State of Arizona workforce report

              HUMAN RESOURCES
Woorrkkffoorrccee
RReeppoorrtt
20052005
Janet Napolitano
Governor
Betsey Bayless
Director, Dept. of Administration
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, 2005
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor, State of Arizona
The Honorable Ken Bennett
President, Arizona State Senate
The Honorable James Weiers
Speaker, Arizona House of Representatives
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Governor Napolitano, President Bennett and Speaker Weiers:
It is my pleasure to share with you the 2005 Annual Report on the Arizona State Service Human
Resources System.
The format of this year’s report is very similar to that produced the last two years, providing you
with meaningful data regarding the status of the State’s workforce and the operation of the
State’s Human Resources System.
This report contains over 31 tables and illustrations describing the workforce of the state. Some
of the key facts contained herein include:
• There were 36,633 active employees at the end of FY2005 (see page 2)
• Over 82% of the workforce is covered by the merit system (see page 4)
• Our workforce closely mirrors the demographics of the labor market (see page 11)
• Nearly 55% of the active workforce is comprised of women (see page 15)
• The state experienced a separation rate of 17.6% of covered employees (see page 17)
• The average age of a state employee is 44.6 years (page 32) and the average length
of service is 8.4 years (page 33)
We hope that the information in this report will assist you when making decisions regarding
Arizona State government and its employees.
Very truly yours,
Betsey Bayless
Director
i
Table of Contents
Section and Title Page Number
Table of Contents i
Overview ii
State Human Resources Operations Profile iv
New Technology in 2005 vii
SECTION ONE – GENERAL EMPLOYMENT TRENDS 1
Table 1-1 Employee Headcount 1997 – 2005 2
Table 1-2 Employees by Agency 2001 – 2005 3
Table 1-3 Covered/Uncovered Employees by Agency 2005 4
Table 1-4 Rank Order of All States by Ratio of State Employees to State Population 2004 5
Table 1-5 Ratio of All State Employees to State Population (Western States) 2004 6
Table 1-6 Rank Order of All States by Ratio of Total State Payroll to State Population 2004 7
Table 1-7 Ratio of Total State Payroll to State Population (Western States) 2004 8
Table 1-8 State Employees by County 2005 9
SECTION TWO – EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 10
Table 2-1 Distribution of State Government Employees by Ethnic Group 2005 11
Table 2-2 Distribution of State Government Employees by Occupational Group 2005 12
Table 2-3 Changes in Employment by Ethnicity and Gender 1997 – 2005 13
Table 2-4 Changes in Employment of Minorities 1997 - 2005 13
Table 2-5 Minority Representation by Agency 2005 14
Table 2-6 Gender Representation by Agency 2005 15
SECTION THREE – EMPLOYEE MOBILITY 16
Table 3-1 Changes in Separations by Covered & Uncovered Employees 1997 – 2005 17
Table 3-2 Separation Rates of Covered Employees by Agency 2001 - 2005 18
Table 3-3 Voluntary and Involuntary Separations of Covered Employees by Agency 2005 19
Table 3-4 Most Populous Covered Class Titles 2005 20
Table 3-5 Covered Classes With The Highest Separation Rates 2005 20
Table 3-6 Separation Rates by Occupational Code 2005 21
Table 3-7 Separation Rates by Age Distribution 2005 22
Table 3-8 Separation Rates by Length of Service 2005 23
Table 3-9 Percentage of Separations Due to Retirement 1997 - 2005 24
Table 3-10 Retirement Eligibility 2005 - 2009 25
Table 3-11 Estimated Cost of Turnover by Agency for Covered Employees 2005 26
SECTION FOUR – EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS 27
Table 4-1 Agency Comparison of Average Salary per Covered Employee 2001 - 2005 28
Table 4-2 Total Overtime Costs by Agency 2001 – 2005 29
Table 4-3 Distribution of Overtime Costs by Agency 2005 30
Table 4-4 Average Sick Leave Use and Costs Per Employee by Agency 2001 - 2005 31
Table 4-5 Age Distribution for All Employees 1998 and 2005 32
Table 4-6 Length of Service Distribution for All Employees 2002 - 2005 33
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 are 24 agencies
that are not included in this System. These 24
agencies have been informally grouped into 10
separate human resources systems. Each system
develops its own employment, compensation,
attendance/leave, and employee relations policies and
procedures. Table A identifies all of the human
resources systems within Arizona State Government
and the number of appropriated employees within
each of these systems.
Agency Appropriated Full-Time
Equivalent Positions
ADOA Human Resources System 30,692.6
Governor's Office Personnel System
Governor's Office N/A
Governor's Office of Equal Opportunity 4.0
Governor's Office of Strategic Planning & Budgeting 22.0
Board of Regents & Universities Personnel System
Board of Regents 27.9
Arizona State University 7,481.9
Northern Arizona University 2,071.7
University of Arizona 6,269.1
Legislative Personnel System
Auditor General's Office 179.4
House of Representatives N/A
Joint Legislative Budget Committee 31.0
Legislative Council 47.8
Library & Archives 114.8
Senate N/A
Community College Board Personnel System 0
Courts Personnel System
Court of Appeals 133.3
Superior Court 199.3
Supreme Court 233.1
Department of Gaming Personnel System 105.0
Governmental Information Technology Agency Personnel System 21.0
Department of Public Safety Personnel System
Law Enforcement Merit System Council 1
Public Safety, Department of 1,872.0
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System N/A
Arizona Schools for the Deaf and Blind 608.4
Office of Tourism 25.0
Source: The Executive Budget – Fiscal Year 2005 in Detail – Numbers reflect FY05
appropriations.
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 four
major sections.
Table A
iii
The introduction 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 15th 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 of each work area, and
new enhancements implemented in 2005.
Section One provides demographic information
of the employees within the ADOA Human
Resources System. The demographic information
includes statewide headcount, headcount of
employees by agency, covered and uncovered
employees by agency, number of state employees in
relation to state population, total state payroll in
relation to state population, and the percentage of
employees by county of residence.
Section Two provides statistical information
about the employees within the ADOA Human
Resources System by ethnic group, gender and
occupational group as defined by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. The
statistical information includes distribution of
employees by ethnic group compared to the Arizona
Labor Force, distribution of employees by
occupational group, trends in employment by
ethnicity and gender, trends in employment of
minorities, minority representation by agency, and
gender representation by agency.
Section Three 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 covered
and uncovered employees, trends in the separations
of covered employees by agency, voluntary and
involuntary separations by agency, most populous
classes, classes with the highest separation rates,
separation rates by occupational code, separation
rates by age distribution, separation rates by length of
service, the relative percentage of separations due to
retirement, future projections of retirement eligibility,
and the estimated cost of turnover by agency for
covered employees.
Section Four 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 salary, total overtime costs by agency,
distribution of overtime costs by agency, average
sick leave use and costs per employee, distribution of
average age of employees, and distribution of
average length of service of employees.
The main source of the information presented in this
report is the state’s Human Resources Information
Solution (HRIS). This is a centralized record-keeping
and tracking database, however, the accuracy and
integrity 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 and accurate
manner. Maintenance and reporting functions of the
system reside within the authority of ADOA. The
HRIS 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
employees that were on the State’s payroll during the
pay period that included the 12th of June.
iv
State Human Resources Operations Profile
The largest 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 15th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona
Employees: 174.0 full-time positions
Budget for FY 2005: $14,152,900 (ProRata),
$4,763,600 (Health Insurance Trust Fund)
Mission: …provide efficient, timely, customer-driven professional
human resources services…
The Division consists of the following:
Human Resources Director - Kathy Peckardt
Benefits/Insurance - Susan Strickler, Manager
Classification/Compensation - Joanne Carew, Manager
Staffing and Recruitment – Jackie Mass, Manager
Satellite Offices/Workforce Relations - Laura Krause, Manager
Planning and Quality Assurance – Greg Carmichael, Manager
Human Resources Information Solution – John Murrin, Acting Manager
Additional areas include: Human Resources Consulting,
Marketing/Communications and Administrative Services
Customer Base includes over 9,000 retirees and over 62,000 employees and their dependents
from 100 state agencies, boards and commissions and 3 state universities. Customers can
be grouped into the following segments…
• 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 Universities1, Arizona State
Schools for the Deaf and Blind)
• Natural resource agencies (e.g. Game and Fish, State Land, State Parks)
• General government agencies (e.g. Revenue, Commerce)
• State retirees1
1 These customers utilize the services of the Benefits Program only.
v
Summary of Services
• A benefits 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.
• A 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 six largest state agencies
and in the Tucson office complex.
• An automated employment system, Hiring Gateway, and a state job board
azstatejobs.gov are 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 community events and participating in community outreach
programs.
• An up-to-date website www.hr.state.az.us is available containing information relating to
job opportunities 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.
• A staff is dedicated to handling employee relations issues including investigations,
employee grievances, and personnel rule interpretation.
• Human Resource Information Solution (HRIS) is maintained to administer payroll,
personnel actions and employee benefits and serves as the State’s central record of
employee information.
vi
Benefits
The Benefits section fulfills the statutory
responsibility to provide health and welfare benefits
to the State of Arizona employees, retirees, long-term
disability recipients, COBRA participants and their
eligible dependents. This past year marked the
beginning of a significant transition from offering a
fully insured medical insurance plan to our members
(the “Saguaro Program”). On October 1, 2004 the
State offered a self insured medical plan – providing
members a variety of network choices. This change
incorporated a new name “Arizona Benefit Options”,
a new logo, and a new emphasis on providing value
to our members. The Benefit Options Program
remains very comprehensive, consisting of medical,
dental, vision, basic life, supplemental life,
dependent life, short-term disability, long-term
disability, and flexible spending accounts.
The Wellness Program will continue to provide
services at no or low cost in order to improve the
health and wellness of state 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 an
electronic wellness newsletter, workshops/training, a
library of materials, flu shots, 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.
Classification & Compensation
The Classification & Compensation Section designs,
develops, and administers job evaluation and
compensation programs for the ADOA Human
Resources System. In support of these
responsibilities, this section
• conducts salary surveys including the
Arizona Compensation Survey (formerly
JGSS), the Western States Salary Survey,
and the ASDB Salary Survey for education-related
positions;
• participates in other salary and benefits
studies with other public and private
organizations;
• evaluates positions using the whole job
classification method and makes FLSA
determinations;
• prepares the Annual Advisory
Recommendation to the Governor and
Legislature regarding changes to the salary
plans;
• interprets and administers salary policy.
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.
Staffing & Recruitment
The Staffing and Recruitment Section provides staffing
and recruiting services to over 90 state agencies. They
process requests to fill positions including posting
announcements, screening of resumes and providing
lists of qualified applicants. They also manage a pool
of candidates to fill temporary employment
opportunities in state government.
This section assists state agencies with testing and
screening of applicants and developing interview
questions for the selection of qualified candidates. It
also provides employee survey services including
design and analysis of survey results. The Office also
manages community outreach programs through job
fairs and community events.
Additionally, this section provides a Career Center to
assist employees impacted by Reductions in Force.
Through a partnership with Maricopa Workforce
Connection, State of Arizona Workforce Development
Administration and the City of Phoenix a full service
Rapid Response program provides a series of
workshops and services that prepares and assists
displaced employees with the transitional process.
The section administers a recently implemented,
automated employment system called Hiring
Gateway. A key component of this system is the
State’s new website, “azstatejobs.gov” where all state
of Arizona government jobs are posted.
vii
Satellite Offices
The Division has seven satellite offices that provide
professional human resources services to state
agencies. The Department of Administration/Tucson
Office, Department of Corrections, Department of
Economic Security, Department of Health Services,
Department of Juvenile Corrections, Department of
Revenue, and Department of Transportation have on-site
human resources office dedicated to the agency.
The remaining agencies are provided dedicated
human resources services through Central Office
Human Resources.
These offices provide a myriad of services to include:
rule interpretation, consistency in human resources
practices, compliance with laws, rules, policies and
procedures, recruitment/staffing, employee relations,
operations, classification/organization consultation
and consultation regarding human resources-related
issues.
Planning & Quality Assurance
This section was established to assist State agencies
in reviewing their policies, practices and procedures
to ensure consistent human resources practices are
maintained throughout Arizona State Government.
The section also provides data analysis of key human
resources information and focuses on strategic
planning and best practices research which will assist
the Division in becoming proactive partners with its
customers.
Workforce Relations
This section provides rule interpretation to agency
human resources professionals, management and
employees, provides assistance with policy
development; offers guidance on employee relations
issues; approves and monitors FMLA usage;
approves Annual Leave Carry-over and Donated
Annual Leave requests; assists in administering
reductions in force; 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.
Another component of this 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.
Human Resources Information
Solution (HRIS)
A team of functional and technical staff manages the
state’s integrated payroll, personnel, and benefits
system called the Human Resources Information
Solution. HRIS serves as the state’s central system of
record for employee information.
The system processes payroll, allows employees to
enroll in the state’s benefit plans, and provides
management with reporting capabilities to manage
the state’s workforce.
viii
Human Resources Implements New Technology in 2005
State Government Realizes Efficiencies
Human Resources unveiled Hiring Gateway, a new web-based recruiting
and hiring system this past year. This system is designed to help both
hiring managers and recruiters work more efficiently and collaborate in
real-time. Agency users report that the new software saves time and
assists in recruiting more qualified candidates. Early results indicate that
the total time to fill a position in state government has been reduced by 30%.
Hiring Gateway provides a central location for job information, which includes a website,
www.azstatejobs.gov , dedicated to posting state job announcements and accepting online applications
from interested candidates. Additionally, Hiring Gateway allows agencies to
work on-line to develop job announcements, obtain necessary management
approvals for job requisitions, create hiring lists, and send offer letters to
prospective employees.
“Hiring Gateway has made the entire job search and hiring process less
costly, faster, and easier for everyone.”
As of August 2005, State employees will have to
make fewer clicks, phone calls, and visits to their
personnel and payroll offices to obtain information
about their pay, benefits, and educational and
employment opportunities. “Your Employee
Services” or “Y.E.S.” is the State’s first ever employee portal which consolidates and provides access to
human resources and State government information. It serves as the gateway to the Benefit Options self-service
open enrollment web site, and provides a secure and convenient access to information from
anywhere, at anytime.
“Our overall goal in designing this website was to improve employee satisfaction
with their employment experience,” says John Sheller, manager in charge of
rolling out Y.E.S. to State agencies. “We envisioned a single site for employees to
use for anything related to their experience with the State.”
Section One
General Employment Trends
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
. . the total number of state employees dropped to 36,633 – the lowest level 2
since 1997 . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 1-1 – Employee Headcount
1997 - 2005
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System for years 1997 through 2003. Data for 2004 and 2005 was extracted
from the state’s Human Resources Information Solution. Data from 1997 to 1999 represents calendar year-end (Jan – Dec); 2000
through 2005 data represents fiscal year-end (July 1 – June 30). Data includes covered and uncovered active employees.
Comments: The total number of employees declined again in 2005, continuing the trend from
the past two years. The decrease in the number of active employees was 0.1% (compared to last
year’s 1.7% decrease and 2003’s 3.2% decrease). Overall there has been a 5% decrease from
2002.
36,262
36,702
37,411
37,849
38,488 38,506
37,293
36,674 36,633
30,000
32,000
34,000
36,000
38,000
40,000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
. . . more than half of the state agencies either remained the same or 3
experienced a decline in the size of their workforce . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 1-2 – Employees by Agency
2001 - 2005
Agency Name 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Small Agencies 967 987 1,005 867 851
Administration 981 962 899 856 808
Agriculture 369 338 350 316 313
AHCCCS 1,314 1,386 1,282 1,233 1,314
Attorney General 771 775 638 694 697
Banking Department 51 52 50 51 54
Building & Fire Safety 70 66 52 47 50
Coliseum & Exposition 43 41 44 58 90
Commerce 135 104 89 88 96
Corporation Commission 286 282 298 291 281
Corrections 9,849 9,334 9,426 9,813 9,080
Economic Security 9,844 10,552 9,799 9,555 10,087
Education 385 389 405 443 492
Environmental Quality 791 750 734 681 674
Game & Fish 636 655 680 641 658
Health Services 1,825 1,848 1,900 1,836 1,844
Historical Society 91 86 76 63 63
Industrial Commission 300 291 289 283 282
Insurance Dept 136 143 145 137 141
Juvenile Corrections 1,238 1,090 1,105 1,025 1,039
Land Dept 220 235 218 129 221
Lottery Commission 124 117 116 109 106
Medical Examiners Board 79 75 75 62 49
Military Affairs 494 507 517 489 506
Pioneers Home 141 133 132 133 129
Racing 64 60 57 46 46
Real Estate 65 65 57 58 56
Registrar of Contractors 137 134 143 136 140
Retirement System 161 170 175 181 178
Revenue 1,023 998 1,050 1,044 1,019
State Parks 348 331 333 331 329
Transportation 4,995 5,000 4,643 4,463 4,439
Veterans Service 285 288 291 296 280
Water Resources 270 262 220 219 221
Totals 38,488 38,506 37,293 36,674 36,633
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. All data represents fiscal year-end (July 1 – June 30).
Comments: Slightly more than half (52%) of state agencies (excluding the small agencies)
remained the same or experienced a decrease in the number of employees. Four agencies (12%)
experienced decreases of over 5%. Overall the state experienced a 0.1% reduction in workforce
this past year.
. . . over 82% of employees in the ADOA Human Resources System are 4
covered by the state merit system . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 1-3 – Covered/Uncovered Employees by Agency
2005
Small Agencies 1.2%
Administration 0.6%
Agriculture 6.5%
AHCCCS 1.5%
Attorney General 2.1%
Banking Department 1.2%
Building & Fire Safety 1.1%
Coliseum & Exposition 19.3%
Commerce 8.8%
Corporation Commission 3.3%
Corrections 0.9%
Economic Security 1.3%
Education 4.6%
Environmental Quality 3.2%
Game & Fish 0.7%
Health Services 2.2%
Historical Society 0.0%
Industrial Commission 1.5%
Insurance Dept 2.5%
Juvenile Corrections 3.6%
Land Dept 15.4%
Lottery Commission 0.8%
Medical Examiners Board 0.0%
Military Affairs 4.9%
Pioneers Home -0.7%
Racing -2.2%
Real Estate 1.2%
Registrar of Contractors 7.3%
Retirement System 2.7%
Revenue 2.3%
State Parks -0.5%
Transportation 0.7%
Veterans Service Comm 1.5%
Water Resources -3.9%
TOTAL 1.7%
Source: The state’s Human Resources Information Solution. Table includes all active employees in June 2005.
Comments: This table illustrates the distinction 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, sometimes referred to as “at will”
employees). Over 82% of the workforce in the ADOA Human Resources System is covered by
the merit system. Twenty-four out of the thirty-three larger agencies (73%) have the majority of
their employees covered by the merit system.
Increase in % of
Uncovered from
FY 04 to FY 05
68%
60%
87%
88%
77%
6%
74%
64%
48%
5%
72%
79%
80%
60%
84%
75%
82%
87%
70%
44%
94%
95%
54%
22%
26%
84%
87%
23%
78%
17%
63%
26%
32%
40%
13%
12%
23%
94%
26%
36%
52%
95%
28%
20%
40%
16%
25%
18%
30%
56%
46%
78%
74%
16%
13%
77%
22%
83%
37%
74%
98%
82%
2%
5%
6%
13%
21%
100%
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Covered Uncovered
. . . Arizona ranks 46 5 th in the nation in the ratio of full-time equivalent state
employees to total population . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 1-4 – Rank Order of All States by Ratio of
State FTEs to State Population
2004
1...............Hawaii
2...............Alaska
3...............Delaware
4...............North Dakota
5...............New Mexico
6...............Wyoming
7...............Vermont
8...............West Virginia
9...............Utah
10.............Louisiana
11.............Montana
12.............Mississippi
13.............Arkansas
14.............Nebraska
15.............Kentucky
16.............Alabama
17.............Rhode Island
18.............Oklahoma
19.............Washington
20.............Iowa
21.............South Carolina
22.............New Jersey
23.............South Dakota
24.............Connecticut
25.............Idaho
26.............Maine
27.............Maryland
28.............Kansas
29.............Virginia
30.............Oregon
31.............Missouri
32.............North Carolina
33.............New Hampshire
34.............Minnesota
35.............Indiana
United States Average
36.............Colorado
37.............Tennessee
38.............Georgia
39.............Massachusetts
40.............Michigan
41.............Pennsylvania
42.............New York
43.............Wisconsin
44.............Texas
45.............Ohio
46........ Arizona
47.............California
48.............Nevada
49.............Florida
50.............Illinois
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division. March 2004. Population data estimate for July 2004.
Comments: Arizona dropped to 46th in the nation in the ratio of full-time equivalent state
employees as compared to the overall population of the state. In 2002, Arizona ranked 45th, and
in 2000, Arizona ranked 43rd. Arizona is 20% below the national average. Of the Western States,
only California and Nevada have fewer state FTEs as compared to the overall population of the
state.
. . . of the Western states, only California and Nevada have fewer full-time 6
equivalent state employees than Arizona for the population served. . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 1-5 – Ratio of All State FTEs to State Population
2004
Employees per 10,000 Population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division. March 2004. Population data estimate for July 2004.
Comments: Arizona remained 9th out of the 11 Western states (the same ranking as in 2002) in
the ratio of full-time equivalent state employees as compared to the overall population of the
state. Arizona’s ratio of FTEs per 10,000 population served decreased by 5.8% since 2002,
compared to the national average decrease of 2.8%.
NV
108
UT
205
AZ
115
CA
110
CO
143
NM
259
OR
160
ID
167
WY
238
MT
200
WA
182
. . . Arizona still ranks 49th in the nation when comparing total payroll to the 7
state’s population. . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 1-6 – Rank Order of All States by Ratio of Total State
Payroll to State Population
2004
1...............Alaska
2...............Hawaii
3...............Delaware
4...............North Dakota
5...............Vermont
6...............New Jersey
7...............Connecticut
8...............New Mexico
9...............Rhode Island
10.............Wyoming
11.............Iowa
12.............Washington
13.............Utah
14.............Louisiana
15.............Alabama
16.............Kentucky
17.............Maryland
18.............Montana
19.............West Virginia
20.............Minnesota
21.............Arkansas
22.............Massachusetts
23.............Oregon
24.............Colorado
25.............Maine
26.............Mississippi
27.............New York
28.............Oklahoma
29.............Nebraska
30.............Virginia
31.............South Carolina
32.............Kansas
United States Average
33.............California
34.............Idaho
35.............South Dakota
36.............Michigan
37.............North Carolina
38.............Wisconsin
39.............New Hampshire
40.............Pennsylvania
41.............Indiana
42.............Missouri
43.............Georgia
44.............Ohio
45.............Tennessee
46.............Texas
47.............Nevada
48.............Illinois
49........ Arizona
50.............Florida
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division. March 2004. Population data estimate for July 2004.
Comments: Arizona remained 49th in the nation in 2004. In 2002, Arizona ranked 49th, and in
2000, Arizona ranked 47th. Arizona’s ratio of total state payroll as compared to overall
population of the state was 26% lower than the nationwide average in 2002 and dropped to 29%
lower based on the 2004 census data.
. . . no other Western state has a lower payroll than Arizona when compared to 8
the state’s population. . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 1-7 – Ratio of Total State Payroll to State Population
2004
Payroll Dollars per Citizen
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division. March 2004. Population data estimate for July 2004.
Comments: Of the Western States, Arizona continues to have the lowest ratio of state payroll
compared to the overall population of the state. Arizona’s payroll ratio decreased 0.9% since
2002, compared to the national average which increased by 2.5% and the ten other Western
States which increased an average of 4.5%.
NV
$40.03
UT
$66.54
AZ
$37.61
CA
$52.68
CO
$57.92
NM
$77.11
OR
$57.97
ID
$52.34
WY
$75.35
MT
$62.14
WA
$68.48
. . . most of the state’s workforce is located in Maricopa County . . . 9
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 1-8 – State Employees by County
2005
Source: The state’s Human Resources Information Solution.
Comments: The majority of state employees work in Maricopa County, followed by Pima and
Pinal counties. These three counties account for nearly 84% of all state employees.
0.8%
2.1%
1.9%
1.5%
1.1%
0.2%
3.0%
63.8%
8.4%
11.6%
0.9%
1.2%
3.1%
0.1%
0.5%
Section Two
Equal Employment
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
. . . the state’s workforce continues to be more diverse than the available labor 11
force within Arizona . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
White
68.5%
Black
4.7%
Hispanic
21.8%
American Indian
1.8%
Asian American
3.3%
White
62.2%
Black
7.2%
Hispanic
25.1%
American Indian
3.2%
Asian American
2.3%
Table 2-1 – Distribution of State Government Employees
by Ethnic Group
2005
Source: Arizona Labor Force data from the U.S. Equal Employment Commission 2003 EEO-1 Report; State Government
Employees data from the State’s Human Resources Information Solution June 2005.
Comments: The majority of the state’s workforce is comprised of the White and Hispanic ethnic
groups. Overall, the state government’s workforce tends to be more diverse than the Arizona
Labor Force.
State Government
Employees
Arizona Labor
Force
. . . the professional occupational group accounts for the largest portion of the 12
workforce, followed by protective services, and paraprofessionals . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 2-2 – Distribution of State Government Employees
by Occupational Group
2005
Source: The State’s Human Resources Information Solution, June 2005. Categories are based upon the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission’s Occupational Categories for State and Local Government (EEO-4).
Comments: State employees in positions categorized as Professional comprise the largest
percentage (44%) of the eight occupational groupings. Skilled craft (2%) and service workers
(4%) encompass the smallest percentage.
Officials &
Administrators
5.5%
Professionals
44.4%
Technicians
5.2%
Paraprofessionals
11.4%
Service &
Maintenance
4.4%
Skilled Craft
1.6%
Administrative
Support
8.2%
Protective
Services
19.4%
. . . the percentage of minorities has steadily increased over the years . . . 13
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 2-3 – Changes in Employment
by Ethnicity and Gender
1997 - 2005
Non-Minority Minority Total
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Year
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1997 11,801 34.9% 11,409 33.7% 4,450 13.2% 6,178 18.3% 16,251 48.0% 17,587 52.0%
1998 11,731 34.3% 11,349 33.2% 4,679 13.7% 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%
2001 11,732 33.4% 11,447 32.6% 4,962 14.1% 6,942 19.8% 16,694 47.6% 18,389 52.4%
2002 11,483 32.0% 11,660 32.4% 5,147 14.3% 7,645 21.3% 16,630 46.3% 19,305 53.7%
2003 11,187 31.5% 11,322 31.9% 5,447 15.4% 7,505 21.2% 16,634 46.9% 18,827 53.1%
2004 11,242 31.4% 11,399 31.8% 5,346 14.9% 7,845 21.9% 16,588 46.3% 19,244 53.7%
2005 10,920 29.8% 11,405 31.1% 5,696 15.5% 8,612 23.5% 16,616 45.4% 20,017 54.6%
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. Percentages are based upon employees responding – a small
percentage of employees choose not to disclose their ethnicity. 1997 through 1999 data compiled in December; 2000 through 2005
data compiled in June.
Comments: The percentage of minorities, both male and female increased this past year. The
total percentage of females also increased.
Table 2-4 – Changes in Employment of Minorities
1997 - 2005
African-American Hispanic Others
Year Male Female Male Female Male Female
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1997 866 2.6% 1,339 4.0% 3,020 8.9% 3,939 11.6% 564 1.7% 900 2.7%
1998 914 2.7% 1,388 4.1% 3,168 9.3% 4,139 12.1% 597 1.7% 927 2.7%
1999 935 2.7% 1,422 4.1% 3,310 9.5% 4,355 12.5% 640 1.8% 981 2.8%
2000 938 2.7% 1,441 4.1% 3,376 9.6% 4,501 12.8% 648 1.8% 1,000 2.8%
2001 938 2.7% 1,441 4.1% 3,376 9.6% 4,501 12.8% 648 1.8% 1,000 2.8%
2002 950 2.6% 1,517 4.2% 3,525 9.8% 5,036 14.0% 672 1.9% 1,092 3.0%
2003 1,279 3.6% 1,493 4.2% 3,475 9.8% 4,941 13.9% 693 2.0% 1,071 3.0%
2004 992 2.8% 1,527 4.3% 3,628 10.1% 5,191 14.5% 726 2.0% 1,127 3.1%
2005 999 2.7% 1,597 4.4% 3,659 10.0% 5,368 14.7% 1,038 2.8% 1,647 4.5%
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. Percentages are based upon employees responding – a small
percentage of employees choose not to disclose their ethnicity. 1997 through 1999 data compiled in December; 2000 through 2005
data compiled in June.
Comments: Over the past eight years, the number of minority employees in all ethnic groups has
increased or remained relatively stable. The past two years, there has been a slight decrease in
the percentage of male African-Americans, and an increase in the percentage of other ethnicities.
. . . minorities comprise nearly 38% of the employees in the ADOA Human 14
Resources system . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 2-5 – Minority Representation by Agency
2005
Small Agencies
Administration
Agriculture
AHCCCS
Attorney General
Banking Department
Building & Fire Safety
Coliseum & Exposition
Commerce
Corporation Commission
Corrections
Economic Security
Education
Environmental Quality
Game & Fish
Health Services
Historical Society
Industrial Commission
Insurance Dept
Juvenile Corrections
Land Dept
Lottery Commission
Medical Examiners Board
Military Affairs
Pioneers Home
Racing
Real Estate
Registrar of Contractors
Retirement System
Revenue
State Parks
Transportation
Veterans Service Comm
Water Resources
TOTAL
Source: The State’s Human Resources Information Solution (HRIS). Percentages are based upon employees that identified their
ethnicity – a small percentage of employees choose not to disclose this information.
Comments: The table above shows the proportion of minority employees of each of the larger
state agencies. Twenty-nine of the larger agencies (88%) increased their minority representation
compared with last year’s numbers.
19%
46%
39%
17%
40%
26%
26%
25%
22%
21%
38%
16%
28%
15%
41%
23%
45%
21%
34%
11%
26%
29%
49%
37%
33%
34%
38%
22%
20%
26%
45%
32%
38%
28%
81%
54%
61%
83%
60%
74%
74%
75%
78%
79%
62%
84%
72%
85%
59%
77%
55%
79%
66%
89%
74%
71%
51%
63%
67%
66%
62%
78%
80%
74%
55%
68%
62%
72%
38% 62%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Minority White
. . . females comprise nearly 55% of the workforce in the ADOA Human 15
Resources system . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 2-6 – Gender Representation by Agency
2005
Small Agencies
Administration
Agriculture
AHCCCS
Attorney General
Banking Department
Building & Fire Safety
Coliseum & Exposition
Commerce
Corporation Commission
Corrections
Economic Security
Education
Environmental Quality
Game & Fish
Health Services
Historical Society
Industrial Commission
Insurance Dept
Juvenile Corrections
Land Dept
Lottery Commission
Medical Examiners Board
Military Affairs
Pioneers Home
Racing
Real Estate
Registrar of Contractors
Retirement System
Revenue
State Parks
Transportation
Veterans Service Comm
Water Resources
TOTAL
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution.
Comments: Twenty of the thirty-three agencies (61%) have over 50% females representing their
workforce. The relative percentage of females in the workforce increased again this year (0.9%
increase).
51%
71%
42%
43%
63%
58%
54%
61%
46%
71%
27%
69%
54%
36%
44%
65%
64%
63%
63%
40%
48%
71%
76%
35%
54%
66%
49%
34%
52%
65%
76%
37%
49%
59%
49%
29%
58%
57%
37%
42%
46%
39%
54%
29%
73%
31%
46%
64%
56%
35%
36%
37%
37%
60%
52%
29%
24%
65%
46%
34%
51%
66%
48%
35%
24%
63%
51%
41%
55% 45%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Females Males
Section Three
Employee Mobility
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
. . . the separation rate for covered employees (17.6%) was higher than last year 17
. . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3-1 – Changes in Separations from State Service
by Covered and Uncovered Employees
1997 - 2005
Retirements Resignations Terminations Other
Total
Separations
Year
Total
Employees
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Covered 31,942 334 1.0% 3,301 10.3% 732 2.3% 342 1.1% 4,709 14.7%
1997
Uncovered 1,960 20 1.0% 318 16.2% 45 2.3% 59 3.0% 442 22.6%
Covered 32,261 273 0.8% 3,332 10.3% 712 2.2% 282 0.9% 4,599 14.3%
1998
Uncovered 2,193 16 0.7% 197 9.0% 23 1.0% 44 2.0% 280 12.8%
Covered 32,306 323 1.0% 3,692 11.4% 835 2.6% 298 0.9% 5,148 15.9%
1999
Uncovered 2,761 20 0.7% 273 9.9% 52 1.9% 86 3.1% 431 15.6%
Covered 32,072 309 1.0% 3,904 12.2% 838 2.6% 244 0.8% 5,295 16.5%
2000
Uncovered 3,469 18 0.5% 397 11.4% 63 1.8% 72 2.1% 550 15.9%
Covered 31,957 267 0.8% 3,647 11.4% 717 2.2% 233 0.7% 4,864 15.2%
2001
Uncovered 4,058 24 0.6% 434 10.7% 69 1.7% 57 1.4% 584 14.4%
Covered 31,986 249 0.8% 2,897 9.1% 638 2.0% 292 0.9% 4,076 12.7%
2002
Uncovered 4,360 19 0.4% 284 6.5% 67 1.5% 63 1.4% 433 9.9%
Covered 31,828 523 1.6% 3,323 10.4% 629 2.0% 423 1.3% 4,898 15.4%
2003
Uncovered 4,589 92 2.0% 412 9.0% 109 2.4% 142 3.1% 755 16.5%
Covered 30,831 420 1.4% 1,886 6.1% 766 2.5% 1516 4.9% 4,588 14.9%
2004
Uncovered 5,843 114 2.0% 314 5.4% 20 0.3% 632 10.8% 1,080 18.5%
Covered 30,187 444 1.5% 2,123 7.0% 815 2.7% 1,943 6.4% 5,325 17.6%
2005
Uncovered 6,446 270 4.2% 422 6.5% 18 0.3% 599 9.3% 1,309 20.3%
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. 1997 through 1999 data represents separations from state service
during the calendar year (Jan – Dec); 2000 through 2005 data represents separations during the fiscal year (July 1 – June 30). 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: In both categories (covered and uncovered) separation rates increased significantly
from last year. The average separation rate for both categories combined was 18.1% last year.
Among covered employees, resignations remain the leading category of separations. The relative
percentage of retirements of covered and uncovered employees nearly increased to the highest
level in recent history experienced two years ago.
. . . the majority of state agencies experienced an increase in separation 18
rates of covered employees . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3-2 – Separation Rates of Covered Employees
by Agency
2001 - 2005
Agency 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Small Agencies 14.3% 22.4% 16.0% 10.9% 14.2%
Administration 17.6% 14.4% 15.2% 9.9% 21.5%
Agriculture 21.9% 20.2% 12.9% 8.1% 26.4%
AHCCCS 15.9% 11.5% 15.3% 14.1% 14.3%
Attorney General 20.4% 13.5% 21.1% 25.7% 17.2%
Banking Department 13.6% 2.2% 8.8% 13.3% 6.4%
Building & Fire Safety 15.4% 5.0% 21.0% 15.0% 11.9%
Commerce 8.6% 2.9% 3.2% 0.0% 19.0%
Corporation Commission 11.4% 8.7% 12.3% 13.3% 17.9%
Corrections 17.7% 17.2% 17.7% 16.5% 22.1%
Economic Security 10.7% 10.7% 13.7% 12.8% 15.0%
Education 14.3% 14.8% 24.1% 20.5% 16.2%
Environmental Quality 10.6% 8.1% 8.0% 6.8% 8.1%
Game & Fish 9.7% 6.4% 6.3% 11.8% 17.0%
Health Services 21.6% 9.1% 19.7% 20.0% 20.3%
Historical Society 14.3% 17.2% 17.7% 4.3% 21.3%
Industrial Commission 15.9% 4.1% 11.0% 10.0% 14.8%
Insurance Dept 12.4% 11.9% 14.3% 32.6% 16.5%
Juvenile Corrections 29.3% 24.0% 29.6% 28.2% 22.8%
Land Dept 13.5% 3.4% 14.6% 6.6% 9.7%
Lottery Commission 5.6% 7.1% 9.3% 10.1% 7.9%
Military Affairs 13.7% 7.3% 14.1% 12.0% 33.3%
Pioneers Home 21.0% 7.8% 15.8% 35.4% 37.0%
Racing 9.4% 3.4% 19.2% 9.5% 9.1%
Real Estate 13.0% 3.7% 20.2% 10.5% 25.0%
Registrar of Contractors 10.7% 6.0% 2.5% 9.0% 19.2%
Retirement System 8.7% 58.8% 6.1% 0.0% 20.0%
Revenue 13.5% 4.9% 10.4% 10.3% 12.9%
State Parks 10.2% 4.5% 9.1% 9.7% 15.5%
Transportation 13.4% 10.8% 12.3% 13.6% 14.7%
Veterans Service 49.5% 19.8% 23.0% 39.3% 30.2%
Water Resources 11.9% 3.1% 14.7% 7.1% 6.7%
Total 15.2% 12.7% 15.4% 14.9% 17.6%
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. Data represents separations from state service during the fiscal year
(July 1 – June 30). 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: The rate of separations from state service increased from last year to the highest
level in recent years. Twenty-one of the thirty-two larger agencies (66%) experienced an increase
in separation rates. Ten agencies experienced separation rates greater than 20% and three
agencies experienced separation rates greater than 30%.
. . . voluntary resignations remain the most common reason for employees 19
leaving state service . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3-3 – Voluntary and Involuntary Separations
of Covered Employees by Agency
2005
Agency Voluntary Involuntary Other Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Small Agencies 20 8.1% 10 4.0% 5 2.0% 35 14.2%
Administration 69 13.6% 39 7.7% 1 0.2% 109 21.5%
Agriculture 12 22.6% 2 3.8% 0 0.0% 14 26.4%
AHCCCS 112 11.0% 31 3.0% 3 0.3% 146 14.3%
Attorney General 24 15.3% 3 1.9% 0 0.0% 27 17.2%
Banking Department 2 4.3% 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 3 6.4%
Building & Fire Safety 4 9.5% 1 2.4% 0 0.0% 5 11.9%
Commerce 2 9.5% 0 0.0% 2 9.5% 4 19.0%
Corporation Commission 25 16.6% 1 0.7% 1 0.7% 27 17.9%
Corrections 1,518 17.6% 275 3.2% 120 1.4% 1,913 22.1%
Economic Security 1,010 10.7% 382 4.0% 34 0.4% 1,426 15.0%
Education 28 13.0% 5 2.3% 2 0.9% 35 16.2%
Environmental Quality 35 7.4% 3 0.6% 0 0.0% 38 8.1%
Game & Fish 49 8.6% 45 7.9% 3 0.5% 97 17.0%
Health Services 226 14.9% 69 4.6% 12 0.8% 307 20.3%
Historical Society 9 19.1% 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 10 21.3%
Industrial Commission 29 12.3% 6 2.5% 0 0.0% 35 14.8%
Insurance Dept 10 11.8% 4 4.7% 0 0.0% 14 16.5%
Juvenile Corrections 148 17.8% 37 4.4% 5 0.6% 190 22.8%
Land Dept 14 8.0% 3 1.7% 0 0.0% 17 9.7%
Lottery Commission 6 7.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 7.9%
Military Affairs 4 14.8% 4 14.8% 1 3.7% 9 33.3%
Pioneers Home 31 24.4% 16 12.6% 0 0.0% 47 37.0%
Racing 1 4.5% 1 4.5% 0 0.0% 2 9.1%
Real Estate 6 16.7% 3 8.3% 0 0.0% 9 25.0%
Registrar of Contractors 10 9.6% 5 4.8% 5 4.8% 20 19.2%
Retirement System 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 20.0%
Revenue 76 9.6% 26 3.3% 0 0.0% 102 12.9%
State Parks 35 12.1% 10 3.4% 0 0.0% 45 15.5%
Transportation 396 10.2% 159 4.1% 15 0.4% 570 14.7%
Veterans Service 45 26.6% 6 3.6% 0 0.0% 51 30.2%
Water Resources 9 6.0% 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 10 6.7%
Total 3,967 13.1% 1,149 3.8% 209 0.7% 5,325 17.6%
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. Data represents separations from state service during the fiscal year
(July 1 – June 30). 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: Voluntary separations are the most common type of separation from state service,
accounting for over 74% of separations of covered employees this past year.
. . . several classes have separation rates well above the average . . . 20
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3-4 – Most Populous Covered Class Titles
2005
Class Title Number
Corrections Officer (I, II, III, IV) 5,644
Program Services Evaluator (I, II, III, IV, V) 2,676
Administrative Assistant (I, II, III) 1,132
Customer Services Representative (I, II, III) 963
Human Services Specialist (I, II, III) 935
Information Technology Specialist (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 877
Child Protective Services Specialist (I, II, III) 860
Secretary and Administrative Secretary (I, II, III) 741
Corrections Sergeant 570
Program and Project Specialist (I, II) 552
Motor Vehicle Division Customer Service Rep 544
Clerk Typist (I, II, III) 480
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. Data represents active employees at fiscal year-end (June 30, 2004).
Comments: The title of Corrections Officer is by far the most populated class series in the state,
followed by Program Services Evaluator, and Administrative Assistant.
Table 3-5 – Covered Classes With The
Highest Separation Rates
2005
Class Title Separation
Rate
Habitation Technician II 46.6%
Youth Correctional Officer I 42.9%
Program Services Evaluator I 42.9%
Nursing Assistant 41.7%
Park Ranger I 41.2%
Mental Health Program Specialist II 39.3%
Motor Vehicle Division Customer Services Associate 38.5%
Highway Maintenance Worker 37.0%
Child Protective Services Specialist II 34.5%
Arizona State Hospital Security Officer I 33.8%
Clerk Typist II 29.8%
CSE Technician II 26.9%
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. Classes considered in this table include those with more than 50 active
employees in the respective class. Data represents separations from state service during the fiscal year (July 1 – June 30).
Comments: Classes associated with the Correctional and Social Services industries continue to
experience the highest separation rates relative to the number of employees in their respective
classes.
. . the separation rate was highest in the Administrative Support occupational 21
group . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3-6 – Separation Rates by Occupational Code
2005
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. Data represents separations from state service during the fiscal year
(July 1 – June 30). Data includes covered and uncovered employees.
Comments: The highest rate of separations were in the Administrative Support, Technicians,
and Protective Service Workers occupational groups. Separation rates were lowest among
employees assigned to Official/Administrator, Professional, and Skilled Craft positions.
10.7%
11.9%
24.5%
22.4%
20.8%
25.7%
11.8%
19.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Officials/Administrators
Professionals
Technicians
Protective Service
Workers
Paraprofessionals
Administrative Support
(Includes Clerical &
Sales)
Skilled Craft Workers
Service-Maintenance
. . . separation rates are highest for employees in the two youngest age 22
groups. . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3-7 – Separation Rates by Age Distribution
2005
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. Data represents separations from state service during the fiscal year
(July 1 – June 30). Data includes covered and uncovered employees.
Comments: The above chart shows the separation rates by age group for all employees. In 2005,
employees less than 20 years of age experienced a separation rate over 70%. The separation rate
gradually decreases as the average age increases until employees reach the age of 55, when the
separation rate begins to climb again.
40.6%
28.5%
22.6%
17.4%
14.6%
11.1% 10.9%
23.4%
25.5%
72.1%
12.5%
0%
25%
50%
75%
up to
19
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+
Age
. . . separation rates are highest for employees with four or less years of 23
experience . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3-8 – Separation Rates by Length of Service
2005
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. Data represents separations from state service during the fiscal year
(July 1 – June 30). Data includes covered and uncovered employees.
Comments: The above chart shows the relative separation rates for the length of service
distributions of all employees. In 2005, employees with 4 years of service or less experienced a
separation rate of nearly 28%. The separation rate was lowest for employees with ten to twenty
years of service.
11.0%
8.1% 7.9%
11.5%
12.4%
15.9%
20.6%
27.7%
17.6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
4 or less 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40 yrs +
Length of Service
. . the percentage of separations as a result of retirement nearly returned to the 24
level experienced in 2003 and is 57% higher than in 1997 . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3-9 – Percentage of Separations Due to Retirement
1997 - 2005
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. 1997 through 1999 data represents separations from state service
during the calendar year (Jan – Dec); 2000 through 2005 data represents separations during the fiscal year (July 1 – June 30). 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. Data includes covered and uncovered employees.
Comments: The total number of employees that retired nearly returned to the highest level
experienced in recent years. There has been an increasing trend in retirements the past two years.
6.9%
5.9%
6.1%
5.6%
5.3%
5.9%
10.9%
9.4%
10.8%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
. . . nearly half of the state agencies are expected to have over 20% of their 25
active workforce eligible to retire in the next four years . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3-10 – Retirement Eligibility
2005 - 2009
Agency Name 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Small Agencies 7.1% 9.2% 10.6% 13.2% 15.6%
Administration 7.1% 10.8% 13.0% 17.0% 21.6%
Agriculture 7.7% 10.7% 13.7% 16.7% 20.4%
AHCCCS 5.0% 7.1% 9.2% 11.7% 15.1%
Attorney General 5.3% 7.0% 10.5% 12.7% 15.8%
Banking Department 17.0% 18.9% 24.5% 32.1% 35.8%
Building & Fire Safety 12.0% 12.0% 16.0% 22.0% 28.0%
Coliseum & Exposition 16.1% 19.6% 23.2% 25.0% 28.6%
Commerce 4.2% 5.2% 8.3% 10.4% 13.5%
Corporation Commission 6.1% 8.3% 10.5% 12.6% 18.8%
Corrections 4.3% 6.2% 7.5% 9.9% 12.4%
Economic Security 6.4% 8.9% 11.3% 14.0% 17.6%
Education 6.0% 7.9% 8.7% 11.0% 14.0%
Environmental Quality 7.2% 9.6% 12.0% 14.8% 18.7%
Game & Fish 6.6% 7.9% 10.4% 11.7% 15.7%
Health Services 5.9% 8.7% 11.0% 14.1% 17.5%
Historical Society 7.1% 8.9% 14.3% 17.9% 28.6%
Industrial Commission 12.0% 15.6% 19.9% 22.8% 26.1%
Insurance Dept 8.5% 10.6% 14.2% 18.4% 22.0%
Juvenile Corrections 4.4% 5.8% 7.2% 8.3% 10.7%
Land Dept 10.3% 14.1% 17.8% 24.9% 30.3%
Lottery Commission 9.2% 12.2% 17.3% 22.4% 26.5%
Medical Examiners Board 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4%
Military Affairs 5.5% 9.0% 10.4% 12.8% 17.3%
Pioneers Home 4.8% 6.4% 9.6% 12.8% 19.2%
Racing 15.8% 15.8% 21.1% 26.3% 42.1%
Real Estate 14.3% 19.6% 21.4% 33.9% 41.1%
Registrar of Contractors 6.5% 10.8% 15.1% 22.3% 27.3%
Retirement System 4.0% 5.1% 7.4% 7.4% 10.9%
Revenue 7.7% 11.0% 15.1% 19.4% 24.4%
State Parks 7.8% 10.3% 13.5% 16.6% 21.3%
Transportation 8.6% 11.5% 14.7% 18.4% 22.6%
Veterans Service 3.7% 5.1% 7.7% 10.7% 14.0%
Water Resources 6.8% 10.0% 13.6% 18.2% 19.1%
Totals 6.2% 8.5% 10.8% 13.6% 17.1%
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution. Projected retirement eligibility is based on years of service and age
criteria for the Arizona State Retirement System and Public Safety Personnel Retirement System. Many state employees continue
to remain employed with the state after they become eligible to retire, therefore actual retirement rates may differ from the numbers
shown above.
Comments: Nearly half of the larger agencies (16) are projected to have at least 20% of their
active employees eligible for retirement in four years, and ten agencies (30%) will have at least
25% of their workforce eligible to retire in 2009. Three agencies are anticipated to have over
35% of their active employees eligible to retire in four years.
. . . the State spent an estimated $50 million as a result of turnover . . . 26
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 3-11 – Estimated Cost of Turnover by Agency
For Covered Employees
2005
Agency Average
Salary
Separation
Rate
Estimated Cost of
Turnover
Small Agencies $32,563 14.2% $341,912
Administration $32,814 21.5% $1,073,018
Agriculture $31,650 26.4% $132,930
AHCCCS $29,529 14.3% $1,293,370
Attorney General $35,448 17.2% $287,129
Banking Department $38,528 6.4% $34,675
Building & Fire Safety $30,460 11.9% $45,690
Commerce $40,074 19.0% $48,089
Corporation Commission $37,341 17.9% $302,462
Corrections $30,534 22.1% $17,523,463
Economic Security $31,047 15.0% $13,281,907
Education $39,972 16.2% $419,706
Environmental Quality $37,485 8.1% $427,329
Game & Fish $34,454 17.0% $1,002,611
Health Services $35,915 20.3% $3,307,772
Historical Society $23,287 21.3% $69,861
Industrial Commission $31,636 14.8% $332,178
Insurance Dept $34,501 16.5% $144,904
Juvenile Corrections $31,900 22.8% $1,818,300
Land Dept $39,719 9.7% $202,567
Lottery Commission $35,060 7.9% $63,108
Military Affairs $30,876 33.3% $83,365
Pioneers Home $23,599 37.0% $332,746
Racing $37,788 9.1% $22,673
Real Estate $30,655 25.0% $82,769
Registrar of Contractors $32,620 19.2% $195,720
Retirement System $31,630 20.0% $18,978
Revenue $31,838 12.9% $974,243
State Parks $29,456 15.5% $397,656
Transportation $31,520 14.7% $5,389,920
Veterans Service Comm $27,423 30.2% $419,572
Water Resources $39,486 6.7% $118,458
Overall Average $31,589 17.6% $50,463,396
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution generated data for 2005, average salary was calculated from prorated
annual salary at fiscal year-end, separations are defined as leaving state service, and estimates for the cost of turnover are based
on 30% of annual salary. Some agencies (e.g. Dept of Corrections) may have a much higher cost of turnover due to extensive
training or certification programs or more intensive hiring and selection processes.
Comments: Estimates of the total cost of losing a single person to turnover range from 30% of
their yearly salary (Cornell University) to 150% as estimated by the Saratoga Institute, and
independently by Hewitt Associates. Costs to the employer may include decreased productivity,
costs of hiring a new employee, increased training time, and other indirect costs. Other turnover
consequences relate to the smoothness and continuity of organizational operations, employee
morale, and the difficulty of replacing the departed employee.
Section Four
Employment Characteristics
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
. . . the average annual wages for covered employees decreased last year . . . 28
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 4-1 – Agency Comparison of Average Salary
per Covered Employee
2001 - 2005
Average Covered Employee Wages
Agency
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Small Agencies $31,029 $31,814 $33,913 $33,376 $32,923
Administration $28,331 $29,617 $30,848 $32,817 $32,814
Agriculture $27,285 $29,275 $29,626 $30,883 $31,650
AHCCCS $26,505 $24,524 $27,600 $29,805 $29,529
Attorney General $31,634 $34,189 $33,950 $36,540 $35,448
Banking Department $32,907 $34,867 $37,012 $39,084 $38,528
Building & Fire Safety $26,580 $26,837 $28,696 $31,102 $30,460
Coliseum & Exposition $36,345 $34,089 $34,015 $30,598 $29,057
Commerce $33,929 $36,159 $39,004 $40,487 $40,074
Corporation Commission $32,862 $34,941 $36,665 $38,011 $37,341
Corrections $30,128 $30,837 $30,478 $31,236 $30,534
Economic Security $26,815 $25,507 $28,934 $31,290 $31,047
Education $31,766 $32,898 $33,615 $38,210 $39,972
Environmental Quality $33,466 $33,386 $34,725 $37,637 $37,485
Game & Fish $34,586 $35,364 $35,860 $35,086 $34,454
Health Services $29,292 $30,930 $31,677 $35,459 $35,915
Historical Society $26,305 $25,330 $25,444 $24,835 $23,287
Industrial Commission $27,028 $29,548 $30,967 $31,660 $31,636
Insurance Dept $29,416 $29,500 $32,121 $34,649 $34,501
Juvenile Corrections $27,620 $29,849 $28,705 $32,535 $31,900
Land Dept $33,723 $34,676 $39,210 $40,675 $39,719
Lottery Commission $30,413 $31,828 $31,788 $34,851 $35,060
Military Affairs $28,249 $29,776 $30,554 $33,041 $30,876
Pioneers Home $21,793 $23,899 $24,202 $25,690 $23,599
Racing $32,862 $34,669 $37,619 $37,465 $37,788
Real Estate $26,685 $26,448 $29,276 $30,731 $30,655
Registrar of Contractors $29,567 $31,100 $32,036 $33,161 $32,620
Retirement System $28,598 $28,456 $28,516 $29,663 $31,630
Revenue $26,581 $27,433 $28,719 $30,852 $31,838
State Parks $26,263 $29,405 $32,063 $29,425 $29,456
Transportation $28,866 $28,973 $29,971 $31,602 $31,520
Veterans Service Comm $19,492 $22,322 $24,774 $27,733 $27,423
Water Resources $32,986 $37,154 $39,447 $40,015 $39,486
Overall Average $28,725 $28,791 $30,174 $31,875 $31,589
Source: The state's Human Resources Management System generated data for 2001 through 2003 data and was compiled from
actual dollars paid from calendar year-end files. The state's Human Resources Information Solution generated data for 2004 and
2005 and was compiled from prorated annual salary from fiscal year-end.
Comments: The statewide average salary for covered employees decreased by 0.9% last year.
However, eight agencies (25%) experienced an increase in the average salary for their covered
employees.
. . . total costs for overtime expenditures increased last year . . . 29
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 4-2 – Total Overtime Costs by Agency
2001 - 2005
Agency 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Small Agencies $65,711 $72,381 $87,133 $92,473 $148,334
Administration $248,041 $285,718 $393,815 $485,999 $528,178
Agriculture $222,665 $190,945 $239,197 $190,735 $221,421
AHCCCS $171,390 $136,330 $59,761 $183,797 $222,911
Attorney General $88,037 $25,917 $29,184 $88,232 $136,598
Banking Department $0 $182 $0 $1,240 $6,801
Building & Fire Safety $0 $0 $118 $0 $0
Coliseum & Exposition $600,613 $506,642 $484,657 $434,484 $322,479
Commerce $5,002 $65 $248 $18 $167
Corporation Commission $209,907 $192,246 $162,306 $187,222 $248,471
Corrections $13,799,385 $8,491,476 $6,174,851 $7,519,398 $5,890,566
Economic Security $7,273,024 $6,813,169 $3,853,731 $5,555,008 $9,958,701
Education $188,938 $104,882 $61,857 $92,478 $51,408
Environmental Quality $131,522 $100,002 $67,921 $56,458 $62,592
Game & Fish $82,790 $76,198 $85,462 $115,893 $155,114
Health Services $1,468,332 $1,392,952 $1,094,577 $956,477 $1,032,539
Historical Society $5,752 $5,617 $652 $0 $0
Industrial Commission $0 $100 $498 $707 $615
Insurance Dept $17,392 $328 $2,889 $6,217 $1,843
Juvenile Corrections $1,081,562 $605,062 $1,226,511 $1,603,737 $2,332,710
Land Dept $394,830 $291,957 $297,099 $352,227 $345,024
Lottery Commission $15,440 $6,799 $22,844 $16,559 $19,375
Medical Examiners Board $4,460 $4,453 $1,614 $9,593 $31,021
Military Affairs $315,922 $267,302 $341,902 $324,961 $407,042
Pioneers Home $27,222 $31,263 $6,104 $4,517 $8,969
Racing $3,498 $4,634 $4,783 $3,372 $4,869
Real Estate $0 $90 $427 $195 $0
Registrar of Contractors $1,254 $2,668 $1,997 $543 $47
Retirement System $16,080 $65,923 $17,378 $3,445 $18,727
Revenue $202,288 $187,638 $159,997 $247,177 $296,882
State Parks $58,007 $43,635 $70,357 $41,926 $18,206
Transportation $6,624,480 $6,107,385 $5,123,179 $4,631,961 $5,837,696
Veterans Service $487,262 $260,164 $164,980 $232,626 $293,208
Water Resources $3,116 $0 $151 $1,765 $0
Overall Total $33,813,922 $26,274,123 $20,238,180 $23,441,441 $28,602,513
Source: The state's financial system (Arizona Financial Information System). Data is based on a fiscal year after all corrections have
been made at the close of the fiscal year. Expenses may be charged to prior “appropriation years” yet in general are illustrated in
the year in which the expense occurred. Data includes all funding sources, but does not include expenditures for compensatory time
earned by employees at the appropriate rate for their overtime hours worked.
Comments: The State’s total overtime expenses increased by 22% from last year, and was 10%
above the four-year average. Twenty-one agencies increased spending on overtime, two
remained the same and ten agencies decreased their overtime expenditures.
. . . five agencies account for nearly 88% of the State’s overtime expenses. . . 30
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 4-3 – Distribution of Overtime Costs by Agency
2005
Source: The state's financial system (Arizona Financial Information System).
Comments: Five agencies accounted for nearly 88% of the State’s total overtime expenses last
year. These same five agencies have also accounted for the majority of overtime over the last
five years.
Economic Security
34.8%
Corrections
20.6%
Transportation
20.4%
Juvenile
Corrections
8.2%
Health Services
3.6%
All Other Agencies
12.4%
. . . the average days used decreased slightly while the average cost for
sick leave increased last year . . .
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
31
Table 4-4 – Average Sick Leave Use and Average Costs
Per Employee by Agency
2001 - 2005
Avg Sick Leave Days Avg Sick Leave Costs
Agency
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Small Agencies 5.6 5.4 5.6 5.1 4.4 $821 $833 $908 $782 $680
Administration 5.8 5.7 6.0 7.0 6.3 $792 $813 $899 $990 $936
Agriculture 4.8 5.2 5.2 5.5 4.9 $569 $641 $660 $680 $641
AHCCCS 7.1 6.6 7.4 7.9 7.0 $846 $820 $979 $1,003 $910
Attorney General 5.9 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 $1,080 $1,072 $1,105 $1,014 $1,011
Banking Department 6.2 6.5 4.3 5.5 5.6 $943 $1,043 $687 $755 $856
Building & Fire Safety 6.8 7.6 10.5 6.9 6.3 $794 $924 $1,329 $867 $890
Coliseum & Exposition 9.9 6.6 6.6 5.8 0.4 $1,420 $953 $1,020 $895 $46
Commerce 3.9 4.4 5.3 6.8 4.7 $628 $757 $985 $1,227 $851
Corporation Commission 5.8 6.3 5.7 6.5 6.9 $904 $1,070 $988 $1,059 $1,157
Corrections 6.5 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.8 $787 $849 $865 $831 $875
Economic Security 7.5 6.7 7.6 7.6 7.0 $831 $779 $927 $923 $865
Education 5.8 5.1 6.6 6.7 5.7 $824 $781 $1,060 $1,057 $954
Environmental Quality 7.7 7.1 7.7 8.7 8.4 $1,112 $1,069 $1,208 $1,307 $1,274
Game & Fish 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.2 3.9 $615 $575 $593 $564 $541
Health Services 6.3 6.3 6.5 6.8 6.8 $850 $881 $946 $963 $986
Historical Society 6.6 5.5 7.0 6.4 5.0 $787 $661 $870 $807 $657
Industrial Commission 6.3 5.8 7.1 7.5 7.1 $739 $730 $938 $979 $919
Insurance Dept 5.3 4.7 5.4 6.3 6.3 $740 $695 $871 $953 $956
Juvenile Corrections 6.2 6.5 6.8 7.5 6.9 $785 $842 $914 $1,009 $949
Land Dept 5.6 6.3 6.2 7.7 6.3 $788 $937 $963 $1,144 $935
Lottery Commission 8.2 5.7 5.7 5.3 6.4 $1,130 $807 $852 $730 $915
Medical Examiners Board 4.5 4.5 3.3 8.6 4.4 $691 $705 $560 $1,439 $795
Military Affairs 6.1 6.1 6.6 6.0 4.7 $726 $768 $888 $774 $639
Pioneers Home 6.9 6.9 7.6 5.9 5.0 $666 $704 $796 $572 $544
Racing 6.6 9.6 6.9 2.2 2.6 $853 $1,363 $1,046 $296 $358
Real Estate 9.3 8.4 10.8 6.3 6.9 $1,175 $1,071 $1,409 $789 $897
Registrar of Contractors 6.8 6.6 6.2 7.3 5.9 $858 $881 $855 $921 $789
Retirement System 5.4 4.4 4.2 6.7 6.6 $860 $724 $762 $1,055 $995
Revenue 7.3 7.0 7.2 8.6 8.3 $890 $890 $975 $1,104 $1,103
State Parks 5.6 6.3 6.3 5.6 5.4 $622 $788 $821 $716 $717
Transportation 6.5 6.3 6.7 7.6 7.2 $780 $776 $864 $974 $935
Veterans Service Comm 4.4 4.4 5.6 6.0 6.4 $487 $502 $660 $710 $799
Water Resources 6.7 5.7 6.7 6.5 7.2 $1,052 $975 $1,228 $1,075 $1,207
Overall Average 6.7 6.5 6.8 7.1 6.9 $814 $821 $907 $914 $921
Source: Data from 2001 through 2003 was derived from the state's Human Resources Management System from actual dollars paid
for sick leave from calendar year end files. The state’s Human Resources Information Solution provided data for 2004 and 2005.
Comments: The average cost of sick leave increased by 0.8% last year. Since 2001, twenty-two
of the larger agencies (67%) have experienced an increase in their average sick leave costs,
averaging over 13% during that time period. If “family sick” is also included with the sick leave
shown above, the average days used increases to 8.0 and the average cost increases to $1,058.
. . . the average age of employees increased to 44.6 years . . . 32
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 4-5 – Age Distribution for All Employees
1998 and 2005
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution.
Comments: The above chart shows the age distribution for all employees. In 2005, the average
age of a state employee was 44.6 years. More employees were in the 45-49 and 50-54 age groups
than any other age group. In 1998, 42% of the workforce was over 50, whereas in 2005 less than
35% of the workforce was over 50 years of age. In 1998, only 18% of the workforce was less
than 35 years of age; however in 2005 nearly 26% was less than 35 years of age.
0.6%
4.9%
9.0%
11.6%
13.4%
14.8%
2.1%
5.7%
12.5%
14.3%
11.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
up to
19
20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+
Age
1998
2005
. . . the average length of service was 8.4 years . . . 33
◄ BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 4-6 – Length of Service Distribution for All Employees
2002 - 2005
Source: The state's Human Resources Information Solution.
Comments: The above chart shows the length of service distribution for all state employees and
the relative changes over the past few years. The average length of service for the state was 8.4
years of service. Over 46% of state employees have been hired within the last 4 years, and over
68% of employees have less than 10 years of service with the state.
13.6%
4.7%
2.6%
0.9%
21.9%
46.2%
0.2% 0.0%
10.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
4 or less 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40 yrs +
Years of State Service
2002
2003
2004
2005