;;;;·;7';::>
>.· 29.3°/ci
13.5% 3.4%
Health Services
Historical Society
Industrial Commission
16.8%
7.6%
2.1%
17.2%
39.3%
9.0%
16.6%
12.7%
9.7%
18.4%
23.3%
14.6%
Lottery Commission
Medical Examiners Board
Military Affairs
4.2%
13.3%
10.2%
16.9%
34.6%
9.0%
15.7%
46.2%
14.5%
9.1%
50.0%
15.9%
5.6%
50.0%
13.7%
9.1%
17.2%
4.1%
7.1%
400%
7.3%
Registrar of Contractors
Retirement System
Revenue
4.0%
7.8%
2.8%
12.6%
15.7%
12.1%
8.0%
31.3%
9.5%
13.8%
11.1%
12.6%
··6So/J'·· · •:::·••·•.·nrrtt·:~;::w<c·; :;-:;·::~·~ ::;·;:i"'.F'•· ? ,. :rn~-·~r:z;~yt.n::
12.6%
10.7%
8.7%
13.5%
state Pal"kS
Transportation
Veterans Service
Water Resources
20.7%
3.7%
Total ·<14.70/o
48.4%
7.6%
14~30/o
49.7%
7.9%
56.5%
15.1%
6.0%
58.8%
4.9%
10~2%>· c: 4~50/c) ..
10.8%
49.5%
11.9%
19.8%
3.1%
·· 15.90/o · • :. i.•.·.·.•.•.·.··.11_·. 6~50/o < 1· · s ·2· O'-o·· · ••·•· ·12··7ot ·• .·• • ;l'l : . . •. 10 •
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. 1997 through 19_99_ data represents calendar year-end (Jan _ Dec);
2000 through 2002 data represents fis?81 year-end (July 1 - June 30). The r:n_a1onty of e~ployees hired with the State of Arizona
are considered salaried employees; this table represents filled, covered posiuons only- 1t does not include uncovered or vacant
positions. The information reflected herein for separation rates may be different than the data reported previously based on a
change in methodology used to gather the information for this report.
Comments: Overall, the rate of separations ~om_ state ~ervice has s~own a gradual downward trend over the past 2
years. Twenty-seven of the thirty-four agencies (mcludmg the combmed small agencies) experienced a decrease or
remained the same in separation rate from 2002 to 200 I. Overall, the state is experiencing some effect from the
economic downturn as reflected in the lowest separation rates experienced in the past six years.
28
Table 17 - Separations of Covered, Salaried Employees
by Type by Agency
2002
Vear
Retirements
Number Percent
Small Agencies
Administration
Agriculture
AHCCCS
Attorney General
Banking Department
8 0.7%
3 1.2%
1 2.2%
Corporation Commission
Corrections
Economic Security
0 0.0%
68 0.8%
82 0.9%
Health Services
Historical Society
Industrial Commission
3 0.2%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
Lottery Commission
Medical Examiners Board
Military Affairs
1 1.2%
2 100%
0 0.0%
Registrar of Contractors
Retirement System
Revenue
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
9 1.1%
-Resignations
Number Percent
91 7.7%
28 11.2%
0 0.0%
6 3.5%
1,154 12.8%
735 7.7%
90 5.7%
7 12.1%
8 3.0%
3 3.5%
4 200%
4 3.7%
. . •
:1~2• .;t~~~· >.-:rn1= •i[~~/.t =·\~~:::: i~~~~::·
: 4. 3.1 % 2 : 1.6°/~ 26 20.2%
31 2.6%
2 0.8%
0 0.0%
7 4.1%
228 2.5%
127 1.3%
40 2.5%
1 1.7%
2 0.7%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
3 2.8%
1 0.9%
3 17.6%
3 0.4%
5 0.4%
1 0.4%
0 0.0%
2 1.2%
96 1.1%
79 0.8%
10 0.6%
2 3.4%
1 0.4%
2 2.4%
2 100%
1 0.9%
0 0.0%
1 5.9%
2 0.3%
15
1,546
1,023
135
34
1
11.5%
13.5%
2.2%
. 8. •··• 2.5% ·; : 42 . 12:9% ·· T> l.1% .. 56.' 9.1%
5 3.9% 15 11.6%
8.7%
17.2%
10.7%
143
10
11
9.1%
17.2%
4.1%
6
8
8
7.1%
400%
7.3%
7 6.0%
10 58.8%
39 4.9%
Veterans Service 0 0.0% 25 13.4% 9 4.8% 3 1.6% 37 19.8%
Water Resources 0 0.0% 2 1.3% 0 0.0% 3 1.9% 5 3.1%
. Total 249 0.80/o '2,897 .... 9.10/o ·:.; 638 2~0°/o••C . 292. o~9o/~ ··4;016?•.· 12d0io
So~rc.e: The state's Human Resources Management System. 2002 data represents fiscal y~ar-end (July 1 - June 30). The
mejortty of employees hired with the State of Arizona are considered salaried employees; this table represents filled, covered
P?sitions only - it does not include uncovered or vacant positions. The information reflected herei~ for se~aration r~tes may be
different than the data reported previously based on a change in methodology used to gather the information for this report.
Comments: Resignations remain the most common type of separation from state service, accounting for over 70%
of separations this past year.
Table 18 - Most Populous Class Titles
2002
Class Title
iC(:.)[e~~i9n~···~~9~~H <••···<\ >r .:/>/ y<········
Program Services Evaluators(l, JI, III1}V) · :·····
MotorVehicle Division·customer Service Rep···
Customer Service Rep
Child Protective Services Spct III
Corrections Sergeant
29
Number
•:•5;370
····2/195
790
708
675
524
Corrections Officer III
Clerk Typist III
Administrative Assistant I
358
329
278
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. 2002 data represents fiscal year-end (July 1 - June 30). The above
table includes all employees (full-time, part-time, seasonal, limited, covered, uncovered, etc)
Comments: The title of Corrections Officer II is by far the most populated class in the state, followed by Program
Services Evaluator. After those two classes, the numbers of employees in any given class rapidly decreases.
Table 19 -Classes With The Highest Separation Rate
2002
. " . ····=~i·;:;~~,z·~r1ri~J:~·;~~~~~xj:.j;·;;~;;·1·11•·~•·········~';·1········;··}r·i·)·;;;,M;·ii'J·••···•;:,;·:m·;·:···:··;·;···•:•·Irnt;f·:···.·;"·:·\·i~: ,;:·;rr·r·:;•·•··r·•···m..-rr·•i:·,·•:;·:··;·,:: ." . .,,,., .. , , ,., ,~ ,. ~ , ,.
·~: ' i 4b.3o/d}
.39.6%
39.5%.
37.8%
37.4%
35.0%
Class ;:Title
Clerk Typist I
Mental Health Program Specialist II
Hab Technician II
Residential Program soec1a11~;r
Correctional Records Clerk II
Psychiatric Nurse II
Cook II
Separation
Rate
:<70.QO/Q\(:)
69~2%
52.3%
48.5%
48.2%
47.3%
/
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System, Turnover Report PER201-08. 2002 data represents fiscal year-end
(July 1 _June 30). Percentage turnover is based on the number of employees leaving the class divided by the number of
employees in the class.
Comments: The Correctional Records Clerk, Mental Health Program Specialist, and Youth Correctional Officer
classes are experiencing the highest separation rates relative to the number of employees in the respective class.
Section Five
Employment Characteristics
/
32
Table 20 - Agency Comparison of Average Wages
per Employee
1997 - 2001
Average Coveretl ~employee Wages )Ii ,
1997 ~998 ~ 1999 ~ 2000 ~ 2001'
Small Agencies
Administration
Agriculture
AHCCCS $23,034 $24,812 $25,698 $26,505 $24,524
Attorney General $24,376 $29,993 $31,580 $31,634 $34,189
Banking Department $27,329 $30,129 $31,525 $32,907 $34,867
Coliseum &Exposition $31,0ST '> $36,999 ( · $34;944 :: $36)345 > ·· $34;089 ·
Commerce $29,013 · · $32,992 $33,162 $33,929 $36;159
Corporation Commission $26,061 $30,268 $30,013 $32,862 $34,941
Corrections $25,481 $26,292 $28,205 $30,128 $30,837
Economic Security $22,819 $24,563 $26,080 $26,815 $25,507
,., .. · ,·:·.•:·:·:-;. ·;·:·::-·:;··:~·: ·. :·:·.·~.·:· .? ::·_ ·:·:·• . .;.:· .. :-:::<·;~·:·:~:·>· :·::t:· · : · · · •·· · ·~- ·:·:~:·.~:~::~·:·.•,: ::···:~·.· ~~'.·:·. ·:.! :·:·:·:· ~·:•·.~·:···: ·:~-:-:······~•·.• , ·,~···· • ,.,. , .w.- ..• w •• ,.. ··~····· • ~··· ., .••, ...•. . ~-·.•·•·· ••••• w.·v:· .. d_.,,,. .,,.,-, •:·:~·:~·:-::::~~::::·:·:·:·" ~:::·.:::;:·:~·::::::·::~. ;;:·'.~~~'~·:·:~·: ·:· ·:·;-:· -;·:·:·.·:-:·.·:···:·:·:·x·:•.::::·:~· •.·.·::.·.·~::::::w· ···••·•·• ·•
~~~~~~e~~~1' g&~ii~1>' · · · · ,.:~~;ml:f! ! . ':mi~~ ;, 1:i1~~~~~'J'i11' ,1mr~~~t,'i 1' J1~~;~~~~1i1
Game & Fish $27,163 · · · $30,621 $31,352 $34,586 $35,364
Health Services $25,211 $28,326 $29,389 $29,292 $30,930
Historical Society $20,565 $21,943 $24,501 $26,305 $25,330
Industrial Commission $24,178 $26,776 $27,243 $27,028 $29,548
Juvenile Corrections $23,045 : · ' ) $22,860? · .$25;791 · :.+ $27,620 ·· · · $291849 · ·
Land Dept $28,381 . $34,516 $32,937 · $33~723 $34,676
$22,119 $27,252 $28,961 $30,413 $31,828
$20,306 $23,562 $16,057 $23,494 $22,498
$24,891 $26,545 $26,893 $28,249 $29,776
............· ... . $26,424 <· . $28,303 .. >$31;114 _> ·• . $32,862 <. ·· . · $34;669 .·.
$23,243 . :$24,903 $26,294 •$26,685 . : $26,448.
$23,409 $28,849 $25,856 $29,567 $31,100
$26,075 $28,511 $28,558 $28,598 $28,456
$23,025 $27,176 $27,379 $26,581 $27,433
''.''.·:,·$24·;924 ·.·:: :.·•>:<'$26~661'.T··: «·--"·$27~o55'7·: :F;·.·•··$.26;263'nU r;.:. ·$29·~4{}5>r·
$27,132 . $29,387. $28,996 $28,866 $28,973
$13,419 $19,035 $18,219 $19,492 $22,322
$28,351 $33,163 $33,804 $32,986 $37,154
Lottery Commission
Medical Examiners Board
Military Affairs
Registrar of Contractors
Retirement System
Revenue
Veterans Service Comm
Water Resources
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. 1997 through 2001 data compiled from actual dollars paid from
calendar year end files. Figures above include wages, dollars added to base, overtime, payments for on-call, and any pa~ents
for leave. Figures do not include uncovered employees, employees in the "Executive" pay plan, or employees on leave without
pay or on long-term disability.
Comments: The average wage actually paid to covered state employees increased by only 0.2% from last year.
Eight agencies actually experienced a decrease in the average wage for covered employees from 2000 to 2001.
33
Table 21 - Average Overtime Hours per Employee
by Agency
1997 - 2001
Agency
::p.01~.1..t••·•~g~pi;1r~.···••-•·.··••·•·••··-·•···.)·)··············
!Administration ·· .· · · ·
Agl-ieulture ·. ·
AHCCCS
Attorney General
Banking Department
MppiM.ppl:MM@mW)el.j.MMJ.j.l
. 67 . 68 95 91 87
78 39 37 47 29
41 54 69 71 39
0 0 0 5 6
Corporation Commission
Corrections
Economic Security
56
84
56
54
109
65
84
114
58
145
80
58
132
104
58
Health Services
Historical Society
Industrial Commission
77
1
3
81
0
12
79
68
149
103
186
5
133
78
1
Lottery Commission
Medical Examiners Board
Military Affairs
61
8
61
32
88
64
30
27
48
60
15
46
30
9
26
Registrar of Contractors
Retirement System
Revenue
16
68
77
18
72
88
6
102
64
4
42
50
7
89
57
Veterans Service
Water Resources
Overall .thi·l?r:en~
72
12
47
19
85
18
110
11
.4.· s_· ·_·. .. .·.·. · · •< >.•··_-•·.s·2_ . ·:· ·. .· •·•· ····:44
121
42
•.. 46[·'·
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. 1997 through 2001 data compiled in December. Table includes all
employees who were eligible for overtime (both FLSA-exempt and non-exem~t) who actually rece~ved cash payment for overtime.
Not included were employees (both FLSA exempt and non-exempt) who received compensatory trme at the appropriate rate for
their additional overtime hours worked. FLSA ex~!uded personnel wer~ not included in the calculations, nor were any agencies
which compensated their employees for the additlonal hours worked with compensatory time.
Comments: The average use of overtime has fluctuated nearly 20% in both directions over the past five years,
with no noticeable trend evident.
34
Table 22 -Total Overtime Costs by Agency
1997 - 2001 -------~ ·.·· $59,13? ;i .•..• $49,84;~ {?{ ' $54)2§§ ~···'',$48,40~ ]F> ' <$47}922
; $175,656 '' : $173;346 ' ' }$179,896' ' •' $232;734' $267;298
$186,055 $150,998 < $212,780 $184,389 $192,517
Agency
Small Agencies
Administration·
Agriculture
AHCCCS
Attorney General
Banking Department
·5·~ii.cii~9-·&··Fi·;~·5~t~~···.·.···
Coliseum & Exposition
Commerce
$249,396
$23,285
$0
$148,810
$76,688
$0
$190,618
$93,472
$0
$148,256
$136,030
$92
$178,784
$44,970
$182
$41,514 $45,614 $89,751 $196,670 $189,101
$9,319,250 $12,960,559 $16,924,260 $12,731,748 $14,578,376
$4,783,197 $5,834,234 $5,531,275 $5,815,091 $6,067,779
~"'' ""'·••:···~·:•••'··X:.•·•""····:··~''?>·••••••••<•·?\>."(':•'c•"·':··••••••·•··:•·•·>·••••·~··:··•:·:·•:••••>"••·:•·••••'·••••··•·'"'"''/'.•'•':·•·'·,,·.•,•..·,.. ·· •,.·,.•.,· ,· ..,/. .. ..•.$..., ., 1·.2·,·.·0·.··";"··2····2"'' 7,. ";'·i·:·· · •·•·•••••>•·•'•'•$••'•W8•:.>7••·•·~•·•·•6'"'':'>2'•:••8••>:•::'.., ,,_,,. ,..,. . ,, .. w.·•·$····7"·•··3···)•·•·2··•·•·i•·"'3·•'·«· ( ·~·•••'••<•·•·'•'•"'••·•·•c•••••••••·•••>'•'•'•>·•'•''''''''''""''······· >·••:.·/ • .;p..l•.LV1Wf.,J. >$140,'tl.$
$168,402 < '$240,416 .• $120;404 (.$118,995
$198,726 $101;286 ' $94~103 $65;566
Corporation Commission
Corrections
Economic Security
Health Services
Historical Society
Industrial Commission
Lottery Commission
Medical Examiners Board
Military Affairs
Registrar of Contractors
Retirement System
Revenue
Veterans Service
Water Resources
Overall Average
$1,292,237
$5,420
$205
$1,555,215
$4,763
$54
$406,488 $579,127 $959,043
$17 $0 $8,911
$301 $500 $2,280 • • • ·:·:·:·:-:···:·:··--:·:«·:·:-:-:-:«-:<-'.'•'-'!>>::'·.::·.::· ~-.:·· >~:~::::~::·::x:~::::~:~::::::~~::::·:x:::::~:::~~:::::::~··: ·:·~·· ··· · ::$:z:3;76s 17,·o·•':', . ,$12·;~4a r;Jri:·?:·:1·$2ori~~~ : ... .•: $24;~§? ::r ...• :$5;~?~
$263,931' $541;259 }$653~099:' $992,349 t': >$858,092
$1,675 $20,920 $33,680 $216,212 ' $157,670
$27,452 $29,583 $14,909 $19,382 $9,621
$960 $28,027 $6,979 $3,454 $3,670
$244,913 $254,843 $189,617 $181,030 $111,827
. $14;825 ,,·•i•••:':·}(/T::f~'·;;:;~'A :\'···:···;··.·:·:·i;9J,66z W"'' ;; ·$24;•99§ ''!jf'!•·'.·;;:;·;~·21;9$7'
$4,679 ' ' $990
$0 $5,060
$2,124 $1,352 $1,250 $637 $3,482
$72,069 $70,396 $68,341 $24,832 $35,563
$435,256 $574,052 $260,644 $198,638 $202,989
·;·., .. ,~.,,,:.,··'.··$:1a:·~r85 ;:n·:'···?''~r25·;·457 :~·07•:• . •···~;-;·66;·19·4 i~::·;·m,·;r;47;45~ (···;·r:o·:t:t7·;3?;4's~
$5,523,984 $6,961,750 $6,988;787 $5,810,811 : $6,474,681
$129,336 $94,247 $151,180 $288,440 $373,831
$2,047 $9,090 $2,053 $1,070 $2,625
$22,594,156 $29,17l,630 $33~125,175 $29,049~964 $3i,849~342
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. 1997 through 2001 data compiled in December. Table includes .all
emp.loyees who were eligible for overtime {both FLSA-exempt and non-exempt) who actually received cash payment for overtime.
Not included were employees {both FLSA exempt and non-exempt) who received compensatory time at the appropnate rat~ for
their additional overtime hours worked. FLSA excluded personnel were not included in the calculations, nor were any agencies
which compensated their employees for the additional hours worked with compensatory time.
Comments: Although the overall costs for overtime have fluctuated, there has been a 41 % increase since 1997 ·
35
Table 23 - Average Sick Leave Use And Average Costs
Per Employee by Agency
1997 - 2001
I I t I I
Avg Sick J.eave Costs
1997 ~998 1999 2000 2001
. . - ' .
>$6?? .$7.15)/: $800(< $821/· $833•"
$660'· $734>: . $758 $792: $813
. $683 $646 $559 $569 $641 ..
6.6 $729 $723 $787 $846 $820
5.5 $829 $1,094 $1,003 $1,080 $1,072
6.5 $795 $858 $980 $943 $1,043 ~c ~tf!!~~~~~r-rl~~l~~l~~il~~!l~~~~~~~l )'· .•·:n·;:~54::-:··,_··~·$737t••1·;··•·;aao]•I···,~794·:,·~'••$914···· $622 . $685 $1;266 $1,420. . $953 ·•
$873 $908 . $737 $628 $757
Corporation Commission 4.7 5.1 4.9 5.8 6.3 $641 $743 $751 $904 $1,070
Corrections 6.3 6.0 6.0 6.5 6.9 $662 $662 $707 $787 $849
Economic Security 7.0 7.1 7.6 7.5 6.7 $686 $737 $817 $831 $779 Esij·;~~iti.6 ~r:~11 ·,~·r·, ;rn11;~·~;;;ill[:·;~j~~'.!:i~'.:·);::;~:·'li•I!;i~1ll.]1l~~~~9i~l11 ·~:::: :~~;4:~•j:l ·~:•:'!~ii'~~~-~·f 10[;-s:ia·;;,m•·ll!5B'1~!·~; ~::=:~~:~~!::~·:::::;:·:-'.:~·~:··::·~=:·· c ~ .. ,w.·.·._... -e •. :-:~~·· ~- '"" -~~-w ... ·E ?·••· ),·_._ ..•. $86~••• : .·$·1·:o90····:::•····~35·1·•"•·::7~a2•4'"·~~?"$78I·•::
•>·~··-..>.••·'•> • $841 : $910 $1,067 $1,112 "$1,069
$497 $503 $555 $615 $575
6.3 $740 $841 $817 $850 $881
5.5 $535 $485 $694 $787 $661
5.8 $663 $803 $821 $739 $730
.'!ri~~ci·e~~-ri-c@ x 01~;1j·.·;'!'···:· ;:· ·;f~·r· ·. ,,,·;:: ·::·ii ::·;·: ·l4]~ ·:· i11 ·52:2,:r•·;r·1·.:·5,:~·::·,·I··;1·~~,1~ 1: '::-'~·1?r1rn· r·':.:·'$49s'·"·,,;·~64"i··:: ·:,,·:•;73o, . ,:-/·$74o., . '.'.···$69s .
.. $544 ; $540 . . . $623 $785 <$842 •
. $783 $897 $802 $788. . $937
Lottery Commission 4.7 5.5 6.5 8.2 5.7 $602 $735 $866 $1,130 $807
Medical Examiners Board 4. 7 5.1 3.2 4.5 4.5 $559 $670 $449 $691 $705
Military Affairs 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.1 6.1 $652 $689 $718 $726 $768 H•''iiii·g,~~~M~7Hbfrt~··.-·:··\· :;,·:·,~·:· ·1:r· -, ·~:;1·.-·: i ! .. ·i·r."!•••••'::·1 ·r5·r -w·~ !' ·:i;~ •;?·]2::;r·1: ;·~ ;··~:~·····~ ·[''. n;5·]·~; ! :r~·j·~,·5~:·9 ·11· ~~:~·~:~·:)-.:;:;:;~-:.:~ ·:·:;:·: :·~::~~:::·::::::··:::;:-:-::·~-::·:~~-~{:~~':·:~~!·'.·~'":· ··~·~·~':·~~:-:··· '>:·W·~=-·:-~:·:·:·: ·······~;w.~w ~:.•.-;,·.~·.·.~·~ ~ 'p f' $so3: $636H ;$61s · ·$666:< $704
$569 < $81i . $439 .. i $853~ $1,363.
: $838 ... $743 . $790 $1,175 $1,071
Registrar of Contractors 5.7 6.7 6.4 6.8 6.6 $613 $807 $786 $858 $881
Retirement System 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 4.4 $672 $744 $801 $860 $724
Revenue 6.7 6.5 7.1 7.3 7.0 $710 $738 $845 $890 $890
tQtz::r::s·'··ri:;::r::;m ·:·1•-m···:,·>, ...... ,.··n;··;,···n·:··;···c ·;o ·1(···,~·.-·•4ra'·;;· ·;,·:-4]~4;;::: ·;·;.·4:9·:_·1t··!;'1~i~J-G0l·:;·0r·£E~rn·•' •r:W'$5~g'?J•(1?'$47~] ;I'T$54~r '".·:;~22~:::>'$7'88'1
. $740 <. $736 $757 $780 $776
4.1 5.4 4.8 4.4 4.4 $344 $501 $484 $487 $502
6.3 6.3 6.2 6. 7 5. 7 $848 $910 $924 $1,052 $975
. }6J4'> '6.4.! ···6~sT• .Y6·;7 6.SJ>. '$68:7.: $723 .,/$767. $814• ;$821,
AHCCCS
Attorney General
Banking Department
6.8 6.4
5.1 6.3
6.3 6.0
6.9 7.1
5.6 5.9
6.7 6.2
Health Services
Historical Society
Industrial Commission
6.4 6.9
5.1 4.3
6.2 7.1
6.2 6.3
6.1 6.6
7.0 6.3
Veterans Service Comm
Water Resources
overall Average·••·• •· ·
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. 1 ~97 through 2001 data compiled from actual dollars paid for sick
leave from calendar year end files. The calculation of average sick hours was determined by dividing the total dollars paid by the
average hourly rate then dividing by the number of employees. Only employees who were eligible for, earned and used sick leave
(both covered and uncovered, wage employees were excluded) were included in these calculations.
Comments: Ninety-one percent of the larger agencies experienced increases in the average cost of sick leave from
1997 to 200 I. Overall, the state has experienced a 20% increase in the cost of sick leave.
36
Table 24 - Age Distribution for All Employees
2002
20% .,.---------------------------------------------------~
•1998
[]2002
up to 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 and
19 Age older
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. 2002 data represents fiscal year-end (July 1 - June 30). Numbers
are based upon all full- and part-time, covered and uncovered, safaried employees.
Comments: The above chart shows the age distribution for all salaried employees. In 2002, the average age of a
state employee was 43.7 years, and more employees were in the 50-54 age group than any other age group. In
1998, 42% of the workforce was over 50, whereas in 2002 only 35% of the workforce was over 50 years of age. In
1998 only 18% ofthe workforce was less than 35 years ofage; in 2002 25% was less than 35 years ofage.
37
Table 25 - Length of Service Distribution for All Employees
1998 - 2002
40%
, 111998
102002
30%
20%
16.2%
0%
o.9% 0.2% 0.0%!
I
9.8%
10%
5.1%
2.6%
4 or 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40
less yrs+
Years of State Service
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. 2002 ~ata represents fiscal year-end (July 1 - June 30). Numbers
are based upon all full- and part-time, covered and uncovered, salaried employees.
C mments: The above chart shows the length of service distribution for all state employees. The averaze lenzth
o:service for the state was 8.2 years of service. The vast majority of state employees (over 42%) have been h~ed
within the last 4 years, and over 65% of employees have less than 10 years of service with the state.
38
Table 26 - Employee Survey
1999 - 2001
Statement
Agree/Strongly Agree
:1999 % 2000 2001
Oyerall}I am satisfi~(j witf'l l"l'lY.]6b~t r.·.·~·f1a·~,.~a·~·a···~,~~·~,v··~fi~i··i~···~~p~a~8.·•·6i·•·~·~··:t··•~3~~·~···•·•·•.·.· . ·.
I receive adequate feedback on my work.
I have the proper tools and equipment to do my work. If~f,~Y~;t~~q~~;&~~~~~~~~1}~~~i~J!i; ~,,, ~u":;····:·~·:1~r;;0;l·:·n ., .. : w·:sn :;:::<m!·:;;·;::·y·,-:v:·~·n t"i'i'.r• . .'!t:·wF~;c;·6:6··;·?··~
I have the opportuqit1>t0Jearn and do n~~thi~gs in•rn~:·
job. ·
My agency supports my participation in training
opportunities to improve my job skills.
My agency supports my participation in education and
professional development opportunities. ·~¥:~~~~·sY1·~~,~~~·:~~ ~4~~~·1eR-·~eF~2r~1~t~~·pf9·~1~·~~}0:·
My . a9encr·• tias a 9obci system i~p1aC:e i~r26rl1rriu~icati~g ·
necessary information to staff. · ·
Senior management (Assistant Director level and above)
in my agency show care and concern for employees.
59%
60%
57%
58%
57%
57%
63% 62% 59%
57% 56% 55%
43% 38% 39%
Source: Governor's Office of Excellence in Government. The statewide employee survey is typically administered in September­October.
Surveys are distributed to the agencies and should provide a representative sampling of ALL employees. including wage
and salaried; covered and uncovered. In 1999, roughly 10,000 surveys were collected, in 2001, over 20,000 were collected.
Comments: There was a decrease in employee satisfaction from 1999 and 2000. There has been essentially no
change in satisfaction levels between 2000 and 2001.
Table 27 - State Employees by County
2002
Coconino
2.0°/o
Mohave
1.2°/o
Yavapai
1.3%
La Paz
.201o Maricopa
63.5 .--..0;;_ _ __.
Pinal
9.1 o/o
Santa
Cruz
Apache
0.9°/o
Navajo
2.2%
0.1 o/o
Graham
1.4%
Cochise
2.7%
0.4°/o
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System. Percentages indicate number of employees in the ADOA Human
Resources System agencies as of fiscal year-end 2002.
Comments: The majority of state employees reside in Maricopa county (over 24,000 employees). Pima ( 4, 135)
and Pinal (3,463) counties also host a relatively large percentage of employees. These three counties account for
over 83 % of all state employees.
Front and Back Cover Photography by Human Resources employee Ed Miksch