Casa Grande Union School District Compensation Study April 2017

Transcription

1 Casa Grande Union School District Compensation Study April 2017 Tucson Phoenix Flagstaff HeinfeldMeech.com

2 April 3, 2017 Gina Salazar Finance Director Casa Grande Union High School District 1362 N. Casa Grande Avenue Casa Grande, AZ Dear Ms. Salazar: At the request of management, we have completed our comparative analysis of the District s compensation structure for Certified, Classified and Administrative staff including the starting hourly/salary rates for positions in addition to various additional contract and pay elements and have summarized the results in this report for your consideration. In addition, the report includes data and summaries of surveys obtained from other school districts. In our analysis of the compensation elements, we have relied upon certain information and data, including hourly rate/salary schedules and survey responses provided by the District and other local districts. To the extent we have performed our analysis using data and information obtained from the District, we have relied upon such information to be accurate, and no assurances are intended and no representation or warranties are made with respect thereto or the use made therein. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Casa Grande Union High School District and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than the District s management. However, as previously discussed, the raw data will be shared with the responding districts and organizations. We would like to thank everyone at Casa Grande Union High School District for their assistance and cooperation. If you have any questions or need any further assistance, please contact Karin Smith at (623) Sincerely, Heinfeld, Meech & Co., P.C. Phoenix, Arizona

3 Compensation Study Page i Table of Contents Background... 1 Methodology... 3 Classified Support Positions... 3 Certified Positions... 3 Administrative Positions... 4 Study Results... 5 Table A Classified Support: Work Calendars and Hours Per Day Variances... 5 Table B Certified: Work Calendars and Maximum Years Credited Variances... 6 Table C Administrative: Work Calendars and Maximum Years Credited Variances... 7 Table D Proposition 123 and Proposition Support Staff Compensation... 9 Table E Classified Hourly Rates... 9 Certificated Compensation Table G Certified Compensation Table H Additional Compensation Factors Certified Staff Certified Stipends Administrative Compensation Table I Administrative Compensation Administrative Stipends Appendices Appendix A District Survey Responses Classified Support Appendix B District Survey Responses Certified Staff Appendix C District Survey Responses Administrative Staff... 30

4 Compensation Study Page 1 Background The management of Casa Grande Union High District (District) engaged Heinfeld, Meech & Co., P.C. to conduct a compensation study to determine if the District is competitive in its hourly rates for classified staff positions. Casa Grande Union High School District is located in Pinal County, and is one of 24 public school districts located in the county. The District is located between Phoenix and Tucson and services approximately 3,600 students in grades nine through twelve. Due to budget shortfalls in recent years, positions have been reduced or eliminated across the State. Salaries have often been held frozen due to a lack of increase in funding. In order for the District to gather information needed to adequately recruit and retain qualified employees, the District requested a compensation study that compares hourly rates for support staff positions. Employee salaries and benefit represent a significant portion of the District budget. Annually approximately 75-80% of the District s general fund is used for employee compensation. While this study addresses the employee rate of pay, total compensation includes employee pay as well as paid benefits, leave time and other employment factors. The District employs staff in three classifications, administrative, certificated and support staff. The role of support staff fulfills many functions including instructional, administrative, and maintenance and operations. Certified staff are responsible for the instructional program. Administrative staff support the instructional and non-instructional operations of the District. In May of 2016, the Arizona voters approved the Proposition 123 initiative which provides additional funding to Arizona schools. In November of 2016, the Arizona voters also approved Proposition 206 initiative which increased the state minimum wage from $8.05 to $10.00 per hour effective January 1, This voter approved initiative will continue to increase minimum wage each year until it reaches $12.00 per hour in Each subsequent year, the minimum wage will increase based on the inflationary factor. Another upcoming change that impacts the pay of employees involves the new minimum salary level amount established by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) when determining the classification of an employee. FLSA is the federal wage law that requires covered employers to pay overtime to non-exempt employees that work over 40 hours in a week. The status of exempt is met by various factors and rules set forth by the FLSA. These factors require employers look at the salary basis, salary level and the job duties test. This test requires that all three requirements must be met. The salary basis test requires we look at how we are paying our employees. The salary level test requires we look at what amount we are paying our employees. And the job duties test requires we look at what duties we are requiring of our employees. When these three tests are analyzed, we can determine if an employee is considered exempt or non-exempt of certain sections of the FLSA.

5 Compensation Study Page 2 The amount of pay used for the salary level test has not been updated since On May 18, 2016, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced the final rule under FLSA that changes the minimum salary level amount. The rule will go into effect on December 1, The final rule increases the minimum salary level from $455 to $913 per week ($23,660 and $47,476 annually respectively) as the salary level necessary for employees to be exempt. This rule change was scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2016, however in late November a court ruling put a freeze on the implementation of this change. When this change does go into effect, any employee currently classified as exempt and earning less than $47,476 will no longer qualify as an exempt employee and will be subject to the overtime rules of FLSA. When considering the competiveness of wages, it is often beneficial to compare one districts rate of pay to other surrounding districts rate of pay. While many salaries such as classroom teachers can be easily compared across districts, there are some positions that require a deeper review to ensure job duties are adequately compared, not just job titles.

6 Compensation Study Page 3 Methodology For comparison purposes, data was collected from other like school districts and organizations in same regional area of Arizona that are comparable in size and location. The districts and organizations included in this study are as follows: 1. Buckeye Union High School District 2. Casa Grande Elementary School District 3. Florence Unified School District 4. J.O. Combs Unified School District 5. Maricopa Unified School District 6. Tempe Union High School District 7. Yuma Union High School District The District identified classified support, certified and administrative positions to be studied. The following is a breakdown of the positions included in the study. Classified Support Positions Administrative Assistant Attendance Clerk Bookstore Manager Bus Aide Clerk, Attendance Custodian Data Processing Equipment Manager Executive Secretary Facilities Assistant Grounds Grounds Lead IT Technology Support/Service Technician Maintenance Nurse Paraprofessional CTE Paraprofessional ESS Paraprofessional Title I Payroll Specialist Receptionist Secretary Security Officer Warehouse Assistant Certified Positions Certified Teacher Athletic Director Dean of Students Gear Up Coordinator Instructional Coach Speech Language Pathologist School Psychologist School Nurse

7 Compensation Study Page 4 Administrative Positions Assistant Principal High School Coordinator Career and Technical Education Coordinator Accounts Payable/Grants Dean of Students Director Business Services/Finance Director Curriculum Director Federal Programs Director Human Resources Director Information Technology Director Support Services/Facilities Director Student Services/ESS Supervisor Facilities Supervisor Maintenance Supervisor Accounting Specialist ESS Principal High School Average hourly rates/salaries were calculated for each position. We used comparison districts and organizations fiscal year hourly rate/salaries schedules and those were compared to the entry hourly rate/salary for the District. To determine comparability we looked at the percentage difference for each similar position. The District s positions were compared based on positions with like duties and responsibilities, not just job titles. To gather the hourly rates/salary schedules and other compensation factors, a survey was developed and sent to selected comparison districts. Districts provided information in March 2017.

8 Compensation Study Page 5 Study Results The study results are only a starting point for the District to examine the positions and evaluate the wage scale for those positions above or below the study average. Discrepancies from each comparison may result in the following: 1. Similar job titles may represent incomparable duties and responsibilities; 2. Corresponding positions could not be matched at certain study sites; and 3. Various economic issues, such as cost of living, availability of qualified employees, or other economic factors were not considered. In addition to compensation, other data such as work calendars, number of hours worked each day, exempt or non-exempt status and maximum number of years credited at time of hire. This data identified areas the District could consider further examining to ensure the daily schedule and work calendar are meeting the District needs when comparing to other like positions at comparison districts. Table A Classified Support: Work Calendars and Hours Per Day Variances

9 Compensation Study Page 6 Table A Continued Table B Certified: Work Calendars and Maximum Years Credited Variances In addition to the number of days included on the work calendars, an important factor that determines a district s employment competiveness is the maximum number of years of experience credited to employees when hired. As such, this compensation study also includes a comparison of the District s maximum experience credit allowance to other comparable districts for certificated and administrative positions.

10 Compensation Study Page 7 Table C Administrative: Work Calendars and Maximum Years Credited Variances

11 Compensation Study Page 8 Table D Proposition 123 and Proposition 206 As mentioned in the prior section of the report, Arizona voters recently approved two propositions, Proposition 123 and Proposition 206. Proposition 123 settled a long standing lawsuit related to school funding. Proposition 206 increased the minimum wage and provided mandatory sick leave for all employees. Arizona school districts are facing several challenges in regards to the minimum wage increase approved by voters in Proposition 206. Input from the comparison districts included how other districts are addressing these challenges. The first set of questions focused on the salary increases implemented since Proposition 123 was approved in May Comparison districts were asked to identify the percentage or dollar amount increased in each of the three primary employee groups. The following table includes the responses from the districts. The second set of questions focused on the salary increases proposed for fiscal year Comparison districts were asked to identify the percentage or dollar amount expected to increase in each of the three primary employee groups. Most districts had not made a determination for fiscal year The following table includes the responses from the districts. The last set of questions related to the implications of Proposition 206. The questions specifically addressed the number of positions that were impacted by the minimum wage increase, the methodology for applying the new minimum wage and the future plans for implementing the annual minimum wage increases and tools to manage the new mandatory sick leave plan for all employees, including temporary and substitute employees. The following table includes the responses from the districts.

12 Compensation Study Page 9 Support Staff Compensation The results of the study identified how the District compared to comparison districts at the entry, midpoint and high end of the hourly rate schedule. Of the 24 positions, 11 positions were either above below the average entry rate of pay at least ten percent more or less than the average entry hourly rate of pay. It should be noted that the District varies in comparability at the midpoint and high end of the hourly rate schedule. This could be a result of the District having more steps in the schedule and could consider compressing the hourly rate schedule. A complete matrix of all classified hourly rates salary schedule data provided by the responding districts can be found in Appendix A. Table E Classified Hourly Rates

13 Compensation Study Page 10 The District is could be comparable at the midpoint and high end of the hourly rate schedule. This could be a result of the District having more steps in the schedule and could consider compressing the hourly/salary rate schedule. Additionally, if a position was reported as exempt, the hourly rate conversation was used for average purposes. It should be noted that the Fleet Assistant position was listed as an exempt position in two of the responding districts. As an exempt position, the hourly rate was listed significantly higher than others, thus increasing the average. An additional observation of the classified staff hourly schedule is the use of multiple levels of a specific position causing multiple classifications (i.e., bus driver, instructional assistant and maintenance). In reviewing these overlapping position classifications of I, II, and III, it appears the primary difference is the applicant education level or years of experience. This is compounded by multiple positions within similar duties (i.e., instructional assistant). It is recommended the District consider collapsing these overlapping classifications and provide for a range in hiring range based on education and years of experience.

14 Compensation Study Page 11 Certificated Compensation The results of the study identified how the District compared to comparison districts at the entry, midpoint and high end of the certified salary schedule. Certified teachers are typically placed on the salary schedule based on their education level and their years of experience. In addition, districts employ other certificated positions. These positions were also identified for the entry, mid and high placement on the salary schedule. A complete matrix of all certified salary schedule data provided by the responding districts can be found in Appendix B. Table G Certified Compensation In examining certified staff compensation, there are additional factors to consider. Certified contracts typically include professional development days within the work calendar. Considering the total number of contractual days can assist a district in determining their competitiveness. Another important factor is the type of salary schedule utilized. A stepless schedule allows flexibility for new hire placement however, can be considered unpredictable in regards to staff being able to predict future year compensation increases. A traditional step schedule includes lanes and rows based on years of experience and educational level. The philosophy behind this type of schedule indicates that each year an employee will move one step on the schedule. This is often unaffordable for districts. School districts receive funding from Proposition 301 which was voter approved in the early 2000 s. This funding is intended to provide teacher base pay increases as well as performance pay. The following schedule provides a summary the type of salary schedule used for certificated staff, the number of professional development days included in the work calendar and the average amount paid by the Proposition 301 funding.

15 Compensation Study Page 12 As part of this study, the survey also asked important questions regarding the structure of the certified salary schedule and if other districts utilized stipends for additional duties. The District currently utilizes a step schedule which provides columns and lanes based on years of experience and educational level. It is considered predictable in regards to staff being able to predict future year compensation increases, yet often unaffordable due to limited funding increases each year. Of the seven responding districts, six of the school districts indicated they utilize a stepless schedule which provides for more flexibility but is less predictable. The following is a summary of the data collected. Table H Additional Compensation Factors Certified Staff

16 Compensation Study Page 13 Certified Stipends The final area of data collected included the types of stipends provided. Districts indicated they provide stipends for the following areas: National Board Certified Club/Class Sponsor Departmental Chair A complete matrix of all certificated salary schedule data provided by the responding districts can be found in Appendix B.

17 Compensation Study Page 14 Administrative Compensation The results of the study identified how the District compared to comparison districts at the entry, midpoint and high end of the administrative salary schedule. Administrators are typically placed on the salary schedule based on their education level and their years of experience or at a negotiated rate. These positions were also identified for the entry, mid and high placement on the salary schedule. A complete matrix of all certified salary schedule data provided by the responding districts can be found in Appendix C. Table I Administrative Compensation Administrative Stipends The final area of data collected included the types of stipends provided to administrative staff. A complete matrix of all administrative stipends provided by the responding districts can be found in Appendix A. Districts indicated they provide stipends for the following areas: Cellular Stipend or Reimbursement Testing Coordinator

18 Compensation Study Page 15 Appendices

19 Compensation Study Page 16 Appendix A District Survey Responses Classified Support

20 Compensation Study Page 17 Appendix A District Survey Responses Classified Support

21 Compensation Study Page 18 Appendix A District Survey Responses Classified Support

22 Compensation Study Page 19 Appendix A District Survey Responses Classified Support

23 Compensation Study Page 20 Appendix A District Survey Responses Classified Support

24 Compensation Study Page 21 Appendix A District Survey Responses Classified Support

25 Compensation Study Page 22 Appendix A District Survey Responses Classified Support

26 Compensation Study Page 23 Appendix B District Survey Responses Certified Staff

27 Compensation Study Page 24 Appendix B District Survey Responses Certified Staff

28 Compensation Study Page 25 Appendix B District Survey Responses Certified Staff

29 Compensation Study Page 26 Appendix B District Survey Responses Certified Staff

30 Compensation Study Page 27 Appendix B District Survey Responses Certified Staff

31 Compensation Study Page 28 Appendix B District Survey Responses Certified Staff

32 Compensation Study Page 29 Appendix B District Survey Responses Certified Staff

33 Compensation Study Page 30 Appendix C District Survey Responses Administrative Staff

34 Compensation Study Page 31 Appendix C District Survey Responses Administrative Staff

35 Compensation Study Page 32 Appendix C District Survey Responses Administrative Staff

36 Compensation Study Page 33 Appendix C District Survey Responses Administrative Staff

37 Compensation Study Page 34 Appendix C District Survey Responses Administrative Staff

38 Compensation Study Page 35 Appendix C District Survey Responses Administrative Staff

39 Compensation Study Page 36 Appendix C District Survey Responses Administrative Staff