2006
RESULTS
2006 Compensation Report for Mid-Atlantic Governments
JANUARY 2007
prepared by
Eric Jacobson
Institute for Public Administration
College of Human Services, Education & Public Policy
University of Delaware
www.ipa.udel.edu
Background
The purpose of this report is to share the results from the Institute for Public
Administration’s 2006 Governmental Compensation Survey. For more than 20 years, the
Institute for Public Administration (IPA)1 has conducted this salary survey for numerous state
and local governments in the Mid-Atlantic region. This study identifies trends in salary and
compensation practices among government employers in the region. The compensation survey’s
salary administration section (Part 1) includes questions about general salary adjustments. The
second section (Part 2) gathers detailed data about salary levels for 81 state and 41 local
benchmark positions included in the survey. The benchmark positions largely are the same ones
included in the last four surveys (conducted in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005). Results for previous
year’s surveys are available on IPA’s local government compensation website
www.ipa.udel.edu/localgovt/govtcomp.
Methodology
To conduct the 2006 study, IPA sent electronic links to this year’s survey via email to 21
state and local governments (including the University of Delaware). Respondents received the
links in September and were asked to complete and return the survey by the end of October.
Survey data was obtained from all 21 organizations, which included eight states and 13 local
governments in the Mid-Atlantic region. The University of Delaware is grouped with local
governments for the purpose of summary calculations and reports of results. For a complete list
of the 2006 survey participants, see Table 1 at the end of this document.
1
IPA is a research organization within the College of Human Services, Education & Public Policy at the University
of Delaware (www.ipa.udel.edu).
2
Part 1 Results: Salary Administration
The salary administration section of the compensation survey focuses on across the board
or general increases. The first set of questions asks for detailed information about increases that
were granted or planned for employees since July 1, 2005. The second set of questions asks
participants to provide information about any increases that have been approved or proposed for
future years (2006–2008). If an increase is granted/approved/proposed, respondents are asked to
provide additional information about the nature of the increase (for example, general, negotiated,
merit, or COLA), date granted, and the average percent or flat dollar amount of the increase. In
addition, if an increase was granted, employers are instructed to indicate whether or not their
organizations adjusted their formal pay ranges (minimum, midpoint, and maximum rates) to
reflect the salary increases. This section of the survey also includes a question about bonuses
granted to employees in lieu of salary increases. Such increases might include, for example, onetime bonuses or additional vacation time.
The reported results from the salary administration section of the survey identify eighteen
governments (seven state and eleven local governments) that granted across the board salary
increases during the last survey year (10/2/05–10/1/06). For these eighteen respondents, the
mean increase equaled 3.5%, and the median increase equaled 3.4%.
Local governments granted larger increases than state governments by approximately one
half percentage point. The local governments reported mean and median increases both equal to
3.7%. The eight state governments granted mean and median increases of 3.3% and 3.0%,
respectively. These mean and median measures exclude three governments that did not grant
increases.
For comparative purposes, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates the
Employment Cost Index (ECI) for state and local governments. The BLS’ National
3
Compensation Survey contains, “comprehensive measures of occupational earnings;
compensation costs trends, benefit incidence, and detailed plan provisions.” The most recent
versions of survey results can be found on the BLS website.2 Also located on this website is
information about the Employment Cost Index and employer costs for employee compensation.
Employers can use this benchmark to compare their compensation practices with national trends.
For the twelve months ending in September 2006, the wages and salary component of the ECI
increased 3.7% nationally. And for the twelve months ending in September 2005 and 2004, the
wage and salary component of the ECI increased by 2.6% and 2.1%, respectively.
Part 2 Results: Salary Levels
Results from Part 2 of the compensation survey present detailed summary measures for
all surveyed positions. The summary measures reported apply to the base salary of full-time (30
hours or more per week) employees. The results are divided into three eight-column tables. The
tables are available as PDF files on this Web site and can be accessed by clicking on the links
below.
Table 2 – Combined State and Local Averages
Table 3 – Final State Averages
Table 4 – Final Local Averages
Column one in each table gives the position titles. A list of position title descriptions can be
found in the State and Local Position Description Booklets available on this Web site. In Table 2
– Combined State and Local Averages, the second column, which is found only in this table, is
2
U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics: www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm
4
titled Number of Respondents. It represents the total number of survey participants that
provided any useable information for a particular position.
The next column in all three tables, Actual Average Salary, represents the average
amount paid for that position among all the reporting respondents. Following this are columns
giving the Actual Minimum and Actual Maximum, which are the averages of minimum and
maximum amounts being paid by employers for a particular position. The next columns, Formal
Minimum and Formal Maximum, are based on data only for employers with formal pay ranges
for a position. These are the average values for the minimum and maximum salaries that are
stated “on the books” in accordance with a formal pay plan.
The last two columns are entitled Actual/Formal Minimum and Actual/Formal
Maximum. Data for Actual/Formal generally equals the formal values. If an employer did not
report formal salary levels, the actual values are used instead to calculate the Actual/Formal
salaries. This measure has the benefit of allowing the inclusion of a greater number of responses.
Finally, in Table 2 – Final State Averages and Table 3 – Final Local Averages (again,
available as separate PDF files on this Web site) the bottom number in each cell (immediately
under the salary) indicates the number of responses used to calculate that average. In some
cases, as noted with triple asterisks in the tables, there was insufficient data to report or there was
no data available at all.
Discussion
State and local government fiscal conditions continued to improve in 2006. Government
budgets have benefited from several years of solid economic expansion with national economic
growth averaging an annualized 3.5% for the past two years. State spending increased markedly
5
in 2006. The National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) reports that in fiscal
2006, state general fund spending grew by 8.7%, much higher than the 29-year average of 6.4%.3
Moreover, NASBO’s study indicates that state general fund revenue collections in fiscal 2006
were 5.9% higher than projected in originally enacted budgets.
As a result, governments were able to begin to increase funding on programs such as
Medicaid, education, and transportation infrastructure, as well as increase employee salaries and
meet the pent-up demand for structural changes in pay plans.
The economic recovery seems to be good news for the Mid-Atlantic governments
included in our survey panel. All but three of the 21 governments surveyed for our Delaware
study granted across the board salary increases in the last survey year. Across the board
increases granted to state and local government employees averaged 3.3% and 3.7%,
respectively, for the survey year ending October 1, 2006. These values compare favorably to the
2.75% (states) and 3.5% (local governments) increases reported for 2005, and 2.5% (states) and
3.1% (local government) increases for 2005.
Looking forward to 2007, national studies forecast similar salary increases as were
granted in 2006.4 Based on its survey, Salary.com finds that about two-thirds of employers
expect 2007 raises next year to just match this year's, about a quarter expect bigger pay hikes,
while approximately five percent anticipate smaller increases. Hewitt Associates, a human
resources firm, forecasts base salary increases of 3.7% next year, the highest in five years but
only a slight increase from this year's 3.6%. Mercer Human Resource Consulting also is
forecasting a 3.7% increase, the same as it found in 2006.
3
National Association of State Budget Officers and National Governors Association, “The Fiscal Survey of States:
December 2006.”
4
CNN-Money.com, “The Missing Pay Hikes,” December 7, 2006.
money.cnn.com/2006/12/06/news/economy/november_jobs_walkup/index.htm?postversion=2006120713
6
Data Tables:
Table 1:
State Governments
Delaware
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Local Governments
City of Dover (Delaware)
City of Newark (Delaware)
City of Wilmington (Delaware)
Kent County (Delaware)
New Castle County (Delaware)
Sussex County (Delaware)
University of Delaware (Delaware)
Salisbury (Maryland
Cecil County (Maryland)
Kent County (Maryland)
Mercer County (New Jersey)
Chester County (Pennsylvania)
Delaware County (Pennsylvania)
Table 2 – Combined State and Local Averages
Table 3 – Final State Averages
Table 4 – Final Local Averages
7
Institute for Public Administration
College of Human Services, Education & Public Policy
University of Delaware
180 Graham Hall
Newark, DE 19716-7380
phone: 302-831-8971 e-mail: ipa@udel.edu
fax: 302-831-3488
www.ipa.udel.edu
The Institute for Public Administration (IPA) is a public service, education and research center that links the resource
capacities of the University of Delaware with the complex public policy and management needs of governments and
related nonprofit and private organizations. IPA provides direct staff assistance, research, policy analysis, training,
and forums while contributing to the scholarly body of knowledge. Program areas include civic education, conflict
resolution, healthcare policy, land use planning, organizational development, school leadership, state and local
management, water resources planning, and women’s leadership. IPA supports and enhances the educational
experiences of students through the effective integration of applied research, professional development opportunities,
and internships. Jerome Lewis is the director of the Institute and can be reached at 302-831-8971.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
The University of Delaware is committed to assuring equal opportunity to all persons and does not discriminate on the basis
of race, color, gender, religion, ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation, veteran status, age, or disability in its educational
programs, activities, admissions, or employment practices as required by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, other applicable statutes
and University policy. Inquiries concerning these statutes and information regarding campus accessibility should be referred to
the Affirmative Action Officer, 305 Hullihen Hall, (302) 831-2835 (voice), (302) 831-4563 (TDD).