REPORT # 0005
OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR STATE OF MINNESOTA
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT State Employee Compensation
Photos courtesy of City of Minnetonka and Legislative Auditor staff
The cover photographs were provided by the Minnesota Zoo, Minnesota Department of Health, and the Office of the Legislative Auditor. The photograph on page 10 was provided by the Minnesota Department of Health. The photographs on pages 25 and 30 were taken by the Office of the Legislative Auditor.
Room 140, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 1603 Tel: 651/296-4708 Fax: 651/ 296 4712 E mail:email@example.com TDD Relay: 651/297-5353 Website: www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us
Office of the Legislative Auditor
State of Minnesota James Nobles, Legislative Auditor
February 3, 2000 Members Legislative Audit Commission
In April 1999, the Legislative Audit Commission directed us to conduct a study of state employee compensation. Legislators expressed interest in learning how state government salaries and benefits compared to compensation offered by other employers in the private and public sectors. Some legislators also wanted to know which jobs were causing the greatest recruitment and retention problems for state agencies.
Not including the University of Minnesota, the state employs about 50,000 workers in a wide variety of jobs. We found the state to be generally competitive in the salaries and benefits it offers, but like public employers in general, state pay is relatively high for lower skilled jobs and relatively low for upper level professional and managerial jobs.
Almost all state agencies reported some problems recruiting and retaining various types of employees. State agency human resource directors attribute many recruitment problems to the current tight labor market, but also identified compensation as a factor of secondary importance in certain situations.
This report was researched and written by Elliot Long (project manager), Jennifer Moenck Feige, and Craig Helmstetter, with assistance from Beth Haney. We thank staff of the Department of Employee Relations and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities for their assistance.
/s/ James Nobles /s/Roger Brooks
James Nobles Roger Brooks Legislative Auditor Deputy Legislative Auditor
Table of Contents
SUMMARY ix INTRODUCTION 1 1. BACKGROUND
Characteristics of State Employment Organization of Human Resources in State Government Compensation Policy Summary
2. COMPENSATION Salary Comparisons Employee Benefits Summary
3. RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION Current Recruitment and Retention Problems Suggestions for Change Summary
APPENDICES A. State of Minnesota Career Families B. Central States Salary Comparisons
FURTHER READING 85 AGENCY RESPONSE RECENT PROGRAM EVALUATIONS Back Cover
List of Tables and Figures
Tables Page 1.1 Employees by Executive Branch Agency, 1999 7 1.2 Largest Career Families, 1999 8 1.3 Job Family Growth, 1985 98 9 1.4 Hay Job Evaluation Factors 12 1.5 State Employees by Bargaining Unit, 1999 14 2.1 National Rankings of Minnesota State and Local Government Employment, 1998 20 2.2 Minnesota Positions with Top Ranking Salaries in Central States Survey, 1998 21 2.3 Public Sector Monthly Pay in Minnesota, 1999 23 2.4 Average Hourly Wages, State of Minnesota and Private Sector Employees, 1999 28 2.5 Regional Variation in Pay in Minnesota, 1996 97 32 2.6 Variation in Average State Employee Wages, Twin Cities and Outstate Minnesota, 1999 34 2.7 Regional Variation in Average State Employee Wages, Minnesota Metro Areas, 1999 35 2.8 Average Salaries, Faculty at MnSCU Four Year Institutions, FY 1999 37 2.9 Average Salaries, Faculty at MnSCU Two Year Institutions, FY 1999 38 2.10 Full Time Employees Receiving Selected Benefits 41 2.11 Average Days of Paid Annual Leave After Specified Years of Employment 43 2.12 Employer Costs per Employee Hour, National Averages, 1999 45 2.13 Employer Costs per Employee Hour, Private Industry by Size of Establishment, 1999 46 2.14 Employer Costs per Employee Hour, State and Local Governments Nationally and Minnesota State Government, 1999 47 3.1 State Agency Recruitment and Retention Problems 51 3.2 Information Technology Recruitment/Retention Problems 52 3.3 Reasons for Information Technology Recruitment/Retention Problems 53 3.4 Office Administration Recruitment/Retention Problems 54 3.5 Reasons for Office Administration Recruitment/Retention Problems 54 3.6 Accounting Recruitment/Retention Problems 55 3.7 Reasons for Accounting Recruitment/Retention Problems 56 3.8 Suggestions for the Department of Employee Relations 57 3.9 Suggestions for the Legislature 57
Figures Page 1.1 Number of Minnesota State Employees (Total Appointments), 1980 99 4 1.2 Minnesota State Payroll, 1980 98 5 1.3 Payroll per State Government Employee, National Average and Minnesota, 1980 98 6 2.1 Average Hourly Pay in Minnesota, 1998 24 2.2 Occupational Distribution for State Government and PrivateIndustry in Minnesota 26 2.3 Average Hourly Salary by Job Complexity, Minnesota State Employees, 1999 29 2.4 Average Annual Salary by Job Complexity Rating, Minnesota
State Government and National Market, 1999
Major Findings: State government’s workforce includes a higher proportion of white collar jobs than the private sector and, as a result, the state’s average wage rate is higher than the private sector’s. (p. 25 in the full report)*
Lower skill jobs in state employment pay relatively more than comparable private sector jobs, and higher skill jobs pay relatively less. As a result, there is less variation between the highest and lowest paid jobs. (p. 27)
Minnesota pays its state employees higher salaries than most other states. (p. 21)
State government salaries do not vary across Minnesota as much as wages in general. Twin Cities area wages are about 15 to 20 percent higher than wages in most outstate metropolitan areas and the nonmetropolitan balance of the state, while state pay is about 5 percent higher in the Twin Cities area than outstate. (p. 31)
Faculty at MnSCU four year institutions are paid at about the national average for similar institutions. Faculty at the two year technical and community colleges are paid above the national average. (p. 36)
Minnesota employee benefits equal about 31 percent of total compensation. This percentage is comparable to public employers and large private employers nationally, but distinctly higher than small private employers. (p. 39)
State agencies are experiencing a variety of problems recruiting and retaining employees. Compensation is one of several factors mentioned by state agencies as part of the problem, but it is not the dominant factor. The three job categories that human resource directors report as having the most serious recruiting and retention problems are information technology, accounting, and office clerical positions. (p. 49)
Evaluation Report Summary: PE0005 OLA OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR
STATE OF MINNESOTA
State Employee Compensation
February 3, 2000
*For the full evaluation report, State Employee Compensation(# PE00 05), which includes the agency’s response, call 651/296-4708 or download from:
Room 140, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55155 Tel: 651 296 4708 Fax: 651 296 4712 E mail:firstname.lastname@example.org
Report Summary: Minnesota employs about 50,000 people in executive branch agencies. The state is engaged in a wide variety of operations and employs people in over 2,200 different jobs. It is useful to periodically compare state compensation with that offered by the public and private employers with which the state competes for workers.
Minnesota statutes direct the Department of Employee Relations to work toward a compensation structure that is internally consistent, with equivalent jobs receiving equal pay, and that bears a reasonable relationship to the external job market. These goals are themselves partially incompatible, but Minnesota’s employee compensation structure is not the result of rational planning so much as it is the result of budgeting and bargaining processes in which political influence is exercised and trade offs are made. Most state employees belong to unions which bargain for them on matters affecting pay and working conditions, and the funds potentially available for employee compensation are set through the budget process every two years.
As a Group, State Employees Earn More than Private Sector Employees
As a group, state employees are paid more than private sector employees because the state workforce contains a higher concentration of professional workers and a lower concentration of sales, craft, and assembly line positions. According to data from the Current Population Survey, 37.5 percent of state employees work in professional occupations, for example, compared to 12.4 percent of private sector employees. In the private sector, a far higher percentage of workers are employed in sales, craft, or assembly line positions.
State Pay is Highly Compressed
Compared to the private sector, the range of salaries in state employment is highly compressed. Upper level managers and professional positions pay more in the private sector, and lower complexity jobs pay more in state government. For example, stateemployed guards, janitors, and general repair workers all average over 30 percent more than similar positions in the private sector. Clerical occupations pay between 10 and 20 percent more than comparable private sector jobs. Entry level buyers and contracting specialists earn 20 percent more in state government.
By law, salaries of upper level managerial and professional positions in state agencies are limited by department head salaries, and department heads are limited by the governor’s salary. Upper level managerial and professional positions pay much less in state government than in the private sector, but comparisons are difficult to make because compensation and job responsibilities tend to be unique rather than standardized at this level. The state of Minnesota uses a job evaluation system, the Hay system, that is also used by many private and public employers to help achieve proportionality and equity in employee compensation. A numerical Hay rating is calculated for most state jobs. Data from about 400 employers using the Hay system nationally show that private sector salaries are more than twice as high as state salaries for upper level professional and managerial positions with similar Hay ratings.
Minnesota State Employees are Paid More than Employees of Other States
Minnesota paid its state employees higher salaries in 1998 than most of the 24 states participating in a widely used salary survey. Minnesota’s salaries ranked in the upper third of participating states for 87 of 107 comparable positions, and Minnesota paid the highest salary of all participating states for 21 positions. Minnesota salaries were above the average paid by a subset of Midwestern states for over 80 percent of the positions.
State Employee Salaries Vary Little Across Minnesota
Economic conditions vary widely across Minnesota. According to data from the Minnesota Department of Economic Security, wages in the Twin Cities area are at least 20 percent higher than wages in outstate metropolitan areas and the nonmetropolitan balance of the state. State pay, however, is set by statewide salary schedules (and bargained for by statewide bargaining units). While there is some variation in the pay of state employees around the state, it is much less than the geographic variation in pay offered by employers in general.
MnSCU Faculty Pay is At or Above Average
There are over 8,500 faculty positions in the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system (MnSCU), thus faculty are a sizable proportion of state employees. In general, full time faculty at MnSCU’s four year institutions are paid very near the national average for similar institutions. MnSCU salaries are also near the average for comparable positions in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Full time faculty at MnSCU’s two year institutions (community and technical colleges) are paid above the national average for similar institutions, but Minnesota’s average for two year colleges is similar to the average for comparable faculty jobs in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Minnesota Offers Competitive Employee Benefits
Employee benefits are an important part of total compensation and must be considered when making comparisons among employers. Although benefits have been extended among private employers in recent decades, government employees are still more likely to receive most kinds of benefits.
Minnesota state employees, like government employees in general, receive more paid holidays, vacation days, and paid sick leave than employees of private companies. Minnesota employees receive 11 paid holidays per year, compared to the national average of 9.3 days for employees in medium and large private establishments, 7.6 days for employees in small private establishments, and 11.5 days for all state and local government employees. Minnesota employees receive 13 to 29 days of vacation (depending on years of service) compared to lower vacation accrual rates for public and private employees nationally.
The state of Minnesota offers a benefit package that, measured by cost, is generally equal to or better than benefits offered by other states, other public employers in Minnesota, and private and public employers nationally. About 31 percent of Minnesota state employee compensation is in the form of benefits. This compares to 29 percent for state and local governments nationally, and 27 percent for private employers. Large private employers, those with over 500 employees, pay 30 percent of compensation in the form of benefits, a level close to that paid by Minnesota and other government employers.
Most State Agencies Report Problems with Recruitment
Almost all large state agencies reported some problems with employee recruitment and retention. The three job categories identified as presenting the greatest problem currently are information technology, office administration (clerical), and accounting jobs.
Inadequate compensation was not identified as the most important factor in these cases, although it was a strong second in the case of information technology jobs, and mentioned by nearly 60 percent of state agency human resource directors. The top problem in all three cases was an insufficient labor pool with the needed skills or experience. One third of the human resource directors suggested that raising salaries to competitive levels would help address the problems, but even more suggested improving the hiring process and strengthening recruitment efforts.
Summary of Agency Response: In response to the study Deputy Commissioner Jim Lee wrote on January 20, 2000: “The portion of the report that compares state salaries and benefits to other employers in the public and private sectors is reminiscent of the Public Employment Study . . . released in 1979. The earlier study also found that state and local governments tend to pay more than the private sector for jobs at similar levels of complexity, except for high level managerial positions.”
“The Legislature did provide significant relief to the salary compression at the upper end of the salary structure with the passage of the agency head pay bill in 1997. However the new salary limits for agency heads still put the Executive Branch at a disadvantage in comparison to local units of government.”
Deputy Commissioner Lee also noted: “In spite of the fact that your data indicates that state salaries for clerical jobs are at least 20 percent above the private sector, 21 percent of human resources directors surveyed identified inadequate compensation as contributing to their difficulty in recruiting and retaining employees in these classifications. This indicates that salary data and actual recruiting experience can tell two different stories.”
Introduction In May 1999 the Legislative Audit Commission directed us to conduct an analysis of Minnesota state employee compensation. Legislators wanted to know how state employee compensation compared to pay and benefits offered by other public and private employers with which the state competes for workers. Some legislators were concerned about the state’s ability to recruit workers with skills in short supply.
By any reckoning, the state of Minnesota is a large employer. The state employs about 50,000 workers in 2,200 different jobs. Counting state executive branch agencies and the Minnesota state colleges and universities (MnSCU), the state’s payroll reached $2.3 billion in fiscal year 1999. As an employer, the state of Minnesota is larger than all but a few private companies in the nation. Government operations are also highly diverse compared to those of many private companies. Achieving internal consistency and external competitiveness of employee compensation is a significant challenge, especially in a time of rapid change in the nature of work and the skills required in many state jobs.
This study addresses the following research questions: How is the state’s human resources system organized? What is the process by which employee compesation is determined? What is the state’s compensation policy? What are the significant features of state employment?
How do state employee pay and benefits compare with compensation provided by other public and private employers? Are there certain types of state jobs for which compensation is higher or lower than market averages? How do state employee compensation and compensation offered by other employers vary across Minnesota?
What jobs are state agencies now having difficulty filling? What are the reasons behind recruitment and retention problems? What steps can the state take to address these problems?
This report compares state data on compensation with data from a variety of government and non governmental sources including the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States Census Bureau, the Minnesota Department of Economic Security, and several national and local salary surveys. We also conducted our own survey of human resources staff in state agencies and the Department of Employee Relations.
In this report, Chapter 1 presents descriptive information on how the human resource function is organized in state government. It provides data on significant features of state employment that we anticipate will be of interest to policy makers including trends in employment and the mix of jobs in state government.
Chapter 2 presents a comparison of state salaries and benefits with compensation offered by other public and private employers in Minnesota and nationally.
Chapter 3 presents the results of a survey of state agency human resources directors who were asked to identify general and specific recruitment problems and also asked for their recommendations on how to address these problems.
The state of Minnesota executive branch agencies employ about 50,000 workers in 2,200 jobs. State employment has grown quite slowly over the last 19 years and the payroll per employee adjusted for inflation was almost unchanged during this period. The process by which state employee compensation is determined rests on merit system principles and the collective bargaining process. State compensation policy directs the Department of Employee Relations to achieve a pattern of compensation which is internally consistent and competitive in the larger economy.
In order to provide a context for our study of state employee compensation, this chapter asks:
How many employees work for the state? How are they divided among the major divisions of state government? What are the most populous job classes? How has state employment changed since 1980?
How is the human resources function organized in Minnesota state government?
What is the process by which employee compensation is determined? What are the state’s compensation policies?
CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE EMPLOYMENT
As of December 1999, 49,853 people were employed in executive branch state agencies including the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system (MnSCU). 1 Our study of state employee compensation is restricted to executive branch employment; over 96 percent of state employees work in executive branch agencies. 2 The non executive branch state employees are distributed as follows: Approximately 860 employees (including temporary employees) work in the legislative branch and 1,250 state employees work in the judicial branch. 3
1 This count also includes employees of the Minnesota State Retirement System, the Public Employee Retirement Association, and the Teachers Retirement Association. This count includes active employees and those on paid or unpaid leave. University of Minnesota employees are not included in this total and are not covered by this report.
A look at the trend in state employment shows: State employment has grown slowly over the last 19 years.
Figure 1.1 shows how the number of state employees has changed between 1980 and 1999. The figure shows a dip in state employment around 1982, a time of recession and state budget cuts. From this point state employment grew relatively slowly until 1995, when the community and technical colleges became part of MnSCU and the state annexed a group of about 8,000 technical college employees that had been previously counted as local school district employees. Figure 1.1 shows the trend line with and without the addition of these employees. Between 1980 and 1999 state employment grew 51 percent, but only 29 percent not counting the additional technical college employees. As a point of reference, the state’s population grew 17 percent between 1980 and 1998.
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Figure 1. 1: Number of Minnesota State Employees (Total Appointments), 1980 99
NOTE: This figure is based on total appointments. A small percentage of employees holds more than one job. SOURCE: Minnesota Department of Employee Relations. Not including technical college employees (added to the state payroll folowing MnSCU merger in 1995)
2 Statistics on state employee compensation come from data systems used by the departments of Employee Relations and Finance; they do not generally cover employees outside the executive branch. However, a few hundred employees of the Office of the Legislative Auditor and the retirement association employees mentioned in the previous footnote are included in the state’s payroll system (SEMA4), and are included in some tables in this report.
3 As of March 1999, approximately 264 permanent and 91 temporary employees worked for the House of Representatives and 230 permanent and 94 temporary employees worked for the Senate. About 47 additional legislative employees worked for the Legislative Coordinating Commission and 48 permanent full time and 15 part time and session employees worked for the Office of the Revisor of Statutes.
We also found: The state’s payroll adjusted for inflation grew slowly between 1980 and 1998. The payroll per employee adjusted for inflation was almost unchanged during the same period.
The state’s payroll grew from $580 million in 1980 to $1.73 billion in 1998, a growth rate of nearly 200 percent over the period. Figure 1.2 shows payroll growth over the period in current dollars and in 1980 dollars. In 1980 dollars, the state’s payroll grew by 51 percent over the same period.
Figure 1.3 shows the growth of the payroll per state government employee in Minnesota compared to the national average for state governments. The payroll per employee adjusted for inflation has grown very little (less than 1 percent) between 1980 and 1998. This trend is roughly in line with the national average. 4
Although most state agencies are headquartered in the Twin Cities area, state employees are widely distributed across Minnesota. State employees work in all but three counties, and about 47 percent of state employees work outside the seven county metro area. 5 In the next chapter we examine the question of how state employee compensation, and employee compensation in general, varies across Minnesota.
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
Figure 1. 2: Minnesota State Payroll, 1980 98
Millions NOTE: Series in 1980 dollars is adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index (CPI U). SOURCE: Minnesota Department of Finance.
Actual dollars 1980 dollars
4 Figure 1.3 is presented to compare rates of change and should not be interpreted to mean that state of Minnesota pay is lower than the national average. The national data is calculated per fulltime equivalent employee and the Minnesota data is calculated per employee. Data presented in the next chapter show that Minnesota pay is higher than the national average.
5 The three counties, according to DOER statistics, are Lincoln, Norman, and Red Lake.
Nine departments of state government employ at least 1,000 workers. As Table 1.1 shows, these are (in order of decreasing size): MnSCU, Human Services, Transportation, Corrections, Natural Resources, Public Safety, Economic Security, Health, and Revenue. Table 1.1 also shows the number of full time permanent employees in each agency. In some cases, agencies employ a large number of part time or temporary workers. Each of the state departments at the top of the list is a large employer in its own right. By comparison, only 2 percent of private firms in Minnesota employ 500 or more workers. 6 Maintaining a rational, proportional pay structure is difficult in a large, diverse employer. Later in this chapter we describe how this problem is addressed in Minnesota.
State government is not only a large employer, it employs a highly diverse workforce. The state employs people in over 2,200 separate job classifications. The Department of Employee Relations (DOER) has grouped these job classes into broader categories called “career families.” Table 1.2 shows the number of employees in the 14 largest career families. The largest category is the faculty of the four year and two year colleges in the MnSCU system. The second largest category is Office Administration careers, mainly composed of office clerical workers. The third largest class is Human Services/Development, which consists of jobs such as human services technician that are involved in counseling, administrative, and therapeutic roles in state treatment centers. 7 Appendix A presents a list of job classes within each career family.
$10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
NOTE: Both series are adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index (CPI U; adjusted to 1998 dollars). 1995 97 data for Minnesota are imputed due to payroll system changes. National average is payroll divided by the number of full time equivalents while Minnesota’s payroll is divided by the number of employees (full and part time).
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor's Office analysis of U.S. Bureau of Census data (Census of Governments) and data provided by the Minnesota Departments of Employee Relations and Finance.
Minnesota National Average
Figure 1.3: Payroll per State Government Employee, National Average and Minnesota, 1980 98
State payroll per employee adjusted for inflation has changed little in Minnesota and the nation between 1980 and 1998.
6 U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
7 Further descriptions of these career families are presented on DOER’s web page: http://www.doer.state.mn.us/stfbltn/Famlydef.htm.
The rate at which various job categories are growing is a point of some interest. Although it has been difficult to assemble data showing changes in employment because of changing definitions of job classes and career families, we have been able to put together some data. Table 1.3 shows the growth of the larger “job families.” “Job Family” is an occupational category used by the Department of Employee Relations (DOER) between 1985 and 1998, not to be confused with the “career families” shown in Table 1.2 that are currently in use. 8
Table 1.1: Employees by Executive Branch Agency, 1999
Full Time All Agency or Department Employees Employees
MnSCU 8,531 15,352 Human Services 4,505 6,725 Transportation 4,803 5,560 Corrections 3,373 3,586 Natural Resources 1,950 2,995 Public Safety 1,764 1,928 Economic Security 1,673 1,893 Health 1,076 1,306 Revenue 1,018 1,220 Administration 832 921 Pollution Control 730 847 Agriculture 378 551 Children, Families & Learning 415 522 Attorney General 412 485 Labor and Industry 357 389 Military Affairs 245 324 Employee Relations 173 306 Minnesota Zoo 146 304 Commerce 225 261 Trade and Economic Development 156 253 Lottery 196 208 Finance 168 178 Housing Finance 164 172 State Auditor 115 140 Public Service 111 118 Planning 54 91 Governor’s Office 3 85 Secretary of State 63 77 Environmental Assistance 55 72 Human Rights 45 64 Veterans Affairs 33 37 State Treasurer 11 13 All Other Departments a 1,448 2,366
Total All Agencies 35,228 49,349 NOTE: Data are from July 1999. a “All Other Departments” includes 54 boards, councils, task forces, and commissions.
SOURCE: Minnesota Department of Employee Relations.
Nine state departments each employ at least 1,000 workers.
Among the fastest growing job families is Higher Education Program careers. This category excludes faculty jobs, but includes a wide variety of other jobs at MnSCU campuses and reflects, in part, the 1995 addition of technical college employees. This category grew by 385 percent. Other fast growing categories are: Organizational/Management Analysis jobs which grew 293 percent; Information Technology jobs which grew by 243 percent; and Corrections jobs which grew 94 percent. On the other end of the spectrum, the following categories declined in the number of jobs between 1985 and 1998: Laborers declined by 61 percent, Jobs and Training jobs by 29 percent, and Human Services and Nursing Home jobs by 19 percent.
It is interesting to note that despite growth in the use of electronic data processing in state government, and despite rapid growth in information technology careers, the Clerical General category, the second largest job category in state government, grew 15 percent between 1985 and 1998 to a total of 6,171 jobs. At least so far, computers do not seem to have replaced many clerical staff in state government.
Table 1.2: Largest Career Families, 1999 Career Family Number of Employees MnSCU Faculty a 8,577 Office Administration 7,272 Human Services and Development 3,619 Facilities Operation and Maintenance 2,345 Corrections 2,174 Medical, Dental, and Nursing 1,960 Information Technology 1,865 Transportation Operations and Regulation 1,798 Engineering, Architecture, and Appraisal 1,772 Natural Resource and Environmental 1,762 Planning, Research, and Analysis 1,488 Education and Teaching 1,407 Protective Service 1,380 Accounting, Auditing, and Financial 1,367
Number of Employees Represented 38,786 Percentage of Total Number of State Employees 73.5%
NOTE: Data are from September 1999. a MnSCU Faculty come from the career family “Undesignated/All Other Careers.”
SOURCE: Minnesota Department of Employee Relations.
The state employs a diverse workforce.
8 This table includes all job families with 400 or more employees at either the start or the end of the 1985 98 period.
ORGANIZATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN STATE GOVERNMENT
Table 1.3: Job Family Growth, 1985 98 aNumber of Employees Percent Job Family 1985 1998 Change Higher Education Programs 262 1,271 385.1% Organizational/Management Analysis 178 699 292.7 Income Maintenance, Medical Assistance and Regulation 204 732 258.8 Information Systems 442 1,515 242.8 Environmental Management and Preservation 300 636 112.0 Corrections Programs 1,170 2,281 95.0 Revenue Collection, Gaming Promotion and Regulation 467 738 58.0 Planning, Research, and Grants 498 784 57.4 Law 333 515 54.7 Personnel 360 544 51.1 Nursing 1,111 1,618 45.6 Accounting, Auditing, Fiscal Management 1,034 1,394 34.8 Natural Resource Programs 1,187 1,511 27.3 General Management Assistance 611 743 21.6 Buildings and Grounds Operation 1,361 1,598 17.4 General Clerical 5,373 6,171 14.9 Law Enforcement, Security, and Related 944 1,036 9.8 Vocational Rehabilitation Programs 433 452 4.4 Building Maintenance 839 871 3.8 Engineering 1,816 1,869 2.9 Highway Maintenance 1,600 1,607 .4 Nutrition, Clothing, Household Management 592 555 6.3 Human Services Nursing Home Residential Programs 3,319 2,675 19.4 Jobs and Training Programs 980 700 28.6 Laborers 430 168 60.9
NOTE: 1985 and 1998 data are from April. a “Job Families” are different than “Career Families.” DOER used “Job Families” through 1998 to group job classifications. In 1999, DOER replaced “Job Families” with “Career Families.”
SOURCE: Minnesota Department of Employee Relations.
Human resources includes various personnel functions such as classification of jobs, recruitment of candidates to fill open positions, testing or evaluating applicants, and certification of candidates as eligible for employment. The Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) is the state’s central human resources agency. 9
In 1939, Minnesota became one of the first states to enact civil service reforms linking hiring and promotion to evaluation of skills related to the job, and establishing the Department of Civil Service, a forerunner of the Department of Employee Relations. Collective bargaining was authorized by The Public Employee Labor Relations Act (PELRA) enacted in 1971 and amended in 1973 to permit a limited right to strike for many employees. PELRA was further amended in 1980 to create statewide bargaining units and extend the right to strike. 10 These laws established the two key elements of Minnesota’s human resources policy: to base employee selection and promotion on merit rather than personal or political relationships, and to rely on collective bargaining to establish employee compensation and working conditions.
As late as the 1970s human resources services were substantially centralized in what was then called the Department of Personnel. This arrangement emphasized the regulatory responsibility of the central human resources department to prevent any departure from merit system principles. However, centralized expertise over the staffing needs of agencies proved difficult to maintain, and complaints about poor service grew. 11 Over the last two decades the system has evolved so that greater functional responsibility is now placed in the human resource sections of state agencies and service rather than regulation is increasingly emphasized as the central responsibility of DOER. The Department of Employee Relations still serves as the single employer for the executive branch, however, and is still expected to provide expertise and statewide consistency in personnel management. 12
DOER delegates control of many human resources functions to the larger state agencies while providing comprehensive services only for small agencies. The delegated functions typically include development of experience and training ratings, eligible list establishment and maintenance, administration of examinations, approval of non list appointments (such as transfer, mobility assignment, temporary appointment), and various other functions. Hiring for classes used by more than one agency continues to be restricted to statewide lists administered by DOER. As our survey of agency human resources directors presented in Chapter 3 shows, this is a continuing source of friction between DOER and state agencies. Among the departments with full delegation of authority from DOER are: Administration, Finance, Health, Human Services, Minnesota Planning, Natural Resources, Revenue, and Transportation. These are generally large departments with sizable human resources divisions.
State employees work in a wide variety of occupations.
In state government, hiring and promotions are based on merit system principles; compensation and working conditions are determined through collective bargaining.
9 Minnesota Statutes Chapter 43A defines the power and duties of the department and contains the state’s compensation policies.
10 Minn. Stat. §179A. 10.
11 The Program Evaluation Division of the Office of the Legislative Auditor conducted a comprehensive study of the state’s central human resources agency, then known as the Department of Personnel, in 1978.
12 DOER is the employer of executive branch employees excluding the faculty and top administrators of MnSCU, which bargains with several faculty organizations representing these employees.
The DOER responsibilities directly relating to employee compensation include: 13 Classification of jobs and evaluation of job complexity.
Labor relations, including negotiation and administration of collective bargaining agreements between the state and the unions representing state employees.
Administration of the compensation plans for unrepresented employees.
Administration of employee insurance programs. Job Classification and Evaluation
An employer as large and diverse as the state of Minnesota necessarily employs people to perform many jobs. Not counting academic positions, most jobs in the executive branch (about 89 percent) are in the “classified” civil service. 14 “Classified” jobs are those filled on the basis of formal tests or ratings of the applicant’s ability to perform specific job requirements. DOER tries to group positions similar in duties and responsibilities in the same job classification in order to maintain consistency in compensation across state agencies. Despite efforts to group similar jobs into a limited number of job classes, Minnesota has around 2,200 separate job classifications, many with only one employee. 15 “Unclassified” jobs in the executive branch are not subject to the same hiring requirements as classified jobs. Unclassified jobs include department heads and top management of state agencies, elected officials, confidential secretaries or assistants, as well as temporary and student workers and a variety of other specific job categories spelled out in law. 16
The Department of Employee Relations is responsible for maintaining, revising, and administering the state’s job classification plan. New positions need to be allocated to an appropriate class or a new class established. A salary range or rate must be assigned to each class. If a class is in a bargaining unit, the salary range is assigned pursuant to the applicable collective bargaining agreement. 17
Minnesota has about 2,200 separate job classifications.
13 Minn. Stat. Ch.# 43A.
14 As of January 6, 1999.
15 Additional job classes allow more specific job qualifications or job duties to be incorporated into the recruiting process, as well as a different salary range than that of otherwise similar classes. In general, agencies have more control over the job classes that are unique to the agency.
16 Minn. Stat. §43A. 08.
Since the 1970s DOER has used a job evaluation system developed by the Hay Group, a large international human resources consulting firm. The Hay system is used by many private and public employers to help achieve proportionality and equity in employee compensation. The Hay system was first used in Minnesota in 1970 to measure managerial jobs, and used in 1978 to measure all executive branch jobs. Today about 1,900 job classifications in state government have Hay ratings. Hay evaluations are conducted for new positions that do not fit into existing classes, when a job needs to be evaluated because of disagreement about the appropriate level of a position, if a position is part of a broader job classification study, or if the position has not been evaluated for many years and there is concern that the job has changed.
The Hay method calculates a numerical rating for each job. Table 1.4 summarizes the four factors that are considered in calculating Hay ratings: Know How, Problem Solving, Accountability, and Working Conditions. As Table 1.4 shows, each factor has several sub factors. For example, “Know How” refers to the skills required for acceptable job performance, including practical procedures, specialized techniques, and learned disciplines. “Know How” also includes managerial and human relations skills involved in the job. “Problem Solving” has two dimensions: the environment in which the problem solving takes place and the challenge presented by the thinking to be done. “Accountability” is measured on three dimensions: freedom to act, job impact on end results, and magnitude in dollars of the programs or activities primarily affected by the job. Evaluation of executive branch employees. 18 Sixteen of these have elected exclusive representatives and are shown in Table 1.5 along with the labor unions that have been certified as exclusive representatives for the bargaining units. 19
Table 1.4: Hay Job Evaluation FactorsKnow How Technical or Specialized Knowledge Managerial Skills Human Relations Skills Problem Solving Environment in Which Thinking Takes Place Challenge Presented by Thinking Accountability Freedom to Act on Decisions Job Impact on the End Results of the Agency Size of Budget or Magnitude of Influence Working Conditions Physical Effort Environment
Hazards SOURCE: Minnesota Department of Employee Relations.
To promote internal consistency, the Department of Employee Relations calculates a numerical rating of job complexity for most state job classes.
17 Minn. Stat. §43A. 07, subd. 2.
“Working Conditions” involves consideration of physical effort, environment, and hazards associated with the job. The various factors are combined in a somewhat complex fashion which will not be described here. To be clear, Hay ratings are not based on what a job is paid in the marketplace or on the performance of state employees in the job.
Hay ratings range from under 100 for food service workers or traffic recorders to 1,500 to 2,000 for deputy commissioners in large state departments. Agency heads are not rated, but under the system, department heads in larger departments would have ratings between 1,800 and 2,400. In the next chapter we examine data on how salaries are related to Hay points within state government in comparison to private employers nationally who use the Hay system.
Ratings are calculated by a committee of three to five trained raters drawn from DOER, agency human resource staff, or agency management knowledgeable about the jobs being rated. Committee members evaluate the positions separately using charts developed for the purpose, then reach a consensus. Between July and December 1998, 18 Hay committees performed 51 Hay evaluations. The number of annual Hay evaluations has ranged between 70 and 139 per year in recent years. A total of 549 ratings were performed between July 1993 and December 1998. DOER periodically evaluates the Hay ratings performed by its staff and others. In April 1998, a consultant from the Hay group reviewed 166 Hay ratings and found that 7 percent required revision and a change in total Hay points, indicating a generally high level of performance by raters.
Hay ratings are an important tool in assigning a salary range to a job classification. Jobs with similar Hay points ideally should receive similar pay, but DOER’s policy allows salaries to be set one or two ranges up or down from the ideal salary range associated with the job’s Hay points. DOER’s Compensation Division periodically reviews Hay ratings as a measure of internal consistency in compensation. The Compensation Division also examines the pay of female dominated job classes and moves any up in pay that are more than two salary ranges below the ideal range.
Determination of Employee Compensation
While the classification system establishes the overall framework of employee compensation, changes in compensation are determined through collective bargaining for represented employees. Collective bargaining agreements also indirectly help determine compensation for unrepresented employees. The pattern of employee compensation for government typically differs from that of private employment. As we will see in the next chapter, the range of state employee compensation is quite compressed compared to the range of private sector compensation.
DOER represents the state in bargaining, except in the case of the bargaining units composed of MnSCU faculty where MnSCU represents the state. The Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) defines 17 bargaining units for
BACKGROUND 13 Jobs with similar ratings should receive similar pay.
Table 1.5: State Employees by Bargaining Unit, 1999 State Employees Union and Bargaining Unit Number Percent
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Craft, Maintenance, and Labor Unit 2,539 4.8% Service Unit 3,201 6.1 Health Care Non Professional Unit 3,205 6.1 Clerical and Office Unit 7,706 14.6 Technical Unit 3,624 6.9 Correctional Officers Unit 1,639 3.1
Middle Management Association (MMA) Supervisory Employees Unit 2,930 5.6
Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE) General Professional Unit 10,612 20.1
Minnesota Government Engineer’s Council (MGEC) Professional Engineering Unit 840 1.6
Minnesota Law Enforcement Association (MLEA) Law Enforcement Unit 735 1.4
Minnesota Nurse’s Association (MNA) Health Care Professional Unit 947 1.8
State Residential Schools Education Association (SRSEA) Professional State Residential Instructional Unit 192 .4
Inter Faculty Organization (IFO) State University Instructional Unit 3,020 5.7
Minnesota Community College Faculty Association (MCCFA) Community College Instructional Unit 1,893 3.6
United Technical College Educators (UTCE) Technical College Instructional Unit 4,375 8.3
Minnesota State University Association of Administrative and Service Faculty (MSUAASF)
State University Administrative Unit 454 .9 Unrepresented a 4,837 9.2
NOTE: Data are from June 1999. a “Unrepresented” are employees who do not bargain any terms or conditions of their employment, and include confidential employees, agency heads, health treatment professionals, and others.
SOURCE: Minnesota Department of Employee Relations.
18 Minn. Stat. §179A. 10.
19 All but one of the bargaining units (the Health Treatment Professional unit) have chosen to elect exclusive representatives to bargain for the employees of the unit.
Table 1.5 also shows the number of employees in each bargaining unit as of June 1999, plus the number of unrepresented employees. About 9.2 percent of state employees are unrepresented. The compensation and working conditions of unrepresented employees is governed by several plans, including the Commissioner’s Plan and the Managerial Plan, which are administered by DOER, MNSCU, and several constitutional offices.
In Minnesota state government the collective bargaining cycle is tied to the budget cycle. Agency budgets are determined every two years as the Legislature appropriates money for each department and program. As part of the appropriations process, the Legislature may enact a salary supplement based on an assumption about how much salaries will or should increase during the biennium, but neither this amount (if any), nor the percentage change in agency budgets, places any necessary limit on the size of salary increases reached through bargaining.
Of course, agencies need to budget for purposes other than employee compensation. Both parties in the collective bargaining negotiations must consider trade offs between compensation increases and the ability to fund positions and programs. Bargaining agreements have a varying impact across state government. Agencies vary quite widely in terms of how much of their spending goes to employee compensation or to compensation for employees in particular bargaining units.
Employment contracts typically cover a two year period. Bargaining can begin once the budget is enacted, but collective bargaining agreements are not usually reached before the first fiscal year of the new biennium which begins in July. It is customary for DOER to first concentrate on negotiations with the largest employee unions, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE). AFSCME Council No. 6 represents six bargaining units with 21,914 employees, and MAPE represents 10,612 employees. Together these unions represent over half of all state employees (see Table 1.5). Bargaining agreements between the state and these unions set a pattern for other negotiations with smaller unions, and also set a pattern for compensation and other issues for unrepresented employees. It is frequently the case, however, that bargaining continues into the time of the legislative sessions held in even numbered years.
Once DOER and union representatives reach an agreement, union members must vote to accept or reject it. The Legislature must ultimately approve collective bargaining agreements, so union members actually are voting on “tentative” contracts. Since 1995, responsibility and authority for oversight of collective bargaining and employee relations have rested with the Legislative Coordinating Commission, which has established a subcomittee on employee relations. 20 The commission reviews and, as appropriate, approves the contracts which then go into effect pending final ratification by the Legislature. Contracts are almost always approved by the commission.
Pay and working conditions are determined through collective bargaining once the state budget is set.
20 Minn. Stat. §3.855. Before 1995, these functions were carried out by the Legislative Commission on Employee Relations.
Administration of Employee Benefits
The Department of Employee Relations administers employee insurance programs for state employees and other active and retired employees, including employees of the University of Minnesota. In recent years, the state has moved to standardize health insurance benefits and to assume greater underwriting risk for health and dental insurance. The state also self insures for workers’ compensation coverage and manages workers’ compensation claims for state employees.
Retirement benefits are not administered by DOER, nor are they determined through the collective bargaining process. State employees participate in various retirement plans. Pension policy is set by the Legislature through the Legislative Commission on Pension and Retirement which oversees most public employee pensions in the state. The great majority of state employees are covered by a defined benefit plan administered by MSRS and financed by a 4 percent of salary contribution by the state and the employee. 21 There are other plans for unclassified employees, public safety workers, and others.
This report does not examine the many policy questions involving pensions and retirement, although they are a concern of the Legislature. Our office, for example, recently examined early retirement incentives. 22 Also, last year the Legislature asked the Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement to do a study comparing public and private pension benefits and report by January 2000.
We have noted above that employment in Minnesota state government is grounded on two statutory principles: hiring and promotion is to be based on merit as determined by tests based on the requirements of the job (rather than personal or political relationships), and pay and conditions of work are to be negotiated by the state and organizations representing employees. In addition, there are other statutory goals relating to human resource management that govern compensation. State law requires personnel decisions to be nondiscriminatory as defined by the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 23 Minnesota also enacted a “pay equity” policy in 1981 to establish equitable compensation relationships between female dominated, male dominated, and balanced classes of employees in the executive branch. 24
Furthermore, Minnesota statutes instruct the Commissioner of Employee Relations to pursue several objectives in collective bargaining negotiations, including: 25
State employee compensation should be internally consistent and externally competitive to the degree possible.
21 Defined benefit plans pay benefits based on average salary and years of service. Defined contribution plans pay benefits based on employee and employer contributions and investment results.
22 Office of the Legislative Auditor, Early Retirement Incentives (St. Paul, March 1995); http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/1995/retire.htm.
23 Minn. Stat. Ch. 363
24 Minn. Stat. §43A. 01, subd. 3.
25 Minn. Stat. §43A. 18, subd. 8.
Compensation for positions in the classified and unclassified service should compare reasonably to one another;
Compensation for state positions should bear a reasonable relationship to compensation for similar positions outside state service;
Compensation for management positions should bear a reasonable relationship to compensation of represented employees managed;
Compensation for positions within the classified service should bear a reasonable relationship among related job classes and among various levels within the same occupation; and
Compensation for positions which require comparable skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions should be comparable, and compensation for positions requiring different skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions should be proportional to the skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions required.
These goals are not entirely compatible with one another. A salary structure that is competitive will not necessarily be internally consistent and proportional. The collective bargaining process may not result in salaries that are either internally consistent or competitive with market rates. In addition, it is an element of our political culture that public employees at the upper levels should not receive monetary compensation equivalent to upper level management or professional positions in the private sector.
About 50,000 people are employed in the executive branch of state government in over 2,200 different jobs. Excluding technical college employees added through reorganization, the number of state employees grew 29 percent between 1980 and 1999. The state payroll per employee, adjusted for inflation has remained almost constant between 1980 and 1998. Minnesota employees are fairly evenly divided between the Twin Cities area and the balance of the state.
The process by which state employee compensation is determined rests on merit system principles established by civil service reforms dating to the 1930s and the right of state employees to organize and bargain collectively, established and extended in the 1970s. Among other objectives, state laws direct the Department of Employee Relations to work through the bargaining process to achieve a pattern of state compensation which is internally consistent and competitive in the larger economy.
While Minnesota’s compensation policy is not entirely consistent, it has guided our analysis of compensation presented in the following chapter. We examine the internal equity and proportionality of state salaries, and we compare state compensation to compensation offered by other employers in Minnesota and other states.
The State’s compensation policy goals are not compatible with one another.
22 Compensation SUMMARY
As a group, Minnesota state employees receive higher pay than private sector employees, however this difference is largely due to the difference in the mix of jobs employed in the public and private sectors. Comparisons of pay rates for specific jobs show that the state tends to pay relatively more for entry level and lower skilled positions and less for upper level management and professional occupations. Minnesota pays its employees more than most other state governments. While wages are about 20 percent higher in the Twin Cities area than the balance of the state, state government pay varies much less because it is set by statewide salary schedules. The cost of state employee benefits equals about 31 percent of total compensation, an amount that is comparable to state and local government employers and large private employers nationally.
This chapter addresses the central issue of the study: How does Minnesota state employee compensation compare with the pay and benefits offered by other employers?
We address this question by comparing both the salary and the benefits received by Minnesota state employees to several other groups of employees. First, we compare state of Minnesota wages to those of other public sector employers, both nationally and locally. We also compare the state’s wages to those of private sector employers in Minnesota. We then provide a more complete picture of state employee compensation by comparing the benefits provided by the state of Minnesota to those provided by other employers, including other state and local governments as well as the private sector.
Wages are the major part of employee compensation. We first compare the wages and salaries of Minnesota state employees to those of other public employees, including employees of other states and employees of local governments in the Twin Cities area. We also compare Minnesota state wages to those provided by private sector employers in Minnesota. The data available for salary comparisons are not perfect: ideally we would be able to compare the wages of equally qualified and experienced employees working in very similar jobs across settings (different states, local governments, and the private sector). However, this type of data is not available. In an effort to overcome shortcomings in the data we make comparisons based on similar job titles and, when comparing broad averages, we control for the different mix of jobs when possible. Despite the limitations a fairly clear picture of Minnesota state wages emerges from the data.
Other State Governments
The relationship of state and local government is different in Minnesota than most other states. In Minnesota, local governments are provided state financing to carry out functions performed by state governments elsewhere. Partly as a consequence:
The state of Minnesota directly employs fewer workers per capita than most other state governments.
As shown Table 2.1, Minnesota state government ranks 36 th among the states in the number of employees per capita. 1 However, Minnesota ranks high (8 th ) in the number of local government employees compared to other states. As a result, Minnesota ranks in the mid range (18 th ) in terms of all government employees (state and local) per capita.
Possibly because Minnesota administers many of its activities through local governments, the state tends to have a higher percentage of employees in professional and managerial positions than other states. Thus, Minnesota state government ranks relatively high (7th ) in average monthly compensation compared to other states. 2
The state of Minnesota tends to pay its employees higher wages than other states.
Table 2.1: National Rankings of Minnesota State and Local Government Employment, 1998
State Local State and Local Government Government Governments Full Time Equivalent Employees
(FTE) Per Capita 36 8 18 Payroll Per Capita 19 6 6 Payroll Per FTE 7 18 15
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1998 Census of Governments.
Compared to other state governments, Minnesota has a relatively small and well paid workforce.
1 These rankings are based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Census’ annual survey of public employment and payroll. The survey measures the number of government civilian employees and their gross payrolls for one month. Each state is surveyed annually, whereas data on local government payroll and employment is collected from a representative sample (see http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apes.html).
2 Minnesota’s high ranking appears to hold even when state employee compensation is adjusted for each state’s cost of living (Steven Gold and Sarah Ritchie, “Compensation of State and Local Employees: Sorting Out the Issues,” in Revitalizing State and Local Public Service, ed. Frank J. Thompson (San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1993), 184).
Minnesota is one of 24 state governments that participated in the 1998 Central States Salary Survey. 3 This annual survey asks each state to report average salaries for over 100 benchmark positions, the majority of which are professional and managerial positions. According to the survey, Minnesota’s salaries are highly competitive, ranking in the upper third of participating states for 87 of 107 comparable positions. Minnesota paid the highest salary of all participating states for 21 positions (see Table 2.2). Job categories that are particularly highly paid in Minnesota state government relative to other state governments include engineering, information technology, public safety, and corrections. The overall pattern of higher than average wages in Minnesota holds even when comparisons are restricted to a sub set of Midwestern states. 4 Minnesota’s salaries are above the average paid by Midwestern states for over 80 percent of the positions (see Appendix B for a tabular summary of comparisons available from the Central States Salary Survey). 5
Table 2.2: Minnesota Positions with Top Ranking Salaries in Central States Survey, 1998
Average Annual Salary Central States Position Minnesota Participants Information Systems Manager $72,307 $45,425 Engineer, Principal 63,621 52,608 Information Technology Specialist 5 63,183 48,201 Pilot 61,680 40,863 Systems Analysis Unit Supervisor 61,492 49,054 Information Technology Specialist 4 54,935 44,883 Special Agent 53,620 40,044 Engineering Specialist 49,047 35,476 Planner, Principal State 47,231 39,452 Corrections Officer 4 47,147 29,717 Natural Resources Specialist 2
(Conservation Officer) 45,894 34,903 Health Care Program Investigator 43,138 32,032 Real Estate Representative 41,927 33,989 Dietitian 1 41,259 34,567 Medical Technologist 39,881 32,075 Grain Inspector 2 37,897 27,845 Interpretive Naturalist 2 37,730 26,917 Graphic Arts Specialist 36,874 29,832 Corrections Officer 2 33,888 25,450 Licensed Practical Nurse 1 and 2 33,512 24,140 Human Services Technician 30,527 18,896
NOTE: Job titles listed are those used by the state of Minnesota. Central States average salaries are weighted to the number of employees in responding states. Weighted averages may differ from survey results published by the Central States Compensation Association, due to the exclusion of Indiana in printed results and adjustment of the weight given to Illinois in certain instances. See Appendix B for a more comprehensive summary of the salary comparisons available from the Central States Survey.
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office analysis of Central States Salary Survey, 1998.
In a survey of 24 state governments, Minnesota’s salaries appear highly competitive.
3 Participants in the 1998 Central States Salary Survey include: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The survey is jointly sponsored by the primary human resource department in each state; survey administration rotates from state to state annually.
4 These states are: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Twin Cities Area Public Employers
In this section we ask: How do state salaries compare to those offered by other public employers in the Twin Cities area?
The best source of information on how state salaries compare to those of other public employers in Minnesota is an annual salary survey conducted by DCA Stanton and Associates. 6 Stanton collects data on salaries for a group of 106 jobs, many of which are positions used by both state and local government. We have chosen to compare state salaries to the larger public employers in the metropolitan area. We were able to compare monthly salary data on 42 jobs shared by the state and larger Twin Cities public employers. 7 Of course, not all employers use each of the 42 jobs, so some comparisons are based on fewer jobs.
As Table 2.3 shows, we compared average monthly salaries for the state of Minnesota and four employer groups: (1) metropolitan agencies; (2) Hennepin County, Ramsey County, Minneapolis, and St. Paul (Minnesota’s two largest counties and cities); (3) suburban municipalities with populations over 25,000; and (4) suburban municipalities with populations between 10,000 and 25,000.
Five employer group salary averages are presented in Table 2.3. A comparison of averages weighted by the number of employees in each employer group shows that average monthly pay for state jobs, $2,821, is lowest of the five groups. The four other groups are fairly close in their average monthly wage. Suburbs with populations over 25,000 have the highest average monthly pay at $3,626, followed by metropolitan agencies at $3,609. But the fourth highest employer group, suburbs with populations of 10,000 to 25,000, still has an average wage of over $3,517, distinctly higher than the state.
We compared Minnesota state wages to those of other large government employers in the Twin Cities.
5 For additional data showing that employees of state and local government in the Twin Cities tend to earn higher wages than employees of state and local governments around the nation, see: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/2000/pe0005.htm.
6 1999 Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Salary Survey (Minnetonka, Minnesota: DCA Stanton Group, 1999). The data produced by this survey are the property of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities.
7 The list of jobs includes all jobs with at least 100 employees among all employers represented in the survey: Accountant 1, Accountant 2, Accountant 3, Accounting Clerk 1, Accounting Clerk 2, Accounting Clerk 3, Applications Programmer, Auto Service Worker, Civil Engineer 2, Civil Engineer 3, Clerk Typist, Custodian, Data Entry Operator, Law Enforcement Dispatcher, Engineering Aide 1, Engineering Technician 2, Engineering Technician 3, Engineering Technician 4, Environmentalist 2, Environmentalist 3, Executive Secretary, General Clerk, Inspector 2, Junior Programmer, Laborer, Maintenance Supervisor, Office Administrator/Supervisor, Patrol Officer/Deputy Sheriff, Personal Computer Technician, Police/Sheriff’s Lieutenant, Police/Sheriff’s Sergeant, Secretary A, Secretary C, Senior Attorney, Senior Clerk Typist, Senior Personnel Representative, Senior Planner, Skilled Mechanic, Streets Maintenance Worker, Superintendent, Systems Analyst Programmer, Telephone Operator and/or Receptionist.
We investigated whether these comparisons reflect differences in the distribution of employees across the 42 jobs by calculating averages of monthly pay rates that are standardized on the occupational distribution of state employment in the survey data. We computed standardized averages based on the pay rates of each employer group weighted by the number of employees working for the state. Table 2.3 shows these results in the third column. State pay is still lower than three of the four groups by percentages that range from about 2 to 10 percent. State pay is about 3 percent higher than the Suburbs 10,000 to 25,000 in population. These differences are not large. However, we do not have comparative data for many state and local government jobs. A number of human resource directors we interviewed believe that many state jobs do not pay as well as jobs with government employers in the Twin Cities area. The data presented here lends some support to a conclusion that state jobs do not pay as well as comparable jobs of larger government employers in the Twin Cities area, but our finding is somewhat tentative due to a lack of comprehensive data.
Private Sector Employees
While it is difficult to make precise comparisons of wages paid by the public and private sectors in Minnesota, a fairly clear general picture emerges from the available data. Comparing the average wages provided by the state of Minnesota to those provided by private sector employers resulted in three interrelated findings, each of which is discussed below:
In the aggregate, state employees are paid more than private sector employees in Minnesota.
The difference in average wages is due to a difference in the types of jobs in Minnesota state government and the private sector.
In comparison to the private sector, the pay scale for Minnesota state employees is compressed.
Table 2.3: Public Sector Monthly Pay in Minnesota, 1999
Percent Difference from State Average Unstandardized Standardized
State of Minnesota $2,821 — — Metro Agencies 3,609 24.7% 10.1% Hennepin, Ramsey,
Minneapolis, and St. Paul 3,546 24.7 2.0 Suburbs over 25,000 3,626 29.1 3.0 Suburbs 10,000 25,000 3,517 26.7 2.7
NOTE: Data are for large public sector employers in the Twin Cities area, based on 42 jobs common to all jurisdictions. Standardized differences are based on the occupational distribution of the state of Minnesota.
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office analysis of data from DCA Stanton Group, 1999 Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Salary Survey.
On average, state employees appear to be paid less than employees of local governments in the Twin Cities.
Many analysts have observed that government employees tend to earn higher wages than those working for employers in the private sector. 8 This patterns holds for Minnesota as well. For example, according to data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), in 1998 state government employees in Minnesota averaged $16.70 per hour compared to $14.93 for private sector employees (see Figure 2.1). 9$16.70 $14.93 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 Minnesota State Government Private Industry in Minnesota
Figure 2.1: Average Hourly Pay in Minnesota, 1998
NOTE: Data pooled from three months in each year 1994 to 1998, and inflated to 1998 dollars using the Employment Cost Index.
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor's Office analysis of data from U.S. Bureau of Census, Current Population Survey.
8 Mark Musell and Neal Masia, “Reconciling Differences in Federal and Private Sector Pay Comparisons,”
Public Budgeting and Finance, Spring 1998: 68 77; Charles O. Kroncke and James A. Long, “Pay Comparability in State Governments,” Journal of Labor Research, 19, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 371 385; Micheal A. Miller, “The Public Private Pay Debate: What Do the Data Show?”
Monthly Labor Review, May 1996: 18 29; John E. Buckley, “Pay in Private Industry and State and Local Governments, 1994,” Compensation and Working Conditions, September 1996: 22; Dale Belman and John S. Heywood, “State and Local Government Wage Differentials: An Intrastate Analysis,” Journal of Labor Research, XVI, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 187 201; Kristen Brunner and William A. Blazar, “Public Sector Compensation: Performance Driven? Affordable?” Prepared for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, January 1993; Bradley R. Braden and Stephanie L. Hyland, “Cost of Employee Compensation in Public and Private Sectors,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1993: 14 21; Wendell Cox and Samuel Bunelli, “America’s Protected Class: Why Excess Public Employee Compensation is Bankrupting the States,” The State Factor, 18, no. 3 (February 1992): 3 31; Greg Hundley, “Public and Private Sector Occupational Pay Structures,” Industrial Relations,
30, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 417 434.
9 The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a nation wide monthly survey of approximately 50,000 households conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Census. Despite the large monthly sample size, the number of interviews collected from Minnesota in a given month averages 820. We pooled data from three months in each year 1994 to 1998 in order to attain a reasonably representative number of state employees (272; for a similar use of CPS data see Kronke and Long, “Pay Comparability in State Governments”). The CPS serves a variety of purposes, including providing estimates of employment, unemployment, and earnings (see http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/).
Several national studies have found that the higher average wages for government employees are due to differences in the mix of jobs in the public versus the private sector. 10 This pattern is also true for the state of Minnesota. We found:
A higher percentage of state employees work in professional occupations, and a higher percentage of private sector employees work in sales, craft, and assembly line positions.
We used data from the 1994 to 1998 CPS to compare the types of jobs held by Minnesota state workers to the types of jobs held by workers in Minnesota’s private sector (see Figure 2.2). 11 According to the CPS, 37.5 percent of state employees work in relatively high paid professional occupations, compared to only 12.4 percent of the private sector. In the private sector a far higher percentage of workers are employed in sales occupations (12.2 percent compared to 5.5 percent in the state), “precision production, craft and repair” occupations (11.6 percent compared to 5.5 percent of state workers), and “machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors” occupations (7.4 percent compared to 0.4 percent of state workers). Additionally, several positions in state government, such as highway patrol officers, do not exist in private industry.
As noted above, we found that the difference in types of jobs in the public and private sectors accounts for much of the difference in average wage between the two sectors. For example, we assigned each Minnesota state employee in the 1994 to 1998 CPS data set a private sector wage based on the occupational groups represented in Figure 2.2. We then re calculated the overall average wage for Minnesota state employees in the sample and found that it rose 3 cents per hour. This suggests that adjusting Minnesota state employee wages to match those in the private sector would have little overall impact on the size of the state’s payroll. 12 However, compensating state employees at the same rate as private sector employees would change the distribution of wages within Minnesota’s payroll. Lower skilled positions would receive lower wages and higher skilled occupations would receive a significant raise, because:
Lower skilled occupations in Minnesota state government tend to receive higher wages than their counterparts in the private sector.
Higher skilled occupations in Minnesota state government tend to receive lower wages than their counterparts in the private sector.
Compared to Minnesota’s private sector workforce, Minnesota state government employs a large proportion of professional employees.
10 Musell and Masia, “Reconciling Differences in Federal and Private Sector Pay Comparisons”; Kroncke and Long, “Pay Comparability in State Governments”; Miller, “The Public Private Pay Debate”; Buckley, “Pay in Private Industry and State and Local Governments, 1994”; Belman and Heywood, “State and Local Government Wage Differentials”; Braden and Hyland, “Cost of Employee Compensation in Public and Private Sectors”; Hundley, “Public and Private Sector Occupational Pay Structures.”
11 For a more precise indication of the number of state employees in various job categories see Appendix A.
01020 30 40 Private Household
Farming, Forestry and Fishing Machine Operators, Assemblers and Inspectors
Handlers, Equipment Cleaners and Laborers Sales
Transportation and Material Moving Protective Services
Precision Production, Craft and Repair Technicians and Related Support
Services Executive, Administrative and Managerial
Administrative Support and Clerical Professional Specialty
Percent State Government
Workforce Private Industry Workforce
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor's Office analysis of data from U.S. Bureau of Census, Current Population Survey, 1994 98.
Figure 2. 2: Occupational Distribution for State Government and Private Industry in Minnesota
As noted in the beginning of this section, we found that the wage structure in Minnesota state government follows the common pattern of “government pay scale compression.” 13 Relative to the private sector, the state’s pay scale is compressed, with higher than average wages at the lower end of the spectrum and relatively low wages at the upper end of the spectrum.
Table 2.4 shows a comparison of average state wages to average private sector wages for a wide range of positions. 14 The most dramatic differences are for guards, janitors, and general maintenance workers, all of whom average over 30 percent more as state employees than in private industry. 15 The table also reveals substantial stateemployee premiums for a range of entry level positions, including entry level accountants, buyers, personnel specialists, drafters, and accounting clerks. 16
Lower skilled positions in state government are paid relatively more, and highly skilled positions are paid less, than in the private sector.
12 We repeated this analysis using data from the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and the Hay Group (see Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4, below, and accompanying text for additional use and explanation of BLS and Hay Group data). We first estimated the state’s wage related payroll for 1999 using the employee counts and average wages provided by DOER. We then substituted private sector wages based on each position’s Hay rating, using BLS derived estimates for those with ratings less than 240 (approximately 60 percent of state employees) and Hay Group derived estimates for those with Hay ratings above 240. Finally, we estimated a salary related payroll based on the substituted private sector average wages. Despite data limitations the results were very similar to the analysis that relied on Current Population Survey data: adjusting the salaries of Minnesota state employees to mirror private sector wages for similar jobs would increase the amount Minnesota state government pays in salaries by approximately 1 percent.
13 Miller, “The Public Private Pay Debate,” 22 26; Hundley, “Public and Private Sector Occupational Pay Structures.”
14 Private sector data is from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Occupational Compensation Survey Program (OCSP), a stratified survey of establishments with at least 50 employees (http://stats.bls.gov/ocshome.htm). Due to the sophistication of sampling techniques and the role of professional field economists in BLS data collection, the OCSP is the best available data. However, note that the original data was collected in February 1996 and inflated to 1999 levels using a common wage inflator (the Employment Cost Index; see http://stats.bls.gov/ecthome.htm). Also note that the average wages for the private sector are from the Twin Cities, while the average state wages apply to all state of Minnesota employees around the state. We feel that this is a valid comparison because the state has one pay schedule for all employees throughout the state. Since private sector pay is lower in areas outside of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the differences between state and private sector wages would change somewhat if wages from the entire state were available for comparison (see the section on geographic variation, below).
15 Table 2.4 uses the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ job titles; for a listing of the cross references to the Minnesota state government job titles see: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/2000/pe0005.htm.
16 The available data suggest that the pay scale for engineers employed by the state of Minnesota is not compressed. The Department of Transportation indicated that this data does not reflect the experience of the department and suggested that the pay scale for engineers employed by Minnesota is compressed compared to the local market.
Table 2.4: Average Hourly Wages, State of Minnesota and Private Sector Employees, 1999
Number of Average Hourly Wage State Wage as State Employees State Private Percentage of Private Wage Professional Occupations
Accountants Level I 85 $17.47 $14.86 118% Level II 170 19.62 16.62 118 Level III 91 22.46 22.73 99 Level IV 27 26.27 28.05 94 Level V 8 31.12 38.50 81 Attorneys (Level III) 10 33.68 38.66 87 Engineers Level I 10 15.74 19.64 80 Level II 55 19.51 22.73 86 Level III 321 25.85 26.67 97 Level IV 214 30.64 32.00 96 Level V 25 39.36 37.97 104 Administrative Occupations Buyers/Contracting Specialists Level I 21 17.24 14.33 120 Level II 43 21.21 18.53 114 Computer Programmers Level I 198 16.05 17.07 94 Level II 348 19.21 18.23 105 Level III 498 23.48 20.79 113 Computer Systems Analysts (Level II) 300 27.93 27.24 103 Computer Systems Analyst Supervisors/Managers Level I 52 31.44 33.70 93 Level II 35 35.69 39.36 91 Personnel Specialists Level I 39 18.18 14.53 125 Level II 78 20.23 17.42 116 Level III 89 23.21 21.32 109 Level IV 6 25.53 28.40 90 Level V 7 29.54 35.41 83 Personnel Supervisors/Managers (Level II) 3 34.51 41.86 82 Technical Occupations Computer Operators (Level III) 31 15.67 15.52 101 Drafters (Level II) 6 18.53 15.06 123 Clerical Occupations Clerks, Accounting Level II 222 13.71 10.96 125 Level III 257 15.12 12.47 121 Level IV 177 16.44 13.85 119 Clerks, General Level I 941 11.12 9.05 123 Level II 1,603 12.86 10.04 128 Level III 1,509 14.23 11.64 122 Level IV 886 15.65 13.01 120 Personnel Clerks/Assistants (Level III) 62 15.04 13.64 110 Maintenance and Toolroom Occupations General Maintenance Workers 126 16.49 12.37 133 Maintenance Electricians 44 18.68 22.94 81 Maintenance Machinists 4 18.48 20.82 89 Maintenance Mechanics, Machinery 10 18.92 18.54 102 Motor Vehicle Mechanics 190 18.69 18.22 103 Maintenance Pipefitters 2 18.34 23.12 79 Tool and Die Makers 1 22.05 20.41 108 Material Movement and Custodial Occupations Guards (Level I) 94 12.69 8.44 150 Janitors 1,207 12.50 8.78 142
NOTE: Private sector wages have been inflated to 1999 levels using the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s Employment Cost Index. The job titles above are those used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/2000/pe0005.htm for a listing of Minnesota state job titles that match to each of the above titles).
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office analysis of Minnesota Department of Employee Relations data, June 1999, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Compensation Survey, Minneapolis St. Paul, MN WI, Metro Area, February 1996, Tables A 1 through A 5.
Table 2.4 also reveals disparities at the upper end of the pay scale. For example, upper level accountants, personnel specialists, and information technology professionals are paid approximately 10 percent more in the private sector than they are in Minnesota state government.
The general shape of Minnesota’s pay scale is illustrated in Figure 2.3, where the average pay for positions in state government is plotted according to each position’s job complexity rating (Hay points). 17 Obviously, there is a steady increase in average pay as the ratings increase from 50 points to around 500. Above job complexity ratings of 500 the trend starts to level off. Generally speaking, a state employee receiving a promotion from a job rated at 100 points to a job rated at 150 points would receive an increase in hourly pay of approximately $2.39, whereas a state employee promoted from a job rated at 800 points to one rated at 850 points would receive a raise of only 99 cents. 18 Most state employees (97 percent) work in positions rated below 500 points and nearly 50 percent work in positions rated below 200 points.
The pay scale compression illustrated in Figure 2.3 is further demonstrated in Figure 2.4, which compares the general trend in Minnesota’s salary structure to that of the national market. The national market data were provided by the Hay Group and are based on the wages of employees reported by over 400 clients of the Hay Group, most of which are large private businesses. Note that Figure 2.4 compares the trendline associated with state employees in positions rated at 240 points or higher; this includes 38 percent of the state’s workforce, most of whom are in professional and managerial positions. Obviously, the disparity in salaries paid to professionals and managers in Minnesota state government versus the national market grows dramatically with increased levels of responsibility and job complexity ratings (Hay points). In reference to the earlier comparison, according to national market averages an employee receiving a job promotion from a position rated at 800 to one rated 850 points would receive a raise of $3.34 per hour. 19
COMPENSATION 29 Nearly 73 percent of state employees work in positions rated at 300 or fewer Hay points.
Overall Trend in Average Salary Given Job Complexity Rating$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Job Complexity Rating (Hay Points) SOURCE: Legislative Auditor's Office analysis of Minnesota Department of Employee Relations data.
Figure 2.3: Average Hourly Salary by Job Complexity, Minnesota State Employees, 1999
17 Minnesota’s Department of Employee Relations assigns Hay ratings to nearly all positions in state government in an effort to maintain proportionality and consistency in compensation across a wide variety of job types. The ratings are based on an evaluation of the duties, responsibilities, and working conditions of each position. (For more detail on the Hay point rating system, see Chapter One of this report.)
18 The comparison can also be made in terms of percentages: On average, a Minnesota state employee starting with a Hay rating of 100 and receiving a promotion equivalent to 50 percent in Hay points (to 150) would receive a 20 percent raise in salary, whereas a state employee starting in a position with a Hay rating of 800 who received a promotion equivalent to 50 percent in Hay points (to 1200) would receive a 14 percent raise.
In Minnesota one source of pay scale compression is Minn. Stat. §15A. 0815, which limits the salaries of commissioners of large agencies at 85 percent of the governor’s salary and the commissioners of small agencies at 75 percent of the governor’s salary. 20 Minn. Stat. §43A. 17 further restricts state employee compensation by designating the salary of the head of a state agency as “the upper limit on the salaries of individual employees in the agency” except in unique circumstances. In contrast, salaries of local government employees in Minnesota are limited to 95 percent of the governor’s salary (Minn. Stat. §43A. 17, subd. 9).$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Job Complexity Rating (Hay Points) Thousands
National Market Minnesota State Government
SOURCE: Hay Group (National Market), Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (Minnesota State Government).
Figure 2.4: Average Annual Salary by Job Complexity Rating, Minnesota State Government and National Market, 1999
By law, state salaries are generally capped at 85 percent of the Governor’s salary. Private employers pay much more than the state for upper level managerial and professional positions.
19 In this case the percentage comparison for an employee given a promotion equivalent to 50 percent in Hay points (from 800 to 1200) would result in a salary increase of nearly 53 percent according to the national market averages.
20 Prior to 1997, commissioners’ salaries were set through a more cumbersome legislative process department by department, but remained below the governor’s salary.
The same limit (95 percent) was proposed for state commissioners by the Ventura administration in 1999, but was not adopted.
As noted in Chapter 1, state employees are located in almost every county of the state. About 47 percent of state employees work outside the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area. This section asks:
How do private sector wages and salaries vary across the state of Minnesota?
How does state employee pay vary across the state? Wage and Salary Variation
The best information on variation in wages and salaries across Minnesota comes from the 1997 Minnesota Salary Survey carried out by the Minnesota Department of Economic Security (MDES) in coordination with the United States Department of Labor. 21 The 1997 survey covers non agricultural establishments with five or more employees. 22
Looking at the MDES salary data, it is clear that: Pay varies considerably around the state. On average, wages are highest in the Twin Cities area.
Duluth, Rochester, and St. Cloud have relatively high pay for outstate metropolitan areas, but are still 11 to 16 percent below the Twin Cities average.
Pay for the non metropolitan balance of the state is even lower, around 19 percent below the Twin Cities area average.
In general, wages in outstate Minnesota are 15 to 20 percent below those for similar positions in the Twin Cities area.
21 The 1997 Minnesota Salary Survey is a product of the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Wage Survey, a federally directed program carried out by the Minnesota Department of Economic Security (MDES) Research and Statistics Office. The data we use come from an MDES bulletin dated May 1999.
22 The 1997 report includes data from 1996 and 1997. The combined 1996 and 1997 sample was 15,054 employers from whom 11,527 responses were obtained, a rate of 76.6 percent.
23 Several Minnesota metropolitan areas include one or more non Minnesota counties. We were unable to obtain Minnesota only data. However the percent of population and jobs in the non Minnesota part of the Twin Cities metropolitan area is too small to materially affect the analysis and conclusions. The combined population of Pierce and St. Croix counties in Wisconsin is 3 percent of the Twin Cities metropolitan area population.
Table 2.5 compares the average salary in the Minneapolis St. Paul metropolitan area to salaries in six outstate metropolitan areas and the non metropolitan balance of the state. 23 The table is based on the 50 most common jobs in Minnesota, as reported by the Minnesota Department of Economic Security (MDES). 24 We grouped the jobs into seven occupational categories, and computed averages for each category for sake of comparison. Table 2.5 presents the average wage for employees in the Minneapolis St. Paul area and percent differences from Minneapolis St. Paul wages for each of the other areas. 25 The table also presents an overall average, weighted by the number of employees working in each job, for each area. Throughout the table salary averages are presented in bold type and deviations from the Minneapolis St. Paul metropolitan area average are in regular type.
Table 2.5: Regional Variation in Pay in Minnesota, 1996 97
Percent Difference from Minneapolis St. Paul Average Wage Non Metro
Minneapolis Duluth Fargo Grand Balance Occupation Type St. Paul Superior Moorhead Forks Rochester St. Cloud of the State
Clerical and Administrative Support Staff $11.96 15.5% 17.6% 20.5% 4.9% 15.6% 17.9% Professional, Paraprofessional, and Technical 21.84 13.0 21.2 35.1 5.3 19.3 20.6 Sales Related 12.31 30.4 13.2 26.6 25.8 21.0 23.5 Service 7.74 11.8 14.3 10.8 1.6 8.3 10.1 Managerial and Administrative 31.59 29.8 15.2 24.5 20.5 30.1 27.8 Production, Construction, Operating, and Maintenance 13.73 6.4 15.0 21.3 14.4 14.6 20.0 Agricultural, Forestry, and Fishing 10.28 19.1 13.1 15.8 6.8 12.9 18.4
Overall Average $14.60 $11.57 $11.35 $9.93 $12.31 $11.10 $10.79
Unstandardized Difference 20.4% 19.2% 28.2% 9.5% 21.2% 23.1% Standardized Difference 16.2 17.3 20.6 11.2 15.3 18.6
NOTE: The table is based on the 50 most common jobs in Minnesota; however, average wages for various jobs were not reported for areas other than Minneapolis St. Paul. Percent differences are based on average wages for only those jobs with complete data in a given area. Standardized differences are based on the occupational distribution of the Minneapolis St. Paul metropolitan area.
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office analysis of data from Minnesota Department of Economic Security, 1997 Minnesota Salary Survey.
24 Minnesota Department of Economic Security, 1997 Salary Survey. The 50 occupations are grouped as follows: Clerical and Administrative Support Occupations: General Office Clerks, Secretaries (except legal and medical), Receptionists and Information Clerks, Clerks (Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing), Order Clerks (Materials, Merchandise, and Service), First Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors (Clerical and Administrative Support Workers), Clerks (Shipping, Receiving, and Traffic), Stock Clerks (Stockroom, Warehouse, or Storage Yard), Adjustment Clerks;
Professional, Paraprofessional, and Technical Occupations: Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, Physicians and Surgeons, Secondary School Teachers, Elementary School Teachers, Paraprofessional Teacher’s Aide, Accountants and Auditors, Electronic Data Processing Systems Analysts, Computer Programmers, Social Workers (except Medical and Psychiatric); Sales and Related Occupations: Retail Salespersons, Cashiers, Sales Floor Stock Clerks, Sales Representatives, Sales Representatives for Scientific and Related Products and Services, First Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors (Sales and Related Workers); Service Occupations: Waiters and Waitresses, Restaurant Cooks, Food Preparation Workers, Combined Food Preparation and Service Workers, Bartenders, Janitors and Cleaners, Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners, Medical Service (Nursing Aides, Orderlies, and Attendants), Home Health Aides, Amusement and Recreation Attendants, Guards and Watch Guards; Managerial and Administrative Occupations: General Managers and Top Executives, Financial Managers, Managers (Marketing, Advertising, and Public Relations);
Production, Construction, Operating, Maintenance, and Material Handling Occupations:
First Line Supervisors and Managers/Supervisors (Production and Operating Workers), Light Truck Drivers, Heavy or Tractor Trailer Truck Drivers, School Bus Drivers, Assemblers and Fabricators (except Machine, Electrical, Electronic, and Precision), General Utility Maintenance Repairers, Automotive Mechanics, Hand Packers and Packagers, Carpenters, Electricians; Agricultural, Forestry, Fishing, and Related Occupations: Landscaping and Groundskeeping Laborers.
As Table 2.5 shows, wages and salaries are consistently highest in the Minneapolis St. Paul metropolitan area. The overall average salary for the 50 jobs in the Minneapolis St. Paul metropolitan area is $14.60. The average is $11.57 in Duluth, about 20 percent lower than the Twin Cities average, $12.31 in Rochester, about 9.5 percent lower, and $11.10 in St. Cloud, about 21 percent below the Twin Cities average. Average wages are even lower in the Grand Forks area and the nonmetropolitan balance of the state.
Wages are highest in the Twin Cities area in each of the seven occupational categories as well. For example, clerical and administrative jobs pay an average of $11.96 in the Twin Cities, and are 5 to 20 percent below this level in the other areas shown. With only one exception, wages are lower outside the Twin Cities area for each job category, usually by double digit percentages.
The weighted averages discussed above reflect not only rates of pay, but also the distribution of employment across jobs with varying pay rates. Even if there were no differences between two areas in the rate of pay for each job, one area could have a higher average wage if it had a concentration of workers in high paying jobs. For this reason, we calculated standardized averages for each area applying the occupational distribution of the Twin Cities area to the pay rates of each outstate area. We found a pattern very similar to the pattern for the unstandardized averages. 26 As shown in the bottom row of Table 2.5, the standardized averages range from about 11 percent below the Twin Cities in Rochester to nearly 21 percent below in the Grand Forks area. This means that the sizeable geographic variation in pay across Minnesota is not due differences in the occupational distribution, but to actual differences in local pay rates.
Variation in State Employee Salaries
Having determined the approximate statewide variation in pay for a representative sample of Minnesota’s employers, we sought to learn how state government salaries vary. State salaries are set by statewide salary schedules that result from collective bargaining with the representatives of statewide bargaining units. While statewide salary schedules are used in Minnesota state government employment, there still can be de facto variation in salaries across the state because of several factors: the salary step at which people are hired can vary, seniority on the job can vary, and the mix of jobs can vary.
Outside the Twin Cities area, wages are highest in Rochester.
25 Averages for the outstate metropolitan areas are shown as percentage differences from the Minneapolis St. Paul metropolitan area average. The averages on which the differences are calculated are not always based on all 50 jobs, since not all metropolitan areas have employment in each job. All differences are based on the set of jobs that each metropolitan area shares with the Minneapolis St. Paul area.
26 We also compared medians and found little difference between means and medians.
We compared state jobs around Minnesota, both between the Twin Cities area and the balance of the state and for several metropolitan areas. We found:
There is some variation in state government salaries between the Twin Cities area and the balance of the state, but it is significantly less than the variation in pay for Minnesota employers as a whole.
Table 2.6 shows that Twin Cities average salaries for state employees are somewhat higher than outstate salaries: $19.44 for workers in the seven county Twin Cities area compared to $17.02 for state employees in the rest of the state. This represents a difference of about 12 percent, however much of the difference is due to a difference in the occupational distribution between the Twin Cities area and the balance of the state. If outstate rates are applied to the Twin Cities area occupational distribution, the outstate average is $18.63 per hour compared to $19.44 per hour for the Twin Cities area, or 4.1 percent less. This is much less than the 11 to 21 percent variation in the standardized averages shown in Table 2.5. 27
Finally, we looked at how state employee salaries vary across several outstate metropolitan areas. As Table 2.7 shows, pay for state jobs is highest in the Twin Cities area, but pay in Rochester, St. Cloud, Duluth, and the balance of the state is quite close. 28 Holding the differences in occupational distributions constant, we found about a 5 to 7 percent difference between the Twin Cities and outstate metropolitan areas and the non metropolitan balance of the state. 29 This compares to significantly greater variation for labor market rates in the broader economy, as we saw in Table 2.5.
Table 2.6: Variation in Average State Employee Wages, Twin Cities and Outstate Minnesota, 1999
Percent Number of Average Difference from Employees Hourly Wage Twin Cities Average
Twin Cities Area 22,326 $19.44 — Outstate Minnesota 17,275 17.02 12.5% Outstate Minnesota with Twin Cities’ Occupational Distribution 17,275 18.63 4.1
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office analysis of Minnesota Department of Employee Relations data.
Wages of Minnesota state employees are set through statewide schedules, resulting in very little geographic variation.
27 It would be nice to make a direct comparison using the same geographic areas, but this is not possible using the MDES data.
28 The average pay for the Twin Cities area differs somewhat from the amount in Table 2.6 because fewer job comparisons were possible when looking at pay across individual metropolitan areas.
29 Again, we held the occupational distribution constant by applying the pay rates of each geographic area to the occupational distribution of the Twin Cities area.
Adjustment of Salaries by Location
Our findings on geographic differences in wages and salaries across the state raise a question about whether the state can or should adopt a policy of adjusting salaries according to measures of regional employment costs. To evaluate the feasibility of varying pay, we contacted nine large private companies operating in Minnesota, five states, and the federal government. We found:
Eight of the nine private companies adjust pay across the geographic regions in which they operate.
A number of the companies operate nationwide and only vary salaries in different states. However, five of the eight companies use different salary schedules within Minnesota. Most of these use two or three different schedules within the state.
We also contacted Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin and found: None of the Midwestern states we contacted varies state employee salaries by region.
Iowa has a provision in law that allows state agencies to request premium pay in certain cases, but the option has not been used. Two states, Illinois and Wisconsin, have experienced recruitment problems in their large metropolitan areas, but the other states report no problems. We also determined that at least one state, New York, does vary pay by region. New York has two independent ways of dealing with regional pay differences: (1) location pay is negotiated with unions and (2) the New York Department of Civil Service can adjust pay by county in response to hiring and retention problems.
The federal government has varied pay by region since 1994 using the employment cost index calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For white collar jobs, the federal government pays 7.92 percent over its base schedule for the Twin Cities area and 5.87 percent for the remainder of the state. 30 There are 157 pay plans nationwide.
Table 2.7: Regional Variation in Average State Employee Wages, Minnesota Metro Areas, 1999
Standardized Percent Percent Number of Difference from Difference from MSA (County) Employees Average Twin Cities Average Twin Cities
Twin Cities (7 County Area) 19,034 $19.11 — $19.11 — Rochester (Olmsted) 688 18.00 5.8% 18.08 5.4% St. Cloud (Stearns and Benton) 1,028 16.58 13.3 17.98 5.9 Duluth (St. Louis) 1,666 16.49 13.7 17.88 6.5 Balance of Minnesota 11,834 17.00 11.0 18.11 5.2
NOTE: Standardized averages and percent differences are based on the occupational distribution of Minnesota state employees in the Twin Cities.
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office analysis of Minnesota Department of Employee Relations data.
Most of the large private employers we contacted vary pay by location.
Under Minnesota’s present system of statewide bargaining units, regional variation in pay is unlikely to be achieved through collective bargaining. Before the early 1980s when there was a different system of bargaining units in Minnesota, some geographic variation in compensation for the same job could be negotiated.
One goal of Minnesota’s compensation policy is to offer employee compensation that is competitive with the compensation offered by competing employers. Statewide salary schedules make this difficult to achieve. While a system as large as state government cannot be expected to match private sector pay in every location, the example of large private companies and the federal government suggest that some adjustment could be implemented if desired.
Faculty at Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
We looked at faculty in the Minnesota State Colleges and University (MnSCU) system separately from other occupations. 31 We did so for three reasons: (1) MnSCU faculty are a significant proportion of state employees, (2) faculty in higher education have work contracts and schedules that make hourly wage comparisons difficult, and (3) there is a separate system of salary surveys for faculty in higher education. 32
We obtained institution by institution average salaries from MnSCU and compared them to the average salaries in nationwide salary surveys for similar institutions. We found:
In general, full time faculty at MnSCU’s four year institutions are paid very near the national average for similar institutions.
Full time faculty at MnSCU’s four year institutions are employed in jobs ranging from instructor to tenured full professor. The average salaries paid to each of these ranks are very near the national averages for comparable institutions, and very near the average for a sub set of Midwestern states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin) as Table 2.8 shows. Salaries for full time faculty at the four year institutions are set through the collective bargaining process between the Inter Faculty Organization and MnSCU. The salary schedule is uniform throughout the state and for the different academic disciplines.
30 Blue collar jobs are similarly adjusted but on a different schedule.
31 Faculty employed by the University of Minnesota are outside the scope of this study.
32 Two national salary surveys are used in the following comparisons. The first is the survey conducted by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), published annually in the March April edition of the Journal Academe. The second source is the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System’s (IPEDS) Faculty Salaries Survey (see http://nces.ed.gov/Ipeds/facultysalaries.html). IPEDS is a program of the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics. Both the AAUP and the IPEDS provide similar data and very comparable average salaries, however the AAUP survey provides more timely data, while the IPEDS data allow more targeted comparisons.
We made similar comparisons between faculty at MnSCU’s two year institutions, and found:
On average, full time faculty at MnSCU’s two year institutions are paid above the national average for similar institutions.
According to the annual salary survey produced by the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, the national average salary for faculty at two year institutions is $43,234. This is over $2,500 per year less than the average at MnSCU’s two year institutions ($ 46,096). However, Minnesota’s average salary is slightly below the average of $46,784 for a sub set of Midwestern states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin) as shown in Table 2.9.
Faculty at the technical colleges are covered by the United Technical College Educators (UTCE) collective bargaining agreement, faculty at community colleges are covered by the Minnesota Community College Faculty Association (MCCFA) agreement, and faculty at the consolidated community and technical colleges are divided between the two plans according to academic discipline (see Table 2.9). Although the salary schedules of the two agreements include comparable dollar ranges, full time faculty covered by the MCCFA agreement averaged $51,401 in fiscal year 1999, compared to $42,651 for full time faculty under the UTCE plan. According to MnSCU, the difference is largely due to seniority, with full time MCCFA faculty tending to stay in their positions far longer than faculty covered by the UTCE plan.
MnSCU’s two year institutions rely heavily on part time and adjunct faculty.
Table 2.8: Average Salaries, Faculty at MnSCU Four Year Institutions, FY1999
Part Time/Professor Associate Assistant Instructor All Ranks Adjunct Bemidji $58,655 $46,944 $40,120 $29,685 $47,131 $30,610 Mankato 61,075 52,983 42,979 31,810 51,699 31,936 Metropolitan 60,971 51,455 44,668 31,996 50,898 39,044 Moorhead 59,321 48,443 40,864 30,489 46,536 27,468 Southwest 61,916 50,818 41,456 31,524 49,078 31,386 St. Cloud 59,755 49,453 42,159 31,818 50,153 35,882 Winona 60,552 48,747 40,462 30,924 49,832 36,061
All MnSCU Four Year $60,143 $50,023 $41,722 $31,052 $49,528 $35,384
National Average $61,369 $49,706 $41,114 $31,883 $49,196 — Five Midwestern States 61,046 49,232 41,554 — 49,141 —
NOTE: All figures are for full time, tenure track appointments, except part time/adjunct. Part time averages are annualized base salaries. National and Midwestern states averages include only public, non doctoral four year institutions.
SOURCE: MnSCU, American Association of University Professors (national averages), Legislative Auditor’s Office analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System data (Midwestern states).
On average, MnSCU faculty are paid at or slightly above national and regional averages for similar institutions.
Table 2.9: Average Salaries, Faculty at MnSCU Two Year Institutions, FY1999
Part Time (Percent (Annualized Full Time Full Time) Base Salaries ) Technical Colleges a
Alexandria Technical College $45,425 (72%) $34,612 Anoka Hennepin Technical College 44,150 (84) 33,710 Dakota County Technical College 44,560 (78) 33,108 Hennepin Technical College 44,632 (93) 35,652 Northwest Technical College 38,233 (74) 30,782 Pine Technical College 38,002 (49) 35,620 South Central Technical College 41,416 (76) 31,071 Southeast Technical College 45,529 (72) 29,021 St. Cloud Technical College 43,906 (71) 31,658 St. Paul Technical College 45,998 (80) 34,218
Community Colleges b Anoka Ramsey Community College 52,280 (47) 33,177 Fergus Falls Community College 47,717 (36) 32,827 Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College 45,900 (46) 32,164 Inver Hills Community College 52,083 (38) 34,515 Itasca Community College 51,763 (51) 33,714 Normandale Community College 53,466 (57) 34,979 North Hennepin Community College 52,733 (41) 35,483 Rainy River Community College 49,387 (58) 31,916 Consolidated Community and Technical Colleges c Central Lakes Community and Technical College 44,502 (65) 33,372 Century College 48,734 (53) 36,213 Hibbing Community College 47,526 (61) 32,233 Lake Superior College 45,028 (55) 34,297 Laurentian District Community and Technical College 48,409 (62) 34,556 Minneapolis Community and Technical College 48,536 (39) 32,936 Minnesota West Community and Technical College 42,970 (56) 33,865 Northland Community and Technical College 42,543 (77) 32,817 Ridgewater College 43,256 (63) 30,291 Riverland Community College 45,158 (59) 31,624 Rochester Community and Technical College 48,469 (51) 33,403 All MnSCU Two Year Institutions 46,096 (60) 33,529 UTCE Faculty 42,651 (72) 33,319 MCCFA Faculty 51,401 (47) 33,648 National Average $43,234 – Five Midwestern States 46,784 –
NOTE: Average salaries include both tenure track and fixed term appointments. Part time averages are annualized base salaries. National and Midwestern states averages include only public two year institutions.
a Faculty covered by the United Technical College Educators (UTCE) collective bargaining agreement. b Faculty covered by the Minnesota Community College Faculty Association (MCCFA) agreement. c Faculty covered by either UTCE or MCCFA, depending on discipline.
SOURCE: MnSCU, Legislative Auditor’s Office analysis of Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System data (national and Midwestern states averages).
Part time and adjunct appointments make up 40 percent of all faculty appointments at MnSCU’s two year institutions, including over 50 percent of those covered by the MCCFA agreement. By comparison part time faculty make up only 14 percent of all appointments at MnSCU’s four year institutions. 33
Employee benefits are an important part of total employee compensation. Traditionally government jobs have offered better benefits than jobs in the private sector. 34 However, there has been a significant extension of benefits offered by private employers in recent decades. 35
This section asks: What types of benefits are offered to state employees?
How do the benefits offered by the state of Minnesota compare to benefits offered by public and private employers nationally?
What is the cost of benefits provided by the state of Minnesota? What percentage of total compensation is provided in the form of benefits? How does that compare to other employers?
In general we found that the state of Minnesota offers benefits that are comparable in scope and cost to benefits offered by other government employers and larger private employers. A higher percentage of state employees receive certain benefits than private sector employees, but employees of medium and larger private firms are likely to receive a package of benefits similar to those provided by the state. We also found that the amount spent by the state of Minnesota on employee benefits, both as a percentage of total compensation and in dollars per employee hour, is similar to the national average for state and local governments. Minnesota spends more on employee benefits than the average private sector employer, but the costs are very comparable to those paid by larger private employers.
We compared the employee benefits offered by Minnesota state government to those offered by other employers nationally.
33 Nearly half of all appointments (48%) at Metropolitan State are part time appointments. The second highest usage of part time faculty among four year institutions is at Southwest State, where part time appointments make up 16% of all appointments. According to the American Association of University Professors, the proportion of MnSCU’s faculty appointments that are part time is very close to the proportion of part time appointments in higher education nationally (see American Association of University Professors, “The Status of Non Tenure Track Faculty” (Washington DC, June 1993); http://www.aaup.org/Rbnonten. htm; accessed November 15, 1999).
34 For example, by 1962 all Minnesota state employees under 65 were eligible for health insurance, which was only offered to 62 63 percent of office and plant workers in metropolitan areas nationally during the period 1960 61 (Dean E. Clabaugh, Fringe Benefits in State Government Employment (Chicago: Council of State Governments, August 1962); William J. Wiatrowski, “Family Related Benefits in the Workplace,” Monthly Labor Review, March 1990: 28 33). By 1968 the state of Minnesota’s health insurance included catastrophic medical coverage, which was only offered to 73 percent of office workers and 40 percent of plant workers in 1965 66 (Leo F. Kennedy, Fringe Benefits in State Government Employment (Chicago: Council of State Governments, May 1968); Wiatrowski, “Family Related Benefits”).
35 The proportion of total compensation comprised of benefits grew from 18.3 percent in 1959 to 33.8 percent in 1998 for private production workers; for all private workers the proportion grew from 19.2 percent in 1966 to 27.7 percent in 1998 (William J. Wiatrowski, “Tracking Changes in Benefit Costs,” Compensation and Working Conditions, Spring 1999: 32 37).
Unfortunately, there is less comparative data available on benefits than there is on salaries. Therefore, it is generally necessary to compare Minnesota state employee benefits to national averages. However, before making any comparisons we provide a brief outline of the benefits received by Minnesota state employees.
Minnesota Employee Benefits
Full time employees of the state of Minnesota receive the following basic and optional benefits:
Insurance, including basic health, dental, and life insurance, as well as optional life and disability insurance;
Retirement and pre tax savings programs; and Paid leave, including holidays, vacation, and sick leave. All full time employees receive health, dental, and life insurance. Employees may elect dependent health, dental, and life insurance. In addition, the state offers optional accidental death and dismemberment insurance, short and long term disability insurance, and additional employee life insurance.
Most state of Minnesota employees participate in a retirement program that automatically sets aside 4 percent of gross salary in a tax deferred account, matched by an equal contribution from the state. 36 The state also offers pre tax benefit accounts, including health and dental premium accounts that allow payment of insurance premiums with pre tax dollars; dependent care expense accounts; and medical/dental expense accounts. Additionally, the state offers an employee assistance program and a health promotion program. Of course, the state offers vacation, sick leave, and paid holidays.
This section presents national data on the rate at which employees in different sectors are covered by various benefits, including a comparison of the average number of days of paid leave. Table 2.10 presents data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employee Benefits Survey, comparing benefit coverage for employees of state and local governments, small private establishments, and medium and large establishments across the nation. 37 As discussed in the previous section, the state of Minnesota offers nearly all types of benefits listed in Table 2.10 to full time employees, although some are optional. Table 2.10 shows:
Nationally, government employees are more likely than private employees to receive most types of employee benefits.
Minnesota offers a package of benefits that includes insurance, retirement, and paid leave.
36 This is the General Employees Retirement Plan. There are other plans covering small employee groups, such as the Correctional Employee Retirement Plan and the State Employees Retirement Plan, with larger employee and employer contributions.
Table 2.10: Full Time Employees Receiving Selected Benefits
Medium and Small Private Large Private State and Local Governments, 1994 Establishments, Establishments,
White Collar, Blue Collar 1996 1997 All Full Time Except Teachers and Service All Full Time All Full Time Paid Time Off
Holiday 73% 86% 91% 80% 89% Vacations 66 84 91 86 95 Personal Leave 38 30 31 14 20 Funeral Leave 62 59 70 51 81 Jury Duty Leave 94 94 93 59 87 Military Leave 75 80 82 18 47 Sick Leave 94 93 94 50 56 Family Leave 4 4 6 2 2 Unpaid Time Off Family Leave 93 93 90 48 93 Insurance Short Term Disability 95 94 96 29 55 Long Term Disability 30 31 23 22 43 Medical Care 87 89 86 64 76 Dental Care 62 62 66 31 59 Life 87 87 87 62 87 Retirement All Retirement 96 96 95 46 79 Defined Benefit 91 90 91 15 50 Defined Contribution 9 10 9 38 57 Savings & Thrift 2 3 2 23 39 Deferred Profit Sharing 12 13 Employee Stock Ownership 1 4 Money Purchase Pension 7 7 7 4 8 Tax Deferred Earnings Arrangements With Employer Contributions 7 8 8 24 46 Without Employer Contributions 17 18 16 4 9
NOTE: Small establishments are those with fewer than 100 employees. Medium and large establishments are those with at least 100 employees.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in State and Local Governments, 1994, May 1996 (Bulletin 2477); Employee Benefits in Small Private Establishments, 1996, April 1999 (Bulletin 2507); Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Private Establishments, 1997, September 1999 (Bulletin 2517).
37 The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Employee Benefits Survey is a large representative survey of public and private non farm establishments. The data for medium and large private establishments are based on a national sample of 1,945 establishments yielding 10,172 occupational observations. The data for small private establishments are based on a sample of 2,202 establishments yielding 5,378 occupational observations. The data for state and local governments are based on a sample of 860 establishments, yielding 4,680 occupational observations. For more details see the individual bulletins (2477, 2507, and 2517) and the BLS website (http://stats.bls.gov/ebshome. htm).
The data presented in Table 2.10 pertains to slightly different years, so comparisons should be made cautiously. 38 Additionally, some benefits are optional and therefore percentages are somewhat influenced by the number of employees electing to participate. 39 Despite these limitations, the table suggests a distinctly higher rate of benefit coverage in the public sector as opposed to the private sector. However, the rate of benefit coverage for those working at establishments with 100 or more employees is much higher than the rates for those employed by smaller establishments. The table shows that 80 percent or more of all employees of all types of establishments received paid holidays and vacations. 40 Ninety four percent of government employees but only 50 to 56 percent of private employees received paid sick leave. Eighty seven percent of government employees but only 76 percent of employees of medium and large private establishments and 64 percent of employees of small establishments received medical insurance coverage. 41 Over 95 percent of government employees but only 79 percent of medium and large private employees and 62 percent of small private employees were covered by retirement plans. In sum, while state and local government employees are more likely to receive most benefits than are private sector employees, employees of larger private establishments are more likely to receive benefits than are employees of smaller private establishments.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employee Benefits Survey includes national data on days of paid leave for employees of various sectors. We compared the national data to the paid leave provisions of the various employment plans in Minnesota state government and found:
Minnesota state employees, like government employees nationally, receive more paid holidays, vacation days, and paid sick leave than employees of private companies.
Minnesota employees receive 11 paid holidays per year, compared to the national averages of 9.3 days for employees in medium and large private establishments, 7.6 days for employees in small private establishments, and 11.5 days for all state and local government employees (see Table 2.11).
Minnesota state employees accrue 24 days of paid holiday and vacation in their first year compared to national private sector averages of 16 to 19 days.
38 The data are also subject to a sampling error of about 1.5 to 2.6 percentage points for government employers. Standard errors are not provided for the small and medium and large private employers but the sample size for these groups is much larger than the government employer sample, and sampling error should be smaller.
39 Obviously, no government employers can offer stock ownership or profit sharing benefits, although a few tie employee bonuses to budget savings.
40 Percentages of full time employees receiving paid holidays and vacations are depressed due to the inclusion of teachers. Teachers are also somewhat less likely than other government employees to receive military leave (61 percent compared to around 80 percent for non teachers).
41 Medium and large employers have over 100 workers.
The vast majority of Minnesota state employees accumulate 13 days of vacation in their first year of employment with the state. 42 This is similar to the average of 12.3 days received by employees of state and local governments nationally. However, Minnesota’s starting level of paid vacation days is not typically matched by an employee of a medium or large private establishment until nearly 5 years of employment, and not until nearly 10 years of employment for an employee of a small private establishment. Minnesota state employees are given over 24 days of paid vacation by their 15th year, whereas employees of private establishments average 14.8 to 20.3 days. Vacation accumulation goes up to 29.25 days per year after 30 years of state employment, but only reaches 21.7 days per year in medium and large private establishments.
Nearly all Minnesota state employees accrue sick leave at the rate of 13 sick days per year regardless of years of service. 43 This is slightly lower than the 13.2 to 14 days per year received by state and local government employees nationally, but more than that of employees of small private establishments. On average, employees of medium and large private establishments start with 11.2 sick days, but this number increases to 21.1 after 25 years of experience.
Table 2.11: Average Days of Paid Annual Leave After Specified Years of Employment
National Sample State and Small Private Medium and Large Minnesota Local Governments Establishments Private Establishments Paid Holidays 11.0 11.5 7.6 9.3 Paid Vacation Days 1 Year 13.0 12.3 8.1 9.6 3 Years 13.0 13.5 10.2 11.5 5 Years 16.3 15.3 11.9 13.8 10 Years 22.8 18.3 13.9 16.9 15 Years 24.4 20.3 14.8 18.8 20 Years 26.0 21.9 15.4 20.3 25 Years 27.6 22.6 15.7 21.5 30 Years 29.3 21.7 Paid Days of Sick Leave 1 Year 13.0 13.2 8.0 11.2 3 Years 13.0 13.7 8.7 13.0 5 Years 13.0 13.8 9.5 15.2 10 Years 13.0 13.9 10.3 17.6 15 Years 13.0 14.0 10.5 18.8 20 Years 13.0 14.0 10.8 20.5 25 Years 13.0 10.9 21.1
SOURCE: Data for Minnesota are from collective bargaining agreements and employment plans covering most state employees, including those represented by AFSCME, MAPE, MGEC, MLEA, MMA, MNA, SRSEA, and most employees covered by the Commissioner’s Plan and the Secretary of State’s Compensation Plan. National data are from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits in State and Local Governments, 1994, May 1996 (Bulletin 2477); Employee Benefits in Small Private Establishments, 1996, April 1999 (Bulletin 2507); Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Private Establishments, 1997, September 1999
42 This rate of vacation accumulation applies only to the state of Minnesota employees noted in Table 2.11. Vacation accumulation is higher for employees in several other groups. For example, MnSCU administrators and employees of the Attorney General’s Office receive more vacation days at the start of state employment, between 16.5 days and 22 days depending on the plan.
43 Minnesota State College and University faculty accrue 15 to 20 sick days in their first year, but accrue only 8 to 10 days every year thereafter.
In this section we provide comparative data on the cost of employee benefits. The cost to employers of providing benefits is not necessarily equal to the value of benefits to employees; we do not attempt to measure the value of benefits to employees or analyze the issues involved in providing different types of benefits. The state has important choices to make in what types of benefits to offer and what degree of choice to offer employees, but these topics merit another study.
When we compared data on the costs of benefits for Minnesota state employees to national data on government and private company employees, we found:
Public employers nationally offer greater employee benefits than private employers measured either in dollars or as a percentage of total compensation.
The state of Minnesota offers a benefit package that, measured by cost, is generally equal to or better than benefits offered by other states, other public employers in Minnesota, and private and public employers nationally.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes data on the employer cost of employee compensation, including both wage and salary costs and benefit costs, in its annual Employer Costs for Employer Compensation series. 44 BLS compiles estimates for benefit categories including retirement, paid leave, and insurance, as well as legally required employee paid benefits such as social security, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.
Comparing benefit costs among employers is difficult because average wages differ among employers and some costs are calculated as a percent of wages or salary. 45 For example, the cost of paid leave, retirement, and social security are a function of wage rates. Government employees in general and Minnesota state employees in particular are more highly paid than employees of private companies. As a consequence, the dollar value of benefits is higher for government employees than for private employees. One way around the problem of comparing benefits of groups with different average wages is to look at the percentage of total compensation accounted for by benefits.
Tables 2.12, 2.13, and 2.14 present a detailed look at average benefit costs for three categories of employees: private employees nationally, state and local government employees nationally, and Minnesota state employees. 46 First,
We compared the cost of benefits paid by the state to benefit costs of other employers.
44 See http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.toc.htm; accessed October 4, 1999.
45 Sectoral variations in occupational distribution also complicate the comparison of employee benefits. See Bradley R. Braden and Stephanie L. Hyland, “Cost of Employee Compensation in Public and Private Sectors,” Monthly Labor Review (May 1993): 14 21.
46 Small differences between the various sectors should be interpreted with caution since all figures are subject to sampling and non sampling errors, and because the composition of the workforce across employers and the level of compensation varies.
Table 2.12 compares the benefit costs of private employers with those of state and local government employers. State and local governments pay 29.4 percent of total compensation in the form of benefits compared to 27 percent for private employers. The only benefit categories where private employers pay a greater percentage than public employers are supplementary pay, such as premium pay and bonuses, and legally required benefits including social security and workers’ compensation.
Larger private employers pay higher wages and better benefits than medium or small private employers. Table 2.13 shows benefit costs for three size categories of private employers. Total compensation goes from $16.27 for employers with 1 to 99 workers to $18.14 for employers with 100 to 499 employees, and $26.37 for employers with 500 or more workers. Benefits are 24.5 percent, 27.4 percent, and 30.3 percent of compensation for small, medium, and large employers respectively. Since the state of Minnesota is a large employer it should probably be compared to the largest category of private employers. 47
Finally, Minnesota state employee compensation, both wages and benefits, compare quite closely to the average for state and local government employers nationally, as shown in Table 2.14. 48 Total compensation figured on an hourly basis is $28.44 in Minnesota state government and $28.00 per hour for state and local government employers nationally. Minnesota state employee benefits are 31.3 percent of total compensation compared to 29.4 percent for state and local government employers nationally. Note that this proportion is very similar to the 30.3 percent of total compensation paid in the form of benefits by large private employers (see Table 2.13). In sum, the data show:
The cost of benefits paid by the state of Minnesota is comparable to the cost of benefits paid by large private employers nationally and state and local government employers nationally.
Table 2.12: Employer Costs per Employee Hour, National Averages, 1999
All Private Employers State and Local Government Amount Percent Amount Percent Total Compensation $19.00 100.0% $28.00 100.0%
Wages and Salary 13.87 73.0 19.78 70.6 Total Benefits 5.13 27.0 8.22 29.4
Paid Leave 1.20 6.3 2.17 7.8
Vacation 0.59 3.1 0.74 2.6 Holiday 0.41 2.2 0.71 2.5 Sick 0.14 0.7 0.55 2.0 Other 0.05 0.3 0.17 0.6
Supplemental Pay 0.55 2.9 0.24 0.9
Premium 0.23 1.2 0.11 0.4 Shift Differentials 0.05 0.3 0.06 0.2 Nonproduction Bonuses 0.28 1.5 0.07 0.2
Insurance 1.13 5.9 2.22 7.9
Life 0.04 0.2 0.05 0.2 Health 1.03 5.4 2.12 7.6 Short Term Disability 0.04 0.2 0.02 0.1 Long Term Disability 0.03 0.1 0.03 0.1
Retirement and Savings 0.57 3.0 1.91 6.8
Defined Benefit 0.25 1.3 1.73 6.2 Defined Contribution 0.32 1.7 0.18 0.6
Legally Required Benefits 1.65 8.7 1.64 5.9
Social Security 1.16 6.1 1.31 4.7 OASDI 0.93 4.9 1.01 3.6 Medicare 0.23 1.2 0.29 1.0 Federal Unemployment Insurance 0.03 0.2 – State Unemployment Insurance 0.10 0.5 0.03 0.1 Workers’ Compensation 0.36 1.9 0.30 1.1
Other Benefits 0.03 0.2 0.04 0.1
NOTE: “Premium” includes additional pay for work outside of regular hours (overtime, weekends, and holidays). “Other Benefits” include severance pay and supplemental unemployment benefits.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, March 1999.
Table 2.13: Employer Costs per Employee Hour, Private Industry by Size of Establishment, 1999
1 to 99 Employees 100 to 499 Employees 500+ Employees Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Total Compensation $16.27 100.0% $18.14 100.0% $26.37 100.0%
Wages and Salary 12.29 75.5 13.17 72.6 18.37 69.7 Total Benefits 3.98 24.5 4.97 27.4 8.00 30.3
Paid Leave 0.83 5.1 1.11 6.1 2.15 8.2
Vacation 0.40 0.2 0.55 3.0 1.09 4.1 Holiday 0.30 0.8 0.38 2.1 0.71 2.7 Sick 0.10 0.6 0.14 0.8 0.25 0.9 Other 0.03 0.2 0.05 0.3 0.10 0.4
Supplemental Pay 0.40 2.5 0.58 3.2 0.87 3.3
Premium 0.16 1.0 0.25 1.4 0.35 1.3 Shift Differentials 0.05 0.3 0.13 0.5 Nonproduction Bonuses 0.23 1.4 0.28 1.5 0.39 1.5
Insurance 0.84 5.2 1.12 6.2 1.83 6.9
Life 0.03 0.2 0.04 0.2 0.07 0.3 Health 0.77 4.7 1.01 5.6 1.64 6.2 Short Term Disability 0.02 0.1 0.04 0.2 0.07 0.3 Long Term Disability 0.02 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.05 0.2
Retirement and Savings 0.39 2.4 0.53 2.9 1.05 4.0
Defined Benefit 0.14 0.9 0.21 1.2 0.55 2.1 Defined Contribution 0.25 1.5 0.32 1.8 0.50 1.9
Legally Required Benefits 1.51 9.3 1.62 8.9 2.01 7.6
Social Security 1.02 6.3 1.10 6.1 1.54 5.8 OASDI 0.83 5.1 0.89 4.9 1.23 4.7 Medicare 0.20 1.2 0.22 1.2 0.31 1.2 Federal Unemployment Insurance 0.03 0.2 0.03 0.2 0.03 0.1 State Unemployment Insurance 0.10 0.6 0.11 0.6 0.10 0.4 Workers’ Compensation 0.35 2.2 0.38 2.1 0.34 1.3
Other Benefits 0.00 0.0 0.02 0.1 0.09 0.3
NOTE: “Premium” includes additional pay for work outside of regular hours (overtime, weekends, and holidays). “Other Benefits” include severance pay and supplemental unemployment benefits.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, March 1999.
47 Thirteen state departments employ over 500 workers. Together these departments employ over 90 percent of state employees.
48 We compiled data from the Minnesota state payroll system (SEMA4) to derive the costs listed in Table 2.14. SEMA4 does not provide information for a detailed breakdown of insurance, retirement, or social security costs. However, for the state of Minnesota health insurance, including dental insurance, represents over 90 percent of employer paid insurance costs; nearly all retirement benefits are in the form of defined benefits; and the old age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI) portion of social security is roughly 4.5 percent.
We also compared the costs of specific benefits offered by the state of Minnesota to the costs of similar benefits in other state governments. 49 We found that employer paid health insurance costs for Minnesota rank relatively high: 6th highest of 33 reporting states for family medical coverage and 2nd highest of 15 reporting states for family dental coverage. However, Minnesota’s current contribution to state employee retirement, 4 percent of gross salary, ranks 31 st of 33 reporting states.
Table 2.14: Employer Costs per Employee Hour, State and Local Governments Nationally and Minnesota State Government, 1999
State and Local Government Minnesota State Government Amount Percent Amount Percent Total Compensation $28.00 100.0% $28.44 100.0%
Wages and Salary 19.78 70.6 19.55 68.7 Total Benefits 8.22 29.4 8.89 31.3
Paid Leave 2.17 7.8 2.63 9.3
Vacation 0.74 2.6 1.32 4.6 Holiday 0.71 2.5 0.71 2.5 Sick 0.55 2.0 0.59 2.1 Other 0.17 0.6 0.02 0.1
Supplemental Pay 0.24 0.9 0.52 1.8
Premium 0.11 0.4 0.40 1.4 Shift Differentials 0.06 0.2 0.06 0.2 Nonproduction Bonuses 0.07 0.2 0.05 0.2
Insurance 2.22 7.9 2.27 8.0 Retirement and Savings 1.91 6.8 1.24 4.4 Legally Required Benefits 1.64 5.9 1.92 6.8
Social Security 1.31 4.7 1.66 5.8 State Unemployment Insurance 0.03 0.1 0.05 0.2 Workers’ Compensation 0.30 1.1 0.21 0.7
Other Benefits 0.04 0.1 0.31 1.1
NOTE: “Premium” includes additional pay for work outside of regular hours (overtime, weekends, and holidays). “Other Benefits” include severance pay and supplemental unemployment benefits.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, March 1999; Legislative Auditor’s Office analysis of data from the state of Minnesota’s payroll system (SEMA4).
49 These comparisons were made using data from the 1998 Central States Fringe Benefits Survey.
We also compared the health and dental insurance payments made by the state of Minnesota to large public employers in the Twin Cities, the city of Duluth, and St. Louis and Olmsted counties. State health and dental insurance payments are above average for the 20 public employers for which we have data. 50 The state of Minnesota pays $195 to $203 per month for individual health and dental insurance and about $462 to $470 per month for family coverage. This amount is higher than most metropolitan agencies, metropolitan and larger outstate counties, and larger municipal governments in the Twin Cities area.
This chapter has presented various comparisons of Minnesota state employee compensation to compensation provided by other private and public employers. On average, the state of Minnesota tends to pay higher wages than other states. But Minnesota employs fewer workers than most other state governments and this may affect the comparison. Minnesota state government pays a higher average hourly wage than the private sector because government employment contains a higher percentage of professional employees and fewer production, sales, and assembly workers.
When specific job categories are compared, we found that Minnesota follows the national pattern of government pay scale compression by paying higher wages to entry level and lower skilled positions, and lower wages to upper level professional and managerial employees. Thus, there are significant differences between many state salaries and market rates. However, the data suggest that if all state jobs were paid at rates comparable to the private sector, the state’s payroll would not change greatly.
There is significant variation in pay around the state. Pay in the Twin Cities area is approximately 20 percent higher than in most other metropolitan areas and in the nonmetropolitan balance of the state. In contrast, state government employees are paid according to statewide salary schedules, and while there is some geographic variation in state salaries, it is much less than wages and salaries in general. Many private employers and some public employers, including the federal government, vary pay rates according to regional differences in employee compensation costs.
Minnesota employee benefits total approximately 31 percent of total employee compensation. This is about the same as government employers and large private employers nationally, but distinctly more than paid by most private employers. Minnesota provides vacation, sick leave, and holiday benefits that are competitive with other public employers and higher than private employers.
As we will see in the next chapter, employee compensation is one of several factors that human resources staff in state agencies believe are responsible for problems in recruitment and retention of employees.
The state of Minnesota pays higher health insurance premiums, but lower retirement contributions, than many other public employers.
50 The source of this information is the 1999 Stanton and Associates benefits survey.
33 Recruitment and Retention SUMMARY
Most state agencies have experienced some recruitment and retention problems over the past two years, particularly in information technology, office administration, and accounting jobs. Agency human resource directors generally attribute these problems to the current labor market, not to inadequate compensation. To help solve recruitment and retention problems, human resource directors believe the Department of Employee Relations should simplify the selection and hiring process of employees. They also believe DOER should improve and expand its recruitment efforts.
This chapter addresses the following questions: Which state jobs are currently hard to fill?
To what extent is low employee compensation responsible for recruitment and retention problems?
What do state human resource professionals recommend as solutions to recruitment and retention problems?
To answer these questions, we surveyed human resource directors from 34 state agencies. 1 All agencies responded to the survey. 2 We also spoke with several state human resource directors, as well as representatives from the Department of Employee Relations.
CURRENT RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION PROBLEMS
Human resource directors, responsible for employee recruitment and retention in state agencies, have knowledge about hiring and compensation problems for the job classes used in their agencies. In some cases, these officials are responsible for large human resource divisions with employees in various locations around the state. We surveyed human resource directors in 34 state agencies to identify current recruitment and retention problems. According to our survey of state agency human resource directors:
Nearly all state agencies have experienced employee recruitment and/or retention problems over the past two years.
1 The 34 state agencies we surveyed are: Administration; Agriculture; Attorney General; Children, Families, and Learning; Commerce; Corrections; Economic Security; Employee Relations; Environmental Assistance; Finance; Health; Housing Finance; Human Rights; Human Services; Labor and Industry; Lottery; MnSCU; Mediation Services; Military Affairs; Minnesota State Retirement System; Natural Resources; Planning; Pollution Control; Public Employment Retirement Association; Public Safety; Public Service; Revenue; Secretary of State; State Auditor; Teacher Retirement Association; Trade and Economic Development, Transportation; Veterans Affairs; and the Zoo.
2 The complete survey can be found on our website at http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/2000/pe0005.htm.
Of the 34 state agency human resource directors we surveyed, only 3 reported that they have not had any problems recruiting and/or retaining employees in the last two years. Agencies that experienced difficulties reported problems in various types of jobs.
As explained in Chapter 1, the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) groups the more than 2,200 state employee classifications into 39 broad employment categories called “career families.” (See Appendix A for a complete description of the career families.) 3 According to our survey, human resource directors reported problems recruiting and/or retaining employees in 31 of these career families. Three career families presented the greatest problems. As shown in Table 3.1:
The most frequently reported recruitment and retention problems are in information technology, office administration, and accounting careers.
Human resource directors report problems recruiting and retaining employees in information technology positions.
3 A description of DOER’s career families can also be found on their website at http://www.doer.state.mn.us/stfbltn/famlydef.htm.
Over 70 percent of state agency human resource directors reported problems recruiting and/or retaining employees in information technology positions. Another 59 percent reported recruitment and/or retention problems in office administration positions, and 47 percent in accounting positions.
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Table 3.1: State Agency Recruitment and Retention Problems
Human Resource Directors Reporting Recruitment/Retention Problems Career Family Number Percent Information Technology 24 70.6% Office Administration 20 58.8 Accounting, Auditing, and Financial 16 47.1 Human Resource 6 17.6 Management 6 17.6 Planning, Research, and Analysis 6 17.6 Building and Construction 4 11.8 Education and Teaching 4 11.8 Executive Leadership 4 11.8 Natural Resource and Environmental 4 11.8 Facilities Operation and Maintenance 3 8.8 Industrial Safety and Regulation 3 8.8 Protective Service 3 8.8 Electronic Installation and Maintenance 2 5.9 Engineering, Architecture, and Appraisal 2 5.9 Food and Personal Service 2 5.9 Laboratory Sciences 2 5.9 Library and Information Resource 2 5.9 Loans and Grants 2 5.9 Manufacturing and Equipment Operation 2 5.9 Other a 2 5.9 Agriculture 1 2.9 Commerce 1 2.9 Corrections 1 2.9 Human Services and Development 1 2.9 Law 1 2.9 Medical, Dental, and Nursing 1 2.9 Printing and Graphic Arts 1 2.9 Psychology and Counseling 1 2.9 Public Relations and Marketing 1 2.9 Transportation Operations and Regulation 1 2.9 Diversity and Equal Employment Opportunity 0 0.0 Economic Development 0 0.0 Economic Security 0 0.0 Insurance and Benefits 0 0.0 Public Health 0 0.0 Purchasing and Administrative Services 0 0.0 Rehabilitation Therapy 0 0.0 Revenue and Gaming Regulation 0 0.0
NOTE: We surveyed 34 state agencies, all of which responded to the survey. Three agencies reported no recruitment and/or retention problems.
a “Other” refers to work not elsewhere classified in the career family system. SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office Survey of Human Resource Directors, 1999.
We asked human resource directors what they thought were the reasons behind their current recruitment and/or retention problems. According to our survey:
The reason most frequently cited for current recruitment and retention problems is an insufficient labor pool with the needed skills or experience.
The current labor market is extremely tight. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in over two decades. While low unemployment is a national phenomenon, Minnesota’s labor market appears particularly tough. In 1999, the average annual employment rate nationally was 4.2; in Minnesota, the average was 2.5. 4 State human resource directors reported that an insufficient labor pool was the principal reason for recruitment and/or retention problems in information technology, office administration, and accounting careers. Inadequate salaries or compensation appeared as a significant problem only in the area of information technology.
As noted, a large proportion of state agency human resource directors reported problems recruiting and/or retaining employees in information technology positions. As shown in Table 3.2, the specific classifications presenting the greatest problem are Information Technology Specialist positions. 5 While human resource directors have had problems recruiting and/or retaining employees for all levels, they have experienced much greater difficulty filling mid and higher level positions. Additionally, state agencies have had problems finding information technology specialists with specific experience in programming, networks, operating systems, and database applications. These problems exist even after a salary modification, adopted in early 1998, made it easier for information technology employees to receive promotions, discretionary salary increases, and hiring incentives of up to $5,000. 6
Table 3.2: Information Technology Recruitment/Retention Problems
Human Resource Directors Reporting Problem ( N= 24) Problem Classifications Number Percent
Information Technology Specialist 4 18 75.0% Information Technology Specialist 3 18 75.0 Information Technology Specialist 2 12 50.0 Information Technology Specialist 5 10 41.7 Information Technology Specialist 1 9 37.5
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office Survey of Human Resource Directors, 1999.
Mid and higher level information technology positions are difficult to fill.
4 Minnesota Department of Economic Security and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Minnesota, 1999; www.des.state.mn.us/lmi/laus/minn.htm; accessed January 25, 2000.
5 The Information Technology Specialist series has five levels, with one being the entry level position and five the highest level position. As of September 1999, the state employed a total of 1,447 individuals in the Information Technology Specialist series.
When asked what the reasons are for the information technology recruitment and/or retention problems, over 70 percent of human resource directors cited an insufficient labor pool with the necessary skills or experience needed for the position (see Table 3.3). Another 58 percent think that inadequate compensation contributes to the recruitment/retention problem.
Some of the comments we received from human resource directors include: “We continue to have difficulty finding sufficient numbers of qualified candidates… and we continue to lose current staff to outside businesses.”
“[There is a] shortage of applicants with needed skills and a lack of interest on the part of qualified candidates. Qualified candidates often are not interested in the state’s compensation for these positions.”
“[We are] unable to retain employees after making costly investments in training.”
“Too much outside competition is able to pay $5,000 to $10,000 more than we can. We can only keep the couple of positions we have filled for about 1 to 1 1/2 years before they move on to more money.”
“Salaries in the private sector continue to grow and the labor pool continues to decline.”
Nearly 59 percent of human resource directors reported recruitment and/or retention problems in office administration (clerical) positions. Human resource directors have had the most problems recruiting/retaining employees in the Office and Administration Specialist series. 7 Unlike information technology careers, however, lower level positions have been more difficult to fill than higher levels (see Table 3.4).
Table 3.3: Reasons for Information Technology Recruitment/Retention Problems
Human Resource Directors Reporting Reason ( N= 24) Reasons Number Percent
Insufficient labor pool with needed skills/experience 17 70.8% Inadequate pay/compensation 14 58.3 Inadequate benefits (especially bonuses) 5 20.8 Retention issues 5 20.8
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office Survey of Human Resource Directors, 1999.
6 See the Salary Administration Policy for Employees in Information Technology Classes at http://www.doer.state.mn.us/lrsalry/itadtl/salplcy.htm for more information.
As shown in Table 3.5, nearly 85 percent of human resource directors believe that an insufficient labor pool with the needed skills or experience is the reason for office administration recruitment and/or retention problems. Twenty six percent reported that the long and complex recruiting, exam, and hiring process has contributed to their recruitment/retention problems. 8 Another 26 percent cited the lack of inexpensive parking as a problem, and 21 percent noted inadequate compensation. 9
Table 3.5: Reasons for Office Administration Recruitment/Retention Problems
Human Resource Directors Reporting Reason ( N= 19) Reasons Number Percent
Insufficient labor pool with needed skills/experience 16 84.2% Long and complex recruiting/exam/hiring
process 5 26.3 Parking 5 26.3 Inadequate pay/compensation 4 21.1
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office Survey of Human Resource Directors, 1999.
Table 3.4: Office Administration Recruitment/Retention Problems
Human Resource Directors Reporting Problem ( N= 19) Problem Classifications Number Percent
Office and Administration Specialist 11 57.9% Office and Administration Specialist Intermediate 9 47.4 Office and Administration Specialist Senior 8 42.1 Office and Administration Specialist Principal 7 36.8 Office Specialist 5 26.3
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office Survey of Human Resource Directors, 1999.
Lower level office administration positions and all levels of accounting are also difficult to fill.
7 The Office and Administration Specialist series has four levels: Office and Administration Specialist (the entry level position), Office and Administration Specialist Intermediate, Office and Administration Specialist Senior, and Office and Administration Specialist Principal (the highest level position). As of September 1999, the state employed a total of 4,232 individuals in the Office and Administration Specialist series.
8 The exam process is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
9 Parking costs are high in certain areas. Until 1997, state law required state agencies to charge employees for parking (see Minn. Laws (1984), ch. 544, sec. 65). According to a 1998 DOER survey of state agencies, boards, councils, and task forces (n= 84): 65.5 percent of respondents offered no parking subsidy, 13.1 percent offered a partial subsidy, and 21.4 percent offered a full subsidy. However, those offering a full subsidy were largely boards and councils. Cross referencing the DOER survey with those 34 state agencies from our survey: 61.8 percent (21 agencies) offered no parking subsidy, 23.5 percent (8 agencies) offered a partial subsidy, and 5.9 percent (2 agencies) offered a full subsidy (3 agencies in our survey did not respond to the DOER survey).
Among the comments from human resource directors: “An insufficient labor pool is the primary reason for recruitment problems experienced in the office and administrative specialist series.”
“A labor shortage and insufficient skill levels of eligible candidates… are problems.”
“An insufficient labor pool is available to us. [There is an] inability to recruit from the public at higher levels; at lower levels, [there are] insufficient skills.”
“Seventy percent of people on [eligible state employment] lists are not interested in interviewing, 20 percent of the other 30 percent don’t show up for interviews, [and] the last 10 percent decline offers based on downtown parking costs.” 10
Forty seven percent of human resource directors reported recruitment and/or retention problems in accounting careers, and they mentioned all levels of accounting positions as presenting recruitment and retention problems. As shown in Table 3.6, an equal number of human resource directors reported problems filling entry level positions (Accounting Officer), mid level positions (Accounting Officer Intermediate), and high level positions (Accounting Officer Senior). 11
As in the case of information technology and office administration positions, human resource directors believe that an insufficient labor pool with the needed skills and experience is the principal reason for the recruitment/retention problems in accounting positions (see Table 3.7). However, many (50 percent) also think that the long and complex recruiting, exam, and hiring process associated with filling accounting positions is an important factor. Roughly one third of human resource directors attributed the recruitment/retention problems to inadequate salaries.
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Table 3.6: Accounting Recruitment/Retention Problems
Human Resource Directors Reporting Problem ( N= 14) Problem Classifications Number Percent
Accounting Officer 6 42.9% Accounting Officer Intermediate 6 42.9 Accounting Officer Senior 6 42.9
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office Survey of Human Resource Directors, 1999.
10 State eligibility lists are discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
11 As of September 1999, the state employed a total of 255 individuals in the Accounting Officer series.
Comments from human resource directors reflect these views: “[There is an] insufficient labor pool…[and] a lack of professional experience.”
“Outside candidates lack government accounting knowledge [and] require extensive training.”
“[The] long, complex exam process results in a loss of qualified applicants. People coming out of colleges can’t wait for the state to get people on the list.”
“[The] job application process is ridiculously long and complex. Candidates are unwilling to take a written test and wait for test results before being interviewed. Jobs are too readily available elsewhere.”
SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGE
Our survey asked human resource directors to identify potential solutions to their recruitment and retention problems. We specifically asked for suggestions directed toward the Department of Employee Relations and the Legislature. Although human resource directors identified numerous suggestions for how DOER and the Legislature could help solve current recruitment and/or retention problems, most suggested more significant changes for DOER (see Tables 3.8 and 3.9). The suggestions for change most frequently reported by human resource directors are simplifying the selection and hiring process and improving recruitment. While we did not independently examine these suggestions, we generally agree with them.
Selection and Hiring
Human resource directors are strongly dissatisfied with the current hiring process. As explained in Chapter 1, agencies to which DOER has delegated hiring authority can administer the testing, examination, and hiring process for their agency specific classes. However, for many statewide classifications (such as entry level office administration and accounting positions) DOER administers the testing/examination/hiring process. According to the human resource directors we surveyed, this process can takes weeks or months to complete. 12
Table 3.7: Reasons for Accounting Recruitment/Retention Problems
Human Resource Directors Reporting Reason ( N= 14) Reasons Number Percent
Insufficient labor pool with needed skills/experience 8 57.1% Long and complex recruiting/exam/hiring process 7 50.0 Inadequate pay/compensation 4 28.6
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office Survey of Human Resource Directors, 1999.
Agency human resource directors say that the state’s selection and hiring process should be simplified and recruitment efforts improved.
For example, an individual with an accounting degree seeking an entry level accounting position in a given agency needs to go though several steps. If a potential employee responds to the recruiting efforts of a specific agency, that prospective candidate would first need to fill out a state employment application and submit it to DOER. DOER would then administer the testing process (which could be anything from scoring the application based on skills and experience to administering a written test on a specific date to the applicant). After calculating a score from the testing process, DOER would place the names of those applicants that passed on a state eligibility list for hiring. The agency that wants to hire the entry level accountant must then request and obtain the eligible list from DOER, contact that applicant, and begin whatever hiring process it uses for employee selection.
Table 3.9: Suggestions for the Legislature
Human Resource Directors Reporting Suggestion ( N= 20) Suggestions Number Percent
Increase flexibility in compensation 6 30.0% Simplify the selection and hiring process 5 25.0 Revise Chapter 43. A 5 25.0
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office Survey of Human Resource Directors, 1999.
Table 3.8: Suggestions for the Department of Employee Relations
Human Resource Directors Reporting Suggestion ( N= 30) Suggestions Number Percent
Simplify the selection and hiring process 22 73.3% Improve recruitment efforts 15 50.0 Move salaries toward levels comparable to private industry and respond better to the market 10 33.3
SOURCE: Legislative Auditor’s Office Survey of Human Resource Directors, 1999.
DOER administers the testing, examination, and hiring process for many statewide classifications.
12 DOER is exploring ways to streamline the examination process. For example, it has been working with a group of human resource directors on the examination problems associated with the accounting series, and is considering adopting an “experimental exam” which would allow candidates to forego a written test if they have an accounting degree from a four year, post secondary institution.
Human resource directors also believe that the process used for hiring or promoting into higher level positions does not work well in recruiting the most qualified candidate for the position. DOER has statutory authority to determine whether to announce higher level vacancies on a “competitive open” basis (meaning all applicants are welcome) or a “competitive promotional” basis (meaning the position is open only to current civil service employees). 13 DOER says that for most vacancies, it generally defers to whatever the agency requests. However, our survey of human resource directors indicates that especially for higher level office administrative positions, the standard practice of using competitive promotional exams results in current state employees being placed into these positions instead of candidates that might be more qualified or better suited for the job had they been competitively recruited.
As shown in Table 3.8: State agency human resource directors think that DOER should simplify the selection and hiring process.
Among the more frequently reported suggestions for improving the hiring process were: (1) streamline the testing, examination, and hiring process (make it quicker, simpler, easier, and more flexible); (2) open tests competitively to the public (especially for AFSCME and MAPE positions, where current state employees have preference for hiring) and have the tests open continuously; (3) base hiring on education and past job performance instead of testing; (4) let agencies hire at any point within a salary range without DOER approval; (5) allow “on the spot” hiring at conferences, job fairs, or when highly skilled candidates become available; and (6) allow immediate on site testing and the ability to apply and test on line.
The following comments from human resource directors reflect their views of the current hiring situation:
“DOER could assist by finding quicker, more effective evaluation devices, instead of relying on written exams that have questionable validity… The selection process needs to be streamlined and updated. In the current market, agencies cannot afford to wait three to four months for the results of a written exam process.”
“The hiring process is lengthy and cumbersome… Agencies often cannot act in a timely manner to recruit and/or retain qualified staff.”
“DOER needs to be proactive in revamping selection and classification systems. Currently they do not have enough staff that are skilled or interested in doing this. To the contrary, current staff are rigid and not in tune with the needs of agencies as they try to fill their job vacancies. Decentralization of certain authorities to agencies has helped, however, many jobs… are statewide classifications where DOER still runs the selection process. There have been attempts over the last few years to re engineer this process but DOER has not had enough staff nor have they had the right staff available to sustain these efforts over the long period… So we are still operating cut and paste selection systems which are cumbersome to job applicants, take way too long to keep any qualified applicant interested in state employment, and therefore do not produce sufficient numbers of qualified job applicants. As the labor shortage continues, we are not making the changes we need to be competitive in the job selection market.”
Some higher level positions are open only to current state employees.
13 See Minn. Stat. §43A. 09, subd. 6 and Minn. Rules, ch. 3900.3100.
“The current testing process, which requires applicants to apply for generic jobs, wait for several weeks to be scheduled for an exam, take the written test, wait again for several weeks for a test score, have their name placed on an eligible list, then wait again for an undetermined period of time to be contacted for a vacancy, is simply not adequate to meet our needs. This situation is only exacerbated given low unemployment and a very tight job market.”
“The process needs to be changed to allow agencies to recruit for specific vacancies, advertise, administer an appropriate and timely selection process, interview quickly, hire and get employees on the job.”
“[DOER should] simplify the exam process for all job classes that maintains fairness, follows merit principles, and does not take four months to get a statewide promotion eligible list.”
“[DOER should] open up the exams on a statewide competitive basis and in some cases redesign the exams to meet agencies’ current needs.”
Human resource directors also think the Legislature could assist in simplifying the hiring and selection process. Their suggestions center around revising the language governing specific applicant qualifications:
“The legislation governing examining is quite specific as to how lists of qualified candidates are established and how many candidates should be referred to a supervisor. It should be replaced with language that retains the need for a process of assessing qualifications but does not define specifically what that entails.” 14
“[The Legislature should] eliminate the concept of ranked eligible lists and allow for an open number of applicants for consideration for exam processes that are not pass/fail.”
“[The Legislature should look at] language that allows for more flexibility in hiring and examinations.”
Employee recruitment is another area where many human resource directors expressed dissatisfaction. Human resource directors believe that recruitment is essential to attracting skilled workers to state employment, and they find DOER’s recruitment efforts lacking. According to our survey:
State agency human resource directors think that DOER should improve its recruitment efforts.
14 See Minn. Stat. §§ 43A. 10 43A. 13.
Suggestions for improving recruitment include: (1) expanding recruitment efforts by advertising in the newspaper and on the internet, attending job fairs, and working with state colleges and universities and (2) promoting state employment generally to help create a positive image of state employment. Among the comments from state human resource directors:
“[The Department of Employee Relations should] work more with state colleges and universities to promote the state as a potential employer [and] emphasize the substantial number of benefits gained in working for the state; salary is not everything.”
“[DOER needs] more aggressive marketing of the state as an employer.” “[DOER should] create a more organized effort at getting information readily available to prospective applicants at post secondary school, DES, job fairs, etc. that’s comparable to how the private sector makes their organizations readily known and available to people.”
“[DOER should] provide on going advertising to recruit more qualified applicants.”
“The Department of Employee Relations can help with our recruitment issues by… actually promoting the State of Minnesota as an employer through ‘real’ recruitment efforts.”
“The Department of Employee Relations could assist in recruitment by retaining a knowledgeable recruitment staff and coordinating efforts for statewide classes. DOER did have a recruitment team that has now been disbanded.”
“[DOER needs to] reestablish the recruitment unit that was decimated by turnover.”
Several human resource directors echoed these thoughts in suggestions to the Legislature:
“[The Legislature should provide] sufficient funding for DOER’s Staffing Division to provide recruiting support services and analysis of long term work force planning needs.”
“[The Legislature needs to] have DOER establish a permanent, full time recruitment program that coordinates efforts with state agencies.”
“The whole state process needs to be accomplished faster, more efficiently, and with less bureaucracy. The Legislature needs to dictate this and provide the money to DOER to add people and systems.”
In 1998, DOER’s Staffing Division began a “reengineering” project focused on three areas of reform the hiring assessment process, the job classification system, and the strategic planning process for which it received $575,000 in funding in the 1998 99 biennium. While the Staffing Division developed a plan which required $2.4 million in funding for these three areas, the department requested only $315,000 in its 2000 01 biennial budget proposal, and the Legislature did not approve this funding. The Legislature also cut the agency’s budget by $140,000, a portion of which DOER had allocated to support the agency’s recruiting unit.
Agency human resource directors believe that DOER should expand its recruiting activities and promote state employment.
DOER has acknowledged a problem exists with its recruitment efforts, and attributes part of the problem to a loss of positions in its Staffing Division. Although the Staffing Division has proposed ambitious plans based on its reengineering project, nothing has been finalized. The agency is currently in the process of reevaluating the results of the reengineering project and redesigning its recruitment unit.
The tight labor market that currently exists nationally and in Minnesota has created problems for employers trying to recruit and retain skilled workers. Our survey of 34 state agency human resource directors indicates that most state agencies have experienced employee recruitment and/or retention problems over the past two years. The largest recruitment and retention problems are in information technology, office administration, and accounting careers. Human resource directors believe the principal reason for their current recruitment and retention problems is an insufficient labor pool with the needed skills or experience for the position.
To help solve existing recruitment and retention problems, human resource directors believe that the Department of Employee Relations should simplify the selection and hiring process of employees. They also believe that DOER should improve and expand its recruitment efforts of state employment.
As one human resource director notes: “The growing perception of public service appears to be that government is the place you go when you cannot run, or have grown tired of trying to run, the fast track of the private sector. This exacerbates government’s recruitment and retention problems already present in a tight labor market; we cannot recruit the ‘best and brightest’ young talent since they do not view public sector employment as a stepping stone to greater things, nor can we pay them salaries commensurate with other job opportunities. Further, we have trouble attracting experienced professionals who are willing to accept salary decreases, but only in exchange for a far reduced workload. Unfortunately, public sector employment does not automatically equate with reduced workloads, as only those of us working for government well know. Thus, a great portion of the qualified labor pool remains out of our reach.”
State of Minnesota Career Families APPENDIX A
This appendix contains an alphabetical list of the Career Families used by the Department of Employee Relations (DOER) as well as DOER’s description of each family. 1 It includes a list of the job classifications representing approximately 75 percent of the employees within each family (unless otherwise noted), the number of employees per classification, and the average salary for each classification. Totals for the entire career family are also provided. 2
Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Careers
This career family includes work concerned with formulating policies and procedures relating to examining, analyzing, and interpreting financial, budgetary, and investment data. Directs financial activities of the organization. Applies principles of accounting to analyze financial information to prepare reports and forecast estimates of future revenues and expenditures. Conducts audits of financial records to assess effectiveness of controls, accuracy of those records, and efficiency of operations. Examines financial institutions to enforce laws and regulations governing their operations and solvency. Interprets economic information concerning price, yield, stability and future trends of securities, investments, etc.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Account Clerk Senior 257 $15.12 Account Clerk 222 13.71 Accounting Technician 177 16.44 Accounting Officer Intermediate 97 18.69 Accounting Officer 85 17.47 Accounting Officer Senior 73 20.86 Accounting Supervisor Senior 47 21.80 Local Government Auditor 28 14.91 Accounting Director 27 26.27 Auditor Senior 26 21.51
Total for Career Family 1,363 $23.50
This career family includes work concerned with the application of scientific principles to problems related to agriculture and horticulture. Also includes development of improved methods in cultivating, processing, handling, and storing of products; land conservation practices; pest control; etc. Plans and develops coordinated practices for soil erosion, moisture conservation, and sound land use. Inspects agricultural commodities, processing equipment, and facilities to enforce compliance with governmental regulations. Conducts research in nature, cause, and control of plant diseases and decay of plant products. Inspects establishments where agricultural service products, such as livestock feed, fertilizers, and pesticides, are manufactured, sold, or used, to ensure conformance to laws regulating product quality and labeling.
1 Descriptions of DOER’s Career Families come from the agency’s web page: http://www.doer.state.mn.us/stfbltn/famlydef.htm; accessed December 8, 1999.
2 Data are from October 6, 1999.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Grain Sampler 1 44 $14.90 Food Inspector 2 31 19.30 Agricultural Advisor 25 19.86 Agricultural Potato Sampler 20 8.99 Dairy Inspector 2 20 20.88 Grain Inspector 2 15 18.15 Agricultural Specialist 15 18.21 Agricultural Consultant 10 23.44 Grain Inspector 1 9 17.66 Plant Industry Inspector 1 8 15.24
Total for Career Family 258 $20.11
Building and Construction Trades Careers
This career family includes work concerned with building construction occupations. Fabricates, installs, and repairs structures made of wood and materials that can be worked like wood. Installs plumbing systems in buildings according to blueprints. Wires buildings and adjacent yards to provide electricity for power and lighting.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary General Repair Worker 126 $16.49 Plant Maintenance Engineer 126 18.19 Laborer Trades and Equipment 80 15.97 Stationary Engineer 73 17.99 Carpenter 59 18.01 Painter 46 18.31 Electrician 44 18.68 Building Utilities Mechanic 35 18.03 Building Maintenance Supervisor 32 22.69 Electrician Master Record 30 19.58 Building Maintenance Foreman 19 21.58
Total for Career Family 882 $19.09
This career family includes work concerned with the licensure and regulation of a variety of commercial activities such as insurance, securities, real estate, franchising, and banking; investigates and resolves complaints against individual practitioners and the industry; administers policies and procedures for continued formal licensee education.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Investigator Senior 33 $22.16 Housing Development Officer Senior 27 22.35 Investigator 24 17.87 Financial Institution Examiner 21 20.94 Financial Institution Examiner Senior 19 24.40 Housing Development Officer Intermediate 18 19.77 Housing Program Technician 17 14.44 Housing Development Officer 16 17.85 Commerce Consumer Liaison 15 16.25 Housing Program/Policy Specialist 15 24.95 Commerce Analyst 2 13 20.43
Total for Career Family 292 $23.44
This career family includes work concerned with the operation of adult and juvenile correctional facilities; administration of probation, supervised release, and parole services; and assistance on a statewide basis in the management of criminal justice programs and facilities. Guards inmates in correctional facilities, following established policies and procedures to protect the public, other inmates, and correctional staff.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Corrections Officer 2 1,224 $16.13 Corrections Officer 3 331 19.71 Corrections Lieutenant 128 25.28
Total for Career Family 2,245 $21.82
Diversity and Equal Opportunity Careers
This career family includes work concerned with the recruitment and retention of a statewide diverse workforce to ensure the state’s commitment to equal employment opportunities and to research and resolve charges of discrimination according to established legal and administrative guidelines.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Human Rights Enforcement Officer 1 20 $18.07 Human Rights Enforcement Officer 1 Trainee 8 15.19 Human Rights Enforcement Officer 2 7 21.24 Affirmative Action Officer 2 5 18.18
Total for Career Family 55 $21.33
Economic Development Careers
This career family includes work concerned with attracting, expanding, and retaining commercial business enterprises in the state; facilitates joint ventures and public/private partnerships to enhance business opportunities; and collaborates with all levels of government to reduce "red tape" for relocation of industries to the state.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Business and Community Development Representative 16 $21.86 Loan Officer Senior 15 24.94 International Trade Representative 11 23.03 Economic Development Program Specialist 6 24.08 Recreational Facility Marketing Specialist 5 19.98
Total for Career Family 73 $23.45
Economic Security Careers
This career family includes work that administers employment service programs; plans and executes policies and procedures to provide statewide employment services under authority of federal and state regulations. Coordinates local office operations with staff services such as counseling, testing, job analysis, farm placement, recruitment and staff training, and human resource development to achieve program objectives. Researches occupations and analyzes and integrates data and provides business, industry, and government with technical information necessary for utilization of work force. Develops and conducts employment and training programs for employees of industrial, commercial, service, or government establishments.
STATE OF MINNESOTA CAREER FAMILIES
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Economic Security Representative 223 $17.51 Rehabilitation Counselor Career 154 21.75 Rehabilitation Counselor Senior 50 17.72 Disability Specialist 46 18.50 Reemployment Insurance Program Specialist 1 41 19.67 Reemployment Insurance Operations Analyst 38 17.73 Employment Counselor 32 14.70 Rehabilitation Counselor 31 15.38 Job Service Program Specialist 1 28 19.87 Vocational Rehabilitation Placement Coordinator 27 17.76 Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Representative 25 16.72 Job Service Field Operations Area Manager 2 23 24.56 Disability Program Specialist 22 21.27 Rehabilitation Counselor Supervisor 4 21 27.27 Reemployment Insurance Program Specialist 2 20 21.86 Employment and Training Program Specialist Senior 19 20.22
Total for Career Family 1,059 $22.29
Education and Teaching Careers
This career family includes work concerned with research, administration, and teaching at the elementary, secondary, college, and university levels. Researches academic subjects, administers educational programs, and teaches in schools beyond the secondary school level, including technical colleges, community colleges, and state universities. Directs and coordinates activities of teachers and other staff providing school instruction, evaluation services, job placement, or other special education services to physically, mentally, emotionally, or neurologically impaired children; participates in conferences with staff, parents, children, etc. Teaches elementary and secondary subjects to special education students; plans curriculum and prepares lessons and other instructional materials according to grade level of students.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary College Laboratory Assistant 1 319 $12.89 MnSCU Program Director 1 232 15.85 Customized Training Representative 149 22.08 MnSCU Program Director 2 125 20.48 Education Specialist 2 108 26.85 College Laboratory Assistant 2 96 14.57 MnSCU Program Supervisor 1 56 21.59 MnSCU Program Supervisor 2 44 25.87 Special Teacher: MA/MS/5 years + License 38 26.76 Child Care Center Assistant 23 11.98 Special Teacher: BA/BS + License + 60 Credits 22 27.67
Total for Career Family 1,615 $22.66
Electronic Installation Maintenance and Repair Careers
This career family includes work concerned with the installation and repair of data communications lines and equipment for computer systems; tests and repairs radio transmitting and receiving equipment according to wiring diagrams, manufacturers specifications, and testing equipment; and operates system to demonstrate equipment, identify, and repair malfunctions.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Radio Communications Operator 73 $16.16 Electronics Technician Senior 44 18.44 Electronics Technician 19 16.30 Highway Signal Technician 19 19.86 Radio Technician 3 17 21.90 Radio Technician 2 15 18.92 Audio Visual Technician 15 14.51 Audio Visual Aide 14 12.33
Total for Career Family 280 $20.29
Engineering, Architecture, and Appraisal Careers
This career family includes work concerned with architecture; the appraisal and purchase/leasing of real property. Researches, plans, designs, and administers building projects for clients, applying knowledge of design, construction procedures, zoning and building codes, and building materials. Consults with client to determine functional and spatial requirements of new structure or renovation, and prepares information regarding design, specifications, materials, color, equipment, estimated costs, and construction time. Appraises improved or unimproved real property to determine value for purchase, sale, investment, mortgage, or loan purposes. Inspects property for construction, condition, and functional design and takes property measurements. Considers factors such as depreciation, reproduction costs, value comparison of similar property, and income potential when computing final estimation of property value. Negotiates with property owners and public officials to secure purchase or lease of land and right of way for construction projects. Negotiates with landowners for access routes and restoration of roads and surfaces. May examine public records to determine ownership and property rights.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Highway Technician Senior 472 $19.36 Highway Technician Intermediate 262 16.16 Engineer Senior 237 25.72 Engineer Principal 198 30.45 Engineering Specialist 159 23.33 Engineering Specialist Senior 80 26.25
Total for Career Family 1,850 $22.52
Executive Leadership Careers
This career family includes work concerned with managing state governmental agency programs to provide the public or other individuals with designated services, or implements laws, codes, or policies prescribed by legislative bodies; reviews official directives and correspondence to ascertain such data as changes prescribed in agency programs, policies, and procedures, and new assignments or responsibilities. Confers with supervisory personnel and reviews staff reports and records to obtain data, such as status of on going work or projects, cases and investigations pending, indications of probable conclusions, and projected completion dates. Coordinates activities of various organizational units in order to provide designated functions or services with minimum delay and optimum efficiency and accuracy. Conducts staff meetings for dissemination of pertinent information. Prepares and presents reports on agency activities. Descriptive working title may be designated according to the type or agency, its programs, or by the type of work performed by its staff.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 40% of Employees 3 Employees Salary Project Manager 20 $33.81 Project Functional Manager 19 30.47 Executive Aide 16 22.25 Assistant to Commissioner 12 29.95 Executive Assistant 11 24.37 Chief Executive Officer Hospital 8 42.18 Chief Executive Officer Corrections Facility 8 43.09 Assistant Commissioner of Human Services 6 43.44 Executive Assistant Principal 6 27.39 Judge of Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals 5 44.11 Commissioner Public Utilities 5 41.13 Housing Finance Agency Executive 5 37.88 Assistant Commissioner of Economic Security 5 39.83 Veterans Home Administrator 4 35.22 Deputy Commissioner of Commerce 4 42.39 Assistant Commissioner of Corrections 4 44.63 Assistant Commissioner of Children, Families and Learning 4 40.71 Senior Executive Officer 4 35.81 Assistant Director of Minnesota State Lottery 4 41.95 Assistant Commissioner of Revenue 4 42.06
Total for Career Family 370 $38.04
Facilities Operation and Maintenance Careers
This career family includes work concerned with building and grounds services not elsewhere classified. Maintains grounds of public property performing any combination of the following tasks: cuts lawn using power mower; trims and edges walks, flower beds, and walls using weed cutters and edging tools; prunes shrubs and trees; may perform grounds maintenance using tractor equipped with attachments such as mowers, fertilizer spreaders, and snow removal equipment. Cleans buildings, furniture, and equipment: includes sweeping, mopping, polishing floors and walls, and disposing of trash.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary General Maintenance Worker 1,126 $12.39
Total for Career Family 2,170 $16.96
Food and Personal Service Careers
This career family includes work concerned with washing, drying, and ironing fabrics and clothing; preparing, cooking, and serving meals; and personal grooming. Sorts clothing by color and fabric; washes and dries it in automatic machines; sorts, irons, and folds dried clothing. Prepares, seasons, and cooks soups, meats, vegetables, desserts and other food stuffs for consumption; reads menu to estimate requirements and orders food from supplier or procures food from storage. Serves food in dining area; washes and dries dishes and cooking utensils; cleans dining and cooking areas and disposes of trash. Cuts, styles, shapes, and washes hair.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Food Service Worker 314 $11.71 Cook 81 13.72 Laundry Worker 49 13.61 Cook Coordinator 22 15.61
Total for Career Family 616 $17.87
3 Because the Executive Leadership career family is very broad and includes many class titles , we only list class titles with four or more employees. This list represents 42 percent of the employees in this career family.
Human Resources Careers
This career family includes work that applies policies and procedures relating to the efficient and effective administration of the organization’s human resources: employee recruitment, selection, training, development, retention, promotion, compensation, and labor relations. Manages compensation program to determine and convert relative job worth into monetary values to be administered according to payscale guidelines. Plans and coordinates personnel and staff training programs through group and individual instruction, manuals, and other methods. Manages the labor relations program to negotiate and administer collective bargaining agreements and resolve employer employee disputes. Administers staffing functions; collects and analyzes occupational information to facilitate employee recruitment, rewards, and retention.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Examination Monitor 2 207 $ 9.90 Personnel Aide Senior 66 16.70 Personnel Aide 62 15.04 Personnel Representative 47 24.05 Personnel Officer Senior 45 20.28 Personnel Officer 37 18.25 Employee Development Specialist 2 35 19.03 Examination Monitor 1 28 8.50
Total for Career Family 688 $21.88
Human Services and Development Careers
This career family includes work concerned with assisting individuals and groups with problems such as social disabilities/disorders, family adjustment, and economic disadvantages. Plans, organizes, and conducts research in understanding social problems and for planning and carrying out social welfare programs. Counsels and aids individuals and families requiring assistance of social service agency; interviews clients with problems, such as personal and family adjustments, finances, employment, food, clothing, housing, and physical and mental impairments, to determine nature and degree of problem.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Human Services Technician 1,800 $12.84 Security Counselor 255 15.29 Income Maintenance Program Advisor 203 19.53 Human Services Support Specialist 106 13.66 Social Work Specialist 91 19.85 Minnesota Care Enrollment Representative 89 14.40 Mental Health Program Assistant 84 15.88 Mental Retardation Residential Program Lead 79 16.77 Income Maintenance Program Consultant 69 23.94
Total for Career Family 3,704 $20.90
Industrial Safety and Regulation Careers
This career family includes work concerned with the prevention and investigation of occupationally related injuries and health problems. Inspects places of employment to detect unsafe or unhealthy working conditions and for conformance with governmental standards according to procedure or in response to complaint or accident. Plans, implements, coordinates, and assesses accident, fire prevention, and occupational safety and health programs. Disseminates information regarding toxic substances, hazards, and other safety topics.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Safety Investigator Senior 27 $20.04 Safety and Health Officer 2 26 21.70 Dispute Prevention and Resolution Specialist Senior 16 25.18 Building Code Representative 12 26.37 Safety and Health Officer 1 12 18.53 Industrial Hygienist 3 12 24.63 Workers’ Compensation Claims Mgmt. Spec. Intermediate 12 19.50 Boiler Inspector 2 11 22.39 Electrical Area Representative 11 24.62 Labor Investigator Senior 10 18.17 Compliance Services Officer Senior 10 22.51 Workers’ Compensation Claims Mgmt. Spec. Senior 9 21.77 Industrial Hygienist 2 8 20.31 Building Code Representative Senior 8 28.12 Industrial Hygienist 1 7 17.40 Apprenticeship Training Field Representative Senior 6 21.78 Safety Investigator Principal 6 24.13
Total for Career Family 269 $23.03
Information Technology Careers
This career family includes work concerned with the application of computers and computer languages and the utilization of the computer in the design and solution of business, scientific, and other technical problems. This career family excludes professional, technical, and office jobs that use computers to aid them in performing their work. More specifically, this career family includes jobs that analyze and evaluate the procedures and processes to design a sequence of steps for processing data by computer that evaluate data communications and network hardware and software, reception of data, or information sent electronically; that investigate, resolve, and explain computer related programs to users of computer systems; and that provide technical support for computer systems, rather than to users of computer systems.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Information Technology Specialist 3 498 $23.48 Information Technology Specialist 2 348 19.21 Information Technology Specialist 4 294 27.89 Information Technology Specialist 1 198 16.05
Total for Career Family 1,816 $29.48
Insurance and Benefits Careers
This career family includes work concerned with the administration of benefits programs designed to insure employees against loss of income due to illness or injury; evaluates services, coverage, and options available through insurance and investment companies; and notifies employees and labor representatives of benefits plan changes to ensure compliance with contractual and legal requirements.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Retirement Services Specialist 22 $16.42 Retirement Services Specialist Intermediate 16 18.20 Retirement Services Specialist Senior 12 20.34 Retirement Services Director 6 26.50 Retirement Services Program Coordinator 5 22.41
Total for Career Family 80 $22.36
Laboratory Sciences Careers
This career family includes work concerned with the application of the theoretical and practical aspects of physical and life sciences; analyzes the normal and abnormal chemical processes of living organisms; studies the growth and general characteristics of micro organisms; and researches the composition, structure, and properties of physical matter.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Agricultural Technician 42 $10.93 Research Scientist 2 37 22.85 Forensic Scientist 2 29 21.83 Research Scientist 3 27 27.11 Environmental Analyst 3 21 20.99 Bacteriologist 2 19 17.98 Forensic Scientist 3 14 26.97 College Laboratory Services Specialist 13 18.08 Plant Health Specialist 1 13 16.54 Plant Health Specialist 2 9 17.88 Forensic Scientist 1 8 15.88 Chemist 2 8 18.11 Environmental Analyst 2 8 18.87 Environmental Research Scientist 8 25.80 Environmental Analyst 1 7 14.59
Total for Career Family 345 $20.83
This career family includes work concerned with the practice of one or more phases of law including representing the government and the preparation of legal documents, protecting the public, maintaining law and order, detecting and preventing crime, directing and controlling motor traffic, and investigating and apprehending suspects in criminal cases. Conducts criminal and civil lawsuits, draws up legal documents, advises clients as to legal rights, and practices other phases of law; gathers evidence in civil, criminal, and other cases to formulate defense or initiate legal action.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Staff Attorney 2 (Attorney General’s Office) 72 $29.18 Staff Attorney 1 (Attorney General’s Office) 61 20.69 Staff Attorney 3 (Attorney General’s Office) 40 34.93 Compensation Judge 36 39.30 Legal Assistant 5 31 17.80 Legal Assistant 3 (Attorney General’s Office) 21 12.79 Legal Assistant 6 21 20.91 Attorney 2 20 27.34 Legal Assistant 3 20 14.56 Legal Assistant 7 19 23.80 Reemployment Insurance Judge 18 26.86
Total for Career Family 467 $25.57
Library and Information Resource Careers
This career family includes work concerned with collecting, maintaining, and distributing print and non print information materials such as books, serial publications, documents stored on a variety of media, and audiovisual; explains and assists clients in their search for information and use of reference sources; recommends acquisition of additional information resources; and completes special research projects on a variety of topics providing bibliographic documentation.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Library Technician 115 $14.82
Total for Career Family 159 $21.80
Loans and Grants Careers 4 This career family includes work concerned with the administration of a variety of grants and loans to finance government sponsored programs such as housing, local government initiatives, and direct services to the public; directs and coordinates the evaluation and monitoring of grant funded programs; and analyzes information on loan documents to ensure that the loan complies with appropriate guidelines such as financial condition, credit, or property valuation.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Grants Specialist Senior 36 $19.96 Housing Development Officer Senior 34 22.65 Grants Specialist Coordinator 21 23.03 Housing Program Technician 21 15.01 Housing Development Officer Intermediate 20 19.72 Housing Program/Policy Specialist 15 25.55 Loan Officer Senior 12 25.04 Grants Specialist 9 14.81
Total for Career Family 213 $21.20
Management Careers (All Managerial Job Classifications Except Executive Leadership)
This career family includes work concerned with determining, securing, and allocating human, financial, and other resources needed to accomplish public administration objectives. Positions in this career family also are accountable for determining overall objectives, priorities, and policies within a public program area. Higher level positions in this career family handle significant and involved organizational relationships with governmental leadership within the executive branch of state government, as well as with the legislative and judicial branches. Incumbents of these positions have the authority to continuously exercise extensive discretionary powers.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 60% of Employees 5 Employees Salary Engineer Senior Administrative 63 $38.12 Administrative Management Director 2 30 31.85 Pollution Control Program Administrator 22 32.91 Engineer Principal Administrative Transportation 17 41.48 Welfare Strategic Policy Analyst Classified 16 26.12 Health Care Program Manager 15 33.48 Administrative Management Director 1 12 28.76 Executive Budget Officer 10 26.32 Information Director 10 31.01 Residential Program Services Manager 10 31.04 Residential Program Services Manager Senior 10 33.25 Health Program Manager 9 31.52 Health Assistant Division Director 9 35.37 Accounting Manager 8 31.12 Engineer Administrative Management 8 34.85 Administrative Officer 8 27.19 Personnel Services Manager 8 33.88 Director of Economic and Community Support Strategic Div. 8 35.50
4 Data for this career family are from December 1999.
5 Because the Management career family is very broad and includes many class titles, we only li st class titles with four or more employees. This list represents 60 percent of the employees in this career family.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 60% of Employees Employees Salary Business Manager 2 7 30.20 Rehabilitation Program Manager 7 29.79 Legislative Audit Manager 7 35.11 Transportation Planning Director 7 38.21 Natural Resources Fisheries Regional Manager 7 28.22 Corrections Facility Operations Director 7 35.89 Corrections Alternative Program Manager 7 31.76 Director of Nursing 6 34.72 Personnel Director 3 6 36.20 Natural Resources Planning Manager 6 34.09 Financial Management Director 6 36.03 Residential Program Manager 6 29.76 Occupational Safety and Health Team Director 6 30.65 Natural Resources Parks Regional Manager 6 32.29 State Program Administrative Manager 6 29.65 Pollution Control Division Director 5 39.25 Research, Planning, and Evaluation Director 5 30.84 Natural Resources Forestry Regional Manager 5 30.30 Economic Development Manager 5 33.01 Assistant Division Director Transportation 5 43.80 Health Care Program Manager Senior 5 39.52 Natural Resources Wildlife Regional Manager 5 30.17 Residential Program Services Director 1 5 36.11 Commerce Registration/Analysis Manager 5 29.23 Corrections Facility Administrative Director 5 33.68 Revenue Tax System Director 2 5 37.28 Environmental Health Manager 5 33.25 Director of Workers’ Compensation Program 5 32.49 Labor Relations Agency Manager 4 32.04 Research Director 4 32.08 Executive Budget Officer Senior 4 33.04 Transportation Planning Manager 4 34.72 Finance Agency Coordinator 4 36.47 Assistant to Warden 4 26.98 Physical Plant Manager 4 28.48 Revenue Tax System Director 1 4 34.72 Zoo Conservation Manager 4 26.62
Total for Career Family 789 $34.05
Manufacturing and Equipment Operation and Maintenance Careers
This career family includes work concerned with operating and maintaining motorized vehicles and manufacturing production equipment; inspects and repairs mechanical and hydraulic components of production machines by following diagrams and service manuals. Drives automobiles, vans, and trucks to transport employees, clients, and materials from one location to another. Repairs engines, etc.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Heavy Equipment Mechanic 135 $18.64 Delivery Van Driver 69 13.26 Heavy Equipment Field Mechanic 37 19.43 Automotive Mechanic 18 17.56 Corrections Manufacturing Specialist Wood 18 20.05 Heavy Equipment Mechanic Supervisor 16 23.35 Materials Transfer Driver 13 14.78 Automobile Driver 13 10.88 Heavy Equipment Operator 13 18.34 Corrections Manufacturing Specialist Light Manufacturing 13 19.75
Total for Career Family 457 $19.16
Medical, Dental, and Nursing Careers
This career family includes work concerned with health treatment for humans and animals in the fields of medicine, dentistry, and related patient care areas. Diagnoses, prevents, and treats diseases and injuries and researches the cause, transmission, and control of diseases and other ailments. Examines, diagnoses, and treats ailments or abnormalities of gums, jaws, soft tissue, and teeth (including oral surgery). Compounds, dispenses, and preserves drugs and medicines prescribed by physicians and dentists. Administers nursing care to the ill or injured (licensing or registration is required). Applies the principles of nutrition to plan and supervise the preparation and serving of meals. This career family also extends to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of animal disorders.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Registered Nurse 632 $20.80 Licensed Practical Nurse 2 401 16.72 Licensed Practical Nurse 1 171 13.75 Registered Nurse Senior 150 25.08 Nursing Evaluator 2 83 22.97
Total for Career Family 1,953 $27.98
Natural Resource and Environmental Careers
This career family includes work concerned with the application of scientific principles to problems related to fish and wildlife management, forestry, the environment, and other related natural sciences. Manages and develops forest lands and resources for economic and recreational purposes. Plans and directs forestation and reforestation projects; maps forest areas; and estimates standing timber and future growth. Enforces regulations and policies in state parks; registers vehicles and visitors, collects fees, and issues parking and use permits, and provides information pertaining to park use, safety requirements, and points of interest. Conducts studies on hazardous waste management projects and provides information on treatment and containment of hazardous waste; participates in developing hazardous waste rules and regulations. Inspects sites where discharges enter state waters and investigates complaints concerning water pollution problems. Studies interrelationships, life histories, habits, life processes, and distribution of animals; may specialize in study of mammals, birds, fish, etc.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Pollution Control Specialist Senior 177 $20.34 Parks Worker 169 12.85 Natural Resources Specialist 2 (Conservation Officer) 144 21.90 Natural Resources Forestry Specialist Senior 102 21.01 Hydrologist 2 84 21.77 Natural Resources Technician (Forestry) 78 17.53 Hydrologist 3 76 25.92 Natural Resources Technician (Fisheries) 69 15.84 Sentencing To Service Crew Leader 63 15.85 Natural Resources Specialist (Fisheries Management) 62 16.61 Interpretive Naturalist 1 59 14.66 Pollution Control Specialist Intermediate 55 17.44 Natural Resources Specialist Intermediate (Fisheries Mgmt.) 49 19.00 Pollution Control Specialist Principal 47 27.71 Natural Resources Supervisor 2 Parks 40 21.65 Natural Resources Specialist Senior (Wildlife Management) 38 21.76 Natural Resources Technician (Wildlife) 37 14.73 Natural Resources Specialist Intermediate (Wildlife Mgmt.) 35 19.19 Pollution Control Specialist 33 14.50 Hydrologist 1 33 16.63 Pollution Control Project Leader 33 23.45 Natural Resources Fisheries Census Clerk 33 11.35 Natural Resources Forestry Area Supervisor 31 24.33
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Natural Resources Fisheries Area Supervisor 24 23.07 Natural Resources Parks Specialist Intermediate 24 17.87 Natural Resources Specialist Sr. (Wildlife Research Biologist) 23 19.89 Natural Resources Forestry Regional Specialist 22 22.55 Natural Resources Supervisor 3 Parks 22 24.20 Natural Resources Program Coordinator 20 23.96 Natural Resources Specialist/Conservation Office Unit Leader 20 23.97
Total for Career Family 2,273 $21.34
Office Administration Careers
This career family includes work concerned with general office duties: making, classifying, and filing records. Includes activities such as transmitting and receiving data by machines equipped with a typewriter like keyboard, and operating machines to duplicate records, correspondence, and reports. Schedules appointments, gives information to callers, takes dictation, and otherwise relieves officials of clerical work and administrative detail; reads and routes incoming mail. Composes and types correspondence. Greets visitors, ascertains nature of business, and conducts visitors to appropriate person. Classifies, sorts, and files correspondence, records, and other data. Issues licenses or permits to qualified applicants; questions applicant to obtain information such as name, address, and records data on prescribed forms; evaluates information obtained to determine applicant qualification for licensure. Receives, stores, and issues equipment, material, supplies, merchandise, food stuffs or tools, and compiles stock records in stockroom, warehouse, or storage yard; counts, sorts, or weighs incoming articles to verify receipt of items on requisition or invoices.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Office and Administrative Specialist 1,603 $12.86 Office and Administrative Specialist Intermediate 1,509 14.23 Office Specialist 941 11.12 Office and Administrative Specialist Senior 886 15.65 Customer Services Specialist 531 12.53
Total for Career Family 7,060 $15.02
Planning, Research, and Analysis Careers
This career family includes work concerned with reviewing, examining, and evaluating organizational structures, administrative policies, and management systems. Prepares summary reports and recommends changes in organizations, methods, policies, procedures, or practices concerning such management systems as budget forecasting, records management, and information management. Conducts studies and advises program administrators on feasibility, cost effectiveness, and regulatory conformance of proposals for special projects or ongoing programs. Consults with administrators to discuss overall intent of projects and determines broad guidelines for studies, using knowledge of subject area, research techniques, and regulatory limitations. Reviews and evaluates materials provided with proposals. Organizes data from all sources using statistical methods to ensure validity of materials. Evaluates information to determine feasibility of proposals or to identify factors requiring amendment. Develops alternate plans for programs or projects, incorporating recommendations for review of program administrators. Maintains collection of socioeconomic, environmental, regulatory, etc. data related to agency functions for use in planning and administrative activities.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Planner Principal State 125 $23.55 Management Analyst 3 117 20.74 Project Consultant 94 19.52 Management Analyst 1 83 16.17 Management Analyst 2 81 18.48 Research Analysis Specialist 74 20.11 Management Analyst 4 68 24.89 Planner Senior State 64 19.94 Research Analysis Specialist Senior 52 23.79 Project Consultant Senior 48 23.16 Project Analyst 47 15.66 Planning Director State 45 28.18 Research Analyst 43 15.06 Project Team Leader 40 22.34 Grants Specialist Senior 38 19.72 Research Analyst Intermediate 37 17.27 Planner Intermediate 32 17.61
Total for Career Family 1,440 $22.38
Printing and Graphic Arts Careers
This career family includes work concerned with the printing, photographing, and publishing of materials for the public; photographs people, events, materials, and products with still or video cameras; assembles hand or machine set type, plates, and spacing material to make up pages and forms, reproducing type, illustrations, pages, and forms by photo engraving, lithographic process, electrotyping, bookbinding, and related graphic arts techniques.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Graphic Arts Specialist 46 $17.71 Offset Press Operator 12 15.65 Offset Press Operator Senior 12 17.77 Printing Specification and Estimating Coordinator 6 20.57 Print Comm Press Operator Senior 6 15.93 Reprographic Specialist 5 14.04 Photographer 4 14.67
Total for Career Family 121 $17.51
Protective Service Careers
This career family includes work concerned with patrolling assigned area to control traffic, prevent crime or disturbance of peace, and to warn or arrest persons violating laws. Guards government property against theft, fire, vandalism and illegal entry. Controls and extinguishes fires, protects life and property and maintains equipment; responds to fire alarms and other emergency calls. Investigates and gathers facts to determine cause of fires and explosions and enforces fire laws.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary State Patrol Corporal 220 $24.29 State Patrol Trooper 182 19.78 Security Guard 74 12.60 State Patrol Trooper 1 68 23.65 Special Agent 65 26.02 Driver and Vehicle Services Examining Specialist 47 14.03 Deputy State Fire Marshal 41 20.96 State Patrol Lieutenant 39 27.54
Total for Career Family 976 $20.36
Psychology and Counseling Careers
This career family includes work concerned with assisting individuals and groups with problems such as physical, emotional, behavioral, social disabilities/disorders, and disadvantages. Diagnoses or evaluates mental and emotional disorders of individuals, and administers programs of treatment; interviews patients in clinics, hospitals, prisons and other institutions, and studies medical and social case histories. Counsels individuals and provides group educational and vocational guidance services; collects, organizes and analyzes information about individuals through records, tests, interviews, and professional sources to appraise their interests, aptitudes, abilities, and personality characteristics.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Psychologist 2 63 $24.24 Behavior Analyst 2 33 19.25 Behavior Analyst 1 23 17.16 Psychologist 3 21 27.75
Total for Career Family 190 $22.96
Public Health Careers
This career family includes work concerned with ascertaining public health needs, the availability of health services, environmental health programs, injuries, and health problems. Plans, organizes, and directs health programs for group and community needs; conducts community surveys and collaborates with other health specialists and civic groups to ascertain health needs, develop desirable health goals, and determine the availability of professional health services; and promotes health discussions in schools, industry, and community agencies. Plans, develops, and executes environmental health program, determines and sets health and sanitation standards, and enforces regulations concerned with food processing and serving, collection and disposal of solid wastes, sewage treatment, plumbing, etc.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Health Program Representative 135 $15.19 Health Program Representative Intermediate 47 17.93 Health Program Representative Senior 38 20.12 Public Health Sanitarian 2 24 18.80
Total for Career Family 329 $22.24
Public Relations and Marketing Careers
This career family includes work concerned with the collection and distribution of information/materials to the public; develops favorable persuasive material and distributes it through personal contact or various communications media in order to promote goodwill, develop credibility, or create a favorable public image.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Information Officer 2 88 $17.76 Information Officer 3 65 20.74 Information Officer 1 34 15.58 Health Educator 3 19 19.92 Interpretive Guide 15 13.14 Information Program Supervisor 15 23.27 Health Educator 2 13 18.31 Agricultural Marketing Specialist Senior 9 21.53
Total for Career Family 346 $20.37
Purchasing and Administrative Service Careers
This career family includes work concerned with negotiating and contracting for the purchase of equipment, products, and supplies. Coordinates activities involved with procuring goods and services, such as raw materials, equipment, tools, parts, supplies, etc. Examines performance requirements, delivery schedules, and estimates of costs of material equipment and production to ensure completeness and accuracy. Prepares bids, process specifications, test and progress reports and other exhibits that may be required.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Office Services Supervisor 1 90 $18.09 Automotive Parts Technician 64 15.48 Office Services Supervisor 2 63 19.87 Executive 2 41 19.04 Office Services Supervisor 3 37 21.69 Business Manager 1 26 22.53 Buyer 2 25 19.31 Manager 2 (Attorney Generals Office) 23 35.09 Buyer 1 21 17.24
Total for Career Family 513 $22.62
Rehabilitation Therapies Careers
This career family includes work concerned with health treatment for related care areas such as therapy and rehabilitation. Applies the principles of nutrition to plan and supervise the preparation and serving of meals. Rehabilitates persons with physical or mental disabilities or disorders to restore functions, prevent loss of physical capacities, and maintain optimum performance. Assists patients, working under the direction of nursing, medical, and therapeutic staff in psychiatric, chemical dependency, developmental disabilities, or similar settings, in social, medical, and therapeutic treatment and care.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Recreation Therapist Senior 67 $18.64 Recreation Program Assistant 22 14.20 Recreation Therapist 21 16.18 Skills Development Specialist 17 18.90 Rehabilitation Therapist Supervisor 11 23.80 Occupational Therapist Senior 7 21.84 Physical Therapy Aide 7 13.24 Rehabilitation Therapies Director 6 27.30
Total for Career Family 210 $21.48
Revenue and Gaming Regulation Careers
This career family includes work concerned with generating revenue to finance state operations through taxation, fee collection, and promotion of lotteries and charitable gambling. Conducts audits and examination of taxpayer returns to verify or amend tax liabilities: analyzes accounting records to determine the appropriateness of accounting methods employed and compliance with statutory provisions. Investigates and collects delinquent taxes and secures delinquent tax returns from individuals and business firms according to prescribed laws. Plans and coordinates promotional campaigns for new lottery games; monitors charitable gambling clients and lottery retailers to ensure legal, efficient, and effective operations.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Revenue Tax Specialist Senior 137 $23.22 Revenue Tax Specialist Intermediate 85 19.10 Revenue Examiner 1 55 15.24 Revenue Collections Officer 3 53 19.00 Lottery Sales Representative 42 18.93 Revenue Tax Specialist 40 16.12 Revenue Tax Specialist Principal 39 27.44 Revenue Collections Officer 4 35 20.15 Revenue Collections Officer 2 32 16.71
Total for Career Family 674 $22.69
Transportation Operations and Regulation Careers
This career family includes work concerned with all modes of transportation (land, water, and air). Operates a variety of vehicles and heavy equipment in the removal of ice and snow from road surfaces and in laying concrete and other hard surface paving materials in highway and related maintenance and construction.
Number of Average Job Classifications for 75% of Employees Employees Salary Transportation Generalist 735 $16.10 Highway Maintenance Worker 507 15.98 Bridge Worker 91 18.03 Transportation Specialist 89 18.62
Total for Career Family 1,925 $21.55
Undesignated/All Other Careers
This career family includes work not elsewhere classified such as Supported Employment, Student Workers, etc. Other jobs in this career family perform a wide variety of services to support state programs. There are 12,843 employees in this career family. 6
6 Data on average salaries for this career family are not comparable and therefore not included in this appendix.
Central States Salary Comparisons APPENDIX B
This appendix provides a summary of salary comparisons available from the Central States Salary Survey, which is discussed in Chapter 2. The Central States Salary Survey is conducted annually by a consortium of human resource personnel from the participating states. The Minnesota Department of Employee Relations indicated that the Central States Survey is a useful data source because it allows salary comparisons between very similar positions; unlike comparisons with the private sector, comparisons with other state government are more likely to match jobs with equivalent duties and scale of responsibility.
As noted in Chapter 2 Minnesota generally pays high wages relative to other the other states that participated in the Central States Survey, ranking in the upper third for 87 of 107 comparable positions (see Table 2.2 for the Minnesota positions with top ranking average annual salaries). Minnesota also compares favorably to wages provided by a sub set of five Midwestern states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin), with higher than average wages for more than 80 percent of the available comparisons.
Table B. 1: Average Annual Salary, Minnesota and Other State Governments, 1998
Minnesota State Government Number of Central Midwestern Employees Average Rank (out of) States Average States Average INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Transportation Information Resources Manager 1 $83,102 3 (21) $61,366 $66,484 InterTech Division Manager 1 1 $72,850 2 (21) $46,811 $53,236 Information Systems Manager 14 $72,307 1 (22) $45,425 $55,482 Information Technology Specialist 5 90 $63,183 1 (22) $48,201 $46,819 Systems Analysis Unit Supervisor 36 $61,492 1 (19) $49,054 $56,674 Information Technology Specialist 4 229 $54,935 1 (20) $44,883 $43,973 Information Technology Specialist 3 381 $46,270 5 (20) $43,133 $42,879 Information Technology Specialist 3 a 381 $46,270 3 (11) $42,897 $39,924 Information Technology Specialist 2 265 $38,753 7 (22) $37,356 $43,569 Information Technology Specialist 2 a 265 $38,753 3 (23) $36,111 $34,966 Electronic Data Processing Help Desk Specialist 7 $33,032 5 (18) $28,737 $30,239 Electronic Data Processing Operations Technician 2 42 $31,738 3 (21) $25,651 $28,214
ENGINEERING PROFESSIONS Deputy Commissioner Transportation 2 $97,301 4 (20) $63,247 $89,568 Engineer, Senior Administrative 56 $79,198 5 (19) $60,350 $77,634 Engineer, Principal 198 $63,621 1 (20) $52,608 $48,954 Architect 2 12 $59,696 2 (19) $43,121 $41,670 Engineer, Senior 231 $53,348 4 (17) $51,239 $49,040 Engineer, Senior 231 $53,348 6 (18) $51,043 $40,351 Engineer, Senior 231 $53,348 3 (20) $47,566 $44,668 Engineer, Senior a 231 $53,348 4 (22) $46,523 $44,211 Engineering Specialist 136 $49,047 1 (21) $35,476 $39,250 Landscape Architect Senior 5 $44,036 6 (18) $41,349 $46,185
82 STATE EMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
Table B. 1, continued …
Minnesota State Government Number of Central Midwestern Employees Average Rank (out of) States Average States Average ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL PROFESSIONS
Executive Budget Officer 5 $54,497 5 (21) $48,499 $41,486 Public Utilities Rates Analyst 3 9 $47,815 6 (21) $43,072 $44,201 International Trade Representative 14 $45,518 4 (15) $37,616 $35,062 Accounting Officer, Senior 69 $42,031 6 (23) $37,743 $38,137 Commerce Analyst 2 17 $40,361 7 (21) $36,789 $45,182 Commerce Analyst 2 a 17 $40,361 5 (20) $32,236 $32,419 Auditor, Intermediate 17 $37,730 5 (22) $32,898 $30,998 Accounting Officer 85 $35,580 5 (23) $30,569 $32,497 Revenue Tax Specialist 37 $34,097 4 (23) $28,902 $29,507 Financial Institution Assistant Examiner 1 $27,687 18 (21) $38,694 $43,652
HUMAN RESOURCE PROFESSIONS Job Service Field Open Area Manager 2 25 $50,801 2 (22) $38,411 $42,112 Reemployment Insurance Supervisor 2 4 $47,857 16 (18) $55,178 $68,662 Personnel Officer Supervisor Senior 4 $42,950 9 (22) $40,360 $47,887 Personnel Officer 28 $37,709 15 (21) $40,714 $45,832 Personnel Officer a 28 $37,709 3 (21) $30,129 $37,540 Employment Counselor, Senior 11 $31,466 9 (19) $31,229 $26,684
HUMAN SERVICES Medical Specialist 1 4 58 $104,525 14 (17) $111,716 $109,621 Medical Specialist 1 4 a 58 $104,525 4 (16) $99,360 $99,901 Dentist 7 $80,325 5 (15) $67,965 $57,364 Director, Human Services Licensing Division 1 $71,911 1 (14) $40,137 $56,170 Director of Nursing 7 $70,762 2 (20) $54,523 $61,818 Registered Nurse Practitioner 13 $60,531 2 (15) $45,160 $51,645 Pharmacist 10 $56,000 4 (20) $48,190 $52,439 Social Services Supervisor 4 $54,580 3 (20) $42,775 $49,627 Psychologist Supervisor 10 $53,495 6 (14) $47,766 $47,654 Registered Nurse Supervisor 62 $52,910 3 (22) $41,322 $51,191 Rehabilitation Counselor Supervisor 2 2 $51,031 4 (22) $47,824 $49,328 Psychologist 2 60 $48,525 9 (22) $46,092 $44,109 Group Supervisor Assistant 53 $47,272 3 (19) $36,596 $33,950 Chaplain 18 $44,704 3 (20) $32,007 $31,114 Health Services Analyst 6 $42,846 4 (21) $37,364 $39,246 Registered Nurse 303 $42,366 3 (22) $36,376 $38,671 Dietitian 1 18 $41,259 1 (21) $34,567 $37,419 Human Services Licensor 37 $40,967 3 (17) $32,589 $39,231 Medical Technologist 3 $39,881 1 (20) $32,075 $35,127 Social Worker Senior 33 $39,087 2 (22) $28,973 $31,801 Dental Hygienist 2 $38,983 4 (15) $33,425 $34,334 Occupational Therapist 5 $38,273 14 (17) $41,305 $46,641 Rehabilitation Counselor, Senior 40 $36,227 5 (17) $32,758 $37,365 Recreation Therapist 35 $34,807 7 (22) $28,971 $30,784 Medical Lab Tech 1 11 $34,055 2 (19) $23,260 $22,432 Health Program Representative 4 $33,554 10 (19) $36,845 $36,632 Licensed Practical Nurse 1 & 2 257 $33,512 1 (22) $24,140 $26,725 Rehabilitation Counselor 26 $32,740 8 (22) $32,892 $32,396 Disability Examiner 7 $31,654 7 (20) $31,186 $31,969 Human Services Technician 588 $30,527 1 (21) $18,896 $23,884 Corrections Agent 33 $29,441 8 (19) $30,764 $28,467 Chemical Dependency Counselor 16 $28,606 11 (19) $27,890 $29,017
CENTRAL STATES SALARY COMPARISONS 83
Table B. 1, continued …
Minnesota State Government Number of Central Midwestern Employees Average Rank (out of) States Average States Average SCIENTIFIC PROFESSIONS
Pollution Control Program Administrator 14 $69,259 2 (23) $50,945 $52,805 Hydrologist 2 76 $43,639 3 (20) $40,056 $40,078 Environmental Analyst 2 9 $38,190 5 (22) $34,825 $38,240 Interpretive Naturalist 2 12 $37,730 1 (14) $26,917 $32,979 Natural Resources Forestry Specialist Intermediate 25 $36,770 6 (18) $35,179 $38,567 Chemist 2 8 $36,728 11 (23) $37,982 $38,530 Natural Resources Specialist Intermediate (Wildlife Research Biologist) 6 $36,582 8 (23) $38,422 $40,315 Fingerprint Technician 6 $32,823 4 (21) $28,248 $29,541 Soil Scientist 1 2 $32,740 5 (9) $39,417 $43,392 Pollution Control Specialist 24 $28,543 16 (22) $30,973 $34,260
PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS Chief Executive Officer Correctional Facility 6 $85,817 2 (21) $55,696 $72,061 State Patrol Major 5 $72,120 2 (19) $58,983 $54,072 Special Agent 68 $53,620 1 (19) $40,044 $42,497 Corrections Officer 4 129 $47,147 1 (23) $29,717 $29,600 Natural Resources Specialist 2 (Conservation Officer) 126 $45,894 1 (21) $34,903 $36,311 State Patrol Trooper & Trooper 1 225 $44,955 3 (21) $37,193 $40,278 NR Parks Supervisor 2 37 $44,057 2 (22) $37,241 $39,565 Safety & Health Officer 2 27 $43,410 3 (17) $33,415 $33,278 Health Care Program Investigator 6 $43,138 1 (18) $32,032 $35,782 Corrections Officer 2 1,182 $33,888 1 (23) $25,450 $27,219
OTHER PROFESSIONS Pilot 4 $61,680 1 (21) $40,863 $49,085 Library/Information Resource Services Program Director 4 $51,052 6 (20) $41,289 $44,975 Library/Information Resource Services Specialist 20 $38,670 4 (23) $31,088 $35,149 Library Technician 66 $32,176 3 (20) $27,757 $24,605 Planner, Principal State 99 $47,231 1 (18) $39,452 $38,064 Management Analyst 2 53 $38,231 7 (22) $37,762 $40,238 Research Analyst Intermediate 27 $36,436 10 (23) $36,169 $38,757 Information Officer 2 65 $36,728 9 (23) $34,953 $38,143 Information Officer 2 a 65 $36,728 3 (19) $34,770 $31,234 Real Estate Representative, Senior 6 $45,456 6 (19) $40,215 $40,711 Real Estate Representative 29 $41,927 1 (21) $33,989 $34,868 Food Services Supervisor 6 $42,407 4 (20) $32,935 $41,665 Public Health Sanitarian 2 25 $38,002 3 (17) $32,099 $28,891 Grain Inspector 2 14 $37,897 1 (14) $27,845 $28,359 Graphic Arts Specialist 36 $36,874 1 (21) $29,832 $30,226 Photographer 2 $31,842 5 (21) $28,838 $29,787 Driver and Vehicle Services Exam Specialist 47 $29,044 5 (20) $27,701 $43,957
a Position compared to more than one benchmark title. NOTE: Central States and Midwestern States averages are weighted by number of employees. Weighted averages may differ from survey results published by the Central States Compensation Association due to exclusion of Indiana in printed results and adjustment of the weight given to Illinois in certain instances. “Midwestern States” are Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
SOURCE: 1998 Central States Salary Survey.
WEBSITES Minnesota Department of Employee Relations: http://www.doer.state.mn.us Minnesota Local Area Unemployment Statistics: http://www.des.state.mn.us/lmi/laus/minn.htm
U.S. Bureau of Census, Survey of Governments: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apes.html
U.S. Bureau of Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey: http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employee Benefits Survey: http://stats.bls.gov/ebshome.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Trends (includes information on the Employment Cost Index): http://stats.bls.gov/ecthome.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Compensation Survey Program: http://stats.bls.gov/ocshome.htm
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
BOOKS, ARTICLES, AND REPORTS American Association of University Professors. “The Economic Status of the Profession.” Academe, 85, no. 2 (March April 1999): 1 108.
Belman, Dale and John S. Heywood. “State and Local Government Wage Differentials: An Intrastate Analysis.” Journal of Labor Research, XVI, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 187 201.
Braden, Bradley R. and Stephanie L. Hyland. “Cost of Employee Compensation in Public and Private Sectors.” Monthly Labor Review, May 1993: 14 21.
Brunner, Kristen and William A. Blazar. “Public Sector Compensation: Performance Driven? Affordable?” Prepared for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, January 1993.
Buckley, John E. “Pay in Private Industry and State and Local Governments, 1994.” Compensation and Working Conditions, September 1996: 22.
Cox, Wendell and Samuel Brunelli. “America’s Protected Class: Why Excess Public Employee Compensation is Bankrupting the States.” The State Factor, 18, no. 3 (February, 1992): 3 31.
Hundley, Greg. “Public and Private Sector Occupational Pay Structures.”
Industrial Relations, 30, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 417 434. Kroncke, Charles O. and James A. Long. “Pay Comparability in State Governments.” Journal of Labor Research, 19, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 371 385.
Light, Paul C. The New Public Service. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999.
Miller, Micheal A. “The Public Private Pay Debate: What do the Data Show?”
Monthly Labor Review, 119, no. 5 (May 1996): 18 29. Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor. Trends in State and Local Government Spending. St. Paul: Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, February 1996.
Musell, Mark and Neal Masia. “Reconciling Differences in Federal and Private Sector Pay Comparisons.” Public Budgeting and Finance, 18, number 1 (Spring 1998): 68 77.
Thompson, Frank J., ed. Revitalizing State and Local Public Service. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1993.
Wiatrowski, William J. “Family Related Benefits in the Workplace.” Monthly Labor Review, 113, no. 3 (March 1990): 28 33.
Wiatrowski, William J. “Tracking Changes in Benefit Costs.” Compensation and Working Conditions, 4, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 32 37.
Minnesota Department of Employee Relations
State of Minnesota: Employer of Choice
January 24, 2000 Roger Brooks, Deputy Legislative Auditor Office of the Legislative Auditor 658 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55155
Dear Mr. Brooks: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the report on state employee compensation. The portion of the report that compares state salaries and benefits to other employers in the public and private sectors is reminiscent of the Public Employment Study, conducted by the Hay Group and released in 1979. The researchers who conducted the Public Employment Study noted the difficulty in simultaneously pursuing internal equity and external competitiveness, particularly for a large and diverse employer such as state government. The earlier study also found that state and local governments tend to pay more than the private sector for jobs at similar levels of complexity, except for high level managerial positions. It is not surprising that these same findings are reflected in your report, twenty years later.
In the interim since the Public Employment Study there have been two significant influences on the salary structure of the Executive Branch. First, in the early 1980’s, the state adopted a Pay Equity law, which resulted in significant salary increases for female dominated classifications at the lower end of the salary schedule. Second, the salaries of state agency heads, which serve as the upper limit of compensation for employees within each state agency, were not adjusted for eight years. The Legislature did provide significant relief to the salary compression at the upper end of the salary structure with the passage of the agency head pay bill in 1997. However, the new salary limits for agency heads still put the Executive Branch at a disadvantage in comparison to local units of government. The salary limit for the largest agencies is 85 percent of the Governor’s salary while the salary limit for cities and counties is 95 percent of the same salary. School districts have been exempted from the limit in recent years.
Your report reveals something about the value of the perceptions of human resources directors and, indirectly, supervisors and managers. In spite of the fact that your data indicates that state salaries for clerical jobs are at least 20 percent above the private sector, 21 percent of the human resources directors surveyed identified inadequate compensation as contributing to their difficulty in recruiting and retaining employees in these classifications. This indicates that salary data and actual recruiting experience can tell two different stories. These discrepancies call for closer examination of wage data and non wage factors that might be at the root of the recruiting problem.
200 Centennial Office Building l 658 Cedar St. l St. Paul, MN 55155 1603 l (651) 297 1184 l TTY (651 282 2699
An equal opportunity employer
The apparent contradiction between our clerical salaries appearing to be above ‘the market’ and state agencies having difficulty in recruiting is also the converse of a concern we have about broad generalizations based upon the analysis of external salary data and Hay points. The comparison of the salary lines of the state and other employers masks a considerable amount of variability in pay for individual jobs. Even where attempts are made to match job titles and job descriptions, the pay data alone does not tell the whole story. When we bargain on the issue of salary range assignments of specific classifications, we also review data on employee turnover, salary step on hire and agency input on recruiting and retention experience. It is not unusual for salary survey data to indicate a lack of competitiveness with external comparisons while the recruiting and retention data does not indicate any cause for concern.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the report. Sincerely,
/s/ Jim Lee
Jim Lee Deputy Commissioner Labor Relations/Compensation Division (651)297-5738
Recent Program Evaluations
Truck Safety Regulation, January 1992 92 01
State Contracting for Professional/Technical Services, February 1992 92 02
Public Defender System, February 1992 92 03
Higher Education Administrative and Student Services Spending: Technical Colleges, Community Colleges, and State Universities, March 1992 92 04
Regional Transit Planning, March 1992 92 05
University of Minnesota Supercomputing Services, October 1992 92 06
Petrofund Reimbursement for Leaking Storage Tanks, January 1993 93 01
Airport Planning, February 1993 93 02
Higher Education Programs, February 1993 93 03
Administrative Rulemaking, March 1993 93 04
Truck Safety Regulation, Update, June 1993 93 05
School District Financial Reporting, Update, June 1993 93 06
Public Defender System, Update, December 1993 93 07
Game and Fish Fund Special Stamps and Surcharges, Update, January 1994 94 01
Performance Budgeting, February 1994 94 02
Psychopathic Personality Commitment Law, February 1994 94 03
Higher Education Tuition and State Grants, February 1994 94 04
Motor Vehicle Deputy Registrars, March 1994 94 05
Minnesota Supercomputer Center, June 1994 94 06
Sex Offender Treatment Programs, July 1994 94 07
Residential Facilities for Juvenile Offenders, February 1995 95 01
Health Care Administrative Costs, February 1995 95 02
Guardians Ad Litem, February 1995 95 03
Early Retirement Incentives, March 1995 95 04
State Employee Training: A Best Practices Review, April 1995 95 05
Snow and Ice Control: A Best Practices Review, May 1995 95 06
Pollution Control Agency’s Use of Administrative Penalty Orders, Update July 1995 95 07
Development and Use of the 1994 Agency Performance Reports, July 1995 PR95 22
State Agency Use of Customer Satisfaction Surveys, October 1995 PR95 23
Funding for Probation Services, January 1996 96 01
Department of Human Rights, January 1996 96 02
Trends in State and Local Government Spending, February 1996 96 03
State Grant and Loan Programs for Businesses, February 1996 96 04
Post Secondary Enrollment Options Program, March 1996 96 05
Tax Increment Financing, March 1996 96 06
Property Assessments: Structure and Appeals, A Best Practices Review, May 1996 96 07
Recidivism of Adult Felons, January 1997 97 01
Nursing Home Rates in the Upper Midwest, January 1997 97 02
Special Education, January 1997 97 03
Ethanol Programs, February 1997 97 04
Statewide Systems Project, February 1997 97 05
Highway Spending, March 1997 97 06
Non Felony Prosecution, A Best Practices Review, April 1997 97 07
Social Service Mandates Reform, July 1997 97 08
Child Protective Services, January 1998 98 01
Remedial Education, January 1998 98 02
Transit Services, February 1998 98 03
State Building Maintenance, February 1998 98 04
School Trust Land, March 1998 98 05
9-1-1 Dispatching: A Best Practices Review, March 1998 98 06
Minnesota State High School League, June 1998 98 07
State Building Code, January 1999 99 01
Juvenile Out of Home Placement, January 1999 99 02
Metropolitan Mosquito Control District, January 1999 99 03
Animal Feedlot Regulation, January 1999 99 04
Occupational Regulation, February 1999 99 05
Directory of Regulated Occupations in Minnesota, February 1999 99 05b
Counties’ Use of Administrative Penalties for Violations of Solid and Hazardous Waste Ordinances, February 1999 99 06
Fire Services: A Best Practices Review, April 1999 99 07
State Mandates on Local Governments, January 2000 00 01
State Park Management, January 2000 00 02
Welfare Reform, January 2000 00 03
School District Finances, February 2000 00 04
State Employee Compensation, February 2000 00 05
Managing Preventive Maintenance for Local Government Buildings: A Best Practices Review, forthcoming
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities: Status Report, forthcoming
Evaluation reports can be obtained free of charge from the Legislative Auditor’s Office, Program Evaluation Division, Room 140, 658 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155, 651/296-4708. Full text versions of recent reports are also available at the OLA web site: http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us