Fiscal Year 2001 State of Georgia Workforce Salary Report Georgia Merit System Marjorie H. Young, Commissioner Georgia Merit System People Partnerships Performance September 30, 1999 Every attempt has been made in this report to provide accurate data and to synthesize data, pertinent research, staff observations and intermittent feedback/discussions to identify issues and to provide input into the State's strategic/budget process. This report contains informed opinion and is the sole responsibility of the Georgia Merit System. TableofContents Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................1 Employees Below Target.....................................................................................................1 Market Adjustment of Salary Structure..................................................................................1 Performance- Based Increases............................................................................................2 Adjustments for Hard to Fill Common Jobs.....................................................................2 Options, Considerations and Base Annual Cost...............................................................3 Part I Introduction..............................................................................................................................S Background of GeorgiaGain Reform.....................................................................................S State Pay System Reforms Still Not Fully Funded.....................................................................S Hidden Costs ofNot Fully Implementing Pay for Performance......................................................6 Chart A - Turnover Rate for Most Highly Populated Jobs..........................................................7 Chart B - Turnover by Length ofTenure................................................................................9 Part II Assessment of Current Pay Structure...............................................................................................10 Chart C - Progression of Employees Within Pay Ranges June 1999.....................................10 Chart D - Progression of Employees Within Pay Ranges After 10/1/99 Increase......................11 Chart E - Impact of Performance Increases to Employees Below Target ...............................11 Chart F - Market Driven v State's Projected Distribution ofEE's Within Pay Ranges ..............12 Effect of Performance Increases in Reducing Numbers Below Target......................................................-12 Chart G - Employees Below Target in Turnover Categories........................................................13 Chart H - Redistribution of Employees in Pay Structure............................................................14 TableofControts Partill Foundations for Formulating Salary Options .................................................................................-15 Structure Adjustment.....................................................................................................15 Chart I - Employees Below State and Market Target Hire Salary................................................15 Performance Increases..............................................................................................................-16 Salary Adjustments to Employees in Hard to Fill Jobs..........................................................................16 Chart J - Turnover in Hard to Fill Common Jobs....................................................................17 Part IV Options................................... - .................................. ................................................... .....18 PartV Cost Analyses....................................................................................- .......................................19 Cost Analysis for Structure Adjustment...............................................................................19 Cost Analysis for Performance Increases.............................................................................20 Cost Analysis for Moving Employees to Target Hire Salary in One Step........................................21 Cost Analysis for Moving Employees in 21 High Populated Jobs to Target....................................-21 Cost Analysis for Moving Employees by a Specified Percentage.................................................22 Cost for Salary Adjustments to Employees in Hard to Fill Jobs...................................................23 APPENDIX Appendix A - History of General Pay Plan and Performance Increase Program.............................................24 Statewide Salary Plan (10/99) .............................26 Appendix B - Cost ofTurnover.....................................................................................................27 Appendix C - Jobs With 20 or More Employees & 10% or More Leaving State Service..................................32 Turnover Computation Methodology.............................................,.................................-33 Cost of Turnover Worksheet .....................33 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report. Executive Summary FY 2001- Workforce Report Major Findings Employees Below Target In October 1996, the state designed a salary plan that was aligned with the labor market rates of jobs in general industry. The state did not fund moving all employees to the market target hiring salary of the new salary plan. This set up a situation of paying 9,000 - 14,000 employees1 and hiring new employees at rates that are often well below labor market rates. The state adjusted the pay plan on October 1, 1997 by 2.5% and moved employees hired from July 1 through September 30 by 2.5%, allowing the market target hiring rate to be raised by 2.5%. Employees below target have not been addressed, as a whole, since that time. Performance increases alone will not get employees to target. 69% of employees will not reach the 1997 target before October 2001, assuming yearly increases of 3% and no turnover. Employees hired from July 1 through September 30 of the year the performance increase is granted do not get an increase. With the state's high turnover and new hires in jobs below target, it becomes virtually impossible to move the workforce closer to target. 93% of employees below target are in pay grades 7 to 14 in such jobs as juvenile correctional officer, houseparent, and caseworker, for example. Employees hired below target leave state service at double the rate of those hired above target. From May 1997 through June 1999, 80% of non-retirement separations were employees hired below target who stayed less than 3 years. Conservatively estimated, employees leaving state service in jobs highly populated with employees below target cost the state $80 million2 per year in lost resources. The state is spending money hiring, recruiting, and training large numbers of employees below target and only retaining a small number for any length of time. This can lead to using large numbers of unskilled, inexperienced employees to do work that could be done more effectively by more senior employees. Market Adjustment of Salary Structure The state's salary structure is drifting seriously out of line with market due to missed salary adjustments and the large number ofjobs with hiring salaries below target. Pay plan minimum and maximum rates were last adjusted in October 1997. Salary plans in private industry are adjusted each year to keep pace with changes in the labor market. In October 2000, with no structure adjustment, 2,800 or more employees, about 5% of the eligible workforce, will have reached the pay ceiling and be denied performance increases. 1 The number of employees below target fluctuates over the course of a year. The maximum is reached in September and decreases October 1 when pay increases take effect. 2 Refer to Appendix C for explanation of cost of turnover calculations. September 1999 Georgia Merit Sysiem FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report Executive Summary (cont'd) An American Compensation Association survey of how 2,800 employers adjusted their pay structures since 1998 indicates that the state's target hiring rate is currently 6% behind the labor market. Because no structure adjustment was authorized for October 1999, by October 2000 state hiring salaries will trail the market by approximately 9%.3 Performance-based Increases The low salary of state jobs compared to the general labor market undermines the pay for performance program. Often the main effect of the "far exceeds" rating is to make an employee more conscious of the discrepancy between his or her salary and what could be earned working outside state government. For example, the entry wage for a Houseparent working for the state is $7.10 an hour and the average minimum pay for the same job outside Georgia state government is $9.44. After working for the state for an average of a year, if the Houseparent receives a performance rating of "meets expectations", his or her hourly rate increases by just 21 cents to $7.31. This is $2.13 an hour less than a Houseparent hired at the entry rate for the same job outside Georgia state government. If the Houseparent had earned the highest rating of "far exceeds" expectations, his or her salary hourly rate be $7.52, or $1.92 per hour less than the $9.44 entry rate for the comparable job in the labor market. The amounts awarded as performance increases have to be viewed as "worth the effort" to motivate employees to higher performance levels. Research shows that the award amount for the highest rating level should be double the amount for the lowest rating level, e.g., if the lowest is 4% the highest should be 8%, and there should be at least a 3% difference between award amounts4, e.g., 4%, 7%, 10%. The American Compensation Association projects average pay increases for 2000 at 4.1 - 4.2 percent for salaried employees.5 Hewitt Associates makes the same projection.6 Adjustments For Hard to Fill Common Jobs Agencies report difficulty hiring and retaining employees in financial services, information technology, and health services jobs. Competitors are hiring at the pay range midpoint to attract this highly skilled employee group. The 1999 Market Composite Summary, a labor market analysis of 430 jobs with over 47,000 employees covered conducted by the Merit System, indicates the state financial services, information technology, and health service common job average salaries are up to 37% below average market salaries. Of the 345 employees that left state employment in financial services, information technology, and health services common jobs from May 1997 to June 1999, only 10% were age 50 or older with 10 or more years of service. Thus, most turnover in these jobs is not due to retirement. 3 ACA 1999-2000 Total Salary Increase Budget Survey, American Compensation Association, Scottsdale, AZ. 4 Wm. M. Mercer Management Consultants, 1992. HR Magazine, "Big Returns for Award Bucks", June, I994. 5 ACA 1999-2000 Total Salary Increase Budget Survey, American Compensation Association, Scottsdale, AZ 6 "Moderate U.S. Salary Increases in the Year 2000 Offset by Significant Increases in Variable Pay"@ URL: http//www.hewittassoc.com, press release 9/06/99. September 1999 2 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report Options, Considerations, and Base Annual Cost All options provide the return on investment in the following categories to varying degrees: Service delivery enhanced Pay equity enhanced More head room for salary Motivational value of performance Morale improved ceiling increase enhanced State service a more attractive and Vacancy reduction Retention increased competitive option Training or potential legal costs reduced Options Cost Considerations A. Optimal Option 9% Structure Adjustment Performance Increase of3-6-9% Raise all employees to adjusted structure target7 (includes 7/1 - 9/30 new hires) Raise salaries for Hard to Fill Common Jobs to new structure midpoint $169.13 M annual base salary Hiring and maximum salaries offered by state would match labor market rates. Return on investment is maximized. Employees are paid within pay ranges. Eliminates all of the alphabetic grades that are being used publicly to designate employees below target Agencies would be aided in filling mission critical hard to fill jobs and would be more orone to use common jobs. B. 6% Structure Adjustment Performance Increase of 4-6-8% Raise all employees to adjusted structure target (includes 7/1-9/30 new $158.36 M annual base salary Hiring and maximum salaries offered by state would trail labor market rates by only 3%, instead of a projected 9%. Eliminates all of the alphabetic grades that are being used publicly to designate employees hires) Raise salaries for Hard to Fill Common Jobs to 10% above new below target Agencies would be aided in filling mission critical hard to fill jobs and would be more target prone to use common jobs. C. 6% Structure Adjustment Performance Increase of 4-6-8% Raise employees up to 10% but not more than up to adjusted target $138.42 M annual base salary Hiring and maximum salaries offered by state would trail labor market rates by only 3% instead of a projected 9%. Raises hiring rates of all jobs that are below target by 10% but not beyond target-thus (includes 7/1-9/ 30 new hires) beginning the road back to pay equity within Raise salaries for Hard to Fill Common Jobs to 10% above new target the current pay plan. Removes some of the alphabetic grades that are being used publicly to designate employees below target. Agencies would be aided in filling mission critical hard to fill jobs and would be more prone to use common jobs. D. 3% Structure Adjustment Performance Increase of 4-6-8% Raise employees up to 10% but not more than up to adjusted structure $126.22 M annual base salary Hiring and maximum salaries offered by state would trail labor market rates by 6%, instead of a projected 9%. Raises hiring rates of all jobs that are below target by 10% but not beyond target-thus target (includes 7/1 -9/30 new hires) beginning the road back to pay equity within Raise salaries for Hard to Fill Common Jobs to 10% above new the current pay plan. Removes some of the alphabetic grades that are target used to designate employees below target. Agencies would be aided in filling mission critical hard to fill jobs and would be more prone to use common jobs. 7 Adjusted Structure Target is the new target rate after the structure has been moved upward. September 1999 3 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report E. 0% Structure Adjustment Performance Increase of 4-6-8% Raise all employees to target (includes 7/1- 9/30 new hires) Raise salaries for Hard to Fill Common Jobs to 10% above new target $123.55 M annual base salary F. 3% Structure Adjustment Performance Increase of4-6-8% Raise employees up to 5% but not more than up to adjusted structure target (includes 7/1- 9/30 new hires) Raise salaries for Hard to Fill Common Jobs to 10% above new target $120.21 M annual base salary G. 0% Structure Adjustment Performance Increase of 4-6-8% Raise employees in 21 high population jobs to target (includes 7/1-9/30 new hires) Raise salaries for Hard to Fill Common Jobs to 10% above new target H. 0% Structure Adjustment Performance Increase of 4-6-8% Raise 7/1-9/30 new hires by 4% so that all jobs can be raised closer to target Raise salaries for Hard to Fill Common Jobs to 10% above new target $108.80 M annual base salary $105.29 M annual base salary I. Minimum Cost Optiou 0% Structure Adjustment 0% Performance Increase Raise all employees to target Raise salaries for Hurd to fill Common Jobs to 10% above new target $31.49 M annual base salary Hiring and maximum salaries offered by state would trail labor market rates by projected 9%. Eliminates all of the alphabetic grades that are being used publicly to designate employees below target Agencies would be aided in filling mission critical hard to fill jobs and would be more prone to use common jobs. Hiring and maximum salaries offered by state would trail labor market rates by 6%, as opposed to projected 9%. Raises hiring rates of all jobs that are below target by 5% but not beyond target-thus beginning the road back to pay equity within the current pay plan. Removes some of the alphabetic grades that are being used publicly to designate employees below target. Agencies would be aided in filling mission critical hard to fill jobs and would be more Prone to use common iobs. Hiring and maximum salaries offered by state would trail labor market rates by projected 9%. Pay equity is improved for high population jobs covering 4,413 employees, but leaves 6,441 being paid under target. Agencies would be aided in filling mission critical hard to fill jobs and would be more prone to use common jobs. Hiring and maximum salaries offered by state would trail labor market rates by projected 9%. Would allow state to raise hiring rates of all jobs that are below target by 4% but not beyond target-thus beginning the road back to pay equity within the current pay plan. State will never be rid of the problems caused by paying below target without this action. Eliminates the lowest of the alphabetic grades that are being used publicly to designate employees below target. Agencies would be aided in filling mission critical hard to fill jobs and would be more prone to use common iobs. Hiring and maximum salaries offered by state would trail labor market rates by projected 9%. Eliminates all of the alphabetic grades that are being used publicly to designate employees below target Agencies would be aided in filling mission critical hard to fill jobs and would be more Prone to use common iobs. September 1999 4 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report Part I Introduction Background of GeorgiaGain Reform In 1991 the Governor's Commission on Effectiveness and Economy in Government recommended that the State of Georgia move to pay for performance for the state workforce. The project to develop and implement this recommendation was called GeorgiaGain. In 1996 the Governor and legislature, acting on the recommendations of the Quality Service Georgia/GeorgiaGain Task Force of ten state agency department heads, made two sweeping changes to the state's compensation system. The state designed a market sensitive pay structure and the state implemented a system of salary increases that was based on performance. Each of the changes was designed to resolve long-standing complaints by state agencies. Until the inception of the GeorgiaGain project, the state had not systematically determined the relationship of pay rates for its jobs to pay for equivalent jobs in the labor markets where the state competed for hiring employees. (For a brief history of the state's compensation system, see Appendix A.) As a result, managers complained of excessive turnover as capable employees left state government for more lucrative positions in the private sector. Managers also complained of their inability to recruit and hire high-performing employees at the starting salaries on the old pay plan. The GeorgiaGain project extensively documented the validity of these complaints: salaries for many key jobs in state government were not competitive with salaries of the state's public or private sector counterparts. The second change brought about in 1996 was variable salary increases based on performance. Prior to 1996, employees who performed adequately or above in their jobs all received the same standard increases each year. Managers complained that they did not have the flexibility to withhold increases from mediocre performers or to give larger increases for high achievers. The Task Force recognized that a market sensitive salary plan is needed for a successful pay for performance program. If hiring salaries are not close to the range offered by competing employers, the state cannot hope to attract high performing employees. Industry experience has shown that pay for performance is only effective when employees' base salaries are competitive with market rates, otherwise managers, in desperation, seek ways to "game" the system to raise base pay in order to meet critical staffing needs.8 State Pay System Reforms Still Not Fully Funded in 1999 A major goal of the pay for performance project has not been realized. State salaries, on average, are not comparable with salaries in the labor market. Agencies are now more than ever at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting and retaining high-performing employees. Unfortunately, when pay for performance was put in place, it hit a major funding stumbling block. After four years, the major tenets are still not fully funded. As each year goes by without full funding, the state moves farther from being able to achieve its original objectives and the cost of full funding increases. 8 Mercer, 1992. September 1999 5 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report In the course of the Georg;,aGain project, the majority of state jobs were assigned to pay grades that reflected the hiring rates for jobs in the labor markets where the state competes for employees. However, at the conclusion of the project, the analysis of employee data revealed a disturbing fact: Incumbents in many jobs were working at salaries lower than the new hiring rates. Moreover, since funding was not made available to raise salaries to the new rates, using the new market-based hiring rates would have meant bringing in new employees at salaries higher than salaries of incumbents. Because of equity, legal and workforce morale considerations, the state was unwilling to take this step. Instead, state policy designated the salary of the lowest paid incumbent in a job as the hiring salary, called the "job minimum." The competitive hiring salary for a pay grade as determined by market analysis, was designated as the ''target hire" salary, or "target." "Target" is the salary at which state government is aiming in order to attract and retain competent workers in a competitive job market. "Target" for Georgia was set roughly 10% below private sector benchmarks for competitive hiring. Yet, it is the lowest baseline hiring salary that reasonably should be used and it is the hiring salary that would be used if funding were made available to adjust incumbent salaries to these baseline levels. Since funding for incumbents has not been available in 1996-1999, the "job minimums" have turned into a system of special pay grades, kept in effect by massive state turnover that continually perpetuates the 1996 conditions. (Appendix A shows the October 1999 Statewide Salary Plan with hiring rates below target). In addition, even though variable pay increases based on performance have been in existence since 1996, budgets appropriated for state employee pay increases have resulted in very small monetary differentials between performance levels. In some instances, funding uncertainties appear to have fueled management practices that have artificially lowered the number of "exceeds" and "far exceeds" performance ratings awarded. These and other actions driven by funding issues have the effect of undermining the effectiveness of pay for performance, and, as will be discussed in more detail later, may actually have a de-motivating effect on employee performance. Data and analyses on workforce and pay structure issu~s follow in the four sections entitled: Hidden Costs of Not Fully Funding Pay for Performance Where Employees Are on Current Pay Structure Effect of Performance Increases Structure Adjustment Further discussion of pay differentials between performance levels is found in Part ill of this report, "Foundations for Formulating Salary Options." Hidden Costs of Not Fully Implementing Pay for Performance It is a relatively straightforward process to calculate the direct costs of fully implementing the pay for ~rformance rcconunendations. Unfortunately the costs of not fully implementing a competitive wage structure and an effective process of variable pay increases linked to performance are more difficult to identify and calculate, even though these costs are greater than the direct costs. The costs of fully funding the original GeorgiaGain initiative include the costs of: adjusting employee salaries to appropriate market based hire rates adjusting the current pay structure to reflect changes in the market that have taken place over the past four years providing sufficient differentials for superior performance incentives September 1999 6 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report The costs of not funding the initiative are the costs of: not being able to attract top talent to the state workforce lost productivity and failure to provide adequate service to taxpayers and constituents wasted resources siphoned off by turnover in the state workforce. Turnover - One of the most damaging and excessive costs of having large numbers of employees at salaries below the market-hiring rate is increased turnover. A conservative estimate of the annual cost of turnover for Georgia state government is $253 million.9 For the 21 most popuious jobs in state government, turnover costs $80.7 million per year. These jobs cover a combined total of 18,564 employees. 5,787 or 31% of which are below the target hire rate. As shown in Chart A, the percentage of employees in each job earning salaries below target varies from 7.63% to 69.27% of the total employees in each job. For example, of the 1,139 employees classified as Juvenile Correction Officer 1, over half, (789 or 69%) are paid below target. At 39%, turnover for this job is the highest among the 21 jobs. Leading industry sources consider a turnover rate of 10% or more to be of great significance in the absence of other factors. Chart A Turnover* Rate for Most Highly Populated Jobs GMSJC Job Title 17251 70201 70917 70833 70924 71109 50301 14412 70923 60101 60107 71122 60112 70834 60108 60102 10006 40806 14454 17234 17502 .JUVENJLE CORR OrF I HOUSEPARENT SOCIAL SVS PROVIDER I HEALTH SVCS TECH (1/S) SOCIAL SVS TECH LPN (INPATIENT SVCS) FOOD SERVICE EMPLOYEE FAMILY INDEP CM 1-DFCS SOCIAL SVS TECH SR SECRETARY 1 CLERK 1, GENERAL PH NURSE PROGRAM ASSISTANT (DHR) HLTH SVCS TCH LD 1/S CLERK 2, GENERAL SECRETARY2 INSTRUCTOR ACCOUNT ANT, PARAPROF FAMILY INDEP CM 2-DFCS SERGEANT (GOC) PROBATION OFFICER 112 Pay Grade 11 7 12 7 8 9 6 11 9 8 8 14 9 8 9 9 8 II 12 13 13 6/1/99 # in Job #Below %Below Avg of Median Job Min Target Turnover Target Target Base Sal Salary Minimum Salary Rate 1,139 998 740 1.612 618 502 413 1,437 755 892 822 620 1,970 380 887 1,291 629 911 654 567 727 789 69.27% 410 41.08% 156 21.08% 642 39.83% 155 25.08% 66 13.15% 67 16.22% 578 40.22% 75 9.93% 315 35.31% 380 46.23% 62 10.00% 590 29.95% 29 7.63% 219 24.69% 189 14.64% 125 19.87% 226 24.81% 198 30.28% 290 51.15% 206 28.34% 20,625 16,212 27.403 17,115 18.652 23.713 16,776 25,431 21,573 18,829 17.694 34.402 21.404 21,748 21,192 22,223 19,719 25.366 27,760 27.400 30,813 19.530 15.570 26.010 16.773 17.904 23.028 16.578 23.256 20.694 17.652 16,812 34,356 20,694 22.476 20,442 21.612 18,792 24,414 26,262 26,514 30,402 18.522 14.778 19.530 13.758 14,088 16,980 13,758 21.000 16,734 15,138 14,088 26,778 15.954 15.954 15,138 15,954 14,418 18.162 22.044 24.054 22,800 22,044 15,498 24.174 15,498 16.812 18.162 14.286 22.044 18,162 16,812 16,812 29,382 18.162 16.812 18.162 18,162 16,812 22.044 24,174 26,646 26,646 39.24% 30.06% 28.38% 25.68% 24.60% 23.90% 23.49% 22.20% 21.19% 21.08% 20.92% 16.94% 16.90% 15.53% 14.43% 14.02% 13.67% 11.53% 11.31% 9.35% 7.84% Totals 18,564 5,767 Turnover is defined as employees leaving state service June I. 1998 through June I. 1999 and is calculated using the number of filled positions in a job divided by the number of employees leaving that job. 18,564 represents approx 27% of ee's on the SWD plan. 9 Appendix C provides information regarding calculation of turnover costs. September 1999 7 Georgia Merit System FY 200I Workforce Salary Report Hiring Disadvantage - Another hidden cost of having hiring salaries that are not aligned with market is a competitive disadvantage in hiring high-performing employees. Research in both the public and private sectors indicates that productivity rates of the top I 0-15% of high-pe,forminfo employees in moderately complex jobs are, on average, I times that of average workers. 0 Productivity rates for high performers in highly complex jobs, such as programmers, are as much as 15 times that of average workers and high performer rates for low complexity jobs exceed those of the average performers by an average of 20%. 11 Benchmarks from the private sector indicate that high performing companies recognize that an organization's human capital is the key component of success.12 In state government, the goal of every state agency is to provide services valued by the taxpayers, with due regard to economy, efficiency and customer service. It is well documented that the only way to produce such desired, effective outcomes is to reliably select superior performers and to continually re-skill, motivate and reward them to sustain performance at their highest levels of competence. That the state does have many high performing workers is a blessing, but managers report that their numbers are dropping and there are severe difficulties in finding replacements and in adding to the numbers of high performers in the workforce. The state's difficulties are exacerbated by the fact that the labor market is now much tighter and more competitive than in 1996. According to the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA), during the first quarter of 1999, 208 national employers reported hiring rates across the board that were higher than levels recorded throughout most of the 1990s.13 The unemployment rate in Georgia for persons over the age of 16 was reported to average 4.6% in 1996, 4.5% in 1997, and 4.2% in 1998. In the Metro Atlanta area, covering 40 percent of the state's workforce, the unemployment rate for this age group was 3.8% in 1996, 3.7% in 1997, and 3.3% in 1998.14 The tight labor market is making the competition for workers in high-demand technical areas such as information technology, accounting, nursing, and engineering more intense than ever, and the state has traditionally lagged behind the private sector in attracting top talent in these critical occupations. The state's ability to recruit and remain competitive in these areas is pivotal to modernizing and streamlining state government. To attract and retain high performing workers in a tight labor market requires superior incentives. The present state pay and benefit structure does not provide competitive incentives, much less superior ones. 15 Pay for Performance Undermined --The low salaries of employees in some state jobs compared to the general labor market undermines the pay for performance program. The performance management program is designed to recognize and motivate high-performing employees. As noted above, the productivity of high performers exceeds the productivity of average performers at least 20% and as much as 1500% depending on the complexity of the job. Unfortunately, in a tight labor market, when a high-performer's base salary is below what the market is paying and the differential between the performance levels is small, the pay for performance program may cause top performers to leave the organization. As an example, consider one ofthe 410 Houseparents with a salary below target. (Houseparents monitor residents in a 24-hour/7-day inpatient facility and may supervise other residential staff). Between July 1, 1998 and June 1, 1999 approximately 300 Houseparents left state service and were 10 Hunter, Schmidt, and Judiesch, Journal ofApplied Psychology, 1990, vol. 75, pp. 28-42; Spencer, 1986; Brooks, 1999. 11 Hunter, et al, 1990; Spencer, 1986. 12 Grubman, Ed, ACA News, "Finding the Talent Solution", November/December 1998. 13 BNA's Employment Outlook-First Quarter 1999 Bulletin to Management, (Washington, D.C.), December JO, 1998. 14 Tammy Joyner, "The Boom's Benefits Run Deep" Journal-Constitution (Atlanta, GA), 13 Jun, 1999 pp. 1-4. 15 Hewitt, 1993; Bensley, Kathy, ACA News, "Avoiding Mutiny Means Having Your Act Together" November/December 1998. September 1999 8 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report replaced at a hiring rate of $14,778 or $7.10 per hour. The state's hiring rate for Houseparent is considerably less than the average starting rate of $19,636 ($9.44 per hour) paid in the general labor market for the same work. After working for the state for an a year, if the Houseparent receives a performance rating of "meets expectations", his or her hourly rate increases by just 21 cents to become $7. 31. This is $2.13 an hour less than a Houseparent hired at the entry rate for the same work outside Georgia state government. If the Houseparent had earned a rating of "far exceeds" expectations, then the increase becomes 42 cents per hour. The superior performing Houseparent earns only $7.52 per hour after the increase, which is $1.92 per hour less than the beginning rate for a Houseparent job in the general labor market. Thus, the main effect ofthe "far exceeds" rating may be to make the employee more conscious ofthe discrepancy between his or her salary and the salary that could be earned by seeking employment outside state government. Workforce Stability Threatened --If an organization cannot retain newly hired employees in its key jobs, an experience gap is inevitable. As more experienced or senior employees retire, obtain promotions or leave the organization there are fewer employees with comparable job proficiency or experience moving up the ladder to replace them. As the organization hires more and more new hires to replace the senior employees, the distribution of employees in the job bunches up at the extreme of low tenure. When this bunching occurs, an organization is uselessly spending money hiring, recruiting, and training large numbers ofemployees to retain a proportionally small number on the job. The organization is also utilizing large numbers ofunskilled, inexperienced employees to do work that could be done more effectively by more senior employees. Managers in many organizations have confirmed that an employee typically needs to stay with an organization a minimum of three years in order for the organization to recover a baseline productivity return on the investment in recruiting, training and, generally, getting the employee "up to speed" in the work environment. However, the state's turnover rates for employees with less than 3 years' tenure indicates severe problems in building an experienced cadre for most jobs. Of a representative group of 14,605 employees during the period between May 1997 to June 1999, 56% or 8,179 non-retirement separations were employees with less than 3 years of tenure. Of these 8,179 separations approximately 6,540 or 80% were employees hired below target (see Chart B). ChartB TURNOVER BY LENGTH OF TENURE MAY 97 TO JUN 99 (14,605 EMPLOYEES) MORE THAN 3 YRS TENURE 43% September 1999 BELOW TARGET 80% ABOVE TARGET 20'%, IJMORE THAN 3 YRS TENURE BELOW TARGET ABOVE TARGET 9 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report Part II Assessment of Current Pay Structure The median annual salary (i.e., the amount at which half the employees are paid above and half are paid below) for employees on the statewide pay plan is $25,134 and the annual average salary is $28,285. The FY2000 workforce salary report noted the majority of state employees were clustered at or below the target market-hiring rate of the pay range. As of June 1999 salaries for 15,869 individuals or 23% of state employees on the statewide plan, remain below the target minimum for their assigned pay grade. Additionally 34,733 or 56% of all state employees on the statewide plan are paid at or below the lower quartile of the pay range. Chart C shows the current distribution of the state employees among all pay grades. ChartC PROGRESSION OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN PAY RANGES June 1999 20000 15000 10000 5000 5000 10000 15000 20000 IINumbsrofEmployees Below Range 15869 Target to 25% 18864, 25%. to SO% 14388 50%to75% 10632 75%toTopof Range 6423 Ator.Above Maximum 1849 After the performance-based increases of October 1999 (assuming that employees receive proportionately the same ratings and increases as were given in 1998), the number of employees on the statewide pay plan below target will be reduced from 15,869 to 10,854 or 16% of employees on the statewide plan. Similarly, the number of employees remaining below the lower quartile of the pay range will be reduced from 34,733 to 31,573 or 45% of employees on the statewide pay plan. Although it appears that some progress has been made in decreasing the number of employees on the statewide plan who are below the target hiring rate, a comparison over a year reveals otherwise. September 1999 10 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salaoi Report After the October 1998 performance increases 9,771 employees were still below target. It is projected that after the October 1999 performance increases 10,854 employees will still be below target, an increase of 1,083 employees. Chart D shows the relatively minor progression of the workforce within the pay range after performance increases are awarded. ChartD PROGRESSION OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN PAV RANGES 10t'1199 PAO..ECTED 25tXJI) 20000 15000 10000 5000 5000 10000 15000 Below Rangs 10854 Targ,l to 25% 20719 25% ta 50% 15774 50%to 75"% 11711 75% lo Top of Range 1848 Al or AboV9 Max/mm 2800 Chart E shows little progress toward achieving a more balanced pay structure since the GeorgiaGain implementation in 1996. The chart indicates that the number of employees below target fluctuates between 9,000 and 14,000 within any given year. Each year, when the annual performance increases and legislated pay adjustments go into effect the number drops. As the year progresses, however, the number of employees below target increases to near the previous year's figure. The maximum is reached just before pay increases go into effect on October 1 and the minimum is reached on the date the pay increases go into effect. This cycle is repeated in each performance increase cycle. The net effect is that the changes cancel out and the number of employees below target on any given date does not change significantly from year to year. ChartE 18000 Change lo Number of Employees Below Target Resu!llng lrom Porlormance Increases 14000 12000 ~Change lo Number of Employeos Below Tar et Resullln lrom Merl! Increases September 1999 11 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report Chart F contrasts the salary distribution based on the state's current salary administration practices versus the expected distribution that would result from market-driven salary increases. The light colored cylinders represent the projected distribution of state employees' salaries with the pay ranges after the October 1999 performance increases. The dark cylinders represent the expected distribution when salaries are paid market rates. Clearly the large percent of employees below target (the upside down cylinder) continues to keep median salaries below market rates. Chart F MARKET DRIVEN VERSUS STATE'S ~0/1199 PROJECTED DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN PAV RANGES r ,oo/Ormurion ,wo ArorAbon /dall'/fflr'1n Effect of Performance Increases on Reducing Numbers Below Target Performance increases alone will not reduce the number of employees below target. One of the principal reasons that state hiring salaries have not progressed toward target is because employees who are hired between July 1 and September 30 do not receive the performance increase. Historically, the state has hired about 6,000 employees each year, with about a third of those employees being hired in the first quarter of the fiscal year. Thus, about 2,000 employees are added to the ranks of those below target with no statewide planned mechanism to adjust their salaries until the next October 1 performance increase. Therefore, performance increases alone cannot remedy the problems created by employees being hired and paid below target. For performance increases alone to eliminate or significantly reduce employees below target the following conditions must hold: 1. The salaries of the lowest paid below target employees must move significantly closer to target each year, including those hired between July and September 30. 2. The yearly increase in the number of employees at or over target resulting from promotions and performance increases must exceed increases to the number of employees below target resulting from turnover and new hiring. September 1999 12 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Satan Report At present these conditions fail to hold for the following reasons: 1. The number of employees below target increases over the course of the year. It is not good business practice to hire new, lesser skilled employees above the pay rates of current high performing employees who are the same classification level. If a job class has incumbents below target, the salary of the lowest paid incumbent in a job typically determines hiring salary. In this circumstance, any hiring increases the number of employees below target. In a year's time 55% of state employees hired on the statewide plan are hired below target. Because employees hired from July through September 30 are not eligible for a performance increase, any hiring in this period can prevent the yearly performance increases from moving hiring salaries closer to target. Although agencies generally try to schedule hiring and make adjustments to insure that hiring salaries below target make some progress, the effect is only a small boost. The effect of the 1998 performance increases was to raise the below target hiring salaries of jobs with 100 or more incumbents by an average of 2.9%, which is less than the 4% merit increase received by most employees. The hiring salary of 6% of the below target jobs actually decreased between October 1997 and October 1998. 2. High turnover among employees in the lowest salary ranges. For yearly performance increases to move employees below the target hire salary into their appropriate salary range, employees must remain on the payroll long enough for the accumulated increases to fall into the target range. Unfortunately, as Chart G depicts, turnover is directly related to below target pay, with average turnover for below target employ~s averaging more than twice the turnover for employees at or above target. When employees leave, new employees at the minimum salary replace them, and the gains from performance increases are wiped out. As noted in 1 above, employees hired between October and July are not eligible for performance increases. Consequently, the high turnover rate insures that in high population jobs some employees will always be hired at the minimum rate in the July-October period, effectively preventing the hiring salaries from moving closer to target. ChartG Employees Below Target in Turnover Categories 45% 40% 3.5% 30"h, 20;. or Higher September 1999 10~... to 15 "., Turnover Rate Less than 5~-;, 13 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report 3. Distance from target and turnover. The longer an employee remains below target, the higher the probability the employee will leave state service. Of the employees currently below target, 69% would have to wait until October of the year 2001 or later to reach target through performance increases alone, assuming yearly performance increases of 3% and no pay structure adjustments. Forty-six percent of employees would have to wait until October of the year 2002 or later to reach target by performance increases alone. This waiting time increases the likelihood that these employees will leave. When the employees leave, employees at the minimum hiring salary replace them and the downward cycle begins anew. Because the minimum hiring salary for a job is set by the lowest-paid employee, if employees in the range above target leave during the course of a year, employees at the minimum salary will frequently replace them. As Chart H illustrates, the net result of hiring, transfers, and other turnover is an increase in the number of employees below target and a slight decrease in the number of employees in the above target range. ChartH REDISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES IN PAY STRUCTURE JUNE 1, 98 TO JUNE 1, 99 800 New Employees Are Hired In 600 400 200 -200 -400 -600 -800 ase,1es1 75"'/4 to Tq, of Range -248 Top of Range and Abovo -124 September 1999 14 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salarv Report Part ill Foundations for Formulating Salary Options Structure Adjustment Each year, as wages reflect cost-of-living increases, businesses, governments and other organizations with market-based pay plans increase hiring salaries and grade maximums of their pay structure. This is done to maintain their competitiveness and to allow senior employees to continue to receive cost of living or performance increases. Over the past two years structure adjustments in the U.S. have averaged 2.5% to 2.9%, depending on the industries considered. 16 Preliminary projections for 2000 estimate a 3.1 % structure increase.17 The state's salary structure is drifting seriously out of line with market as a result of the combined effects of missed salary adjustments and the large number of jobs with hiring salaries below "target." The last structure adjustment to the State's pay plan was in 1997-thus, the state has "missed" two adjustments. Target hiring salaries lag by nearly 6% in the labor markets where the state competes for employees. Since no structure adjustment was authorized for 1999, by October 2000 state target salaries will trail the market by approximately 9%. To show this effect, the number of employees below market hiring salaries for their jobs is compared to the number below the state's target hire salary. The number of employees below target on October 1 has held steady between 11,000 and 9,000 from 1997 on. However,, the number of employees below target compared to labor market hire rates jumps with each missed structure adjustment. As shown in Chart I, 11,000 employees are projected to be below the state's "target" salary after the October 1999 performance increases. More than 20,000 are projected to be below the true market hire rate. By October 2000 this number will likely increase to over 27,000. Chart I Employees Below State and Market Target Hire Salary -+-Number of Employees Below State Target Hire -er-Number of Employees Below Markel Target Hire 16 ACA 1999-2000 Total Salary fucrease Budget Survey. American Compensation Association. Scottsdale. AZ. 17 ACA 1999-2000 Total Salary fucrease Budget Survey. American Compensation Association. Scottsdale. AZ. September 1999 15 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report Another serious problem resulting from missing structure adjustments is that senior employees begin to reach the maximum of their pay range and are no longer eligible for performance or other scheduled salary increases. Projections indicate 1,500 senior employees will receive no performance increases in October 1999 because their salaries are at the maximum of their range. In October 2000, with no structure adjustment 2,800 or more employees, approximately 5% of the eligible workforce, will be denied performance increases because they will have reached their maximum pay rate. These projections do not include employees who will lose part of an increase because they will top out at the maximum before receiving the full increase. Performance Increases Estimates from the American Compensation Association's (ACA) 1999 - 2000 Total Salary Increase Budget Survey projects year 2000 salary increases to be 4.1 % for non-exempt salaried employees and 4.2% for exempt salaried employees.18 Hewitt Associates in their 1999 Salary Increase Survey makes the same projection. 19 A survey by Buck Consultants, Inc., consisting of 406 companies, reveals that for three consecutive years, salary increases have remained steady at an average of4.1 %.20 The primary objective of the state's compensation plans is to attract, retain and reward high-quality employees and enhance organizational performance while maximizing taxpayer value. In order to accomplish this task, the state utilizes a pay-for-performance system that was designed to compensate employees only when positive results are achieved. Currently, under the statewide salary plan (SWD), a "meets" expectations rating will result in a 3% increase to base pay; an "exceeds" rating results in a 4.5% increase to base pay; and a "far exceeds" rating results in a 6% increase to base pay. Recently, HR Magazine noted that research shows that salary increases must be between 3% and 5% to motivate employees.21 A higher differential between ratings results in a larger effect on performance. If we apply this concept to the average employee who meets expectations of the standard requirements of the job, then salary increases for top performing employees should be set somewhat higher. Therefore, an increase for top performing employees should range between 5% and 8% with a spread of at least 3.0% between ratings for a greater incentive for employees to exceed job expectations. Salary Adiustments to Employees in Hard to Fill Jobs Statistics show that state agencies are having difficulty hiring and retaining jobs in finance, information technology and the health care fields. The state must look to aligning its compensation strategy with the existing job market or it will experience even more serious critical skills gaps. Market data was obtained for 430 state jobs held by 47,000 employees in 1999. Identified in this survey was a list of bard to fill jobs in finance, information technology, and health care that the state is paying substantially below market rates. This data was compared to turnover and vacancy percentage data. The chart below shows leading high-skill common jobs where the percentage of 18 ACA 1999-2000 Total Salary Increase Budget Survey, American Compensation Association, Scottsdale, AZ. 19 "Moderate U.S. Salary Increases in the Year 2000 Offset by Significant Increases in Variable Pay"@ URL: http//www.hewittassoc.com, press release 9/06/99. 20 "Buck Survey: Pay Raises to Remain Flat in 1999" @ URL: http//ww~.acaonline.org, newsline posted I 1/27/98. 21 "Big Returns for Awards Bucks" by Bill Leonard, HR Magazine, June 1994, pp. 59-60. September 1999 16 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report vacant positions varies from 6% to 31% and the turnover rate varies from 7% to 35%. These percentages imply that the State of Georgia has difficulty hiring and retaining employees in these hard to fill common jobs. Additional data in the chart identifies the percentage of employees in each job currently paid below target and compares average state salaries to average market pay. A direct relationship seems to exist among these variables. It is envisioned that adjusting current employee salaries and the hiring rate of future employees to 10% above target will decrease the administrative and training costs associated with turnover. It will also enable the State to be more competitive in hiring and retaining employees who possess the education and skills necessary in efficiently carrying out the state's business objectives. ChartJ Turnover in Hard to Fill Common Jobs Oxle 80005 00301 00401 00007 40405 412)4 60713 61402 71123 71125 71127 71129 713)2 00003 80004 00006 00112 idJ!itle SVSTBvS ANALYST' EDP ENG SUPTEOI I* cx:M='UT'EROPERATOO 1 LAB TEO! SR" Al.DITOR, seJICR' PAYFO..l.. PARAPRJ' CFERATIOJS ANALYST' STAT. ANALYST 11 Ill.JR.SE PRACTTTlo-JER" PHLPN" r-JJRSE, STAFP LPN" PHAFIMb,CIST* flETWCR< SPECIALIST* tTWCflK ACMNISTRATO' MCFOSUP SPECIALIST* BUSINESS ANALYST' N3 T01al Ees 18N 14l 12R 14i 10C 10: 10E 6! 15G 24 110 I 31, 121 i 81 14 a: 17F 174 9H 25:e 140 4S 9H 24C 17 24 13 31 120 23 13M 83 14D 41: Pct State Avg Tumover Pct Below Taroet BelONM-< ~ )J - '< " > m 0 E ~ i! D !!!. > C 3 0 C: ~ B i;; ~ ~ ~ ~ c., .l",', ;;; ::; ~"' . ' "' . . . . . ~ r 0 ... ... b",' ~ ... a; .0, ~.., ffi ; "!j:;! ~ 0 !:m ~ 1-v ,_<:::, <:::, ~ :'.'I N O'I Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report Appendix.B Jobs with 20 or More Employees That Have 10% or More Employees Leaving State Service Note: The following should be considered in relation to this table: This table does not address transfer activity from one state agency to another. However, movement of employees from one agency to another causes the same disruption and loss of productivity as described in Appendix D. This table does not address vacancy rates for a job. For example, the job Assistant Financial Examiner (40405) is shown as having 4 employees out of20 who left state service from June I, 1998-June I, 1999. However, total positions are shown in the Georgia Employment Management System as 43, indicating a vacancy rate of over 50%. Percentage leaving state service is shown only for jobs with 20 or more employees because the percentage . calculations for jobs with fewer incumbents would inflate the percentages. 55 of 894 single position jobs had employees leaving state service. 833 employees in 1212 jobs with 2-19 positions left. The effect of turnover for pivotal specialty jobs can be even more devastating to an agency's mission. JCUSTODIAN 6i 28: 52.83%: ,___ ____,!_T_E_O_T_R_A_IN_E_E______________8.._1_ _ _ _ _ _ _47_,i_ _ _ _ _ _2_4_,-----5-1.-06_'_0' ________________________________ ,!_7_1603 !NUTRITIONIST, CL. I 13i 37! 16: 43.24%; 1 19614 ; iJ7251 !' PROGRAM SPECIALIST jJCO I 1s: 22: 10 45.45%' 11 1139 1 491. 39.24% !16908 !TRAINING SPECIALIST ... 12r 24r 10 41.67%; j50324 !FD SVC EMP, SR(GDC) 81 23: 9 39.13%: '30802 !sTEAMPLANT OPERATOR i!-1-52_0_8--+-iE_Q_U_I_POPERi(DOT) ...... 69:[ 32: 340] 12 37.50% 124: ................. 36:47%: 171127 !NURSE, STAFF 14j 48/ 17 35.42%; 120703 ENVIRON ENGR 16! 20! 7 35.00% 170201 HOUSEPARENT !1 - - - - + - - - - - 14001 INTERPRETER, PH 71 998 328 30.06%; ' ' 8j 27i 9i 33.33%' j19115 !J4212 ;J5204 AGR.INSPECTOR SS CASE MGT ASSOC. VEHICLE OPER/COUR 9: 33: 11 ! 200! 6! 241 i 10 30.30%; 61 i 30.50%: 73: 30.29%: j 17025 !70305 !DRIVER EXAMINER !DENTAL ASST 91 1091 8: 611 33 30.28%[ 18: 29.51 i )19422 ;ENVHLTHTECH i... - !50323 -- J1.F. D-SV-C- .... SUPV ........... (GDC) 9; 28i 9f -----3-90i 8' 28.57%1 - 29.23%: j16048 DOL SERVICES ASSIST. 91 22/ 6; p9992 EDUCATION PROGRAM AN 161 22; 61 ------'----+-------~-- io: 180002 LAN ENGINEER 16-060-I--+-IM_A_l_L_S_E_R_V_C_L_E_R_K. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 181 _8...i.._ _ __ _ _ _3 3417 ~ ! - - - - - 10: I i ' 170917 isoCIAL SVS PROV I !-12_04_9_9--+iTRA--N-sENG.Asso_c___ - n:12! 7401 23i 206; 6 27.27%l I 27.27%i 29".4jo)~: 27.03%' 28.38%; 26:i)9% September 1999 27 Georgia Merit System FY 200I Workforce Salary Report ;70811 !PH TECH 7i 163'. 45 1 1T4si3 suBsTANc~_A_s_t:sE-co-_~---_-:_-__..,..____i"_2l__-__- - - - - + - - - - !71129 ILPN l~~~i- l~~~~~~~~~~~R(VS) 91 240) 64 ;! ,.~~: .,; 27.61%: 21 .59%i 26.67% :::::~; 171113 INURSE (l/S) 14i 354i 92; 25.99%1 :70924 1soc1AL SYS TECH. 8! 6181 159: 24.60%J !16009 !PERS. ANALYST, SR 14i 54j 14 25.93%: !71128 JNURSE 14! 2701 68, 25.19%: j70304 !DENTIST (INST) 2d 30! 7 23.33% ;sooo6 i80003 IMICRO SUP SPECIALIST 1NETwoRK si>EciALis_T___ 1 - - 13i 13 - ; - - - - 83; 311~-- 20 I 24.10% 22.58% : 10012 i INSTR AIDE 71 311 J 73: 23.47% :19322 !CONST PROJ MGR 2 13! 101! 24 23.76%' trn---+l____ -~--{-- - - -.. --rn i61111 FIRESAFETYCOMPLIAN 13: 29; 7' 24.14%. ________________ I ,1_7_1319 ACTIVITY THRPY SUP. - -14- - - - - - 2-6! - - - - - - 6 - - - - -23.08% !17242 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 11 1 7592; 1748. 23.02% ;-"----t m--HH------ .. -- m-- 171305 )ACTIVITY THERAPIST ~-- 12; 134 31 23.13% !80102 IPROGRAMMER/ANALYST 15i 47! 11 23.40%; jl9319 l[10922 10908 lASST AREA ENG lsocIAL svs TECH PRIN 15/ 361 111 329i 8 22.22%. 75 1~: 22.so0 jsoc1AL svcs_P_R_o_v_1_1------,---1-3;_ _ _ _ _ _2_46--.------56-.-----22-_1_6_% 171109 LPN (INPATIENT SVCS) 9j 502; 112 23.90% !30902 il3811 :70923 !17246 r11602 HSEKEEPNG TEAM LDR WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST !SOCIAL SVS TECH SR pco n iNUTRITIONisT 6! 63, i 17; 2li i 9! 755; 12! 202: ijf" - 61: 14 22.22% 5 23.81% 168 21.19% 45: 22.28%; 15, 22.39o/~i !19609 !NURSESURVEYOR(ORS) 15J ni )50301 !FOOD SERVICE EMPLOYE 6! 413; I 140505 FINANCIAL EXAM, ASST 13! 201 17 22.08% 91 23.49%: 20.00i 1!\710-9961-188---1iLP-SRSO+PGIR-A-M-SP-E-C,-SR-. -----_.__B18-1i --,_----2866-(; ~------169, [6iso1 1voL-ru::scooiio 13-:- - 21r 6. 23.08%; 22.09%: 2fa2o;. j70919 jSOCSERVDAYCOORD 13: 74[ 16 21.62% ;71201 IPHARMACY TECHNICIAN 9j 49; 10 20.41% i70402 !RADIOLOGY TECH . . -- 12; 20 4; 20.000/o i16909 iSTAFF DEV/fRNG CORD 14: 49! 10 20.41%: j60101 !SECRETARY I Si 892( 186 21.08%: ,-!5_0_30_3_--.-!F_O_ODSVCMANAGER i60l 11 IOFFICE ASSISTANT 11! 25i Si 294: : 14203 iSOC SVCS CASE MGR 131 1391: 160105 IRECEPTIONIST Si 53i 171141. fcERTN_U_R_S_IN_G_A_SS-I-ST-- 71 264/ 5 20.00%' 60 20.41 % _ 28_5:,_ _ __20.49%; 11 20.75% 54 20.45% September I999 28 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report j60107 !CLERK I, GENERAL ; .....-........------ --1------- I11403 ilNSTRUCTOR,SR (DJJ) g: 822! 165: : ! 9! 26i 5, !60113 !PROGRAM ASSOCIATE 10/ 1031 110412 lcLIN LAB TECHNICIAN 11 i 201 i14514 -1f--s-R_C_O_UN__S_'_M__H/M_R_ _ _ _ ____, - --j3r------l-l_,9! - - - 24; 120102 jSR ENVIRON ENGR 17i 26i 5 il7461 ISPECIAL AGENT IN CHA 19; 5 I /50302 !FOOD SERVICE, SR. 8) 143: 28 i 119321 !CONST PROJ ENG 5 171133 [NURSE MANAGER 16i 30/ !i__1__4___4___5___7_ !DIS ADJUD, ASSOC ! -------- - - ~ -..........._..1...2._:L _ __ 104! 20 i60152 :SECRETARY (AGR) 10! 221 4' ! /71101 !CHARGE NURSE (1/S) 15i 134! 26 : 14412 !FAM INDEP CM I(DFCS) 270 !70916 lLSSP II 15 !71125 IPHLPN I 9i 252: 47 i40202 !30002 jBILLING CLERK II !PROP & SUPP SUPV 101 SR-----.----12..,..:- - - ... :4f9o1i I i :5m21 !FD SVC DIR (GDC) 141 5 l~o8o3 iACCOUNTING MANAGER 17/ 28\ 5: I il9424 jENV HLTH SPEC II ---+-- ~-- 13 127; . 23 i 19643 !SPEC SURVEYOR (ORS) 14; 7 i80119 1PROJECT CONSULTANT 36, 7 !71202 iPHARMACIST 17! 4 :71142 ;11303 ! 10013 160112 ______ _____ iCERTNllRSG ASST, LD ;ACTIVITY THERAPY LDR Si -------_9.j_ 43i 8 62i.,__ 11 !DIR, DEV DIS TRNG/W 13! 33; 6 !PROGRAMASsisfA_N_T_ _ --- 9i ........ ---- 1970~i- - - 20.92%: 19.23%; 20.39%; 20.00%; 20.17%. 18.52% 19.58%'. 18.52%'. 20.00% 19.23%i 18.18% 19.40% 22.20%. 18.07% 18.65% 18.37% 20.00% 19.23%; 17.86%, 18.11% 17.95%t 19.44%, 16.67%; 18.60% 17.74%; 18.18% 1 j 10801 iREC. SUPERVISOR IOI 20j ; 19366 !PERMITS INSPECTR ADV 121 24! !14606 ToFcs coMMiis sPEcL 121 104] /30901 !HOUSEKEEPER 5! 492) 180502 !DATA TRANSCRIBER I Sj 213 1 ~1i122 IPH NURSE - - - - + "14] 620! i71112 iNURSEMGR(I/S) 161 49: i19413 !ENVIRON SPEC 2 (DNR) 141 21 ;60114 ioPR.rn_s_A_N_A-LYsf,sil:-- - . 1 4 : - - - - - 36i ! 16006 ,31601 i 14508 !14605 ! 17705 l80004 I I 10904 iPERSONNEL MGR. 14: 60' ;PLUMBER I J; 30i !COUNSELOR 13; 310i ;TRAINING INSTRUCTOR . 9' 148i !SERGEANT FIRST CLASS 17! 53! !NETWORK ADMINISTRATO 121 23 n; I ---l.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --------.L.--.---+-1---------1 ;BEHAv1OR SPEC 113 15.00% 4 16.67%i .... , 18 17.31% 85 17.28% 36 16.90% 106: 16.94%. 8 16.33%, 4: 19.05% ...................... ....... 6 16.67%' ------~. 10 16.67%' 5 - ------1-6-.-6-7~%. 50, 16.13%, 23 15.54%, 8, 15.09% 4 17.39%: 18 15.93% September I 999 29 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report i20422 ' 119423 IENG TECH TRAINEE 81 206! 32 ---------------"--------------""'~"-""---- IENV. HLTH SPEC. l 12j SOj 8: !71111 iNITE/EV NURS ADM 16i 27 4 ' 1137T0i9o0_92_ _!kS_AO_CUNIA_DL_RS_VY_CwS_o_PRR_KYE/_HR_O_SP_ _ _ _- + - -- 131 s- + i -- -- -- 3 87j -8i,_ _ _ _ 13, 6: 119318 !AREA ENGINEER 161 421 6 170834 \15209 !14108 JHLTH SVCS TCH LD 1/S IEQUIP OPER II (DOT) lFAMSERVWORKERI 81 380! 57 7i 109' 6i 59: 9i !60147 lcusT SERV REP (DOAS) 10! 5 jl0007 jINSTRUCTOR, PRIN 10; 5 1 - -----. - - - : ............. -'--- 30005 !UTILITY WRKR, SKLD 7i 8, 1 !81122 ICOMM EQUIP OFCR, SR. lOi 481 7 i 17249 :COTTAGE LIFE SUPV 52: 8 r71 l 18 iPH NURSIN_G_S_U_P_E_R_ _ _ _ __ 15! 103 15 :10912 1soc SERV COORD II I3190l !STOREKEEPER i708is -1MiffiJRSHIFTSUPV :i 7411 iFAC POLICE, SGT il4604 ' !70823 !TRAINING INST. SR ' IMHIMR TEAM LEADER ! 10101 !EDUCATION PROGR. MGR 16/ I 8i 101 I 11 I ' !Si I 19: 78'. II 1631 23 36 5 221 3, so: 7; L........... _ __ 37! 5 3 (40807 181121 !ACC'TING CLERK iCOMM EQUIP OFFICER 91 2951 42 i 91 1971 28 j50304 I 14659 !FOOD SVC SUPV iDRS ACCT REP 91 84; 12 ! Bi 80j II :71126 iNURSE, LEAD s: ' -l---------- -. ----------------. --------. --"t-.... '70941 !PSYCHOLOGIST 6' ' !60108 !'CLERK 2, GENERAL 124 '60102 lSECRETARY II J ...... - - - - - - ----91-,81---- 1..2..9..1..!.... 178; !70807 IFORENSIC SERV TECH 132! 18 !71123 !NURSE PRACTITIONER 17; 174i 24 ' ;10006 1INSTRUCTOR 81 629i 86 114107 -+IF_A_M-SVCWORKERiC----11 - 191~,-- 26: :61204 !I ~~?~:_ ; 17527 !SALES MANAGER ! '.PERS. ANALYST, ADV. 1PAROLE OFFICER 9! 54i 7 4 131 40: 170502 jCOMMUNICABLE DIS 13! 54i 7 j60713 !OPERATIONS ANALYST 12i 81i II /40805 jACCOUNTANT II, PROF. 14J 66: 9: I !17032 DRIVER EXAMINER, SR 10! 135 18 ;30703 !LANDSCAPE GARDENER 7! 20 3 160715 jOPRTNS ANALYST, ADV , 1s: 2s 3. ----- [ - - - - - - - ~ - !30032 !CRAFTSMAN (GDC) : 11 i 249 32 September 1999 15.53% 16.00% 14.81% 14.94%1 J 15.79%i I 14.29%; 15.53% ' 14.89%: 15.25%' 15.15% 14.29%: 14.29% 14.58% 15.38% 14.56% 14.10% 14.11% 13.89%: 13.64%: 14.00%: 13.51% 13.64% 14.24%; 14.21%; 14.29%' 13.75%1 13.16%\ .. .....................- > 13.95%i 14.43%: 14.02% 13.64%: 13.79% 13.67%. 13:6i%: i 12.96%; 14.81%i ' 13.29%; 12.96%: i 13.58% 13.64% 13.33% 15.00% 12.00%, i:i:85%; 30 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report i71329 PT/OT TECH if-1---1--3-09- ------EDUC/MEDIA RES SPEC 117605 ; 17423 16091 I i 14038 /PSTI III I :mv PROB/PAR SPEC 2 !INFO & REFERRAL SPEC !coUNTY DIRECTOR II 15/ 26: ' 3 13i 230i > ...- .f..- --........- .. ~ -"-"--~--- ::1 7 j60104 I30003 !ADMIN ASST CRAFTSMAN 121 248i 31 ! JI! 209j 26 170942 RES. SVCS SPVR (GRN) 121 221 3 I !20425 !suRVEY PARTY CHF 31;: 4 140405 120421 ;AUDITOR, SENIOR jTRAN ENG ASST ADMIN 15i ---2245+:, 3, 3 l; 14401 14201 ICSE AGENT !soc SVCS SUPERVISOR 12; 333! I 141 2801 41 34. i-16_0_07----;-IP-ERSC>NNELREP -- ---..- - - - + - - - 121 44: 5 I !19619 jORS STAND SURVEYOR 14( 461 6 1~7_o9_I_5_ lsoc sERV cooRD 1, 37! ' 5' :70808 I 1LD FORENSIC SVC TECH 27/ i 14405 iMEDICAJD ELIG SPEC 312! ! ;,.41204 PAYROLL PARAPRO 1 I: -------r-----l.- ---- 5 i70411 !CLINICAL LAB TECH 14! 8 !30401 ' !ELECTRICIAN____ 11 i 41:: 5 !31703 !PROCUREMENT OFFICER 121 57! 7 l4o8o6 l 19362 !ACCOUNTANT, PARAPROF !PERMITS INSPEC ENGIN 11 :i 13! d 91 20: 107, 2: i13817 jWILDLIFE TECH 3 15i !71121 IPH NURSE SPECIAL I 15i 155j 18' -+---------- :50322 . JFD SVC MGR (GDC) 89! IO j80503 jDATA TRANSCRIBER II 9 131 I 15 i 17457 ISPECIAL AGENT, SENIO 15: l109j4 -- [SOCIAL SVSCO_O_R_ D _ _ __ 151 !14411 jFRAUD PREY. INVEST. 11 ! 5 :17033 1UNITMGR ~--------------+---'- - - - - ll6075 jE&T CONSULTANT I l 19605 !MEATINSP 151 35! --- "+ 16i 38l 4 l 17302 :RANGER I 121 362: 41 i-- -- .... ----- "- ~ - - - ........................................ !71328 iACTIVITY THERAPIST 12 41 i 5 12.73%: 12.20%: I 1.54%; 12.61% 13.43%; 12.73%, 12.50%: 12.44%. 13.64%: 12.90% 12.50% 12.00% 12.31% 12.14% 11.36%: 13.04% 13.51%, 12.82%; 12.12%1 12.20% 12.28%: 11.53%; 10.00i ! 12.50% I 1.61% I 1.24%: I 1.45%; 10.91% I 1.68% 12.20%: I 1.43% 10.53% 11.11%; 11.33% 12.20% September 1999 31 Georgia Merit System FY 2001 Workforce Salary Report AppendixC Costs of Turnover23 Research across various occupations in the private and public sectors indicates that turnover costs per employee are higher for professional jobs where recruitment is more difficult, the learning curve is longer, and mistakes are more costly. In low skilled jobs, a large volume of tu.mover can more than make up for the lower per capita costs. Estimates of tu.mover costs in state jobs is based on established industry studies and detailed analysis of turnover costs in specific state jobs. Research paints a typical generic picture as follows: The costs of turnover begin when an employee first seriously considers leaving. Typically, there is a period of slack productivity and absenteeism as the disaffected employee searches for another job. This effect spreads to the work group as other employees take up the slack of the employee who is coasting during a job search. Group members become less focused on their central tasks. When the employee leaves, the work group must carry the workload of the vacant position. At this point the agency also incurs the costs of out-processing the employee through payroll, benefits, the credit union, and other stations. The search for a new employee includes costs for recruitment, advertising, security and reference checks, and managers' time taken up with interviews. When the new employee is hired there are costs for payroll processing, orientation, and in some cases training and additional security and background checks. Finally, productivity is lost in the workgroup while members help the new employee's until he or she gets through the learning curve for the job, which typically ranges from six to twelve months. Job Title Juvenile Corr Off 1 Houseparent Social Svs Provider Health Svcs Tech (I/S) Social Svs Tech LPN (inpatient svcs) Food Service Emp Family Indep CM I Social Svs Tech Sr Secrerary I Clerk I, General PH Nurse Program Assistant Health Svcs Tch Ld I/S Clerk 2 , General Secrerary 2 Instructor Accountant, Paraprof Family Indep CM 2-DFCS Sergeant (GDC) Probation Officer #in Job 1139 998 740 1,612 618 502 413 1,437 755 892 822 620 1,970 380 887 1291 629 911 654 567 727 CostofTurnover f