Total Compensation Survey
Department of Personnel Administration - April 2006
Contents
Executive Summary
Key Findings
Introduction
Methodology
- Different Methods Used to Survey Public and Private Sectors
- Public Agencies Surveyed
- Occupations Surveyed (“Benchmark Classes”)
- Total Compensation Data Collected
- Salary Data
- Leading or Lagging Other Employers
- Time Period Covered by Survey
Total Compensation
Salaries
Occupational Differences
- Administrative and Office
- Medical and Related
- Engineering and Scientific
- Trades and Support Services
- Safety
- Executive and Managerial
Benefits
Recommendations
Exhibits (must be printed separately)
- Exhibit A: Survey: Public/Private Sectory Salary and Benefit Packages in California
- Exhibit B: Base Salary by Region
- Exhibit C: Total Compensation by Region
- Exhibit D: Classifications by Region
- Exhibit E: Public Sector COLA
- Exhibit F: Public Sector Retirement Practices
- Exhibit G: Comparison of Defined Contribution to Defined Benefit
- Exhibit H: Public Sector Retiree Health
- Exhibit I: Public Sector Retiree Dental
- Exhibit J: Public Sector Leave Practices
- Exhibit K: Private Sector Leave Practices
Graphs
- Graph: HMO – Health Contributions
- Graph: PPO – Health Contributions
- Graph: PPO – Dental Contributions
Tables
- Table 1: Public Sector Agencies by Geographic Region
- Table 2: Count of Public Sector Comparisons by Benchmark
- Table 3: Statewide Comparison of Total Compensation and Salaries
- Table 4: Private Sector Summary of Base Pay
Executive Summary
For several years, human resources professionals have recognized that because employers offer multi-faceted compensation programs, salary comparisons alone no longer provide valid measures of competitiveness in the labor market nor do such measures adequately track employer costs. Accordingly, DPA undertook the State’s first comprehensive survey in over 20 years to learn about the “total compensation” packages provided by other employers with whom we compete for employees.
Our effort to gather this information goes hand in hand with a recommendation by the California Performance Review, which in 2004 recommended the State of California take a more business-oriented approach to its compensation policies. CPR recommended that we use objective labor market data to guide policy makers in allocating compensation dollars. Although CPR cited salary surveys to collect this data, DPA expanded the focus to also include other compensation items.
This preliminary report of our findings comes with some caveats. First, our analysis of the data is by no means complete. However, rather than delay its release, we believe it serves the public interest to make the data and our initial findings available while we continue our review. We also invite others to review this data, which is why we’ve posted it on our Web site.
Another caveat concerns the private sector comparisons included in this preliminary report. Although our primary focus is total compensation (i.e., salary and benefits), the job-by-job comparisons we’ve reported for the private sector include only salaries. The private sector benefit information we used was less detailed than the public sector information, a shortcoming we hope to correct in future surveys.
We also must acknowledge that other factors contribute to decisions on the allocation of compensation dollars, such as working conditions and vacancy and turnover rates. These factors require further study.
Finally, we recognize that compensation lags alone, while significant, will not be the only driver in the discussion over how the State allocates limited resources. Inevitably, the State’s decision makers must balance a wide range of competing priorities which together with our human resources affect public satisfaction with our delivery of public services.
This survey marks our first step to developing a comprehensive database that the State employer can rely upon to make fiscally sound business decisions about its employee compensation policies. Assuredly, improvements and adjustments to the survey will be needed for future surveys – but this is a good beginning.
Previous | Top - Executive Summary | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Key Findings
This preliminary report provides the results of an actual survey of public sector classifications conducted by Cooperative Personnel Services under contract to DPA.
For the private sector data, DPA purchased several licensed reports from reputable professional survey organizations that gather private sector compensation data under conditions of strict confidentiality. However, these private sector sources are limited when it comes to making job-by-job comparisons of total compensation. Despite the limitations, we opted to report this private sector data rather than limit our comparisons to other public sector employers.
Additional study is needed to fill in data gaps and provide a more accurate picture of “total compensation,” as well as vacancy and turnover rates for benchmark classes. In the meantime, we can report the following preliminary findings:
- State salaries and total compensation lead the private sector for clerical jobs, accountants, custodians, and trade classes such as electricians, stationary engineers, but lag behind similar jobs in the public sector.
- The State leads the private sector in its general analyst classifications (such as personnel and budget analyst) and lags other similar jobs in the public sector.
- The State lags in all medical and related occupations. The greatest private sector lag is for occupational therapists, where the lag is 39 percent.
- In the auditor and registered nurse classifications, the State salaries lag behind other employers – public and private. For auditors, the lag is 7 – 8 percent; for RNs, it’s 3 – 5 percent. (These lags do not reflect recent pay increases for RNs resulting from a federal court order.)
- State compensation generally lags the public sector employers surveyed in all benchmark classifications. In most cases, the lag was between 15 and 30 percent.
- The State offers similar health benefits to those of other large private sector employers (1000 or more employees), but exceeds 33 percent of the labor market which offers no health benefits.
- A State retiree eligible for the full employer health contribution in retirement secures an additional $494,000 in compensation over 20 years.
- In information technology, State salaries lag the other public employers in the survey. Comparisons with the private sector are limited given that only one State benchmark class could be matched to a comparable private sector job; in that case, the State salary lag is less than the public sector lag.
Previous | Top - Key Findings | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Introduction
Prior to implementation of collective bargaining in 1978, the State Personnel Board’s Pay and Benefits Center annually collected extensive labor market salary data for occupations used in State civil service. The information they compiled provided the basis for the State Personnel Board’s annual recommendation to the Legislature on employee compensation.
Since the advent of collective bargaining for State employees and the demise of the Pay and Benefits Center, virtually no labor market compensation data has been collected by the State. Consequently, our knowledge of where the State employer stands in the competitive labor market is anecdotal at best.
In the FY 2005-06 State Budget, DPA received resources in the form of additional staff and operating expenses to conduct an extensive review of where the State of California, as an employer, stands in the labor market.
DPA did not embark on this project simply to review salaries. We needed a more complete picture of the State’s competitiveness in recruiting and retaining employees, which meant looking at other employers’ benefit packages as well as salaries.
To ensure the data we compared was indeed “comparable,” it was necessary to focus on elements of compensation that can be quantified, generally as an employer cost. However, using this approach has a downside: the value of any given benefit to the employee may not be captured in the comparison. That value may in fact have as much influence on employee decisions about their employment as the quantifiable factors. Likewise, some employees may choose a public service job over one in the private sector, and vice versa, for reasons that go beyond the “total compensation” packages we’ve measured.
As we planned the State’s first comprehensive survey of compensation in over 20 years, DPA set out to address two primary objectives:
- Determine generally where specific benchmark job classifications stand relative to other public and private employers to guide allocation of the State’s employee compensation dollars; and
- Begin building the data “infrastructure” that will allow the State to take a more business-oriented approach to managing the State’s human resources.
Previous | Top - Introduction | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Limitations of this Survey
It was not feasible to gather data on all the State’s civil service classifications – there are more than 4,100 of them. Consequently, DPA relied on “benchmark” classifications to form the basis of this survey. Comparing compensation for these classes provides a general picture of where we stand with respect to general occupational groups.
This survey does not cover public safety employees. Our consultant for the public sector portion of this survey advised us to survey these occupations separately because they tend to have different pay structures and retirement programs, so data collection instruments must be tailored to these particular occupations. The State is in the process of contracting for a separate study of public safety employee compensation.
We were not able to weight the data we gathered due to the difficulty of getting information from survey participants on the number of incumbents in each benchmark class. With more time, it would be possible to gather such information; in the future we will build that time into the survey.
Obtaining private sector information that would allow us to compare total compensation for the benchmark classifications is more difficult than obtaining such information from public employers. Salaries paid by employers in the private sector are usually highly confidential and typically obtained only through legal mandate or disclosed to professional survey organizations under conditions of strict confidentiality. Gathering this information would require an expensive customized survey of individual employers and more time than we had for this first survey.
Since it was not possible given the time and cost constraints of this survey to obtain reliable “total compensation” from private employers on a benchmark-by-benchmark basis, funds were provided for DPA to purchase a variety of subscription services used by human resources professionals to evaluate private sector compensation practices. From that data, which did not include the level of detail available from the public employers, we were able to draw generalized conclusions about elements of private sector compensation packages to complement the public sector data we gathered.
Previous | Top - Introduction | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Methodology
Different Methods Used to Survey Public and Private Sectors
Occupations Surveyed (“Benchmark Classes”)
Total Compensation Data Collected
Leading or Lagging Other Employers
Previous | Top - Methodology | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Different Methods Used to Survey Public and Private Sectors
For the public sector component of this survey, DPA contracted with Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS), a joint powers human resources consulting organization, to collect data from other public sector employers in California using “benchmark classes” identified by DPA for this survey. The response rate to CPS was a remarkably high 98 percent. A copy of the survey instrument is included with this report as Exhibit A.
For the private sector, DPA extracted data from reports compiled by five professional survey organizations. We aggregated the data to preserve the confidentiality of responding employers. Such published surveys are widely used by human resources professionals in developing employee compensation programs. They are considered reliable indicators of salaries paid for specific occupations in the private sector, although they have limited value for measuring benefits for specific job classifications.
Previous | Top - Methodology | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Public Agencies Surveyed
Sixty-five public employers in California were surveyed. Collectively, they employ a substantial majority of public employees in California and represent the public sector labor market in which the State of California operates and competes.
The participants were selected to ensure an adequate number of survey respondents, to include the major public employers in California, and to cover the geographic areas where most State employees are located. Surveyed employers were assigned to one of five regions. Table 1 lists the employers by region.
The cities of Elk Grove, Santa Barbara, and Yuba City, and the County of San Luis Obispo did not respond to the request to participate in the survey.
Previous | Top - Methodology | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
TABLE 1 - Public Sector Agencies by Geographic Region
| Sacramento / Northern California | |
|---|---|
| City of Chico | County of Butte |
| City of Davis | County of El Dorado |
| City of Eureka | County of Placer |
| City of Folsom | County of Sacramento |
| City of Redding | County of Yolo |
| City of Roseville | CSU Sacramento |
| City of Sacramento | Federal Government-Sacramento |
| City of West Sacramento | Sacramento Municipal Utility District |
| Bay Area | |
|---|---|
| City of Hayward | County of Monterey |
| City of Oakland | County of San Mateo |
| City and County of San Francisco | County of Santa Clara |
| City of San Jose | County of Solano |
| City of Vacaville | Bay Area Rapid Transit |
| County of Alameda | CSU San Francisco |
| County of Contra Costa | East Bay Municipal Utility District |
| County of Marin | Federal Government-Bay Area |
| Central Valley | |
|---|---|
| City of Bakersfield | County of Kern |
| City of Fresno | County of Merced |
| City of Modesto | County of San Joaquin |
| City of Stockton | CSU Fresno |
| County of Fresno | Federal Government-Central California |
| Los Angeles | |
|---|---|
| City of Anaheim | County of San Bernardino |
| City of Long Beach | County of Ventura |
| City of Los Angeles | CSU Long Beach |
| City of Pasadena | Federal Government- Los Angeles |
| County of Los Angeles | Los Angeles Department of Water and Power |
| County of Orange | |
| San Diego / Southern California | |
|---|---|
| City of San Diego | County of San Diego |
| County of Imperial | CSU San Diego |
| County of Riverside | Federal Government-San Diego |
Of the 65 public employers, six agencies requested their data be coded in order to remain anonymous.
Previous | Top - Methodology | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Occupations Surveyed (“Benchmark Classes”)
Before the survey began, DPA identified 34 journey-level classes and 7 executive- and managerial-level positions used by the State of California, for a total of 41 benchmark classes. These classes are representative of the broad array of occupations used by the State.
The classes we chose have typical benchmark qualities: they’re easily described, tied to other classifications in the job “family” and, in general, are readily found in the labor market. We loosely grouped them into six general occupational areas:
- Administrative and Office
- Medical and Related
- Engineering and Scientific
- Trades and Support Services
- Safety
- Executive and Managerial
Table 2 lists the 41 benchmark classes in the survey and the number of public sector matches found for each benchmark.
Although CPS was able to match several of the benchmark classes used by the public sector employers it surveyed, DPA was less successful matching these benchmarks to the private sector data. For our comparisons to be useful, we elected to use the published private sector data only when we had a reasonable degree of confidence the responsibilities of the private sector job were comparable to the State’s benchmark. We deemed a job comparable when 48 or more employers reported data for it. If fewer than 48 employers reported data, DPA was not confident of the job match and did not consider the data sufficiently valid.1
Of the 41 benchmark classes, we found valid private sector matches for 20.
Supervisory classifications and peace officer/firefighter classes were not included in this survey for several reasons: It’s often difficult to match supervisory classes due to differences in employer size, organizational structure, and supervisory responsibilities. Compensation for supervisors is often determined by internal salary relationships within an organization’s structure, rather than by outside comparisons. Pay structures of employers also vary significantly, particularly in the private sector. In addition, the timeframe and budget for this project limited the number of benchmark classes we could include. We also were concerned that additional benchmarks may have discouraged public employers from participating in the survey, reducing our response rate.
Previous | Top - Methodology | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
TABLE 2 - Count of Public Sector Comparisons by Benchmark
| Benchmark | Number of Comparisons |
|---|---|
| Accountant | 63 |
| Associate Civil Engineer | 56 |
| Associate Industrial Hygienist | 28 |
| Attorney | 54 |
| Auditor | 48 |
| Budget Analyst | 44 |
| Chemist | 22 |
| Chief Financial Officer | 61 |
| Chief Information Officer | 57 |
| Clinical Laboratory Technologist | 35 |
| Cook | 42 |
| Custodian | 58 |
| Dentist | 23 |
| Director, Human Resources | 64 |
| Director, Parks and Recreation | 27 |
| Director, Public Works | 38 |
| Director, Social Services | 26 |
| Electrician | 52 |
| Engineering Geologist | 11 |
| Heavy Equipment Mechanic | 57 |
| Heavy Equipment Operator | 58 |
| Hydroelectric Plant Operator | 5 |
| Information Systems Technician | 56 |
| Laboratory Technician (Chemical Analysis) | 36 |
| Licensed Vocational Nurse | 37 |
| Mid-Manager | 27 |
| Occupational Therapist | 33 |
| Office Assistant | 65 |
| Personnel Analyst | 65 |
| Pharmacist | 32 |
| Physician | 35 |
| Programmer Analyst | 57 |
| Psychiatrist | 27 |
| Psychologist | 33 |
| Public Safety Dispatcher | 57 |
| Registered Nurse | 43 |
| Research Scientist | 22 |
| Respiratory Care Practitioner | 21 |
| Social Worker - Master's Level | 42 |
| Stationary Engineer | 41 |
| Systems Software Specialist | 55 |
Peace officer and firefighter classes were not included because they tend to have different pay structures and retirement programs, so data collection instruments must be tailored to these occupations. (It should be noted that Government Code section 19827 requires DPA to survey selected police officer jurisdictions annually. DPA prepares a separate police officer compensation survey each year to comply with this mandate.)
Previous | Top - Methodology | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Total Compensation Data Collected
Deciding what data to collect for this survey to measure “total compensation” revolved around the following considerations:
- What are the employer’s significant costs for employee compensation?
- What are the significant factors influencing employees’ employment decisions?
Based on these considerations, we included the following elements in our “total compensation” comparisons:
- Base monthly salary
- Employer contributions to employee health, dental, and vision benefits2
- Employer pickup of employee retirement contribution3
- Employer deferred compensation contributions
- Longevity pay, education pay, incentive/bonus pay, recruitment and retention pay4
- Employer Social Security contributions
In addition to the data elements listed above, we also collected information on paid leave practices and cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs).
The employer data for this survey is not weighted by the number of incumbents in the benchmark in each jurisdiction. Incumbent data is not readily available and requires a significant amount of work and staff resources to develop. In addition, requesting the information necessary to weight the data would have imposed too much work on the employers asked to participate, potentially reducing the response rate.
Previous | Top - Methodology | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Salary Data
For each benchmark class, we compared the maximum base salary and total compensation data for the State to the median of the maximum base salary and total compensation data reported by the public sector respondents.5
Private sector salary information used in this project comes with limitations. Salaries in the private sector may not have salary ranges comparable to the State’s, nor any established maximum, which is typical for the State. In addition, bonuses and incentive pay programs are typically not reported by private firms in a manner that makes the information useful for comparisons.
Therefore, the private sector salaries we report represent the median of the salaries from the various surveys (when 48 or more employers reported data, as described above).
Previous | Top - Methodology | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Leading or Lagging Other Employers
Where the State of California leads other employers, we show the percentage as a positive (+) number. Where the State lags, we show the percentage as a negative (-) number. In the case of a lag, the percentage shown represents the percentage by which the State compensation would have to be increased to equal the survey median data level.
Previous | Top - Methodology | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Time Period Covered by Survey
Respondents in the public sector were asked to provide compensation data for January 2006. Data was collected from mid-January through mid-March. The private sector data comes from published survey reports that used 2005 data.
Previous | Top - Methodology | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Total Compensation
In general, our survey found that the State lags other public employers in California in total compensation. However, the lag is due to the State’s lower base salaries, not the benefits package, where the State is generally competitive with other public employers.
The State leads other public employers in total compensation in just one benchmark class (Engineering Geologist), although by less than 2 percent. For all other benchmark classes, the State lags other public employers. In most cases, the lag is 15 - 30 percent. The greatest lag, nearly 56 percent, is for Respiratory Care Practitioner.
The average statewide lag is higher for executive and managerial classes (23 percent) than it is for the journey-level classes (20 percent).
Regionally, the State’s public sector lag is the greatest in the Bay area. The average public sector lag by region is show below.
| Region | % State's total compensation lags |
|---|---|
| Bay Area | 32.82 |
| Los Angeles | 20.41 |
| Sacramento | 16.29 |
| San Diego | 13.82 |
| Central Valley | 13.76 |
Table 3 compares the State’s total compensation and salaries with other public sector employers.
As described earlier in this report, the data we collected from the private sector does not lend itself to comparisons between the State’s total compensation for each of the benchmark classes and what is provided in the private sector. However, in the following sections of this report we compare salaries and benefit programs separately, using aggregate data from the private sector.
Previous | Top - Total Compensation | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
TABLE 3 - Public Sector Statewide Comparison of Salaries and Total Compensation, All Benchmark Classes
| Classification | State's Maximum Base Salary | Public Sector Median | % State is above or below median | State's Maximum Total Compensation | Public Sector Median | % State is above or below median |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accountant | $4,997 | $5,298 | -6.02% | $6,266 | $6,989 | -11.54% |
| Associate Civil Engineer | $6,250 | $7,026 | -12.42% | $7,634 | $8,706 | -14.04% |
| Associate Industrial Hygienist | $5,587 | $6,523 | -16.75% | $6,920 | $8,277 | -19.60% |
| Attorney | $7,386 | $9,695 | -31.26% | $8,758 | $11,944 | -36.38% |
| Auditor | $5,247 | $5,647 | -7.61% | $6,536 | $7,031 | -7.58% |
| Budget Analyst | $4,997 | $6,304 | -26.16% | $6,266 | $7,786 | -24.25% |
| Chemist | $5,110 | $5,854 | -14.56% | $6,407 | $7,031 | -9.74% |
| Chief Financial Officer | $10,951 | $12,761 | -16.53% | $12,514 | $15,322 | -22.43% |
| Chief Information Officer | $10,271 | $13,013 | -26.70% | $11,825 | $15,147 | -28.09% |
| Clinical Laboratory Technologist | $4,344 | $5,251 | -20.88% | $5,563 | $6,878 | -23.64% |
| Cook | $3,021 | $2,998 | 0.78% | $4,139 | $4,296 | -3.80% |
| Custodian | $2,382 | $2,688 | -12.85% | $3,451 | $4,011 | -16.21% |
| Dentist | $9,913 | $13,494 | -36.12% | $11,449 | $15,554 | -35.85% |
| Director, Human Resources | $10,271 | $11,549 | -12.44% | $11,825 | $14,037 | -18.71% |
| Director, Parks and Recreation | $10,271 | $12,641 | -23.08% | $11,825 | $14,973 | -26.63% |
| Director, Public Works | $10,271 | $12,839 | -25.00% | $11,825 | $15,348 | -29.80% |
| Director, Social Services | $10,271 | $12,907 | -25.66% | $11,825 | $15,350 | -29.82% |
| Electrician | $3,926 | $5,086 | -29.55% | $5,053 | $6,435 | -27.34% |
| Engineering Geologist | $5,932 | $5,964 | -0.54% | $7,292 | $7,182 | 1.51% |
| Heavy Equipment Mechanic | $3,837 | $4,375 | -14.02% | $4,958 | $5,715 | -15.28% |
| Heavy Equipment Operator | $3,497 | $3,953 | -13.04% | $4,592 | $5,216 | -13.61% |
| Hydroelectric Plant Operator | $4,971 | $5,906 | -18.81% | $6,178 | $7,632 | -23.52% |
| Information Services Technician | $3,326 | $4,548 | -36.73% | $4,468 | $6,049 | -35.39% |
| Laboratory Technician (Chemical Analysis) | $3,463 | $3,959 | -14.31% | $4,615 | $5,170 | -12.03% |
| Licensed Vocational Nurse | $2,967 | $3,744 | -26.19% | $4,281 | $5,070 | -18.43% |
| Mid-Manager | $6,984 | $7,370 | -5.53% | $8,436 | $8,983 | -6.48% |
| Occupational Therapist | $3,960 | $5,964 | -50.61% | $5,169 | $7,504 | -45.18% |
| Office Assistant | $2,641 | $2,902 | -9.88% | $3,730 | $4,214 | -12.97% |
| Personnel Analyst | $4,997 | $6,120 | -22.47% | $6,266 | $7,630 | -21.76% |
| Pharmacist | $5,748 | $8,224 | -43.07% | $7,819 | $10,090 | -29.05% |
| Physician | $10,866 | $13,467 | -23.94% | $12,416 | $15,554 | -25.27% |
| Programmer Analyst | $5,247 | $6,301 | -20.09% | $6,536 | $7,645 | -16.97% |
| Psychiatrist | $10,866 | $13,180 | -21.30% | $12,416 | $15,985 | -28.74% |
| Psychologist | $5,904 | $6,656 | -12.74% | $7,262 | $8,594 | -18.35% |
| Public Safety Dispatcher | $3,762 | $4,246 | -12.87% | $4,723 | $5,673 | -20.11% |
| Registered Nurse | $5,423 | $5,565 | -2.62% | $6,725 | $7,282 | -8.29% |
| Research Scientist | $5,984 | $6,125 | -2.35% | $7,348 | $7,742 | -5.36% |
| Respiratory Care Practitioner | $3,616 | $5,695 | -57.49% | $4,780 | $7,444 | -55.74% |
| Social Worker - Masters level | $4,139 | $5,229 | -26.33% | $5,762 | $6,826 | -18.47% |
| Stationary Engineer | $4,601 | $4,809 | -4.52% | $5,641 | $6,343 | -12.44% |
| Systems Software Specialist | $5,753 | $6,897 | -19.89% | $7,080 | $8,454 | -19.41% |
Previous | Top - Total Compensation | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Salaries
Previous | Top - Salaries | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Public Sector Salaries
State salaries lag other public sector employers in all but one of the 41 benchmark classes surveyed. These salary lags account for the total compensation lags reported in the previous chapter.
- State salaries for Cook lead other public employers by less than one percent.
- The highest lag occurs in the Respiratory Care Practitioner class, where the State salary lags other public employers by 57 percent.
- Looking only at salaries, the State’s journey-level classes and executive-managerial classes both lag the rest of the public sector by roughly the same percentage (an average of 19 percent).
- Of the 65 public sector respondents, 50 granted COLAs to their managers last year ranging from 1.5 - 5.7 percent; 45 granted COLAs of 1 - 5 percent to non-managerial employees. As for future COLAs, 34 employers plan to give COLAs of 2 - 5 percent to managerial employees; 38 have scheduled COLAs of 2 - 5.7 percent for non-managers. State employees received a 5 percent general salary increase in July 2003.6
The State’s average salary lag behind other public sector employers is lowest in the Central Valley, as shown below:
| Region | % State salaries lag |
|---|---|
| Bay Area | 31.61 |
| Los Angeles | 21.23 |
| San Diego | 16.39 |
| Sacramento | 12.63 |
| Central Valley | 8.62 |
Exhibits B, C, and D compare the base salaries and total compensation of the State to the rest of California’s public sector, by geographic region. Exhibit E presents public sector cost-of-living adjustments.
Previous | Top - Salaries | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
Private Sector Salaries
Private sector salary data helps provide a more complete picture of the State’s relative position in the labor market. While “total compensation” comparisons would be more useful, even this limited data has value.
First, a note about the data. The comparisons reported in this section use the State’s maximum salary for a benchmark class and the private sector median. Ordinarily, one would assume that maximum salaries should be compared to maximum salaries, and median salaries be compared to median salaries. However, in State service employees move to the top of their class salary range almost automatically as long as their performance is satisfactory. Therefore, the maximum salary represents the State’s “market rate.” In the private sector, there often is no maximum rate for a particular job and employees ordinarily move to the market rate, typically the median salary for the job.
Accordingly, this survey compares the State’s market rate (maximum salary) to the private sector market rate (median salary) to establish whether the State leads or lags the private sector.
Of the 41 benchmark classes, 20 were considered to have “valid” (i.e., comparable) private sector salary data, which can be summarized as follows:
- Administrative and Office: Compared to the private sector, State salaries lead in each of the four general administrative occupations (accounting, budgets, personnel, and clerical); the State leads the most for the Personnel Analyst class (10 percent). The State lags in the three technical areas (auditing, legal, and information technology); the greatest lag is for Auditor (8.5 percent).
- Trades and Support Services: The State leads private sector employers in all four of the comparable occupations, ranging from a lead of 4 percent for Electrician to 24 percent for Cook.
- Medical and Related: In all six of the benchmark classes where there was a comparable private sector occupation, the State lags the private sector. In four of the six, the lag exceeds 23 percent. The greatest lag is for Occupational Therapist (39 percent); the lag is smallest for Registered Nurse (5 percent).
- Executive and Managerial: In the three executive-level positions for which there was a valid match between the State and private sector occupations, the State also lags, from 6 percent for Chief Information Officer to 21 percent for Chief Financial Officer.
Table 4 displays this data.
Previous | Top - Salaries | Next
|| Table of Contents ||
TABLE 4 - Private Sector Statewide Comparison of Salaries, All Benchmark Classes
| Classification | State's Maximum Base Salary | Private Sector Median | % State is above or below median | # of orgs with class match |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accountant | $4,997 | $4,707 | 5.8% | 481 |
| Associate Civil Engineer ** | $6,250 | |||
| Associate Industrial Hygienist* | $5,587 | |||
| Attorney | $7,386 | $7,845 | -6.2% | 111 |
| Auditor | $5,247 | $5,692 | -8.5% | 88 |
| Budget Analyst | $4,997 | $4,763 | 4.7% | 116 |
| Chemist ** | $5,110 | |||
| Chief Financial Officer | $10,951 | $13,290 | -21.4% | 91 |
| Chief Information Officer | $10,271 | $10,908 | -6.2% | 48 |
| Clinical Laboratory Technologist* | $4,344 | |||
| Cook | $3,021 | $2,292 | 24.1% | 167 |
| Custodian | $2,382 | $1,851 | 22.3% | 342 |
| Dentist* | $9,913 | |||
| Director, Human Resources | $10,271 | $11,384 | -10.8% | 48 |
| Director, Parks and Recreation* | $10,271 | |||
| Director, Public Works* | $10,271 | |||
| Director, Social Services* | $10,271 | |||
| Electrician | $3,926 | $3,778 | 3.8% | 53 |
| Engineering Geologist* | $5,932 | |||
| Heavy Equipment Mechanic ** | $3,837 | |||
| Heavy Equipment Operator ** | $3,497 | |||
| Hydroelectric Plant Operator ** | $4,971 | |||
| Information Systems Technician* | $3,326 | |||
| Laboratory Tech (Chem Analysis) ** | $3,463 | |||
| Licensed Vocational Nurse | $2,967 | $3,296 | -11.1% | 223 |
| Mid-Manager* | $6,984 | |||
| Occupational Therapist | $3,960 | $5,515 | -39.3% | 166 |
| Office Assistant | $2,641 | $2,555 | 3.3% | 295 |
| Personnel Analyst | $4,997 | $4,507 | 9.8% | 418 |
| Pharmacist | $5,748 | $7,970 | -38.7% | 164 |
| Physician* | $10,866 | |||
| Programmer Analyst |