department of person nel fy 2018-19 joint ......8-jan-2018 1 personnel-hearing department of person...

8-Jan-2018 1 Personnel-hearing

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

FY 2018-19 JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE HEARING AGENDA

Monday, January 8, 2018

3:15 pm – 5:00 pm

3:15-3:30 INTRODUCTIONS AND OPENING COMMENTS

Primary Presenters:

• June Taylor, Executive Director • Kara Veitch, Deputy Executive Director

Presenters as Necessary:

• Adrian Leiter, Chief Financial Officer • Kim Burgess, Director – Division of Human Resources and Statewide Chief Human

Resources Officer • Bob Jaros, State Controller – Office of the State Controller • Tom Montross, Director – Division of Central Services • Richard Lee, Director – Division of Capital Assets • Matt Azer, Director – Office of Administrative Courts • Aly Jabrocki, Director – Colorado State Archives and State Archivist • Jackie Cash, Director – Address Confidentiality Program • Larry Friedberg, State Architect – Office of the State Architect • Dana Shea-Reid, Director – State Personnel Board • Abbey Clymer, Budget Director

3:30-3:45 GENERAL QUESTION FOR THE DEPARTMENT Primary Presenters:



1 What is the actual average rate of growth of state employees over the last 10 years compared to the state’s growth in population? Provide the rate both for all state employees including Department of Higher Education and excluding it. Response: The tables below show the average percent growth of appropriated FTEs, a head-count of state employees over the last ten years (including and excluding Higher Education), and the State’s population over ten years. The figures for appropriated FTEs were pulled from historical Joint Budget Committee Appropriations Reports, and head-count figures were pulled from a report from the Office of the State Controller showing the number of paychecks that were paid to individual employees each year. The Department of Personnel & Administration (“the Department”) notes that while the count of paychecks may be duplicative in instances where employees work in more than one department, it is the best representation of statewide employee population that is readily available. A detailed table with these calculations can be found in Appendix A.

2 Explain the impact of the Governor’s requested 3.0 percent across the board increase for salary survey on PERA. Response: The Governor’s requested 3.0% across the board adjustment to salaries is in line with the rate at which individual employee pay is projected to increase in the market, based on the findings in the FY 2018-19 Annual Compensation Report. Due to this projected increase, the Governor’s budget request for total compensation includes a 3.0% across the board salary survey effective July 1, 2018. Additionally, due to the PERA Board’s recommended changes to increase employee contributions by 2.0%, the Governor’s budget request includes a proposal to make the additional PERA employee contribution of 2.0% effective January 2019, which will offset the proposed salary adjustments to

Description FY09 FY18Average

Growth %Appropriated FTE State of Colorado* 50,945.8 57,499.9 1.4%Appropriated FTE Executive Branch Excluding Higher Education 26,780.7 27,476.7 0.3%Appropriated FTE Higher Education 19,803.3 25,087.2 2.7%Appropriated FTE Judicial Branch 4,084.7 4,648.3 1.5%Appropriated FTE Legislative Branch 277.1 287.7 0.4%

Employee Population State of Colorado** 77,828.0 95,449.0 2.3%Employee Population Executive Branch Excluding Higher Education 26,128.0 27,824.0 0.7%Employee Population Higher Education 47,224.0 62,521.0 3.2%Employee Population Judicial Branch 4,131.0 4,699.0 1.5%Employee Population Legislative Branch 345.0 405.0 1.8%

Colorado State Population*** 4,901,938.0 5,630,986.8 1.6%*Source: Joint Budget Committee Appropriation Reports**Office of the State Controller Paycheck Reports; snapshot of July data***Colorado Demography Office; 2008-2017

10 Year Average Rate of Growth


employees. The across the board salary increase is intended to help cushion the impact of PERA’s increased employee contributions, which will reduce the overall amount state employees receive in their paychecks. Under the Governor’s proposal for the PERA adjustments, employee contributions to PERA would increase by 1.0% of state employee salaries in FY 2018-19 (6 months at no increase and 6 months at a 2.0% increase nets to 1.0% overall). Of the 3.0% across the board salary survey in the Governor’s request, state employees will net 2.0% of the across the board adjustment due to the increased PERA employee contributions. The table below illustrates this example:

3 Which vendor does the Department work with for payroll and annual updates to tax business rules for withholding and other annual payroll changes. Response: The Governor’s Office of Information Technology contracts with JAT Software, a company that provides information used for year-end tax form processing, for inclusion in the Colorado Personnel Payroll System (CPPS). The vendor provides an electronic file, which is uploaded by OIT into CPPS, and quality reviewed by the Central Payroll Services within the Department of Personnel & Administration. This process streamlines all year-end tax form processing and ensures accuracy when withholding and other changes are required.

4 Which organization(s) do(es) the State contract with to provide worker’s compensation coverage? Discuss any recent transitions from previous providers to the current one(s). Response: The State is self-insured and currently utilizes Broadspire for the administration of Workers’ Compensation claims. Prior to Broadspire, Pinnacol Assurance was the Third Party Administrator (TPA) for the workers’ compensation program for approximately 20 years. On July 1, 2011, the workers’ compensation program was migrated from Pinnacol Assurance to Broadspire. With this migration,

Row Description Amount Notes

1 FY 2018-19 Base Salaries 1,689,401,087$ From Templates

2 FY 2018-19 Increased Employee Contributions to PERA (Net 1.0%) 16,894,010.87$ Row 1 * 1.0%

3 FY 2018-19 3.0% Across the Board Salary Survey Request 50,682,032.61$ Row 1 * 3.0%

4FY 2018-19 Employee Take Home Pay ($) Net of Incremental PERA Increase 33,788,022$ Row 3 - Row 2

5FY 2018-19 Employee Take Home Pay (%) Net of Incremental PERA Increase 2.0% Row 4 ÷ Row 1

Impact of 3.0% ATB on PERA


many changes occurred. The loss control services that were previously provided by Pinnacol were brought into the Office of Risk Management, and as a result, the number of claims have steadily decreased. Broadspire offers many services that have been utilized including support for the return to work program, nurse case managers, a senior nurse case manager program and an extensive information system that allows for advanced analytics to target opportunities for improvement in loss control and claims management.

5 Provide the total number of vehicles in the state fleet capable of running on CNG. For these vehicles, provide a ratio comparing traditional gasoline fueled miles to CNG fueled miles driven. Response: The state fleet currently has 321 vehicles that are capable of running on compressed natural gas. State Fleet Management does not currently track the amount of miles driven in comparison to what type of fuel is being used. State Fleet Management does however track the type and volume of fuel being purchased. In FY 2015-16, the average monthly CNG utilization for vehicles capable of running on CNG was 47.24%. In FY 2016-17, the average monthly CNG utilization for vehicles capable of running on CNG was 42.93%.

6 [Background: During the briefing, JBC staff discussed a $25,000 appropriation to fund the Governor’s transition and noted the minimum required by statute ($10,000) was not sufficient to fund all costs during the last transition.] Discuss the Department’s experience during the last Governor’s transition. On what types of costs is this appropriation typically expended? How much did the last Governor’s transition cost? Response: The Department of Personnel & Administration requested an appropriation of $28,750 in FY 2010-11 for the cost associated with the Governor’s transition, including lease of temporary space, office furniture, IT equipment, office supplies, postage, phone and data lines, and contracted IT professional and support services. The Department was appropriated $12,650 for FY 2010-11, and the full amount was transferred to the transition team’s organization “Partners for Colorado” at the request of the Governor’s Office.

3:45-4:15 TOTAL COMPENSATION AND STATEWIDE COMPENSATION CONCERNS

Presenters: • June Taylor, Executive Director • Kara Veitch, Deputy Executive Director


• Kim Burgess, Director – Division of Human Resources and Statewide Chief Human Resources Officer

7 What is the market to which the state is compared in the total compensation survey – private

sector, other public employers? Is the survey adjusted for the more generous benefits that the state employees receive relative to the private sector? Please comment on the distinctions between the two and how the compensation survey and report take account of those differences. Response: For the FY 2018-19 total compensation survey, the State hired a new vendor, Arthur J. Gallagher (“Gallagher”), to complete the analysis for the Annual Compensation Report. Gallagher noted that the primary labor market is defined to include both public and private employers in local, state, and regional market sectors. While it is not explicitly stated that the survey was “adjusted” for the more generous benefits that state employees receive relative to the private sector, the study report presents a comparison of the State’s total compensation package, which includes all benefits, to the defined labor market. As noted on page 1 of the Annual Compensation Report, the State’s benefits account for 23.9% of the State’s total compensation, as compared to 22.6% for the prevailing market. The retirement benefit specifically accounts for 11.8% of the State’s total compensation package and is 9.9% higher than market retirement plans as a percent of annual salary, inclusive of Social security.

8 Please outline the findings of the May 2017 audit of the compensation survey report. Based on the audit, why would the JBC have any confidence in the most recent total compensation report? Please explain how each audit finding has been addressed – status and timeline – by the Department, point by point, to correct for the audit findings. Response: Since the release of the May 2017 Performance Audit of the Department of Personnel & Administration’s Annual Compensation Study audit findings, the Department has presented to the Legislative Audit Committee twice (June 6, 2017 and October 31, 2017) and the Joint Budget Committee (September 20, 2017) on the audit findings. The Department has taken steps to avoid the recurrence of the issues identified. First, the Department conducted a new procurement process and contracted with a new vendor, Gallagher. The contract with Gallagher ties payment to receipt of specific deliverables or the completion of specific milestones, and the scope of work within the contract clearly reflects the Department’s expectations with respect to each deliverable and/or milestone. Gallagher incorporated a number of standard compensation best practices as outlined by WorldatWork, the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Labor into their processes. Additionally, once Gallagher provided the analysis and the underlying data to the Department, the Department’s analytics team worked closely with Gallagher in order to perform a variety of reviews and checks to ensure the calculations and methodologies used in their analysis are accurate.


The Office of the State Auditor reported in May 2017 the following findings in the performance audit of the Department of Personnel & Administration’s Annual Compensation Study. Each finding is briefly discussed below along with actions taken by the Department:

• Finding: The compensation study excluded private sector employers in comparing benefits. o Actions in response: In the compensation study just completed for FY 2018-19,

Gallagher compared the State’s benefits to both public and private employers; the Department notes that at least 10 large, private sector employers responded to the customer benefits survey and those responses were included in this comparison.

• Finding: The compensation study did not use a weighting philosophy or consistently use a technically sound methodology for collecting and analyzing market data. Specifically, the study included market data not directly relevant to the State’s labor market, did not employ methods to ensure survey data best reflected the State’s workforce throughout Colorado, and did not include sufficient market matches for each classification studied.

o Actions in response: In accordance with professional standards, Gallagher collected appropriate market data for job matches and data-cuts for each benchmark job. This ensures the market comparison is relevant for each benchmark job with regard to the level, role, and labor market. Gallagher utilized the Economic Research Institute (ERI) to geographically adjust the market data to reflect the State’s labor market. In addition, the market data in the analysis is aged to be reflective of a common effective date of July 1, 2018, and the vendor reviewed the benchmark summary matches and shared that data with the State to ensure the appropriate scope and levels were represented. Gallagher follows standard compensation best practices as outlined by WorldatWork, the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Labor guidelines. Examples of some of the standard compensation best practices include comparing state jobs with the market only when at least 80% of the duties, responsibilities, and functions align with the benchmark summary, and calculating a market comparison only when five or more matches exist in the market data.

• Finding: The contractor did not provide the Department with a database containing the survey data and analyses used in support of its conclusions and recommendations.

o Action in response: Gallagher provided the Department with the underlying data from their analysis.

• Finding: The contractor did not include all elements of total compensation. The analysis performed did not include variable pay, such as incentives, in the analysis, and thus was not consistent with standard industry practice.

o Action in response: The FY 2018-19 compensation study includes incentive pay analysis.

• Finding: The contractor did not develop or provide required work products intended to provide a framework for future compensation studies.

o Action in response: Gallagher provided the Department with a manual that provides guidance for the completion of future studies.


• Finding: The Department did not ensure it received required deliverables from the contractor before issuing payment.

o Action in response: The Department modified the structure of the contract requiring payments to be tied to the delivery of work products or achievement of milestones as opposed to hours worked by the vendor. Additionally, the Department developed the scope of work that clearly reflected its expectations with respect to each deliverable and/or milestone.

• Finding: The contractor used surveys that largely contained outdated information and required aging longer than is considered best practice.

o Action in response: Gallagher only utilized surveys that are less than two years old (best practice), and used the most recent surveys where possible.

• Finding: During the Department’s maintenance year study, the auditor found the following issues:

o The Department relied on data developed by its contractor to evaluate the remaining one-third of the classifications included in its analysis, but did not use consistent and appropriate methods.

o The Department could not demonstrate the consistent use of reliable aging factors and did not employ a consistent approach in aging data for all positions.

o The Department used a different method for calculating the State’s comparability to the labor market than the contractor.

o The Department did not use benchmark positions in the Fiscal Year 2018 study that sufficiently represented the State’s workforce.

o The Department did not analyze premium pay, leave benefits, or incentive pay. o Action in response: The Department is currently revising the maintenance study

process for the next fiscal year’s (FY 2019-20) study. The Department is currently in the process of redefining recently vacated positions within the Compensation Unit to ensure appropriate technical support for review of contract products and implementation of maintenance-year survey process, and is working to recruit compensation specialists. The Department has also agreed to review and analyze up-to-date survey data for selected benchmark positions in the maintenance years. Gallagher provided the Department with a detailed manual that outlines methodologies employed in the FY 2018-19 analysis to ensure consistency in the maintenance year process. Finally, the Department will ensure all future reports will include data and conclusions about the use of incentives, leave and premium pay.

• Finding: Nearly 20% of the State job classifications were last updated in the 1990s, and nearly 60% or more were last updated in the 2000s. The Department does not have a plan requiring the periodic evaluation of all classifications to ensure they remain current.

o Action in response: The Department will develop a comprehensive plan to complete system maintenance studies on a cyclical basis to ensure all classifications are reviewed every 20 years.


9 Please provide scattergrams for the 20 occupational classes with the greatest number of employees reflecting salary on the salary range scale for each. What percentage of the classified system do these employees from the 20 largest occupational classes represent? Please identify all departments that employ these classes. Response: Based on the October 2017 workforce data, the below scattergram shows the 20 job classes with the greatest number of permanent/classified employees reflecting salary on the salary range scale. The scattergram utilizes average monthly salary and average years of service as axes to plot the data points. These employees represent 42.8% of the total State Personnel classified system. The departments that employ these classes, along with individual scattergrams of each job can be found in Appendix B.

CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF I

ADMIN ASSISTANT III

CUSTODIAN I

ADMIN ASSISTANT II

CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF II

TRANSPORTATION MTC I

IT PROFESSIONALPROGRAM ASSISTANT I

CORR SUPP TRADES SUPV I

TECHNICIAN III STATE PATROL TROOPER

PROGRAM ASSISTANT II

CLIENT CARE AIDE II

NURSE I

TECHNICIAN IV

ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III

HEALTH CARE TECH I

ADMINISTRATOR IV

CORR/YTH/CLN SEC SUPV III

ADMINISTRATOR III

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

$- $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,000.00 $8,000.00

Year

s of S

ervi

ce (A

vera

ge)

Monthly Salary (Average)

Average Salary by Average Years of Service for the 20 Classes with the Greatest Number of Employees


10 Please identify the 20 occupational classes in which starting salaries for newly hired employees are highest above the range minimum, along with each classification's average percentage above minimum. What is the current annual salary amount for each classification's identified average? Please identify all departments that employ these classes. Response: The table below represents the 20 job classes in which starting salaries for newly-hired employees are highest above the range minimum. The newly-hired employees were identified as employees with less than one year of service as of October 2017, and the average monthly salary was based on the October 2017 workforce data. The list of departments that employ these classes can be found in Appendix C.

Top 20 Class Titles with Greatest # of Classified

EmployeesEmployee

Count

Avg Yrs of

Service

Avg Monthly

Salary % in

Range Min Mid MaxCORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF I 2,742 5.4 $ 3,615.56 10% $ 3,448.00 $ 4,286.00 $ 5,123.00 ADMIN ASSISTANT III 1,361 10.5 $ 3,635.39 12% $ 3,458.00 $ 4,188.00 $ 4,918.00 CUSTODIAN I 1,019 8.4 $ 2,267.08 4% $ 2,228.00 $ 2,699.00 $ 3,169.00 ADMIN ASSISTANT II 850 8.9 $ 2,968.03 16% $ 2,783.00 $ 3,371.00 $ 3,959.00 CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF II 829 11.9 $ 4,315.19 28% $ 3,800.00 $ 4,725.00 $ 5,649.00 TRANSPORTATION MTC I 801 5.5 $ 3,369.38 42% $ 2,864.00 $ 3,468.00 $ 4,072.00 IT PROFESSIONAL 635 13.1 $ 6,027.42 31% $ 4,510.00 $ 6,970.00 $ 9,429.00 PROGRAM ASSISTANT I 585 13.2 $ 4,126.23 17% $ 3,855.00 $ 4,648.00 $ 5,440.00 TECHNICIAN III 527 9.8 $ 3,851.42 18% $ 3,585.00 $ 4,323.00 $ 5,060.00 CORR SUPP TRADES SUPV I 522 10.8 $ 4,262.34 25% $ 3,800.00 $ 4,725.00 $ 5,649.00 STATE PATROL TROOPER 396 9.3 $ 6,854.75 40% $ 5,819.00 $ 7,108.00 $ 8,396.00 PROGRAM ASSISTANT II 379 13.0 $ 4,594.52 26% $ 4,144.00 $ 4,996.00 $ 5,848.00 CLIENT CARE AIDE II 372 5.0 $ 2,484.94 39% $ 2,138.00 $ 2,578.00 $ 3,018.00 NURSE I 367 6.8 $ 5,826.98 33% $ 5,061.00 $ 6,234.00 $ 7,406.00 TECHNICIAN IV 366 11.9 $ 4,315.34 29% $ 3,855.00 $ 4,648.00 $ 5,440.00

ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 346 11.6 $ 3,864.24 19% $ 3,585.00 $ 4,323.00 $ 5,060.00 HEALTH CARE TECH I 313 9.7 $ 3,398.80 46% $ 2,855.00 $ 3,443.00 $ 4,030.00 ADMINISTRATOR IV 309 9.8 $ 5,793.40 29% $ 5,115.00 $ 6,301.00 $ 7,487.00 CORR/YTH/CLN SEC SUPV III 304 14.8 $ 4,924.90 36% $ 4,189.00 $ 5,208.00 $ 6,226.00 ADMINISTRATOR III 285 7.9 $ 4,698.28 30% $ 4,117.00 $ 5,072.00 $ 6,026.00 Total 13,308


11 Please identify the 20 occupational classes for which vacancy rates are highest. Please provide the

salary range and average and median salary for employees in each class. Please identify all departments that employ these classes. Response: The table below represents the 20 job classes for which vacancy rates are the highest, as well as the average and median salary for employees in each class. The departments that employ these classes can be found in Appendix D.

Job

Avg

Monthly

Annual Salary

Above

Range MinDENTIST I $ 11,602 139,219$ 94.1%PHARMACY III $ 10,866 130,394$ 92.4%INVESTMENT OFFICER III $ 10,172 122,064$ 91.4%AIRCRAFT PILOT $ 6,229 74,752$ 89.0%HUMAN RESOURCES SPEC I $ 4,334 52,002$ 89.0%SERVICE DISPATCHER $ 3,405 40,856$ 79.0%STATE SERVICE TRAINEE V $ 2,923 35,081$ 78.4%ARTS TECHNICIAN II $ 3,055 36,661$ 75.4%POLICY ADVISOR II $ 4,782 57,384$ 75.1%STATE SERVICE TRAINEE I $ 1,843 22,121$ 72.9%IT MANAGER $ 10,439 125,265$ 70.3%ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE I $ 7,592 91,100$ 70.0%POLICY ADVISOR V $ 7,277 87,322$ 68.0%FOOD SERVICE MANAGER II $ 4,416 52,998$ 62.7%EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III $ 5,507 66,083$ 61.2%PIPE/MECHANICAL TRADES III $ 5,500 65,999$ 60.5%ELECTIONS SPECIALIST II $ 4,531 54,372$ 59.7%HEALTH CARE TECHNICIAN III $ 3,981 47,778$ 58.6%PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER III $ 10,315 123,785$ 57.6%MARKETING & COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST VI $ 8,448 101,382$ 54.7%

Top 20 Classes with Starting Salaries Highest Above Range Minimum


12 Please identify the 20 occupational classes for which turnover rates are highest. Please provide the

salary range and average and median salary for employees in each class. Please identify all departments that employ these classes. Response: The table below depicts the 20 job classes for which turnover rates are the highest, including the salary range and the average and median monthly salary for employees in each job class. The list of departments that employ these classes can be found in Appendix E.

JobTurnover

Rate Vacant

Positions Total Positions Vacancy

Rate Average

SalaryMedian Salary

LAND SURVEY INTERN I 240% 1 1 100% 3,626$ 3,522$ SAFETY SPECIALIST II 200% 1 1 100% 3,630$ 3,630$ FOOD SERVICE MANAGER III 150% 4 4 100% 5,777$ 5,777$ SOCIAL SERVICES SPECIALIST VI 150% 1 1 100% 6,844$ 6,794$ MACHINING TRADES I 120% 2 2 100% 3,236$ 3,236$ ARTS TECHNICIAN I 79% 2 2 100% 2,317$ 2,300$ STUDENT TRAINEE I 300% 14 18 78% 2,600$ 2,600$ CUSTOMER SUPPORT INTERN 71% 3 4 75% 3,323$ 3,400$ LABOR/EMPLOYMENT SPECIALIST INTERN 106% 29 39 74% 3,394$ 3,315$ CLIENT CARE AIDE I 76% 20 58 34% 2,230$ 2,167$ LABOR, TRADES, AND CRAFTS TRAINEE V 67% 1 3 33% 2,745$ 2,600$ HEALTH CARE SERVICES TRAINEE I 72% 33 161 20% 2,482$ 2,542$ TECHNICIAN I 103% 56 288 19% 2,689$ 2,627$ CORRECTIONAL SUPPORT LICENSED TRADE SUPERVISOR I 69% 4 21 19% 4,702$ 4,553$ PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH/SCIENTIST I 101% 7 48 15% 5,043$ 4,852$ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SPECIALIST I 69% 6 52 12% 5,152$ 5,001$ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SPECIALIST IV 64% 6 58 10% 8,522$ 8,561$ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INTERN 145% 0 13 0% 4,373$ 4,240$ RETAIL BUSINESS REP 114% 0 2 0% 3,067$ 3,001$ CHAPLAIN I 69% 0 4 0% 5,222$ 5,147$

Top 20 classes with Highest Vacancy Rates


13 How can we continue a merit pay structure without funding for merit pay? Why should the current merit pay structure be continued if it will continue to be unused? What circumstance or situation would cause the Department to recommend the use of the current merit pay structure? Response: The Department has the role of defining a structure for total compensation, which gives state agencies the flexibility to address business needs. Across-the-Board (ATB) and Merit Pay are only two of the mechanisms available to adjust base pay to recruit and retain talent, but both are limited to available funds. Merit or performance pay replaced a step tenure based system as a mechanism to tie base pay adjustments to employee performance and is the most commonly used mechanism in the market. The total compensation framework and guidance provided by the Department allows for the Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting, in coordination with the Governor, to determine what compensation tools to apply in the November 1 budget request, considering a number of other competing priorities for the State’s budget. It is the State’s philosophy to provide prevailing total compensation to officers and employees in the State Personnel System per § 24-50-104 C.R.S. (2017). The Merit Pay matrix currently ties base pay adjustments to performance (overall performance ratings) taking into consideration placement of an employee’s current base pay within the respective pay range. The Annual Total Compensation survey has, for several years, indicated that annual base pay adjustments in the market take the form of merit pay and average about 3%. If overall base pay of state employees lags the market and budget is

Top 20 Class Titles with Highest Turnover

Rateg

Salary

Salaryg

Minimumg

Maximum

STUDENT TRAINEE I 300% 2,600$ 2,600$ 2,481$ 3,632$ LAND SURVEY INTERN I 240% 3,626$ 3,522$ 3,175$ 4,648$ SAFETY SPECIALIST II 200% 3,630$ 3,630$ 3,563$ 5,214$ FOOD SERVICE MANAGER III 150% 5,777$ 5,777$ 5,091$ 8,249$ SOCIAL SERVICES SPECIALIST VI 150% 6,844$ 6,794$ 6,943$ 10,527$ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION INTERN 145% 4,373$ 4,240$ 4,240$ 6,207$ MACHINING TRADES I 120% 3,236$ 3,236$ 3,307$ 4,703$ RETAIL BUSINESS REP 114% 3,067$ 3,001$ 2,995$ 4,374$ LABOR/EMPLOYMENT SPECIALIST INTERN 106% 3,394$ 3,315$ 3,315$ 4,851$ TECHNICIAN I 103% 2,689$ 2,627$ 2,685$ 3,790$ PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCHER/SCIENTIST I 101% 5,043$ 4,852$ 4,558$ 6,673$ ARTS TECHNICIAN I 79% 2,317$ 2,300$ 2,161$ 3,051$ CLIENT CARE AIDE I 76% 2,230$ 2,167$ 1,989$ 2,806$ HEALTH CARE SERVICES TRAINEE I 72% 2,482$ 2,542$ 2,125$ 3,110$ CUSTOMER SUPPORT INTERN 71% 3,323$ 3,400$ 3,218$ 4,574$ ENVIRON PROTECTION SPECIALIST I 69% 5,152$ 5,001$ 4,558$ 6,673$ CHAPLAIN I 69% 5,222$ 5,147$ 4,757$ 6,964$ CORRECTIONAL SUPPORT LICENSED TRADES SUPERVISOR I 69% 4,702$ 4,553$ 3,905$ 5,803$ LABOR, TRADES, AND CRAFTS TRAINEE V 67% 2,745$ 2,600$ 2,305$ 3,278$ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SPECIALIST IV 64% 8,522$ 8,561$ 6,592$ 9,993$

Top 20 Classes with Highest Turnover


unavailable to fund merit at the prevailing rate across the merit matrix, ATB adjustments may be warranted. The Department notes that while the recent fiscal years’ budget requests did not utilize Merit Pay, it may make sense to request Merit Pay in future fiscal year budget requests under different circumstances.

14 What does the Department think about the concerns staff addresses in the issue brief as they relate to merit pay? Response: In principal, the Department agrees with JBC staff regarding the funding level of merit-based compensation. The Department believes that a merit-based salary increase is but one of many tools that can be used to keep pace with the market. In fact, and as identified in the Department’s Annual Compensation Report (page 20), a plurality of employers use merit-based increases as a method of providing annual adjustments. The report also notes that a number of employers use more than one practice to offer pay increases, such as across the board adjustments and step progression. The availability of different methodologies to provide pay increases allows the State to be flexible and address the myriad of variables that can impact the final compensation methodology employed by the State. Such variables include fiscal constraints, current and projected performance of the state and national economies, market practices, and the prioritization of funding through the budget process. The compensation philosophy of the State is to provide prevailing total compensation. In doing so, it is the goal to move employees through the salary range towards the midpoint relative to the market. The midpoint of the salary range represents what the market pays a fully competent employee within that job classification, on average. Competency is not a function of tenure, but rather an employee’s ability to successfully perform the full range of job duties assigned to the position. While merit is one tool available to move employees through the salary range, across the board adjustments and in-range movements also move employee base pay upward in the pay range. Salary progression within a pay range is a function of the total adjustment awarded to an employee relative to the adjustment of the pay range. Assuming range minimums and maximums move at the same rate, the aggregate adjustment awarded to the employee (through any methodology) must exceed the rate of growth of the range minimum for the employee to progress through the range. If the range minimums and maximums move independently of each other, it is possible for a salary to increase at a greater rate than the range minimum and still move backwards in the range. Conversely, an employee can move through the range if the maximum decreases, the minimum remains the same, and the employee receives no salary adjustment at all. In terms of prioritizing the merit pay matrix, the Department believes that a merit-based salary compensation methodology should focus on the performance of the individual first, and their placement within the range second. For that reason, the Department formulated the merit matrix so that anyone receiving a level 3 rating would receive a greater salary adjustment (one-time or base-


building) than anyone that received a level 2 rating – level 1 rated employees do not receive a merit adjustment. The Department provides other tools (e.g. in-range movement options) to address progression toward the midpoint of the pay range where recruitment and retention difficulties exist. Finally, merit-based compensation methodologies are most successful when the difference between performance levels is distinct and the difference in the monetary reward is meaningful. The appropriation for last year’s merit based adjustment was an average of 0.75%. At this level of appropriation, it is difficult to establish meaningful differences in compensation between the performance levels. For example, using staff’s recommended merit matrix for a performance level 3 Dining Services I employee at the bottom of the fourth quartile, the employee would receive a one-time payment of $136, before taxes and other deductions. If that employee is rated at performance level 2, that one-time payment would be $68, again, before taxes and deductions. To be effective, sufficient appropriations must be available for merit-based adjustments to create meaningful differences in compensation between the levels of performance.

15 Please explain how the salary survey and merit pay appropriations were implemented for FY

2017-18. What is the current salary increase request designed to do? Response: The Joint Budget Committee approved a 1.75% Across-the-Board (ATB) increase and 0.75% Merit Pay for FY 2017-18. The Department implemented these appropriations by first applying the ATB increase to base salaries, and then applying the merit percentage as assigned by the Merit Matrix to the revised base salaries. The merit percentage for classified employees was determined by the employee’s performance rating in combination with the placement of their salary as of June 1, 2017 with respect to the salary ranges. The Department designed the merit matrix in FY 2017-18 based on the philosophy noted in the response to question 13 above, and § 24-50-104 (1)(c)(I)(D) C.R.S. (2017), which states “The highest performance category has the highest rate of merit pay, and the rate for each lower performance category is less than the preceding category.” The Department believes the performance rating (1, 2, or 3) is the “performance category” referenced in statute. Therefore, because the highest performance category has the highest rate of merit pay, the Department designed the Merit Matrix so that any employee with a performance rating 3 would receive a higher increase than an employee with a performance rating 2. Next, within each performance rating, employees in lower quartiles received a higher merit percentage than the employees in higher quartiles. The Department believes the current statutory language intends for performance to be the primary goal of Merit Pay adjustments, with the secondary goal of utilizing Merit Pay adjustments to address movement through the salary ranges toward prevailing midpoints.


The Annual Total Compensation Report notes that overall, the base salaries for State employees are 6.3% below the market median, and that individual employee pay is projected to increase by 3% in the market. The current salary request for FY 2018-19 includes a 3% across-the-board increase, which is designed to increase employee pay at the rate at which individual employee pay is projected to increase in the market.

16 Given that SAED contributions are funded by money that would otherwise be paid in employee increases, how has the SAED contribution affected compensation for current employees? Is the SAED taking away money from the pool of money that otherwise would be used to provide salary increases? Response: Since the Supplemental Amortization Equalization Disbursement (SAED) employer contribution took effect on January 1, 2008, the SAED employer contributions have increased each fiscal year by 0.50% (except for FY 2007-08 and FY 2017-18, which increased by 0.25% each fiscal year) as shown below. The SAED contributions were capped at 5.00% in 2017 per § 24-51-411 (6.5) C.R.S. (2017).

Q1 (100) Q2 (200) Q3 (300) Q4 (400) >=Q555.1% 21.2% 15.2% 8.3% 0.2%

3 20.9% 1.150% 1.050% 0.950% 0.850% 0.850% 0.0%2 78.6% 0.750% 0.650% 0.550% 0.350% 0.350% 0.0%1 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

100.0% 0.75%Note: all merit percentages are rounded to the 2nd decimal

Base BuildingNon base building (one time lump sum)

Merit Matrix FY 2017-18

Performance Rating


The Department has included the incremental increase of SAED each year in its total compensation estimates by reducing the estimated annual pay increase by the incremental annual increase in SAED contributions. For example, if the Annual Compensation Report estimated that individual employee pay would increase by 3% in a given fiscal year, the Department would subtract the incremental SAED from this estimate (0.50%) and would assume a 2.5% increase to State employee salaries. While the estimated reductions in employee salary increases for SAED are not specifically mentioned in the Annual Compensation Report, the Department accounts for the reduction in estimated employee salary increases by the incremental SAED amounts each year. The Department notes that during times of economic downturn, the State did not stop funding the incremental increases to SAED, even when employee salaries did not increase.

17 Please explain the policy on Health, Life, and Dental regarding how much the employee pays and how much the state pays for increases? Does the state pick up the total increase? Is it reflected in the annual compensation survey that the state pays more than other employers pay? Please explain how the Department arrives at the employee percentage and amount for each type of insurance – provider and policy type – offered. Response: The ratio of employer to employee contributions to Health, Life, and Dental premiums is typically set at 80:20 to remain consistent with the market. Each year, the State works with a benefits actuary to determine required premium increases in the next fiscal year. The actuary takes into consideration both the fully-insured plans and the self-insured plans, and all associated costs with each type (this includes both providers, and all policies associated with each). The actuary then projects what the total premium (employer + employee) must be in the following fiscal year by provider, plan type, and tier. In some instances, the Department determines that the increased


premiums can be subsidized by the fund balance, and in other instances, the projected increase in the total premium is shared between the employer and employee, which is typically an 80:20 share. According to the FY 2018-19 Annual Compensation Report analysis on Health, Life, and Dental benefits valuation, the value of the State’s combined medical offerings was determined to be $9,397, which is 3% below the median market value of all survey respondents, or $9,725. The State’s contribution to dental is 1% higher than the median of all survey respondents, and the cost for the State’s life insurance was above the estimated average cost of the market by approximately 10%. While the FY 2018-19 Annual Compensation Report does not compare the State’s employer to employee share to the survey respondents, the report is reflective of how much the State pays for these benefits compared to the other employers surveyed.

18 What role did the Department of Personnel play in the development of the DHS compensation

plan to increase salaries for the direct care staff? Why wasn't a request of this type handled as a statewide initiative by the Department of Personnel as opposed to being initiated by DHS? What will be the statewide impact of such a request? Will this DHS request result in similar requests being submitted by other state departments, and if so, what is the anticipated cost to the state of these requests? If funded, will the DHS R1a budget request result in disparate salaries in different departments within the state if other departments do not submit budget requests for increases?

Response: The Department of Personnel & Administration (the Department) provided consultation to the Department of Human Services (DHS) in its development of the request for direct care staff. DPA provided feedback on various aspects of retention and reviewed DHS’ requested methodology to ensure that it could be executed within the framework of the State Personnel System. The request was not initiated by DPA because statute and the State’s classified job ranges accommodate the salary movement proposed by DHS. DPA’s role is to develop the overall framework (range minimums, midpoints and maximums) that all agencies must adhere to when hiring classified employees. DPA, in conjunction with its nationally recognized compensation actuarial firm, sets the salary ranges for all job classifications based on market data. The range of each job classification allows departments the flexibility to offer salaries to address business needs, as well as accommodate adjustments to salary to address retention issues. As a result, it is appropriate for individual departments to present this type of request. DPA does not play a direct role in the individual hiring decisions at each agency, including the salary offered to an individual for a specific job. It is important to note that salary decisions must comply with statute, specifically Section 24-50-104 (1) (f) C.R.S. which states, “Initial hiring shall typically be at the minimum in the pay grade. On a showing of recruiting difficulty or other unusual condition, the appointing authority may authorize the appointment of a person at a higher base salary within the pay grade.”


Salaries for positions within a particular classification can and do vary among departments, but all exist within the established pay ranges. Salaries vary for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to tenure of employees, the application of different compensation policies, and available budgets. In the case of direct care positions, changes in salaries for positions within DHS may or may not result in requests from other departments.

19 Does the salary survey managed by the Department of Personnel include information on salaries paid to similar direct care positions by private providers that are contracted by the State of Colorado or counties? If so, please provide a detailed description of this information. How are regional costs of living and salary differences accounted for in the Department's salary survey?

Response: The salary survey managed by DPA, and in conjunction with its nationally recognized actuary, includes a number of data sources that may include direct care positions contracted by the State of Colorado. Because private companies are afforded confidentiality in their responses to compensation surveys, DPA cannot provide detailed information as to which employers provided data for each benchmark position. The salary survey does include geographic adjustments for benchmarked job classes. For example, the data provided by Utah or the state of Washington would be adjusted to Colorado’s baseline to account for geographic differences, but the data between the Denver market and the Boulder market would not be weighted to account for geographic differences. The geographic adjustments are identified using the Economic Research Institute (ERI), which maintains several databases to track wage, salary, and cost of living information for the United States. ERI collects data from thousands of available salary surveys, not just those published by the largest survey firms, and evaluates each survey for validity, reliability, and use.

20 Given the current performance-based compensation model used by the State of Colorado, please project the difference between private sector compensation and state compensation (as identified in the DHS request) for the next 10 fiscal years for the positions identified in the DHS budget request (including those positions at the regional centers and at CMHIP that already received salary increases during FY 2016-17 or FY 2017-18).

Response: The Department worked with Gallagher to develop the analysis below, and used the information provided by Gallagher to compare the State’s average salary to the overall market median. Gallagher reviewed the list of positions identified in the DHS budget request, reviewed the job descriptions, and identified comparable job matches in the market. Next, Gallagher adjusted for geographic differences to reflect the salaries in the Colorado state area and then aged all the data to


the common date of January 31, 2018, using 3.0% for the actual salaries and 2.0% for the salary ranges to be consistent with the Governor’s budget request for FY 2018-19.

4:15-4:25 R2 CYBERSECURITY LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY Presenters:



21 Is participation in the cybersecurity liability program voluntary? Which Departments, if any, are not included in policy? If it is voluntary, provide a discussion regarding how the Department decided to make it voluntary.

Response: All Departments in the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches that are covered by the Risk Management Program, as it is today, will be covered by the cybersecurity liability policy, except any institutions of Higher Education that are not covered by the Office of Information Technology, or any institutions of Higher Education that have opted out of the Risk Management Program. The cybersecurity liability policy will be an addition to the existing Liability program.

22 Discuss how the Department allocates the Cybersecurity common policy to the agencies

covered. Response: The Risk Management Program common policy utilizes an established allocation methodology for each component of Risk Management. Since the cybersecurity liability insurance policy will be an addition to the existing Liability Program, the actuarial allocations used to determine the overall liability allocation of the FY 2018-19 Risk Management common policy were utilized to allocate costs for participating agencies. To account for Higher Education not participating in the cybersecurity liability program, an adjusted allocation was determined by 1) taking the base liability allocation from the FY 2018-19 Risk Management common policy, 2) calculating a new allocation by department excluding Higher Education from the calculation, and 3) applying this revised allocation percent to the total cost of $375,000. These allocations are shown in the table below.


4:25-4:40 R1 ADDRESS CONFIDENTIALITY PROGRAM Presenters:


23 To the Department’s knowledge, discuss why other costs and fees are typically prioritized above collecting the fee transmitted to the Address Confidentiality Program (ACP). If possible, provide examples.

Response: The prioritization of costs and fees is provided in the statute creating the fee, however many fees do not have a statutorily listed prioritization and are instead collected in the chronological

Agency

Initial Liability Allocation % (Actuarially Determined)

$ Base Liability Allocation

Adjusted Allocation %

Total Cybersecurity

Need

Agriculture 1.095% $96,065 1.192% $4,471Corrections 23.463% $2,058,559 25.547% $95,802Education 0.689% $60,439 0.750% $2,813Governor's Office 2.341% $205,396 2.549% $9,559Health Care Policy & Finance 0.922% $80,922 1.004% $3,766Higher Education 8.160% $715,936 Excluded ExcludedHuman Services 9.112% $799,479 9.922% $37,206Judicial 6.570% $576,449 7.154% $26,827Labor & Employment 0.997% $87,503 1.086% $4,072Law 2.078% $182,316 2.263% $8,485Legislature 0.173% $15,162 0.188% $706Local Affairs 0.390% $34,218 0.425% $1,592Military Affairs 0.324% $28,437 0.353% $1,323Natural Resources 3.390% $297,390 3.691% $13,840Personnel 0.752% $65,955 0.819% $3,069Public Health 1.448% $127,082 1.577% $5,914Public Safety 11.702% $1,026,736 12.742% $47,783Regulatory Agencies 1.431% $125,593 1.559% $5,845Revenue 2.175% $190,817 2.368% $8,880Secretary of State 1.051% $92,207 1.144% $4,291Transportation 21.698% $1,903,737 23.626% $88,597Treasury 0.039% $3,400 0.042% $159

100.00% $8,773,798 100.000% $375,000

FY 2018-19 Liability Allocations and Adjusted Allocations for Cybersecurity Liability Insurance Policy


order of the passage of the statute creating the fee. According to information from Judicial, the ACP surcharge’s current priority sequence is 165. It follows such fees as Victims Assistance, Judgment Debtor Fee, Time Payment Fee, Late Fee, and Collection Costs.

24 Discuss what factors lead to larger volumes of participants in some geographic areas, such as in El Paso County.

Response: The number of participants in a geographical area is largely due to an agency’s awareness and understanding of ACP services, the number of active application assistants, and ease of ACP service use in a given area. For example, TESSA is a multi-faceted agency located in El Paso County that includes a confidential safehouse, victim advocacy, counseling and children’s programs, a 24/7 crisis line, and community outreach and education. The ACP has conducted in-person trainings at TESSA, and most direct service staff of TESSA are registered application assistants. Successful interactions between ACP participants and government agencies, including ACP and the Department of Human Services, among others, may contribute to TESSA’s confidence in ACP services and their continued enrollment of victims. Conversely, few participants in a geographic area may be attributed to a lack of awareness or misconceptions about ACP services and/or the lack of registered or active application assistants.

25 Provide a comparison between the county or district where an offender fee is collected and utilization of the program in those geographic areas.

Response: There is not an identifiable correlation between the fees assessed by a given judicial district and the number of ACP participants located within a given judicial district for many reasons. One of the largest reasons for this is that the Address Confidentiality Program requires that participants relocate confidentially within the State pursuant to Section 24-30-2105 (3)(e) (C.R.S.). As a result, participants may or may not be residing in the same judicial district as where the crime occurred or where a fee was assessed. An additional complicating factor is that there is not a 1:1 conviction to participant ratio. Many victims do not report to law enforcement, as this may escalate the risk of physical harm. Even in those instances where a report is made, the charges could be dropped, the offender could plea to a lesser offense where no surcharge is assessed (such as trespassing) or the plea could include dropping the domestic violence component. Finally, since the offender surcharge only applies to state courts, any ACP-eligible convictions in a local court do not generate an ACP surcharge.

26 Discuss Application Assistants relationship to the program and the types of jobs they perform daily.


Response: The ACP statute (Section 24-30-2104(4), C.R.S.) defines an application assistant as any person who: (a) Provides counseling, referral, or other services to victims of domestic violence, a sexual offense, or stalking; and (b) Completes any training and registration process required by the executive director or his or her designee. The majority of Application Assistants are system-based advocates (such as those employed by criminal justice agencies) and confidential advocates (such as those employed by organizations that provide shelter services). In addition to victim advocates, Application Assistants include legal advocates, attorneys, therapists, community-based and faith-based advocates, state or local government agency employees, and medical professionals (such as Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners). Application Assistants provide direct victim services as part of their daily work, though the nature of the services and the agencies for whom they work may vary.

27 Discuss the relationship the Address Confidentiality Program and Application Assistants has with victim advocates.

Response: The relationship between the ACP and victim advocates is a positive one. Most Application Assistants are victim advocates or employed by an agency that provides services to victims. As a result of increasing caseload over the last few years, ACP staff have had to focus their time on the processing of participant mail. Communication between the ACP and the victim advocate community has decreased as the volume of ACP participants and participant mail has increased. The decreased communication (reduced outreach/training/newsletters) is resulting in new advocates who are unaware of ACP services and existing advocates/Application Assistants who are inactive and not making program referrals.

28 Discuss any other potential sources of funding for the Address Confidentiality Program and the Department’s position on increasing the offender fee. Discuss any reluctance to identify the Victims and Witnesses Assistance and Law Enforcement Fund (Section 24-4.2-103 (1), C.R.S.) or the Victims Assistance and Law Enforcement Fund (Section 24-33.5-506 (1), C.R.S.)

Response: The Address Confidentially Program currently has three sources of funding; General Fund, grant funds accessed through the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) grant application process, and cash funds from surcharges assessed to offenders of certain crimes. The current surcharge is set in statute at $28.00 of which 95% is transferred to the state treasurer and then credited to the Address Confidentiality Program fund. The ACP has been investigating options for a stable source of funding in recent years, and has pursued many options, including applying for and receiving grant funding, seeking General Fund assistance, and pursuing changes around the source of cash funds revenue.


The ACP successfully applied for and received grant funds via a federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grant for calendar years 2018 and 2019. Grant funds are typically restricted to a project that addresses unmet needs in the community and unmet needs of underserved populations. Grant projects require services beyond the statutory requirements and add additional administrative duties, such as grant writing, tracking, and management and reporting, to existing staff workloads. ACP has used the single application from DCJ to apply for funds from the following victim services grants:

• Federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) • Federal S.T.O.P. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) • Federal Sexual Assault Services Program (SASP) • State Victim Assistance & Law Enforcement Act (State VALE)

The ACP completes the application, and through a competitive process, projects are chosen and awards are distributed from the above pools of funding based on the type and scope of the proposed project. VOCA has the most available funding, and is the mostly likely source of an award. The ACP is not reluctant to accept any grant award from any of the listed grant sources. However, ACP believes that all victim services are important, and therefore the ACP is reluctant to accept an award from the smallest pool of grant funds (State VALE) without competing through the application process. Addressing the cash funds brought in by the ACP would require increasing the fee assessed to offenders, ranking the ACP surcharge above other fees in the prioritization, or increasing the number of cases on which the ACP surcharge is assessed. All of these options have strong advocate groups that prevent the ACP from expanding the cash revenue brought in to support the program. Colorado was the first state to implement an offender surcharge as a way to fund a confidential address program. The Arizona program was modeled largely on Colorado, but given the Colorado funding issues, Arizona imposed a $50 surcharge and extended it to municipal courts and sex offenses. The Iowa program opened in January of 2016. Iowa increased the offender surcharge to $100, extended the surcharge to deferred judgments and imposed an additional surcharge on protection order violations. The ACP surcharge is currently assessed on state court conviction crimes and not at the municipal court level. Increasing the surcharge would inequitably distribute this amongst offenders by excluding cases brought in municipal court. Victims of sexual assault are eligible for ACP enrollment, but the surcharge is not imposed on sexual assault convictions, even at the state level. In addition, offenders who are convicted of ACP-eligible crimes at a local or county level are more likely to create an ACP participant. ACP participants are more likely to be stalked by someone who is in a diversion program, has a lower court conviction, or has pled to a lesser offense. While these offenders are more likely to create an ACP participant, they do not pay into the surcharge fund.


As a result, the Department believes that the most appropriate source of funding for a program that mandates enrollment of victims is the General Fund.

4:40-5:00 R3 State Archives Digitalization and Electronic Record Plan

Presenters: • June Taylor, Executive Director • Kara Veitch, Deputy Executive Director

29 Provide the annual volume of requests for legislative audio archives.

Response: Colorado State Archives receives, on average, about 4,000 requests annually. The legislative audio archives request represent only a small fraction of the total requests, but account for a significant amount of cash fund revenue for the program. In FY 2016-17 Colorado State Archives received 131 legislative audio requests. The Colorado State Archives has received 55 legislative audio requests so far this fiscal year (June 1 through December 31). Generally, more legislative audio requests are received in the second half of the fiscal year. Colorado State Archives has not had the infrastructure to track these requests and has recently started tracking these requests manually.

30 Provide a discussion justifying excluding the Electronic Record Plan storage needs from the

Governor’s Office of Information Technology’s digital storage project. Response: The Governor’s Office of Information Technology’s digital storage project is for digital records and addresses storage and content management. Colorado State Archives is tasked with not only storing the digital content, but also with preserving the content and making it available to its customers in perpetuity. The digital preservation process is complex, and storage is just one component of it. Indexing the content to provide search capabilities to ensure access to the content is required. Colorado State Archives occasionally denies requests as it currently lacks the means to provide access to certain types of requests, nor are they able to take in many digital collections from depositors at this time. Metadata management is also a component of the digital preservation process, as is the reformatting and migration of the files, as needed, to ensure the content is in the most up-to-date format and accessible. These steps will need to be taken as technology changes to ensure the content is not lost. Currently, digital files may become inaccessible within 3-5 years without proper migration to a digital repository in the proper format. Verifying the authenticity of files is also a critical step in the digital preservation process. Without a digital repository, the authenticity and integrity of files will not be tracked. This may result in documents being inadmissible in courts of law. Although OIT can provide content management, there are many intricate and time consuming steps that need to take place in order to preserve the data and make it accessible for five hundred plus years. Digital repository systems have quickly become the industry standard, having already been


implemented in many other (19) states. This is a very complex process and is beyond just digital storage, for these reasons a separate digital repository is necessary.

31 Discuss the discoveries State Archives has made during the legislative audio project that have

slowed its rate of finalizing the project. Which problem or problems are causing the most delay? Response: During the Legislative Audio Digitization Project, many unforeseeable factors and obstacles were presented that have slowed the rate of finalizing the project. These include the inability to run the tapes at the expected speed, uncovering recordings in formats that were not addressed in the original request, and unexpected need for repairs of the specialized, one-of-a-kind machines and computers needed for playback. Due to the fragility of the tapes, it quickly became apparent that the original expectation of running the tapes at double speed was unrealistic. Not only are the tapes run at slower speeds, but pre-treatment of each tape is also necessary in order to preserve the tape and prevent any irreparable damage. As an example of the pre-treatment that needs to be done, each Dictaphone tape has to undergo a preservation process that takes one week per tape. This involves the tape being repacked (12 hours), baked in an incubator (3-4 days), and then digitized (another 12 hours). There is no way to expedite this process, however the program has an efficient workflow in place that keeps the process moving along steadily. Another major obstacle faced is needing repairs to the antiquated machines used in the digitization process. Because these machines are so dated, it was not only difficult to locate the machines, but it has proven to be difficult to locate someone to repair the playback machines. It can be done at a high cost locally, or by flying in a more cost-effective vendor from out of state. An out of state vendor has had to fly out two times already to perform repairs, each time a repair is needed, the digitization process is delayed several months due to coordination. Uncovering formats that were not addressed in the original request has also been an issue causing delays. One of these formats was the Freedom System – this proprietary format has been fully digitized as it was made a priority due to being at a greater risk. These recordings were only playable on computers with Windows XP and were running a proprietary software (Freedom System by Dictaphone). OIT is no longer supporting these computers, and prioritizing this format caused a delay in completing the digitization of the other formats. Another problem that the Colorado State Archives is facing is that some of the formats including 7 inch tapes, Digital Audio Tapes and Digital Data Storage tapes (DATS/DDS), and the digital video and audio from The Colorado Channel were not addressed in the original request for Legislative Audio Digitization. Colorado State Archives will need to determine a process to digitize these formats.


32 Discuss the basic services the Department expects to receive from: a. The digital storage consultant and b. The annual storage contract.

Response: Digital storage consultants have been used in several other states to understand the states’ needs in the digitization process. There are several reputable consultants available who have performed projects with the same scope of the Colorado State Archives’ needs. The basic services that the department expects to receive are outlined below. The consultant will provide a risk assessment of the State’s digital records as a whole. This will outline risk factors the State is currently facing and proposed solutions and steps necessary to offset and mitigate these risks. Colorado State Archives will need to have a system in place for acquiring and digitizing incoming collections from other state agencies, the consultant will be developing a framework and a workflow for the new incoming collections. A multi-year budget plan will also be provided by the consultant, this plan will include staffing needs. Additionally, the consultant will provide assistance in the implementation of new processes, tools, and products needed for managing the State’s permanent and temporary records. At present, 19 other states are utilizing a digital repository vendor for preserving content. There are reputable vendors available to provide this service, who have done so for other states, as well as academic and cultural heritage centers worldwide. The services that the Department expects to receive from the annual storage contract include the long term storage and maintenance of the earliest and most at-risk audio collections. This includes the reformatting and migration of the file formats as needed. All future format migrations will be completed as necessary, allowing the records to be preserved and accessible indefinitely. The storage contract will provide a safe storage for the State’s records with significantly reduced risk of damage or loss and exponentially increased ease of access to the data which will allow Colorado State Archives to service more customers.

Addendum: Other questions for which solely written responses are requested

33 During the December 20, 2017 JBC staff briefing for the Department of Corrections, staff proposed a step plan for Correctional Officers I, II and Correctional Support Trades Supervisor I be implemented in FY 2018-19. Please discuss the Department’s position on the staff recommendation and address any issues that could exist if the recommendation is adopted. Response: The step system, which was in place for more than 25 years in the State of Colorado, provided annual base pay adjustments based on tenure. In line with the compensation philosophy outlined in statute, the State moved away from this type of adjustment in FY 2002-03 to tie annual base pay adjustments to employee performance. Re-establishing a step system for a very small subset of job classes creates misalignment with the market and inequities within the State Personnel System.


With respect to the recommendation of adopting a step plan funded for the Correctional Officer I, Correctional Officer II and Correctional Support Trades Supervisor I jobs within the Department of Corrections (DOC) to ensure movement through the pay range, the Department of Personnel & Administration (DPA) believes that annual base pay adjustments (across the board and/or merit) and other compensation adjustments (e.g. compression and competency based in-range movements) can move employee salaries within range, if funds are available. Within the State’s current compensation framework, the mid-point of each pay range approximates the prevailing rate for a fully competent employee in a similar job in the market. DPA believes the progression of salaries in the pay ranges should be focused on moving salaries from the point of hire (assuming initial base pay is set somewhere below the mid-point of the range) to a rate at or near the midpoint. It is important to note that movement of salaries within the pay ranges will only occur when the amount of annual base pay adjustments considers necessary adjustments to the State’s pay structure (i.e. pay grades and ranges). For example, if a 2% salary increase (either across the board, merit pay, or a combination of the two) is approved statewide, but the salary ranges also shift by 2% to keep pace with the market, it will appear that there is no movement within the range despite salaries actually increasing. Employees today are not progressing through the pay ranges as they used to under the step system because of a number of variables, such as fiscal constraints and competing priorities for the State’s budget. DPA provides recommendations each year in the Annual Compensation Report based on market analysis to ensure that state employees are receiving total compensation that is competitive with the market. Within the study conducted for the FY 2018-19 Annual Compensation Report, Gallagher used two of the three job classes in DOC’s request (Correctional Support Trades Supervisor I and Correctional Support II) as benchmark job classes. In both instances, the State of Colorado’s annual average salary for these jobs is higher than the market 50th (median) percentile, and therefore in a competitive position with the market. Even so, DOC struggles to retain employees, especially recent hires. DPA supports application of compression and/or competency based in-range movements, along with other efforts DOC is undertaking to address this retention issue.

34 Provide a list of any legislation that the Department has: (a) not implemented, or (b) partially implemented. Explain why the Department has not implemented or has only partially implemented the legislation on this list. Please explain any problems the Department is having implementing any legislation and any suggestions you have to modify legislation.

Response: The Department does not currently have any legislation that is not implemented, however HB 17-1296 Assignment of State-owned Vehicles, is partially implemented with full implementation anticipated by November 2018. The bill requires the Department to review assignment of a vehicle to an officer or employee of the state agency, verify that the state agency's assignment of a vehicle complies with state and federal law, and calculate and report as income the value of the vehicle’s


fringe benefit in accordance with IRS regulations. The Department is currently working towards promulgating new rules based on the criteria within HB 17-1296.

35 Does the Department have any high priority outstanding recommendations as identified in the "Annual Report: Status of Outstanding Audit Recommendations" that was published by the State Auditor's Office and dated June 30, 2017 (link below)? What is the Department doing to resolve the high priority outstanding recommendations? Please indicate where in the Department’s budget request actions taken towards resolving HIGH PRIORITY OUTSTANDING recommendations can be found.

http://leg.colorado.gov/audits/annual-report-status-outstanding-audit-recommendations-june-30-2017

Response: Please see the attached Appendix F that addresses outstanding audit recommendations for the Department of Personnel & Administration.

36 If the Department receives federal funds of any type, please respond to the following:

a. Please provide a detailed description of any federal sanctions or potential sanctions for state activities of which the Department is already aware. In addition, please provide a detailed description of any sanctions that MAY be issued against the Department by the federal government during FFY 2017-18 or 2018-19.

b. Are you expecting any changes in federal funding with the passage of the FFY 2017-18 or 2018-19 federal budget? If yes, in which programs, and what is the match requirement for each program?

c. Does the Department have a contingency plan if federal funds are eliminated?

Response: The Department receives federal grants intended to augment existing programs within the Department. Federal funds represent only 0.54% of the Department’s operating budget in FY 2016-17, and come from an average of five grants received across only three programs (Colorado State Archives, Address Confidentiality Program, and State Fleet Management) within the Department.

a. The Department has not received any federal sanctions nor does it anticipate any potential sanctions in the future.

b. As noted above, the Department does not receive a substantial amount of federal funding, however three program areas within the Department receive grant funds from federal sources.




Of those three programs, which include the Colorado State Archives, the Address Confidentiality Program, and Colorado State Fleet Management, the Department is aware of the possibility of reduced funding for the Address Confidentiality Program and the Colorado State Archives. Details of these possible reductions are outlined below.

• The Address Confidentiality Program (ACP) was awarded $149,051 in federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funds through a Crime Victim Services grant administered by the Colorado Department of Public Safety, for Calendar Year 2017. The program is required to provide a 25% match. The Department anticipates the award to be renewed in calendar year 2018, pending satisfactory progress. This award was granted prior to the passage of FFY 2016-17 budget, however, its duration partially overlaps the current federal fiscal year.

• The Colorado State Archives administers on behalf of the Colorado Historical Records Advisory Board, funds provided through State Programming Grants awarded by the National Historical Records and Publication Commission (NHPRC). The Colorado State Archives was awarded $40,000 in November 2016 to support one year of the Board’s programs, while requiring a 25% match. The Department anticipates a duplicate award in Calendar Year 2018.

• Additionally, State Archives was awarded another grant through NHPRC in August 2016, the State Government Electronic Records (SGER) Grant, for $121,448, requiring a 50% match. The award is expiring on June 30, 2018, and future grants are being discontinued due to the NHPRC’s funding being under federal review. As the Department is expecting the project funded through the SGER Grant to extend far beyond the grant expiration, the Department submitted R-03 Colorado State Archives Digitization and Electronic Records Plan FY 2018-19 Funding Request on November 1, 2017 to the JBC.

c. Distributing grant funding during the short-term is a challenge for many federal agencies, particularly since the federal fiscal year began October 1, 2017. As the Administration has requested significant reductions in discretionary appropriations in the FFY 2018-19, it is likely the Department will see reductions in funding resources. The Department relies on federal funds to enhance existing programs, therefore, if federal funds were reduced or eliminated, the Department would expect to see a slight decline in program services provided.

37 Is the Department spending money on public awareness campaigns? If so, please describe these campaigns, the goal of the messaging, the cost of the campaign, and distinguish between paid media and earned media. Further, please describe any metrics regarding effectiveness and whether the Department is working with other state or federal departments to coordinate the campaign?


Response: The Department does not spend money on public awareness campaigns as its primary business is to support, or provide services to, other state agencies. The Department does have “earned media” to the extent that responding to media requests qualifies as such. The Department does not have any metrics to track the effectiveness of this media.

38 Based on the Department’s most recent available record, what is the FTE vacancy and turnover rate by department and by division? To what does the Department attribute this turnover/vacancy? Do the statewide compensation policies administered by the Department of Personnel help or hinder in addressing vacancy or turnover issues?

Response: The Department has included information on turnover data, by department, in Appendix G of this document.

In an effort to be consistent with information presented in prior years to the Joint Budget Committee, the vacancy rate used by the Department is equal to the number of vacant positions on October 31, 2017 divided by the total appropriated FTE. Overall, the Department experienced an unusually high vacancy rate in October 2017. Had the vacancy rate been calculated on a different date, the rate would have been significantly less. For example, if the vacancy rate for the Executive Director’s Office was captured on September 30, 2017 rather than October 31, 2017, the vacancy rate would be 4.06% rather than 7.30%. For consistency, the count of vacant positions was taken on October 31, 2017 and is outlined in the chart below by program, division, and Department.


Vacancy rates experienced by the programs can be attributed to several varied factors, which are outlined below:

• As noted above, the Department experienced an extremely high vacancy rate in October.

Calculating the vacancy rate at a different time would yield substantially different results. • A high vacancy rate was experienced by the Division of Human Resources in October, this

data is a snap-shot in time. It has been difficult to find qualified candidates to fill the vacant positions within this division, due to the very specific and unique skill sets required for these positions. Because of this, it is taking longer than expected to fill the vacant positions. Two of these vacant positions were filled in early December, and interviews are ongoing for the remaining positions. The Department is committed to filling these positons with qualified candidates.

Unit/DivisionFY 2017-18

Appropriated FTE

Count of Vacant Positions on

10/31/17

Division Vacancy Rate

Executive Director's Office 18.3 2.0CSEAP 11.0 0.6Colorado State Archives 12.0 1.0Office of the State Architect 8.0 0.0Executive Director's Office 49.3 3.6 7.30%State Agency Services 19.2 4.0Statewide Training and Development 4.0 2.0Employee Benefits 12.0 1.0Risk Management 11.5 1.0Division of Human Resources 46.7 8.0 17.13%State Personnel Board 4.8 0.0 0.00%DCS Administration 8.0 1.0Integrated Document Solutions 97.1 8.0Address Confidentiality Program 3.4 0.6Fleet Management 15.8 1.0Facilities Maintenance 55.2 1.0Division of Central Services 179.5 11.6 6.46%Financial Ops and Reporting 30.3 0.0Collections 28.0 1.0Procurement and Contracts 17.7 1.0CORE Operations 21.3 3.0Division of Accounts & Control 97.3 5.0 5.14%Administrative Courts 44.5 3.5 7.87%

Department Total 422.1 31.7 7.51%

DPA Vacancy Rate as of October 31, 2017


• The Office of Administrative Courts vacancy rate appears high in October due in part to delays in hiring for two administrative positions. Both of these positions were filled in early December. After these two positions filled, the vacancy rate drops significantly from 7.87% to 3.37%.

The Department believes that the statewide compensation policies do not have a significant impact on the vacancy or turnover issues within the Department. The Department’s hearing responses in this document include a substantial amount of discussion regarding the various facets of the statewide compensation policies, and how they can be used to support the specific needs of the various agencies to avoid impacting turnover and vacancy rates.

39 Please provide an update on the Department’s status, concerns, and plans of action for

increasing levels of cybersecurity, including existing programs and resources. How does the Department work with the Chief Information Security Office (CISO) in the Office of Information Technology (OIT)? Have your information technology infrastructure and policies been audited for cybersecurity capabilities? If so, was the audit completed by the legislative auditor or an outside entity? Do you have dedicated cybersecurity personnel? How do your cybersecurity staff interact with the CISO in OIT? What unique security issues does your Department have? Do you handle private or sensitive data? What unique cybersecurity processes or tools do you use to protect this data?

Response: The Office of Information Security, under the leadership of the state CISO provides security governance, security architecture, risk management, compliance assessment support, and security operations functions for all executive branch agencies (with a few exceptions, such as: CDE, Department of State, Department of Law, Lottery). Agencies, except those mentioned as exceptions, do not have dedicated cybersecurity personnel.

The Office of Information Security has input into the 5-year plans for each department, and has worked to prioritize projects benefiting each department, such as: the Enterprise Firewall Refresh project, new quarterly security awareness training, two-step verification, and an enterprise security log collection and correlation engine.

Additionally, the Office of Information Security, within OIT, produces a quarterly risk report card, in which they measure risk for each department, and have specific goals set, for reducing risk.

Annually, the CISO develops an enterprise information security plan, utilizing input from the Governor’s goals, the 5 year plans for each department, and the OIT playbook. The information security plan includes communication and information resources that support the operations and assets of each department.


The Office of Information security, within the Office of Information Technology (OIT) implements enterprise-wide security controls, meant to secure sensitive data for each department. Some of these controls are: ensuring encryption is in place to secure data in transmission, utilizing Zix to encrypt sensitive data in email, implementing specific configuration and technologies to encrypt data in storage. Additionally, OIT has implemented two-step verification to add a layer of protection to email, contacts, and data stored within G-Suite. Each department implements additional procedures, such as training, data retention and access control policies, implemented at a department level to further protect and secure sensitive data. These local security procedures augment technical controls implemented by OIT to enhance the department’s continued security health.

OIT supports all of the audits that occur for each department. OIT maintains a register of outstanding technology recommendations for each department, and works individually with the department to prioritize and secure funding to implement the recommendations. In addition to performing remediation, OIT continues to implement controls and improve processes in an attempt to proactively (rather than reactively) improve security.

Finally, The Department of Personnel & Administration has submitted a decision item request which will add a cybersecurity liability insurance policy to the Risk Management Program. Currently, in the event of a cyber-attack, the State could face millions of dollars of expenses which would be borne by the affected state agencies. This could impose an undue hardship on individual agencies, requiring them to use existing funds or seek supplemental funds with possible General Fund impacts. This request, if approved, will provide an insurance policy for cybersecurity liability coverage for all agencies that participate in the Risk Management program and are currently covered by OIT. The cybersecurity liability insurance policy is estimated to have a $1 million deductible (self-insured through the Liability Fund), and cover up to $5 million per occurrence. The annual premiums and estimated annual losses for this insurance policy will be included in the Risk Management common policy and allocated across participating state agencies.

The cybersecurity liability insurance policy will provide the following services and coverage to participating agencies:

• Loss mitigation services: access to the tools and resources needed to address and gauge key areas of cybersecurity risks before an event occurs, including password defense and online security education available to all employees.

• Post-incident responses: a diverse team of experts in the legal, computer forensics, notification, call center, public relations, fraud consultation, credit monitoring, and identity restoration service areas to help limit exposure to a loss.

• Third-party liability coverage, which protects the insured for liability resulting from the loss of personal and confidential information including cyber, privacy, and network security liability, payment card loss, regulatory proceedings, and media liability.


• First-party coverage, which is designed to minimize the effects of a cyber-event including cyber incident response, business interruption, digital data recovery, telephone toll fraud, and network extortion.

• Coverage of cyber-crime by endorsement including computer, funds transfer and social engineering fraud.

40 What impact do the SMART Act and Lean processes have on your budget requests? Could they

be used more effectively?

Response: The SMART Act and Lean process work in conjunction to drive data based decisions, which in turn improve the metrics by which we measure ourselves. Within DPA, the Lean methodologies are being used to systematically identify, and drive down waste thereby improving efficiency. The SMART Act is being used to measure and drive performance improvement across the Department. One way to better integrate and improve the effectiveness would be to better link the Lean activities directly to metrics within the SMART Act for the Department. The Department is currently identifying the different Lean related activities within the Divisions, such as the implementation of HRWorks and CORE upgrades that would increase efficiency and timeliness of a range of activities within the Department and across the State.

41 Does your Department use evidence-based analysis as a foundation for your budget request? If

so, please provide a definition for your use of “evidence-based,” indicate which programs are “evidence-based,” and describe the evidence used to support these programs.

Response: The data collection that is part of the Lean process activities also serves to identify areas where customer service and performance levels are being compromised as a result of insufficient funds. For example, the decision item that pertains to the Address Confidentiality Program is a direct result of metrics within DPA that measure volume and performance which highlighted the growth in the program is being hindered by lack of funds.

Similarly, the funding requests for the replacement of fleet vehicles are consequences of activities that identified inefficiencies in aging fleet vehicles in terms of fuel and maintenance cost, which if left unchecked would result in costing the State more than it would if the 777 vehicles were replaced.

42 Please identify how many rules you have promulgated in the past two years (FYs 2015-16 and

2016-17). With respect to these rules, have you done any cost-benefit analyses pursuant to Section 24-4-103 (2.5), C.R.S., regulatory analyses pursuant to Section 24-4-103 (4.5), C.R.S., or any other similar analysis? Have you conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Department’s rules as a whole? If so, please provide an overview of each analysis.


Response: The Department has conducted rule setting four times over the past two years. Those rule settings included:

• One rule setting related to the Division of Human Resources (Dec. 2016);

• One rule hearing related to the Office of the State Controller to repeal authority governing electronic transactions from DPA to OIT (Mar. 2017);

• One rule hearing for the Division of Central Services to update processes and rules, repeal obsolete travel programs, clarify responsibilities and practices (Sept. 2015); and

• One Procurement hearing to update practices for CORE, BIDS, & VSS, and to update rules on procurement practices (Jul. 2015).

The Department has not been required to perform a cost-benefit analysis on any of the rules above, pursuant to the allowances of 24-4-103 (2.5) and 24-4-103 (4.5). The Department has not conducted a cost benefit for its rules as a whole.

43 Describe the expected fiscal impact of proposed changes to PERA made by both the Governor’s Office and the PERA Board of Directors. In addition to direct budgetary impacts, please describe any anticipated secondary impacts of an increase in employee contribution rates. For instance, does the Department anticipate a need to increase employee salaries to compensate for the increase in PERA contributions?

Response: The FY 2018-19 Governor’s budget request included a proposed two percent increase to the employee contributions beginning January 1, 2019, which is one year earlier than the proposed changes requested by the PERA Board of Directors. The Governor’s budget request for FY 2018-19 included a 3% across-the-board (ATB) increase statewide. Combining the proposed 3% ATB with the proposed 2% increase to employee contributions beginning January 1, 2019, State employees are estimated to have an overall salary increase of 2% in FY 2018-19.

The PERA Board of Directors proposed changes to PERA beginning January 1, 2020, including a 2% increase to the employer contributions, which will have a direct budgetary impact statewide if legislation is passed. The Department has estimated the annual incremental impact by agency in the table below:


The estimated incremental impacts were estimated using the FY 2018-19 total compensation templates. The Department notes that the base salaries used to generate the incremental impact in the table above were aged by 3% to be consistent with the Governor’s requested 3% ATB for FY 2018-19, and assumes the shift differential values in the FY 2018-19 templates are consistent in future fiscal years.

State agency personal services line appropriations have been funded and adjusted in multiple different ways over the course of the years. As new FTE are requested through the decision item and fiscal note process, departments typically request new FTE with PERA funding based on gross salary. Historical appropriations may not be based on gross salary of the FTE within that line item. As a result, departments may require additional funding for the PERA proposed adjustment of includable salary from net pay to gross pay.

DepartmentPERA 2.0% Increase

Personnel 535,156$ Agriculture 339,955$ Corrections 6,731,848$ Education 909,548$ Governor's Office 1,789,215$ Public Health 2,088,839$ Higher Education 270,659$ Transportation 209,496$ Human Services 5,377,034$ Judicial 6,517,149$ Labor & Employment 1,631,178$ Law 850,318$ Legislature 528,978$ Local Affairs 252,001$ Military & Veteran Affairs 170,302$ Natural Resources 2,236,576$ Public Safety 2,824,501$ Regulatory Agencies 782,809$ Revenue 1,591,444$ Health Care Policy & Financing 740,730$ State 196,102$ Treasury 42,177$ Total 36,616,015$

Incremental Impact of PERA 20.15% to 22.15%


44 Senate Bill 17-267 required Departments, other than Education and Transportation, that submit budgets to OSPB to propose a budget that is 2.0 percent below the total funds budget in FY 2017-18. Please highlight the following regarding the 2.0 percent reduction:

• Where these reductions can be found in the Department’s request; • What programs are impacted by the reduction; and • Total amount of the reduction.

Response: In the course of its statutory duties, the Office of State Planning and Budgeting complied with the provisions of S.B. 17-267. A provision of the bill required OSPB’s consideration of proposed two percent reductions for certain principal department budgets. OSPB found the process to be useful. In recommending the budget request, especially in the General Fund, while considering each department’s budget reduction items, OSPB also took into account the various pressures on spending and needs throughout the State. Additionally, S.B. 17-267’s provisions informed decision making in the request, in particular the recommendation for a decrease in the Budget Stabilization factor in the School Finance Act as well as the recommendation to increase the statutory reserve in the General Fund. With respect to the two percent target of General Fund spending as defined in the bill, these two items exceeded the suggested target. The Department included a combined reduction of $258,536 in its FY 2018-19 budget request as a result of a reduction in the number of vehicles identified for replacement following the annual underutilized vehicle audit and a methodological change for how vehicles are requested for the Department of Public Safety.

45 Please provide the following information for the Department’s custodial funds and continuously appropriated funds:

• Name of the fund; • Amount of funds received; • Whether the revenues are one-time or multi-year; • Current cash fund balance; • Source(s) of the funds; • A list of FY 2015-16 and FY 2016-17 expenditures from these funds; • Expected uses of the funds in FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19; and • Legal authorization and restrictions/limitations on the Department’s use of these funds.


Response: The Department has provided detailed information by fund in Appendix H.

46 What is the Department’s process for engaging in (or disputing) federal land, environmental, jurisdictional, and/or water policy issues? How do you coordinate with other departments, the Governor’s Office, local governments, and/or citizens?

Response: The Department has not engaged in land, environmental, and/or water policy issues at the federal level. Because of the nature of the Department’s role as a statewide service provider, the Department has an established track record for collaborating with other agencies as necessary.

FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18

Total Appropriated FTE

Including Higher Education 50,945.8 52,025.4 52,863.9 52,148.1 52,076.6 53,684.2 54,999.6 55,752.2 56,669.5 57,499.9

Percent Change Including

Higher Education 2.1% 1.6% -1.4% -0.1% 3.1% 2.5% 1.4% 1.6% 1.5%

Total Appropriated FTE

Excluding Higher Education 31,142.5 31,070.5 31,466.9 30,657.3 30,617.7 30,841.9 31,544.4 31,895.9 32,178.1 32,412.7

Percent Change Excluding

Higher Education -0.2% 1.3% -2.6% -0.1% 0.7% 2.3% 1.1% 0.9% 0.7% Average FTE Percentage

Change Including Higher

Education 1.4% Average FTE Percentage

Change Excluding Higher

Education 0.5%

Source: Joint Budget Committee Appropriations Report

July 2008 July 2009 July 2010 July 2011 July 2012 July 2013 July 2014 July 2015 July 2016 July 2017

Total State Employees

Including Higher Education 77,828.0 80,582.0 82,584.0 84,694.0 85,979.0 87,389.0 87,579.0 90,384.0 94,174.0 95,449.0

Percent Change Including

Higher Education 3.5% 2.5% 2.6% 1.5% 1.6% 0.2% 3.2% 4.2% 1.4%

Total State Employees

Excluding Higher Education 30,604.0 30,862.0 30,806.0 31,360.0 31,411.0 31,704.0 31,599.0 31,992.0 32,585.0 32,928.0

Percent Change Excluding

Higher Education 0.8% -0.2% 1.8% 0.2% 0.9% -0.3% 1.2% 1.9% 1.1% Average State Employee

Population Change Including

Higher Education 2.3% Average State Employee

Population Change Excluding

Higher Education 0.8%

Source: Office of the State Controller Paycheck Report

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Population 4,901,938 4,976,853 5,049,935 5,119,538 5,191,086 5,268,413 5,350,118 5,448,055 5,538,180 5,630,987

% Change 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.6% 1.8% 1.7% 1.7%

Average Change 1.6%

Source: State Demography Office

Appendix A: 10-Year Growth in Appropriated FTE

10-Year Growth in State Employee Population

State of Colorado Population Growth Over 10 Years

Department of Personnel & Administration - Appendix A

Department Job Title

Employee

Count

Agriculture ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 5

ADMIN ASSISTANT II 8

ADMIN ASSISTANT III 20

ADMINISTRATOR III 18

ADMINISTRATOR IV 6

PROGRAM ASSISTANT I 7

PROGRAM ASSISTANT II 3

TECHNICIAN III 44

TECHNICIAN IV 11

Agriculture Total 122

Corrections ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 25




ADMINISTRATOR IV 10

CLIENT CARE AIDE II 10

CORR SUPP TRADES SUPV I 506

CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF I 2,192

CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF II 711

CORR/YTH/CLN SEC SUPV III 239

HEALTH CARE TECH I 27

NURSE I 126



TECHNICIAN III 32

TECHNICIAN IV 12

Corrections Total 4,162

Education ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 2



ADMINISTRATOR III 2

CUSTODIAN I 6


IT PROFESSIONAL 5

NURSE I 4


Education Total 57

Governor's Office ADMIN ASSISTANT III 1

IT PROFESSIONAL 359


TECHNICIAN III 1

TECHNICIAN IV 3

Governor's Office Total 365

Health Care Policy & Financing ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 1




ADMINISTRATOR IV 62



TECHNICIAN III 2

TECHNICIAN IV 2

Health Care Policy & Financing Total 157

Appendix B: Departments that Employ Top 20 Classes

Department of Personnel & Administration - Appendix B


Employee

Count


Higher Education ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 208




ADMINISTRATOR IV 8


CUSTODIAN I 845


IT PROFESSIONAL 207

NURSE I 14



TECHNICIAN III 167

TECHNICIAN IV 58

TRANSPORTATION MTC I 3

Higher Education Total 3,078

Human Services ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 35




ADMINISTRATOR IV 38


CORR SUPP TRADES SUPV I 16

CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF I 550

CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF II 118

CORR/YTH/CLN SEC SUPV III 65

CUSTODIAN I 144


NURSE I 223



TECHNICIAN III 30

TECHNICIAN IV 5

Human Services Total 2,130

Labor & Employment ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 11




ADMINISTRATOR IV 29


CUSTODIAN I 5

IT PROFESSIONAL 1



TECHNICIAN III 18

TECHNICIAN IV 4

Labor & Employment Total 184

Law ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 1



ADMINISTRATOR III 3

ADMINISTRATOR IV 1

IT PROFESSIONAL 7



TECHNICIAN III 1

Law Total 55



Employee

Count


Local Affairs ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 1



ADMINISTRATOR III 5

ADMINISTRATOR IV 2



TECHNICIAN III 4

TECHNICIAN IV 2

Local Affairs Total 35

Military & Veterans Affairs ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 1



ADMINISTRATOR III 1

ADMINISTRATOR IV 1

CUSTODIAN I 10

IT PROFESSIONAL 2



TECHNICIAN IV 1


Military & Veterans Affairs Total 35

Natural Resources ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 5




ADMINISTRATOR IV 22

IT PROFESSIONAL 3



TECHNICIAN III 65

TECHNICIAN IV 119

Natural Resources Total 376

Personnel & Administration ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 4



ADMINISTRATOR III 4

ADMINISTRATOR IV 6

CUSTODIAN I 8



TECHNICIAN III 7

TECHNICIAN IV 11

Personnel & Administration Total 81

Public Health & Environment ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 6




ADMINISTRATOR IV 18



TECHNICIAN III 21

TECHNICIAN IV 26

Public Health & Environment Total 183



Employee

Count


Public Safety ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 3



ADMINISTRATOR III 5

ADMINISTRATOR IV 17

IT PROFESSIONAL 7



STATE PATROL TROOPER 396

TECHNICIAN III 42

TECHNICIAN IV 9

Public Safety Total 574

Regulatory Agencies ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 3




ADMINISTRATOR IV 13



TECHNICIAN III 12

TECHNICIAN IV 23

Regulatory Agencies Total 144

Revenue ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 11



ADMINISTRATOR III 2

ADMINISTRATOR IV 8

IT PROFESSIONAL 11



TECHNICIAN III 56

TECHNICIAN IV 53

Revenue Total 419

State ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 1



ADMINISTRATOR III 2

ADMINISTRATOR IV 3

IT PROFESSIONAL 26


TECHNICIAN III 4

TECHNICIAN IV 3

State Total 46

State Auditor's Office PROGRAM ASSISTANT I 1

TECHNICIAN III 1

TECHNICIAN IV 1

State Auditor's Office Total 3



Employee

Count


Transportation ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 22




ADMINISTRATOR IV 63

CUSTODIAN I 1

IT PROFESSIONAL 7



TECHNICIAN III 20

TECHNICIAN IV 23


Transportation Total 1,093

Treasury ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 1



ADMINISTRATOR IV 2


Treasury Total 9

Grand Total 13,308



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

$3,400 $3,600 $3,800 $4,000 $4,200 $4,400 $4,600 $4,800 $5,000 $5,200

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF I

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

$1,700 $2,200 $2,700 $3,200 $3,700 $4,200 $4,700

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

ADMIN ASSISTANT III


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

$1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

CUSTODIAN I

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

$1,300 $1,800 $2,300 $2,800 $3,300 $3,800 $4,300 $4,800 $5,300

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

ADMIN ASSISTANT II


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

$3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000 $5,500

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF II

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

$2,800 $3,000 $3,200 $3,400 $3,600 $3,800 $4,000

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

TRANSPORTATION MTC I


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

$4,100 $5,100 $6,100 $7,100 $8,100 $9,100 $10,100 $11,100 $12,100 $13,100

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

IT PROFESSIONAL

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

$900 $1,900 $2,900 $3,900 $4,900 $5,900 $6,900

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

PROGRAM ASSISTANT I


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

$1,500 $2,500 $3,500 $4,500 $5,500 $6,500 $7,500 $8,500

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

TECHNICIAN III

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

$3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000 $5,500

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

CORR SUPP TRADES SUPV I


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

$6,300 $6,500 $6,700 $6,900 $7,100 $7,300 $7,500 $7,700 $7,900 $8,100

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

STATE PATROL TROOPER

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

$2,200 $3,200 $4,200 $5,200 $6,200 $7,200

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

PROGRAM ASSISTANT II


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

$2,000 $2,200 $2,400 $2,600 $2,800 $3,000

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

CLIENT CARE AIDE II

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

$4,000 $4,500 $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 $6,500

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

NURSE I


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

$3,500 $3,700 $3,900 $4,100 $4,300 $4,500 $4,700 $4,900 $5,100 $5,300 $5,500

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

TECHNICIAN IV

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

$2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

$2,500 $2,700 $2,900 $3,100 $3,300 $3,500 $3,700 $3,900

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

HEALTH CARE TECH I

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

$4,500 $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 $6,500 $7,000

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

ADMINISTRATOR IV


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

$4,100 $4,300 $4,500 $4,700 $4,900 $5,100 $5,300 $5,500 $5,700 $5,900 $6,100

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

CORR/YTH/CLN SEC SUPV III

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

$3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000 $5,500 $6,000

Ye

ars

of

Serv

ice

Monthly Salary

ADMINISTRATOR III


Department Class Title

Employee

Count

Higher Education ARTS TECHNICIAN II 1

PIPE/MECHANICAL TRADES III 1

SERVICE DISPATCHER 1

STATE SERVICE TRAINEE V 1

Higher Education Total 4

Human Services DENTIST I 1

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 1

HEALTH CARE TECH III 14

PHARMACY III 1

POLICY ADVISOR V 1

STATE SERVICE TRAINEE I 3

Human Services Total 21

Labor & Employment ADMIN LAW JUDGE I 1

STATE SERVICE TRAINEE I 1


Law IT MANAGER 1

Law Total 1

Public Health & Environment EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 1

MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST VI 1


Public Safety AIRCRAFT PILOT 1

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST III 8

FOOD SERV MGR II 1


Regulatory Agencies HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST I 3

Regulatory Agencies Total 3

Revenue MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST VI 1

Revenue Total 1

State ELECTIONS SPECIALIST II 2

POLICY ADVISOR II 1

State Total 3

Transportation MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST VI 1

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER III 1

Transportation Total 2

Treasury INVESTMENT OFFICER III 1

Treasury Total 1

Grand Total 50

Appendix C: Departments that Employ Top 20 Classes with Starting Salaries Highest Above Range Minimum

Department of Personnel & Administration - Appendix C

Dept Class Title

# of

Positions

Agriculture PHY SCI RES/SCIENTIST I 7

TECHNICIAN I 6

Agriculture Total 13

Corrections CHAPLAIN I 1

CORR SUP LIC TRDE SUP I 21

LTC TRAINEE V 1

Corrections Total 23

Health Care Policy & Financing TECHNICIAN I 52

Health Care Policy & Financing Total 52

Higher Education FOOD SERV MGR III 3

MACHINING TRADES I 2

PHY SCI RES/SCIENTIST I 3

TECHNICIAN I 4

ARTS TECHNICIAN I 2

CUST SUPPORT INTERN 2

ENVIRON PROTECT SPEC I 2

ENVIRON PROTECT SPEC IV 3

Higher Education Total 21

Human Services CHAPLAIN I 3

CLIENT CARE AIDE I 58

FOOD SERV MGR III 1

HCS TRAINEE I 161

SOC SERVICES SPEC VI 1

TECHNICIAN I 2

Human Services Total 226

Labor & Employment LABOR/EMPLOYMENT SPEC INT 39



Military & Veterans Affairs ENVIRON PROTECT SPEC IV 1

Military & Veterans Affairs Total 1

Natural Resources ENVIRON PROTECT INTERN 1


TECHNICIAN I 2



Natural Resources Total 50

Public Health & Environment ENVIRON PROTECT INTERN 12





Appendix D: Departments that Employ the Top 20 Class Titles with Highest Vacancy

Rates

Department of Personnel & Administration - Appendix D

Dept Class Title

# of

Positions

Appendix D: Departments that Employ the Top 20 Class Titles with Highest Vacancy

Rates

Public Safety CUST SUPPORT INTERN 2


Revenue RETAIL BSNS REP 2

TECHNICIAN I 208

Revenue Total 210

State TECHNICIAN I 14

State Total 14

State Auditor's Office STUDENT TRAINEE I 18

State Auditor's Office Total 18

Transportation LAND SURVEY INTERN I 1

LTC TRAINEE V 2

SAFETY SPECIALIST II 1

Transportation Total 4

Grand Total 780

Department of Personnel & Administration - Appendix D


Employee

Count

Agriculture PHY SCI RES/SCIENTIST I 6.4

TECHNICIAN I 4.2

Agriculture Total 10.6

Corrections CHAPLAIN I 0.5

CORR SUP LIC TRDE SUP I 5.8

Corrections Total 6.3

Health Care Policy & Financing TECHNICIAN I 23.2

Health Care Policy & Financing Total 23.2

Higher Education HCS TRAINEE I 0.5

LTC TRAINEE V 1.1

PHY SCI RES/SCIENTIST I 1.7

TECHNICIAN I 7.7

ARTS TECHNICIAN I 10.1

CUST SUPPORT INTERN 0.4

ENVIRON PROTECT SPEC I 4.7

ENVIRON PROTECT SPEC IV 4.3

Higher Education Total 30.4

Human Services CHAPLAIN I 2.4

CLIENT CARE AIDE I 45.0

FOOD SERV MGR III 0.7

HCS TRAINEE I 111.8

SOC SERVICES SPEC VI 0.7

Human Services Total 160.6

Labor & Employment LABOR/EMPLOYMENT SPEC INT 6.6



Labor & Employment Total 10.2

Natural Resources ENVIRON PROTECT INTERN 1.4


TECHNICIAN I 1.1



Natural Resources Total 47.8

Public Health & Environment ENVIRON PROTECT INTERN 12.3


TECHNICIAN I 1.3



Public Health & Environment Total 108.3

Revenue RETAIL BSNS REP 1.8

TECHNICIAN I 106.0

Revenue Total 107.8

State TECHNICIAN I 3.7

State Total 3.7

Appendix E: Departments that Employ Top 20 Classes with Highest Turnover

Department of Personnel & Administration - Appendix E


Employee

Count

Appendix E: Departments that Employ Top 20 Classes with Highest Turnover

State Auditor's Office STUDENT TRAINEE I 0.3

State Auditor's Office Total 0.3

Transportation LAND SURVEY INTERN I 0.4

LTC TRAINEE V 1.9

MACHINING TRADES I 0.8

SAFETY SPECIALIST II 0.5

TECHNICIAN I 0.5

Transportation Total 4.2

Public Safety CUST SUPPORT INTERN 2.4

Public Safety Total 2.4

Military & Veterans Affairs ENVIRON PROTECT SPEC IV 1.1

Military & Veterans Affairs Total 1.1

Grand Total 516.8

Department of Personnel & Administration - Appendix E

Audit Name: Rec No Recommendation Agency Comments Current Status

Statewide Single Audit,

Fiscal Year Ended

6/30/2016-Labor

Allocation Controls: 2016-

033B

The Department of Personnel & Administration should

strengthen its internal controls over the labor allocation

process by coordinating with the new human resource

information system implementation team during the

planning and testing phases to address potential deficiencies

to ensure the new system interfaces with the Colorado

Operations Resources Engine before the new system

becomes functional.

The Department of Personnel & Administration's Office of the

State Controller implementation team continues to coordinate

with CORE Operations during the HR Works planning and testing

phases and will address any potential deficiencies found to

ensure the new HR information system effectively interfaces

with CORE prior to being fully implemented. As this is an ongoing

process, the Department will continue to work closely with CORE

Operations through the scheduled implementation date of

October 2018.

Full implementation

expected by October

2018


Fiscal Year Ended

6/30/2016- CPPS IT

Controls: 2016-035

The Department of Personnel & Administration should

strengthen application information security controls over the

Colorado Personnel Payroll System by working with the

Governor's Office of Information Technology to ensure that

mitigating controls identified and agreed upon in prior year

audit recommendations are implemented.

The Department of Personnel & Administration's Office of State

Controller is working with the Office of Information Technology

to ensure that written policy be established that clarifies and

documents control responsibilities between DPA and OIT. It is

anticipated that the policy will be in place by January 2018.

DPA/OSC is also working with OIT regarding implementation of

the mitigating controls related to prior year audit

recommendations.

Full implementation

expected by January

2018


Fiscal Year Ended

6/30/2016 - CPPS IT

Controls: 2016-037F

The Department of Personnel & Administration’s (DPA)

Office of the State Controller (OSC) should strengthen

application information security controls over the Colorado

Personnel Payroll System (CPPS) by ensuring that OSC staff

responsible for CPPS application settings are adequately

trained and held accountable on all relevant Security Policy

requirements and OSC procedures to ensure that the system

meets all security policies.

Central Payroll has conducted all CPPS security training of

Central Payroll staff to ensure procedures are accurately

followed to maintain effective system security. However, full

implementation of the recommendation requires that OIT make

some configuration changes to CPPS that will enhance system

information security controls.

Partially implemented,

full implementation

expected by March 2018


Fiscal Year Ended

6/30/2016-CPPS IT

Controls 2016-038A

2016-038B 2016-038C

The Department of Personnel & Administration’s (DPA’s)

Office of the State Controller (OSC) should remediate over

the Colorado Personnel Payroll System (CPPS) security risks

by working with the Governor’s Office of Information

Technology (OIT) to create processes to (a) review all data

transmissions related to CPPS and ensure that sensitive data

are encrypted during internal and external transmissions;

(b) review all interfaces related to CPPS, ensuring that

interfaces are reviewed on a periodic basis, security controls

are enforced, and personnel are identified and held

accountable for managing these interfaces; (c) update the

CPPS disaster recovery plan, incorporating all critical

components associated with CPPS and the requirements of

the Colorado Information Security Policies.

The Department of Personnel & Administration’s (DPA) Office of

the State Controller (OSC) has been working with the Office of

Information & Technology (OIT) to review all CPPS data

transmissions to ensure encryption of sensitive data. OIT has

introduced the enterprise SFTP (MoveIT) solution. Most of the

CPPS interface files now leverage the enterprise SFTP application

to deliver files internally and externally. All new CPPS

integrations and interface file processes are required to follow

this process. In addition, DPA/OSC is working with OIT to ensure

all CPPS interfaces are periodically reviewed and security

controls are enforced. OSC's Central Payroll Manager and/or

Lead will work with the OIT application services manager to

establish a process for performing and documenting joint

reviews of CPPS interfaces by the end of Fiscal Year 2018. The

reviews will be performed on an annual basis to ensure proper

security controls are in place. Further, DPA/OSC is coordinating

with OIT to update the CPPS disaster recovery plan.

Incorporating the plan's mission, objectives and boundaries,

roles, responsibilities, incident management, notifications,

escalations and lessons learned for this application is critical. OIT

presently has a very basic plan in place which is currently being

reviewed to include all relevant details so it can be effectively

updated and used in the application’s disaster recovery testing.

2016-038A-Partially

implemented, full

implementation

expected by June 2018.

2016-038B-Full

implementation

expected by June 2018

2016-038C-Full

implementation

expected by April 2018

Evaluation of the

Department of Personnel

& Administrations Annual

Compensation Survey for

Fiscal Year 2014, June 2013

The Department of Personnel & Administration should refine

its use of generic classification for General Professional and

IT Professional to improve the precision of market

comparisons between specific jobs within these

classifications and the different survey market jobs to which

they are matched.

The General Processional deconsolidation was effective July 1,

2016. Milliman, Inc. Affirmed deconsolidation of IT classes could

improve the level of precision of market comparisons. DHR is

currently working with agencies that use the IT classes to

determine how best to structure deconsolidated classes or to

develop effective benchmarks for the current broad-band

classes. Staffing issues within DHR have prevented this process

from being completed on the original time-frame identified.

Partially implemented.

Appendix F: High Priority Outstanding Audit Recommendations

Department of Personnel & Administration - Appendix F

Audit Name: Rec No Recommendation Agency Comments Current Status

Appendix F: High Priority Outstanding Audit Recommendations

Department of Revenue,

Tax Performance Audit,

September 2011

The Department of Revenue should maximize its use of

Central Services for outgoing mail processing and warrant

printing, and reallocate or eliminate staff who are currently

performing this work.

DPA and DOR have drafted a memorandum of understanding

(MOU) that that outlines the criteria and timeline for full

implementation of this audit recommendation. DPA anticipates

that the MOU will be finalized by June of 2018.

Partially implemented.

Department of Personnel & Administration - Appendix F

Department of Personnel & Administration Hearing Responses - Appendix G

FY 2016-17 Classified Employee Turnover Statewide and Department Summary

The following information provides a summary of turnover data for State of Colorado classified employees for fiscal year 2016-17. Information is summarized at the state and cabinet (department) levels. Assumptions and methodological notes applicable to the analysis are included below.

1. Permanent, classified staff is included in this analysis. Temporary and non-classified employees are excluded. Some institutions of higher education are included in this analysis, depending on availability of separations information in DPA’s data.

2. Internal transfers (from one State agency to another) were not included as turnover. This was done to maintain consistency with several other reports the Department produces that intend to show the State’s overall turnover. It is understandable that an individual department would consider a transfer to another agency turnover because they need to go through the hiring and training process again.

3. DPA’s methodology looked at total separations as well as average monthly employee counts based on the entire fiscal year (“Avg Employees”). The “Turnover Rate” is calculated as follows: Turnover Rate = Separations / Avg Employees.


Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Department FY 2016-17 Separations By Department Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Department Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Agriculture 31 294 10.6% 22 3 6 24 2 4 1 Corrections 991 6,147 16.1% 620 152 219 718 108 61 104 Education 14 115 12.1% 6 3 5 8 2 3 1

Governor's Office 38 538 7.1% 11 3 24 5 20 10 3 Health Care Policy & Financing 72 491 14.7% 59 7 6 57 10 5 0

Higher Education 593 4,996 11.9% 303 58 232 338 109 110 36 Human Services 1,187 4,905 24.2% 826 188 173 786 203 137 61

Labor & Employment 152 1,337 11.4% 90 19 43 106 18 12 16 Law 29 179 16.2% 20 3 6 10 16 2 1

Local Affairs 29 159 18.2% 19 0 10 17 5 5 2 Military & Veterans Affairs 16 142 11.3% 10 4 2 13 2 0 1

Natural Resources 117 1,447 8.1% 71 9 37 48 31 22 16 Personnel & Administration 53 383 13.8% 39 7 7 34 9 10 0

Public Health & Environment 167 1,372 12.2% 111 12 44 59 44 42 22 Public Safety 118 1,736 6.8% 70 11 37 37 38 30 13

Regulatory Agencies 47 532 8.8% 21 4 22 26 11 6 4 Revenue 224 1,398 16.0% 152 34 38 183 19 16 6

State 10 111 9.0% 8 2 0 2 5 2 1 State Auditor's Office 5 68 7.4% 3 2 0 3 2 0 0

Transportation 318 2,939 10.8% 165 41 112 99 95 59 65 Treasury 5 25 19.7% 2 0 3 3 0 2 0

Statewide Total 4,216 29,315 14.4% 2,628 562 1,026 2,576 749 538 353

Note: The number of "Avg Employees" is based on the average number of employees in a department during the fiscal year.


Statewide: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations

Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF I 717 2,803 25.6% 515 144 58 666 12 7 32 ADMIN ASSISTANT III 169 1,167 14.5% 85 19 65 122 24 20 3

TRANSPORTATION MTC I 133 791 16.8% 91 23 19 43 35 5 50 CLIENT CARE AIDE II 125 358 34.9% 92 27 6 54 44 20 7

NURSE I 118 388 30.4% 88 11 19 87 26 4 1 CUSTODIAN I 118 690 17.1% 75 24 19 97 15 4 2

ADMIN ASSISTANT II 116 726 16.0% 85 9 22 77 19 15 5 CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF II 88 830 10.6% 53 13 22 58 8 5 17

TECHNICIAN I 73 140 52.0% 53 20 0 72 0 1 0 HEALTH CARE TECH I 69 317 21.7% 41 16 12 28 4 34 3

HCS TRAINEE I 67 94 71.6% 53 14 0 29 38 0 0 CORR SUPP TRADES SUPV I 65 511 12.7% 27 16 22 47 2 5 11

PROGRAM ASSISTANT I 55 532 10.3% 23 5 27 25 16 13 1 TECHNICIAN III 54 472 11.4% 35 3 16 36 8 8 2

CLIENT CARE AIDE I 46 46 101.1% 37 9 0 38 4 0 4 ADMINISTRATOR III 46 285 16.2% 31 4 11 25 10 6 5

PROGRAM ASSISTANT II 43 363 11.9% 18 0 25 21 9 11 2 IT PROFESSIONAL 40 547 7.3% 14 3 23 8 19 12 1

TECHNICIAN II 38 203 18.7% 26 8 4 27 7 2 2 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 36 321 11.2% 20 2 14 27 3 6 0

NURSE II 35 107 32.8% 27 3 5 19 6 10 0 HEALTH PROFESSIONAL III 33 192 17.2% 25 1 7 12 17 3 1

TECHNICIAN IV 32 360 8.9% 8 3 21 11 3 8 10 DINING SERVICES II 29 161 18.0% 18 8 3 22 1 3 3 DINING SERVICES III 29 161 18.0% 19 7 3 21 4 2 2 ADMINISTRATOR IV 29 291 10.0% 17 3 9 17 3 6 3

Top Classes Total 2,403 12,854 18.7% 1,576 395 432 1,689 337 210 167 Statewide Total 4,216 29,315 14.4% 2,628 562 1,026 2,576 749 538 353

Note: The number of "Avg Employees" is based on the average number of employees in a class, for all departments, during the fiscal year.


Statewide: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees in Class


CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF I 717 2,803 25.6% 515 144 58 666 12 7 32 ADMIN ASSISTANT III 169 1,167 14.5% 85 19 65 122 24 20 3

CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF II 88 830 10.6% 53 13 22 58 8 5 17 TRANSPORTATION MTC I 133 791 16.8% 91 23 19 43 35 5 50

ADMIN ASSISTANT II 116 726 16.0% 85 9 22 77 19 15 5 CUSTODIAN I 118 690 17.1% 75 24 19 97 15 4 2

IT PROFESSIONAL 40 547 7.3% 14 3 23 8 19 12 1 PROGRAM ASSISTANT I 55 532 10.3% 23 5 27 25 16 13 1

CORR SUPP TRADES SUPV I 65 511 12.7% 27 16 22 47 2 5 11 TECHNICIAN III 54 472 11.4% 35 3 16 36 8 8 2

NURSE I 118 388 30.4% 88 11 19 87 26 4 1 STATE PATROL TROOPER 10 378 2.6% 5 2 3 7 0 3 0 PROGRAM ASSISTANT II 43 363 11.9% 18 0 25 21 9 11 2

TECHNICIAN IV 32 360 8.9% 8 3 21 11 3 8 10 CLIENT CARE AIDE II 125 358 34.9% 92 27 6 54 44 20 7

ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 36 321 11.2% 20 2 14 27 3 6 0 HEALTH CARE TECH I 69 317 21.7% 41 16 12 28 4 34 3

CORR/YTH/CLN SEC SUPV III 26 303 8.6% 11 4 11 12 2 2 10 ADMINISTRATOR IV 29 291 10.0% 17 3 9 17 3 6 3 ADMINISTRATOR III 46 285 16.2% 31 4 11 25 10 6 5

TRANSPORTATION MTC II 22 253 8.7% 5 4 13 6 16 0 0 LABOR/EMPLOYMENT SPEC II 18 249 7.2% 9 3 6 10 1 2 5 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT II 18 236 7.6% 5 1 12 5 2 8 3 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I 18 224 8.0% 11 0 7 2 7 9 0

STRUCTURAL TRADES II 16 217 7.4% 3 6 7 10 1 4 1 Top Classes Total 2,181 13,612 16.0% 1,367 345 469 1,501 289 217 174 Statewide Total 4,216 29,315 14.4% 2,628 562 1,026 2,576 749 538 353

Note: The number of "Avg Employees" is based on the average number of employees in a class, for all departments, during the fiscal year.


Department of Agriculture: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations

Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

TECHNICIAN III 4 39.3 10.2% 2 0 2 2 0 2 0

COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST I 3 9.5 31.6% 2 1 0 3 0 0 0

TECHNICIAN II 3 25.2 11.9% 3 0 0 3 0 0 0

ADMIN ASSISTANT II 2 7.1 28.2% 2 0 0 2 0 0 0

ADMIN ASSISTANT III 2 21.9 9.1% 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST II 2 10.8 18.6% 2 0 0 2 0 0 0

Top Classes Total 16 113.7 14.1% 12 1 3 13 0 3 0

Department Total 31 293.7 10.6% 22 3 6 24 2 4 1

Department of Agriculture: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class



TECHNICIAN III 4 39.3 10.2% 2 0 2 2 0 2 0

COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST III 1 27.0 3.7% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

TECHNICIAN II 3 25.2 11.9% 3 0 0 3 0 0 0


ADMINISTRATOR III 1 15.8 6.3% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0



Department of Agriculture: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency

FY 2016-17 Separations By Agency Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Agency Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE 31 293.7 10.6% 22 3 6 24 2 4 1



Department of Corrections: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range


CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF I 506 2,277.3 22.2% 362 95 49 472 4 7 23 CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF II 70 719.3 9.7% 37 11 22 43 8 2 17

CORR SUPP TRADES SUPV I 65 496.3 13.1% 27 16 22 47 2 5 11

NURSE I 34 120.5 28.2% 27 0 7 19 15 0 0 ADMIN ASSISTANT III 28 181.8 15.4% 13 4 11 25 1 2 0

Top Classes Total 703 3,795.1 18.5% 466 126 111 606 30 16 51

Department Total 991 6,146.8 16.1% 620 152 219 718 108 61 104

Department of Corrections: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF I 506 2,277.3 22.2% 362 95 49 472 4 7 23

CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF II 70 719.3 9.7% 37 11 22 43 8 2 17 CORR SUPP TRADES SUPV I 65 496.3 13.1% 27 16 22 47 2 5 11

CORR/YTH/CLN SEC SUPV III 18 237.0 7.6% 7 1 10 5 2 2 9

COMMUNITY PAROLE OFF 23 207.9 11.1% 17 3 3 16 4 2 1 Top Classes Total 682 3,937.8 17.3% 450 126 106 583 20 18 61


Department of Corrections: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


Agency Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th CANTEEN 4 27.7 14.5% 0 0 4 0 1 2 1

CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES 17 156.3 10.9% 8 2 7 8 5 2 2 CORRECTIONS

ADMINISTRATION 970 5,962.8 16.3% 612 150 208 710 102 57 101 Department Total 991 6,146.8 16.1% 620 152 219 718 108 61 104


Department of Education: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations


DINING SERVICES I 2 3.1 64.9% 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 ADMIN ASSISTANT III 2 7.2 27.9% 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 STATE TEACHER AIDE 2 11.2 17.9% 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 HEALTH CARE TECH I 1 17.3 5.8% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

CUSTODIAN I 1 5.2 19.4% 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 DINING SERVICES IV 1 0.5 200.0% 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 ADMIN ASSISTANT I 1 2.4 41.4% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

ANALYST III 1 5.9 16.9% 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 IT SUPERVISOR 1 1.2 85.7% 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

PROGRAM ASSISTANT II 1 0.9 109.1% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 1 3.5 28.6% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Top Classes Total 14 58.3 24.0% 6 3 5 8 2 3 1 Department Total 14 115.4 12.1% 6 3 5 8 2 3 1

Department of Education: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


HEALTH CARE TECH I 1 17.3 5.8% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 STATE TEACHER AIDE 2 11.2 17.9% 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 ADMIN ASSISTANT III 2 7.2 27.9% 0 1 1 1 0 1 0

ANALYST III 1 5.9 16.9% 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 CUSTODIAN I 1 5.2 19.4% 0 1 0 1 0 0 0



Department of Education: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency

FY 2016-17 Separations By Agency Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range Agency Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 5 22.2 22.6% 0 1 4 3 0 2 0 SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND 9 93.3 9.7% 6 2 1 5 2 1 1


Governor's Office: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th IT PROFESSIONAL 27 354.1 7.6% 9 2 16 5 14 7 1

IT SUPERVISOR 3 42.7 7.0% 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 ADMIN ASSISTANT II 1 0.5 200.0% 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

PROJECT COORDINATOR 1 5.8 17.4% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 IT TECHNICIAN 1 28.3 3.5% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 IT MANAGER 1 7.0 14.3% 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

CONTROLLER III 1 0.4 240.0% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ELECTRONIC ENGINEER II 1 5.0 20.0% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

ELECTRONICS SPEC III 1 11.9 8.4% 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 ELECTRONICS SPEC IV 1 11.1 9.0% 0 0 1 0 1 0 0


Governor's Office: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


IT PROFESSIONAL 27 354.1 7.6% 9 2 16 5 14 7 1 IT SUPERVISOR 3 42.7 7.0% 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 IT TECHNICIAN 1 28.3 3.5% 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

ELECTRONICS SPEC III 1 11.9 8.4% 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 ELECTRONICS SPEC IV 1 11.1 9.0% 0 0 1 0 1 0 0



Governor's Office: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency FY 2016-17 Separations By Agency Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Agency Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th OFFICE OF INFORMATION TECH 38 538.4 7.1% 11 3 24 5 20 10 3


Department of Health Care Policy & Financing: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TECHNICIAN I 13 21.8 59.5% 9 4 0 13 0 0 0

ADMINISTRATOR III 11 56.5 19.5% 9 1 1 8 2 1 0 ADMINISTRATOR IV 6 53.4 11.2% 5 1 0 5 1 0 0 ADMINISTRATOR V 4 16.6 24.1% 4 0 0 4 0 0 0

ANALYST III 4 20.1 19.9% 3 1 0 4 0 0 0 Top Classes Total 38 168.4 22.6% 30 7 1 34 3 1 0 Department Total 72 491.3 14.7% 59 7 6 57 10 5 0

Department of Health Care Policy & Financing: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


ADMINISTRATOR III 11 56.5 19.5% 9 1 1 8 2 1 0 ADMINISTRATOR IV 6 53.4 11.2% 5 1 0 5 1 0 0

TECHNICIAN I 13 21.8 59.5% 9 4 0 13 0 0 0 ANALYST III 4 20.1 19.9% 3 1 0 4 0 0 0

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT I 1 19.3 5.2% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Top Classes Total 35 171.2 20.4% 27 7 1 30 4 1 0 Department Total 72 491.3 14.7% 59 7 6 57 10 5 0

Department of Health Care Policy & Financing: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


DEPT OF HLTH CARE POLICY & FIN 72 491.3 14.7% 59 7 6 57 10 5 0 Department Total 72 491.3 14.7% 59 7 6 57 10 5 0


Department of Higher Education: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th CUSTODIAN I 71 519.8 13.7% 41 18 12 57 8 4 2

ADMIN ASSISTANT III 69 483.6 14.3% 34 6 29 43 14 10 2 ADMIN ASSISTANT II 38 341.3 11.1% 26 4 8 24 7 5 2

PROGRAM ASSISTANT I 20 220.1 9.1% 7 2 11 7 6 7 0 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 18 182.6 9.9% 8 0 10 13 0 5 0

Top Classes Total 216 1,747.3 12.4% 116 30 70 144 35 31 6 Department Total 593 4,995.5 11.9% 303 58 232 338 109 110 36

Department of Higher Education: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


CUSTODIAN I 71 519.8 13.7% 41 18 12 57 8 4 2 ADMIN ASSISTANT III 69 483.6 14.3% 34 6 29 43 14 10 2 ADMIN ASSISTANT II 38 341.3 11.1% 26 4 8 24 7 5 2

PROGRAM ASSISTANT I 20 220.1 9.1% 7 2 11 7 6 7 0 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 18 182.6 9.9% 8 0 10 13 0 5 0

Top Classes Total 216 1,747.3 12.4% 116 30 70 144 35 31 6 Department Total 593 4,995.5 11.9% 303 58 232 338 109 110 36


Department of Higher Education: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


ARAPAHOE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 15 42.8 35.1% 11 2 2 11 2 2 0 COLORADO COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM 9 32.6 27.6% 6 1 2 7 1 1 0

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 239 1,855.9 12.9% 104 17 118 139 41 48 11 COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF AURORA 5 61.3 8.2% 2 0 3 3 1 1 0 COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF DENVER 11 34.0 32.4% 8 1 2 8 0 1 2

CU - BOULDER 149 1,501.0 9.9% 88 15 46 66 37 33 13 CU - COLORADO SPRINGS 18 190.8 9.4% 6 4 8 17 0 0 1

CU - SYSTEM OFFICES 5 13.8 36.1% 1 1 3 0 2 1 2 FRONT RANGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 19 170.3 11.2% 12 0 7 15 2 0 2

LAMAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE 1 14.9 6.7% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 MORGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE 2 9.6 20.9% 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 NORTHEASTERN JUNIOR COLLEGE 1 28.3 3.5% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

NORTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE 2 17.3 11.6% 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 OTERO JUNIOR COLLEGE 4 20.8 19.2% 2 2 0 3 0 1 0

PIKES PEAK COMMUNITY COLLEGE 21 206.7 10.2% 18 2 1 17 2 1 1 PRIVATE OCCUPATIONAL SCHOOL DIVISION 1 0.9 109.1% 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

PUEBLO COMMUNITY COLLEGE 8 79.5 10.1% 3 4 1 7 1 0 0 RED ROCKS COMMUNITY COLLEGE 9 68.6 13.1% 7 0 2 7 1 1 0

STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 1 5.0 20.0% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 TRINIDAD STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE 1 17.3 5.8% 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER 72 624.6 11.5% 29 9 34 31 18 19 4 Department Total 593 4,995.7 11.9% 303 58 232 338 109 110 36

*The total number of "Avg Employees" differs slightly between department and agency based reports. This is due to employees who are listed in multiple schools in the same month. In this scenario, the employee is counted in each agency/school's headcount, but only once in the department's headcount.


Department of Human Services: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF I 211 525.5 40.2% 153 49 9 194 8 0 9

CLIENT CARE AIDE II 120 343.8 34.9% 90 24 6 53 42 18 7 NURSE I 82 253.1 32.4% 61 11 10 66 11 4 1

HCS TRAINEE I 63 93.0 67.7% 50 13 0 25 38 0 0 HEALTH CARE TECH I 62 261.3 23.7% 37 16 9 25 3 33 1

Top Classes Total 538 1,476.8 36.4% 391 113 34 363 102 55 18 Department Total 1,187 4,905.3 24.2% 826 188 173 786 203 137 61

Department of Human Services: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


CORR/YTH/CLIN SEC OFF I 211 525.5 40.2% 153 49 9 194 8 0 9 CLIENT CARE AIDE II 120 343.8 34.9% 90 24 6 53 42 18 7 HEALTH CARE TECH I 62 261.3 23.7% 37 16 9 25 3 33 1

NURSE I 82 253.1 32.4% 61 11 10 66 11 4 1 CUSTODIAN I 39 139.8 27.9% 27 5 7 33 6 0 0

Top Classes Total 514 1,523.6 33.7% 368 105 41 371 70 55 18 Department Total 1,187 4,905.3 24.2% 826 188 173 786 203 137 61


Department of Human Services: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


COLO. MENTAL HEALTH

52 288.8 18.0% 39 3 10 34 7 6 5 COLO. MENTAL HEALTH

228 1,098.1 20.8% 154 33 41 172 27 22 7

DEPARTMENT OF

178 1,076.6 16.5% 111 19 48 106 36 22 14 DIRECTOR OF STATE

0 3.7 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DIVISION OF YOUTH

292 1,002.9 29.1% 212 55 25 249 20 9 14 FITZSIMONS STATE

59 259.3 22.8% 49 9 1 29 15 12 3

GRAND JUNCTION

37 257.1 14.4% 19 5 13 7 10 20 0 OBH-COMMUNITY

7 46.3 15.1% 2 2 3 6 1 0 0

PUEBLO REGIONAL

73 175.6 41.6% 43 22 8 36 20 15 2 RIDGE REGIONAL CENTER 136 367.8 37.0% 104 22 10 53 51 24 8

STATE VET CENTER AT

29 82.2 35.3% 22 5 2 26 1 2 0 VET NURSING HOME AT

55 140.1 39.3% 43 4 8 47 2 4 2

VET NURSING HOME AT

41 106.3 38.6% 28 9 4 21 13 1 6 WALSENBURG VET

0 0.7 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Department Total 1,187 4,905.3 24.2% 826 188 173 786 203 137 61


Department of Labor & Employment: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations



REHABILITATION COUNS I 19 88.3 21.5% 17 1 1 18 1 0 0

LABOR/EMPLOYMENT SPEC II 18 249.2 7.2% 9 3 6 10 1 2 5

LABOR/EMPLOYMENT SPEC I 17 135.5 12.5% 10 4 3 15 0 0 2


LABOR/EMPLOY SPEC INT 13 36.2 35.9% 10 2 1 12 0 1 0



Department of Labor & Employment: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class



LABOR/EMPLOYMENT SPEC II 18 249.2 7.2% 9 3 6 10 1 2 5

LABOR/EMPLOYMENT SPEC I 17 135.5 12.5% 10 4 3 15 0 0 2

REHABILITATION COUNS I 19 88.3 21.5% 17 1 1 18 1 0 0

LABOR/EMPLOYMENT SPEC III 5 82.2 6.1% 1 1 3 1 1 2 1




Department of Labor & Employment: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


Agency Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th DEPT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 152 1,337.1 11.4% 90 19 43 106 18 12 16



Department of Law: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th ADMIN ASSISTANT II 6 26.3 22.9% 5 1 0 1 5 0 0

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR II 4 22.8 17.6% 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 ADMIN ASSISTANT III 4 5.8 69.6% 4 0 0 3 1 0 0

IT PROFESSIONAL 3 9.1 33.0% 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 IT TECHNICIAN 2 1.0 200.0% 2 0 0 1 1 0 0

LEGAL ASSISTANT II 2 45.6 4.4% 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Top Classes Total 21 110.4 19.0% 16 2 3 7 12 2 0 Department Total 29 179.0 16.2% 20 3 6 10 16 2 1

Department of Law: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


LEGAL ASSISTANT II 2 45.6 4.4% 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 ADMIN ASSISTANT II 6 26.3 22.9% 5 1 0 1 5 0 0

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR II 4 22.8 17.6% 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 PROGRAM ASSISTANT I 1 12.5 8.0% 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

IT PROFESSIONAL 3 9.1 33.0% 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 Top Classes Total 16 116.2 13.8% 10 2 4 4 10 2 0 Department Total 29 179.0 16.2% 20 3 6 10 16 2 1

Department of Law: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


DEPARTMENT OF LAW 29 179.0 16.2% 20 3 6 10 16 2 1 Department Total 29 179.0 16.2% 20 3 6 10 16 2 1


Department of Local Affairs: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th COMM & ECONOMIC DEVT III 4 21.6 18.5% 3 0 1 3 0 0 1

ADMIN ASSISTANT III 3 5.5 54.5% 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 COMM & ECONOMIC DEVT IV 3 14.3 20.9% 2 0 1 1 2 0 0

PROPERTY TAX SPEC III 3 5.9 50.7% 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 ANALYST VI 2 3.8 52.2% 0 0 2 0 1 1 0

PROGRAM ASSISTANT I 2 10.7 18.8% 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 PROPERTY TAX SPEC INTERN 2 3.6 55.8% 2 0 0 2 0 0 0


Department of Local Affairs: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


COMM & ECONOMIC DEVT III 4 21.6 18.5% 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 COMM & ECONOMIC DEVT IV 3 14.3 20.9% 2 0 1 1 2 0 0

PROGRAM ASSISTANT I 2 10.7 18.8% 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 PROPERTY TAX SPEC I 1 5.9 16.9% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

PROPERTY TAX SPEC III 3 5.9 50.7% 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 Top Classes Total 13 58.4 22.3% 9 0 4 8 3 1 1 Department Total 29 159.2 18.2% 19 0 10 17 5 5 2

Department of Local Affairs: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS 29 159.2 18.2% 19 0 10 17 5 5 2 Department Total 29 159.2 18.2% 19 0 10 17 5 5 2


Department of Military & Veterans Affairs: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th GROUNDS & NURSERY I 2 2.4 82.8% 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 ELECTRICAL TRADES II 1 2.5 40.0% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 PIPE/MECH TRADES II 1 8.1 12.4% 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 PIPE/MECH TRADES III 1 0.8 133.3% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 STRUCTURAL TRADES I 1 3.3 30.8% 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 STRUCTURAL TRADES II 1 13.4 7.5% 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

TRANSPORTATION MTC I 1 3.1 32.4% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LTC OPERATIONS II 1 1.9 52.2% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

SOC SERVICES SPEC III 1 5.5 18.2% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 TRAINING SPECIALIST IV 1 0.4 240.0% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

TECHNICIAN IV 1 1.3 80.0% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 ACCOUNTANT III 1 0.7 150.0% 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 1 1.8 54.5% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 BUDGET ANALYST I 1 1.7 60.0% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

BUDGET & POLICY ANLST III 1 1.1 92.3% 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Top Classes Total 16 47.8 33.4% 10 4 2 13 2 0 1 Department Total 16 141.8 11.3% 10 4 2 13 2 0 1

Department of Military & Veterans Affairs: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


STRUCTURAL TRADES II 1 13.4 7.5% 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 PIPE/MECH TRADES II 1 8.1 12.4% 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 SOC SERVICES SPEC III 1 5.5 18.2% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 STRUCTURAL TRADES I 1 3.3 30.8% 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

TRANSPORTATION MTC I 1 3.1 32.4% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Top Classes Total 5 33.3 15.0% 2 3 0 4 0 0 1 Department Total 16 141.8 11.3% 10 4 2 13 2 0 1

Department of Military & Veterans Affairs: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


MILITARY AFFAIRS 14 131.0 10.7% 9 3 2 11 2 0 1 VETERANS AFFAIRS 2 10.8 18.6% 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 Department Total 16 141.8 11.3% 10 4 2 13 2 0 1


Department of Natural Resources: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TECHNICIAN IV 9 120.6 7.5% 2 1 6 2 1 1 5

ENGR/PHYS SCI TECH I 9 42.3 21.3% 6 1 2 5 2 0 2 WILDLIFE MANAGER III 8 177.5 4.5% 4 0 4 1 2 2 3 ADMIN ASSISTANT III 7 65.5 10.7% 4 0 3 4 2 1 0

ENGR/PHYS SCI TECH II 7 88.7 7.9% 6 0 1 2 3 2 0 Top Classes Total 40 494.5 8.1% 22 2 16 14 10 6 10 Department Total 117 1,447.4 8.1% 71 9 37 48 31 22 16

Department of Natural Resources: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


WILDLIFE MANAGER III 8 177.5 4.5% 4 0 4 1 2 2 3 TECHNICIAN IV 9 120.6 7.5% 2 1 6 2 1 1 5

ENGR/PHYS SCI TECH II 7 88.7 7.9% 6 0 1 2 3 2 0 TECHNICIAN III 1 67.9 1.5% 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

ADMIN ASSISTANT III 7 65.5 10.7% 4 0 3 4 2 1 0 Top Classes Total 32 520.2 6.2% 16 1 15 9 9 6 8 Department Total 117 1,447.4 8.1% 71 9 37 48 31 22 16

Department of Natural Resources: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS 4 41.7 9.6% 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 DIV RECLAMATION,MINING,SAFETY 2 59.1 3.4% 1 0 1 0 0 1 1

DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 21 264.3 7.9% 13 3 5 11 4 3 3 DNR - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 2 46.8 4.3% 0 0 2 0 2 0 0

OIL & GAS CONSERVATION COMM 6 100.5 6.0% 4 0 2 1 2 3 0 PARKS AND WILDLIFE 75 891.8 8.4% 48 5 22 32 20 11 12

WATER CONSERVATION BOARD 7 43.3 16.2% 5 1 1 4 0 3 0 Department Total 117 1,447.4 8.1% 71 9 37 48 31 22 16


Department of Personnel & Administration: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th PRODUCTION II 4 18.4 21.7% 2 2 0 3 1 0 0

CUSTODIAN I 4 7.8 51.6% 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 ACCOUNTANT II 4 9.8 40.7% 4 0 0 0 1 3 0

ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN III 3 3.7 81.8% 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 SOCIAL WORK/COUNSELOR IV 2 9.6 20.9% 2 0 0 2 0 0 0

ADMIN ASSISTANT II 2 11.6 17.3% 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 DATA MANAGEMENT III 2 1.3 150.0% 1 0 1 0 0 2 0

HUMAN RESOURCES SPEC VI 2 2.2 92.3% 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 ACCOUNTANT III 2 6.5 30.8% 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 Top Classes Total 25 70.8 35.3% 21 2 2 15 4 6 0 Department Total 53 383.2 13.8% 39 7 7 34 9 10 0

Department of Personnel & Administration: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


PRODUCTION II 4 18.4 21.7% 2 2 0 3 1 0 0 ADMIN LAW JUDGE II 1 18.1 5.5% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 COLLECTIONS REP II 1 13.9 7.2% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

DATA ENTRY OPERATOR I 1 11.9 8.4% 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 TECHNICIAN IV 1 11.9 8.4% 0 0 1 1 0 0 0


Department of Personnel & Administration: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


DPA - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 53 383.2 13.8% 39 7 7 34 9 10 0 Department Total 53 383.2 13.8% 39 7 7 34 9 10 0


Department of Public Health & Environment: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th HEALTH PROFESSIONAL III 28 143.1 19.6% 23 1 4 12 13 3 0

ADMINISTRATOR III 7 40.2 17.4% 6 1 0 2 2 3 0 HEALTH PROFESSIONAL IV 6 40.6 14.8% 3 0 3 1 1 0 4

ADMIN ASSISTANT I 6 12.4 48.3% 6 0 0 5 0 1 0 ADMIN ASSISTANT II 6 7.9 75.8% 3 1 2 2 0 4 0

TECHNICIAN III 6 23.2 25.9% 4 1 1 2 3 0 1 ENVIRON PROTECT SPEC II 6 112.7 5.3% 5 0 1 2 2 2 0

Top Classes Total 65 380.0 17.1% 50 4 11 26 21 13 5 Department Total 167 1,371.6 12.2% 111 12 44 59 44 42 22

Department of Public Health & Environment: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


HEALTH PROFESSIONAL III 28 143.1 19.6% 23 1 4 12 13 3 0 ENVIRON PROTECT SPEC II 6 112.7 5.3% 5 0 1 2 2 2 0 ENVIRON PROTECT SPEC III 4 48.7 8.2% 2 0 2 0 3 1 0

PHY SCI RES/SCIENTIST II 1 42.7 2.3% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 HEALTH PROFESSIONAL IV 6 40.6 14.8% 3 0 3 1 1 0 4


Department of Public Health & Environment: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


DEPT OF PUB HLTH & ENVIRONMENT 167 1,371.6 12.2% 111 12 44 59 44 42 22 Department Total 167 1,371.6 12.2% 111 12 44 59 44 42 22


Department of Public Safety: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th STATE PATROL TROOPER III 15 213.8 7.0% 5 0 10 1 4 10 0

POLICE COMMUNICATION TECH 13 103.4 12.6% 9 2 2 0 12 1 0 STATE PATROL CADET 10 27.5 36.4% 9 1 0 0 10 0 0

STATE PATROL TROOPER 10 377.8 2.6% 5 2 3 7 0 3 0 TECHNICIAN III 9 42.4 21.2% 7 1 1 9 0 0 0


Department of Public Safety: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


STATE PATROL TROOPER 10 377.8 2.6% 5 2 3 7 0 3 0 STATE PATROL TROOPER III 15 213.8 7.0% 5 0 10 1 4 10 0

POLICE COMMUNICATION TECH 13 103.4 12.6% 9 2 2 0 12 1 0 STATE PATROL SUPERVISOR 4 100.6 4.0% 0 1 3 0 0 1 3

PORT OF ENTRY I 3 68.8 4.4% 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 Top Classes Total 45 864.3 5.2% 19 6 20 9 17 15 4 Department Total 118 1,736.1 6.8% 70 11 37 37 38 30 13

Department of Public Safety: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 118 1,736.1 6.8% 70 11 37 37 38 30 13 Department Total 118 1,736.1 6.8% 70 11 37 37 38 30 13


Department of Regulatory Agencies: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th ADMIN ASSISTANT III 9 57.9 15.5% 3 2 4 7 1 1 0

INSPECTOR III 4 34.8 11.5% 2 0 2 3 1 0 0 FIN/CREDIT EXAMINER II 4 25.8 15.5% 1 1 2 0 3 1 0

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT II 3 16.9 17.7% 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 TECHNICIAN III 3 13.1 22.9% 3 0 0 3 0 0 0

PROGRAM ASSISTANT I 3 15.0 20.0% 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 FIN/CREDIT EXAMINER IV 3 8.4 35.6% 1 0 2 0 1 0 2


Department of Regulatory Agencies: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


ADMIN ASSISTANT III 9 57.9 15.5% 3 2 4 7 1 1 0 INSPECTOR III 4 34.8 11.5% 2 0 2 3 1 0 0

FIN/CREDIT EXAMINER II 4 25.8 15.5% 1 1 2 0 3 1 0 FIN/CREDIT EXAMINER III 2 19.8 10.1% 0 0 2 1 1 0 0

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT II 3 16.9 17.7% 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 Top Classes Total 22 155.3 14.2% 8 3 11 12 7 3 0 Department Total 47 531.8 8.8% 21 4 22 26 11 6 4


Department of Regulatory Agencies: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


ACCOUNTANCY BOARD 0 2.3 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BARBERS & COSMETOLOGISTS BOARD 0 4.3 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CHIROPRACTIC BOARD 0 0.6 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 2 22.1 9.1% 1 0 1 2 0 0 0

COMPLAINTS & INVESTIGATIONS 0 1.0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DENTAL BOARD 0 4.3 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DIRECTOR OF REGISTRATIONS 6 82.4 7.3% 4 1 1 4 0 1 1 DIVISION OF BANKING 5 36.8 13.6% 1 1 3 0 3 1 1

DIVISION OF FINANCIAL SERVICES 2 12.1 16.6% 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 DIVISION OF INSURANCE 3 78.9 3.8% 0 0 3 1 1 0 1

DIVISION OF REAL ESTATE 3 55.0 5.5% 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 DIVISION OF SECURITIES 3 24.3 12.3% 2 0 1 0 2 1 0

DORA - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 3 23.3 12.9% 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 ELECTRICAL BOARD 3 37.4 8.0% 1 0 2 2 1 0 0

ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS BOARD 0 5.0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MASSAGE THERAPISTS 1 3.9 25.5% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

MEDICAL EXAMINERS BOARD 2 8.3 24.0% 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 MENTAL HEALTH BOARDS 1 4.8 20.7% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

NURSING BOARD 2 13.4 14.9% 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATORS BD 0 2.0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

OFFICE OF CONSUMER COUNSEL 1 7.1 14.1% 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 OPTOMETRIC BOARD 1 0.6 171.4% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 OUTFITTERS BOARD 0 1.0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PASSENGER TRAMWAY SAFETY BOARD 0 2.0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHARMACY BOARD 3 6.4 46.8% 2 0 1 2 1 0 0

PHYSICAL THERAPY BOARD 0 0.1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLUMBERS BOARD 1 12.3 8.1% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 5 79.9 6.3% 3 0 2 3 1 1 0 Department Total 47 531.8 8.8% 21 4 22 26 11 6 4


Department of Revenue: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TECHNICIAN I 56 101.0 55.4% 40 16 0 56 0 0 0

ADMIN ASSISTANT II 31 168.3 18.4% 25 0 6 27 1 3 0 TAX EXAMINER I 25 107.9 23.2% 18 6 1 25 0 0 0 TECHNICIAN II 14 62.8 22.3% 12 2 0 14 0 0 0

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR I 6 77.5 7.7% 5 0 1 6 0 0 0 ADMIN ASSISTANT III 6 56.0 10.7% 3 2 1 6 0 0 0

TECHNICIAN III 6 59.2 10.1% 2 1 3 5 0 0 1 Top Classes Total 144 632.7 22.8% 105 27 12 139 1 3 1 Department Total 224 1,398.2 16.0% 152 34 38 183 19 16 6

Department of Revenue: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


ADMIN ASSISTANT II 31 168.3 18.4% 25 0 6 27 1 3 0 TAX EXAMINER I 25 107.9 23.2% 18 6 1 25 0 0 0

TECHNICIAN I 56 101.0 55.4% 40 16 0 56 0 0 0 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR I 6 77.5 7.7% 5 0 1 6 0 0 0

TECHNICIAN II 14 62.8 22.3% 12 2 0 14 0 0 0 Top Classes Total 132 517.5 25.5% 100 24 8 128 1 3 0 Department Total 224 1,398.2 16.0% 152 34 38 183 19 16 6

Department of Revenue: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


REVENUE - ADMINISTRATION 207 1,202.8 17.2% 142 32 33 175 16 11 5 REVENUE - GAMING DIVISION 6 83.3 7.2% 6 0 0 3 1 1 1

STATE LOTTERY DIVISION 11 112.1 9.8% 4 2 5 5 2 4 0 Department Total 224 1,398.2 16.0% 152 34 38 183 19 16 6


Secretary of State: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th TECHNICIAN II 5 9.0 55.6% 3 2 0 0 4 1 0

ANALYST II 1 2.9 34.3% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 ELECTIONS SPECIALIST II 1 3.3 30.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

IT PROFESSIONAL 1 27.2 3.7% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 TECHNICIAN III 1 4.1 24.5% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

COMPL INVESTIGATOR I 1 1.5 66.7% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Top Classes Total 10 48.0 20.8% 8 2 0 2 5 2 1 Department Total 10 111.3 9.0% 8 2 0 2 5 2 1

Secretary of State: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


IT PROFESSIONAL 1 27.2 3.7% 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 TECHNICIAN II 5 9.0 55.6% 3 2 0 0 4 1 0 TECHNICIAN III 1 4.1 24.5% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

ELECTIONS SPECIALIST II 1 3.3 30.0% 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ANALYST II 1 2.9 34.3% 1 0 0 0 0 1 0


Secretary of State: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


DEPARTMENT OF STATE 10 111.3 9.0% 8 2 0 2 5 2 1 Department Total 10 111.3 9.0% 8 2 0 2 5 2 1


State Auditor's Office: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary Range

Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR 5 60.2 8.3% 3 2 0 3 2 0 0


State Auditor's Office: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class


LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR 5 60.2 8.3% 3 2 0 3 2 0 0 Top Classes Total 5 60.2 8.3% 3 2 0 3 2 0 0 Department Total 5 67.8 7.4% 3 2 0 3 2 0 0

State Auditor's Office: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency


STATE AUDITOR 5 67.8 7.4% 3 2 0 3 2 0 0 Department Total 5 67.8 7.4% 3 2 0 3 2 0 0


Department of Transportation: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations

Class & Separations Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary

Range Class Title Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

TRANSPORTATION MTC I 132 788.3 16.7% 90 23 19 43 35 5 49 TRANSPORTATION MTC II 22 252.3 8.7% 5 4 13 6 16 0 0

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I 12 161.9 7.4% 7 0 5 2 4 6 0 ADMINISTRATOR III 9 34.3 26.2% 5 2 2 7 1 1 0 ADMINISTRATOR IV 9 62.2 14.5% 6 0 3 6 0 3 0 Top Classes Total 184 1,298.9 14.2% 113 29 42 64 56 15 49 Department Total 318 2,938.7 10.8% 165 41 112 99 95 59 65

Department of Transportation: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class



TRANSPORTATION MTC I 132 788.3 16.7% 90 23 19 43 35 5 49 TRANSPORTATION MTC II 22 252.3 8.7% 5 4 13 6 16 0 0

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I 12 161.9 7.4% 7 0 5 2 4 6 0 TRANSPORTATION MTC III 8 100.7 7.9% 1 0 7 0 1 4 3

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER II 2 92.8 2.2% 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Top Classes Total 176 1,395.9 12.6% 103 27 46 51 56 17 52 Department Total 318 2,938.7 10.8% 165 41 112 99 95 59 65

Department of Transportation: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency

FY 2016-17 Separations By Agency Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary

Range Agency Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

COLO DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 318 2,938.7 10.8% 165 41 112 99 95 59 65 Department Total 318 2,938.7 10.8% 165 41 112 99 95 59 65


Department of Treasury: Job Class Turnover Rate by Number of Separations



ADMIN ASSISTANT I 1 3.3 30.0% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL IV 1 0.9 109.1% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN II 1 0.4 240.0% 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

AUDITOR II 1 1.0 100.0% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 INVESTMENT OFFICER I 1 1.3 80.0% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0


Department of Treasury: Job Class Turnover Rate by Average Employees In Class



ADMIN ASSISTANT I 1 3.3 30.0% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 INVESTMENT OFFICER I 1 1.3 80.0% 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

AUDITOR II 1 1.0 100.0% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 GENERAL PROFESSIONAL IV 1 0.9 109.1% 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN II 1 0.4 240.0% 0 0 1 1 0 0 0


Department of Treasury: Summary of Classified Staff Turnover for FY 2016-17 by Agency

FY 2016-17 Separations By Agency Separation Type Employees in Quartile of Class Salary

Range Agency Separations Avg Employees Turnover Rate Voluntary Involuntary Retire 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY 5 25.3 19.7% 2 0 3 3 0 2 0 Department Total 5 25.3 19.7% 2 0 3 3 0 2 0

amount of funds received end of year FY17 5$

one-time or multi-year revenue multi-year revenue

current fund balance 1,601$

source of the funds

Object Object Name 2016 2017 2018 2019

2180 Grounds Maintenance 1,901$ -$ -$ -$

4170 Miscellaneous Fees And Fines 66$ -$ -$ -$

Grand Total 1,967$ -$ -$ -$

Colorado Veterans' Monument Preservation Trust Fund

Only the interest income on the principle may be expended and only the

interest income shall be continually appropriated to the Department of

Personnel for allocation for maintenance of the monument.

legal authorization and restrictions/limitations on use of fundsThe fund was established for the expenditures and maintenance of the

Veterans Monument and Lincoln Park.

Actuals ProjectionsExpenditures

Department of Personnel & Administration - Appendix H

amount of funds received end of year FY17 1,242,271$


current fund balance 9,545,419$

source of the funds

Projection

Object Object Name 2016 2017 2018

2160 Custodial/Cleaning/Waste Disposal Services 31,498$ 30,822$ 31,021$

2180 Grounds Maintenance 191,249$ 116,561$ 255,240$

2220 Building Maintenance 32,182$ 106,970$ 73,493$

2230 Equipment Maintenance 1,998$ 6,879$ 4,781$

2312 Construction Consultant Services 15,400$ 60,128$ 502,100$

2630 Communication Charges - OIT 23,643$ 30,536$ 9,890$

2631 Communication Charges - External -$ 867$ 155$

2680 Printing and Reproduction Services 13$ 3$ 28$

2690 Legal Services 1,060$ 1,452$ 5,680$

2810 Freight 535$ 562$ 338$

2820 Purchased Services -$ 420$ -$

3123 Postage 35$ 7$ 6$

3126 Repair and Maintenance 27,947$ 13,756$ 4,473$

4170 Miscellaneous Fees And Fines 2,750$ 2,761$ 2,750$

6710 Bond/Note/Certification of Participation Principal 784,870$ 485,000$ 505,000$

6720 Bond/Note/Certificate of Participation Interest 23,185$ 199,116$ 110,757$

Grand Total 1,136,366$ 1,055,840$ 1,505,712$

Capital Parking Fund

Monies collected from rental of parking spaces to specific departments.

Resources within the fund are used for maintenance, paying the lease on the lots, and

repayment of COPs.legal authorization and restrictions/limitations on use of funds

ActualsExpenditures

FY19 Projection These funds will continue to be used for program expenses in a manner reflected below.





source of the funds

Projections


1110 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Regular Full-Time Wages 247,124$ 238,487$ 264,941$

1130 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Overtime Wages 1$ -$ -$

1140 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Annual Leave Payments 1,337$ -$ -$

1141 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Sick Leave Payments 23$ -$ -$

1210 Contractual Employee Regular Full-Time Wages 872$ 989$ 1,099$

1340 Employee Cash Incentive Awards 103$ 10$ 11$

1360 Non-Base Building Performance Pay 501$ -$ -$

1510 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Dental Insurance 1,775$ 1,897$ 2,107$

1511 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Health Insurance 34,781$ 38,236$ 42,477$

1512 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Life Insurance 375$ 348$ 387$

1513 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Disability 460$ 455$ 505$

1520 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System FICA-Medicare Contrib. 3,506$ 3,396$ 3,773$

1521 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Other Retirement Plans 135$ 98$ 109$

1522 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System PERA 24,467$ 23,727$ 26,359$

1524 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System PERA - AED 10,629$ 11,268$ 12,518$

Risk Management Liability Fund

Risk Liability Common Policy

legal authorization and restrictions/limitations on use of funds

This fund was created to maintain reserves for incurred but unpaid claims,

including general liability and automobile liability claims. This fund also pays

deductibles for insurance purchased by or at the direction of the division and

pays premiums for one or more policies of insurance purchased to protect against

all or a portion of the liabilities directed towards the state, agency, officers, or

employees thereof. This fund is also responsible for the payment of

administrative costs.

Expenditures Actuals

FY19 ProjectionThese funds will continue to be used for claims and other program expenses in a

manner reflected below.



1525 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Pera - Supplemental AED 10,256$ 11,151$ 12,388$

1532 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Unemployment Comp. (187)$ -$ -$

1533 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Workers' Compensation 1,484$ 2,245$ 2,242$

1622 Contractual Employee PERA 1,419$ -$ -$

1624 Contractual Employee PERA-AED 577$ -$ -$

1625 Contractual Employee Pera - Supplemental AED 547$ -$ -$

1920 Personal Services - Professional 381,004$ 331,074$ 776,161$

1930 Purchased Services - Litigation (0)$ 9,673$ -$

1935 Personal Services - Legal Services 443,756$ 215,272$ 275,698$

2252 Rental/Motor Pool Mile Charge (0)$ 688$ 45$

2255 Rental of Buildings 6,297$ 6,075$ 7,070$

2259 Parking Fee Reimbursement -$ 8$ 12$

2510 In-State Travel 308$ 1,025$ -$

2512 In-State Personal Travel Per Diem 427$ 562$ 56$

2513 In-State Employee Mileage Reimbursement 455$ 30$ -$

2530 Out-of-State Travel -$ 107$ -$

2531 Out-of-State Common Carrier Fares -$ 115$ -$

2532 Out-of-State Personal Travel Per Diem -$ 13$ -$

2630 Communication Charges - Office of Information Technology 2,669$ 2,736$ 2,956$

2632 MNT Payments to the Office of Information Technology 28,885$ 54,953$ -$

2650 Office of Information Technology Purchased Services -$ -$ 34,413$

2655 DPA - Information Technology Services 3,076$ 2,983$ 2,827$

2660 Insurance for Other Than Employee Benefits 313,128$ 337,660$ 377,047$

2680 Printing and Reproduction Services 1,342$ 1,130$ 948$

2690 Legal Services 2,963,785$ 3,605,883$ 3,311,154$

2820 Purchased Services 1,242$ -$ -$

3120 Books/Periodicals/Subscriptions 161$ 2,048$ -$

3121 Office Supplies 367$ 303$ 28$

3123 Postage 1,951$ 2,005$ 1,489$

3128 Noncapitalizable Equipment -$ 181$ -$

3132 Noncapitalizable Furniture and Office Systems 162$ 677$ -$

3140 Noncapitalizable Information Technology 1,816$ 1,277$ 9,520$

4100 Other Operating Expenses 187$ 365$ 430$



4112 Actual Damages - Phys Injury/Illness 1,097,043$ 238,143$ 234,606$

4113 Actual Damages - Property 541,186$ 441,826$ 435,264$

4117 Reportable Claims Against The State 136,230$ 252,317$ 248,570$

4118 Gross Proceeds To Attorneys 525,318$ 2,047,210$ 2,016,804$

4119 Claimant Attorney Fees 1,628,710$ 877,611$ 864,576$

4140 Dues and Memberships 478$ 527$ 1,250$

4150 Interest Expense 1,217$ -$ -$

4170 Miscellaneous Fees And Fines -$ 880$ -$

4180 Official Functions 30$ -$ 188$

4220 Registration Fees -$ 1,078$ 250$

700A Operating Transfers to Personnel 1,405,299$ 1,357,066$ 1,037,893$

7200 Transfers Out For Indirect Costs - Cash 60,098$ 73,662$ 81,415$

Grand Total 9,886,811$ 10,199,470$ 10,089,584$





source of the funds

Projection




1210 Contractual Employee Regular Full-Time Wages 347$ 385$ 195$



1510 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Dental Insurance 593$ 456$ 231$




1520 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System FICA-Medicare Contrib. 1,508$ 1,079$ 547$





1532 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Unemployment Comp. (151)$ -$ -$

1533 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Workers' Compensation 417$ 898$ 897$

1920 Personal Services - Professional 153,669$ 230,566$ 189,500$

2252 Rental/Motor Pool Mile Charge 1,038$ 288$ 81$


2259 Parking Fee Reimbursement -$ 8$ -$

Risk Management Self-Insured Property Fund

Risk Property Common Policy


This fund was created to cover the loss or damage to state property, pay premiums for

policies of insurance to protect against such claims, and pay the administrative costs for

operating the division.


FY19 ProjectionThese funds will continue to be used for claims and other program expenses in a manner

reflected below.


Risk Management Self-Insured Property Fund

2512 In-State Personal Travel Per Diem 17$ 26$ -$

2513 In-State Employee Mileage Reimbursement 26$ 30$ -$




2630 Communication Charges - Office of Information Technology 319$ 275$ 303$

2632 MNT Payments to the Office of Information Technology 8,124$ 21,981$ 13,765$


2655 DPA - Information Technology Services 865$ 1,193$ -$

2660 Insurance for Other Than Employee Benefits 4,838,598$ 4,864,048$ 4,620,122$

2680 Printing and Reproduction Services 7$ 64$ 99$

2820 Purchased Services 58$ -$ -$

3120 Books/Periodicals/Subscriptions 2,136$ 125$ -$

3121 Office Supplies 2$ 34$ 28$

3123 Postage 232$ 226$ 218$

3128 Noncapitalizable Equipment -$ 181$ -$

3132 Noncapitalizable Furniture and Office Systems 323$ 730$ -$

3140 Noncapitalizable Information Technology 409$ 2,831$ 216$

4100 Other Operating Expenses 187$ -$ -$

4113 Actual Damages - Property 5,838,017$ 9,433,634$ 9,276,547$

4140 Dues and Memberships 303$ 322$ -$

4150 Interest Expense 8,106$ 1,906$ -$


4180 Official Functions 11$ -$ 177$

4220 Registration Fees 750$ 495$ -$


7A0A Transfers to Other Risk Funds -$ -$ 741,471$

Grand Total 11,015,034$ 14,689,571$ 14,927,429$





source of the funds

Projection




1140 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Annual Leave Payments 171$ 5,626$ 7,499$

1141 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Sick Leave Payments -$ 2,241$ 2,987$

1210 Contractual Employee Regular Full-Time Wages 1,290$ 1,468$ 1,957$



1510 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Dental Insurance 2,098$ 1,299$ 1,731$




1520 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System FICA-Medicare Contrib. 4,194$ 3,350$ 4,466$





1532 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Unemployment Comp. 805$ 10,529$ 14,035$

1533 Statutory Personnel & Payroll System Workers' Compensation 3,431$ 3,312$ 3,307$

1920 Personal Services - Professional 2,346,121$ 1,971,370$ 2,020,806$

Risk Management Workers' Compensation Insurance Account


Risk Workers Compensation Common Policy


This fund was created to establish a workers' compensation self-insurance program for

state employees or for the procurement of commercial workers' compensation

insurance.

FY19 ProjectionThese funds will continue to be used for the procurement of commercial workers'

compensation insurance and other program expenses in a manner reflected below.



1930 Purchased Services - Litigation 0$ 38,535$ -$

1935 Personal Services - Legal Services 866,348$ 120,380$ 150,844$

2230 Equipment Maintenance 179$ -$ -$

2252 Rental/Motor Pool Mile Charge 2,655$ 952$ 3,093$

2254 Rental of Motor Vehicles 115$ -$ -$


2259 Parking Fee Reimbursement -$ 8$ -$

2510 In-State Travel 1,711$ 350$ 1,958$

2512 In-State Personal Travel Per Diem 741$ 26$ 480$

2513 In-State Employee Mileage Reimbursement 1,266$ 30$ 2,060$




2630 Communication Charges - Office of Information Technology 2,054$ 884$ 991$

2631 Communication Charges - External 2,708$ 859$ 844$

2632 MNT Payments to the Office of Information Technology 66,798$ 81,056$ -$

2655 DPA - Information Technology Services 7,113$ 4,399$ -$


2655 DPA - Information Technology Services -$ -$ 4,169$

2660 Insurance for Other Than Employee Benefits 642,406$ 558,309$ 616,686$

2661 Indemnity Claims 13,070,155$ 13,224,716$ 13,847,810$

2662 Medical Claims 17,417,516$ 17,988,321$ 19,513,485$

2663 Workers Compensation Surcharge 67,030$ 135,355$ 142,236$

2680 Printing and Reproduction Services 4,988$ 1,136$ 1,234$

2690 Legal Services 1,402,777$ 1,472,536$ 1,874,210$

2810 Freight 124$ 30$ -$

2820 Purchased Services 973$ -$ -$

3110 Supplies and Materials 11,624$ -$ 4,703$

3120 Books/Periodicals/Subscriptions 354$ 14,794$ 7,500$

3121 Office Supplies 677$ 1,154$ 885$

3123 Postage 232$ 2,108$ 2,264$

3128 Noncapitalizable Equipment 9,415$ 32,066$ -$

3132 Noncapitalizable Furniture and Office Systems -$ 1,937$ -$

3140 Noncapitalizable Information Technology 11,728$ 26,364$ 444$

4100 Other Operating Expenses 187$ 487$ 573$



4140 Dues and Memberships 2,401$ 1,415$ 6,240$

4150 Interest Expense 441$ -$ -$

4170 Miscellaneous Fees And Fines 192$ 416$ -$

4180 Official Functions 12,969$ 710$ 188$

4220 Registration Fees 679$ 1,873$ 286$


7A0A Transfers to Other Risk Funds -$ 741,471$ -$

Grand Total 36,468,932$ 36,856,710$ 38,811,851$





source of the funds

Projection


4150 Interest Expense 42$ -$ -$


7000 Operating Transfers to State Dept & Tabor Ent - Same Cabinet 532,844$ -$ -$

700A Operating Transfers to Personnel 612,493$ 1,237,118$ 1,421,625$

Grand Total 1,145,379$ 1,237,175$ 1,421,625$

Supplemental State Contribution Fund


Tobacco funds received under HB 07-1335


This fund was created for the Supplemental State Contribution Program for eligible

state employees with the intent to provide access to affordable and adequate health

insurance offered by the state to as many children of lower-income state employees

as possible, and to encourage lower-income employees wtih dependent children to

enroll in health insurance plans by supplementing the plan premiums.

FY19 Projection These funds will continue to be used for eligible state employees as noted above.





source of the funds

Projection


1920 Personal Services - Professional 18,446,754$ 19,416,020$ 19,762,592$

1960 Personal Services - Info Tech 914,833$ 893,760$ 884,640$



2680 Printing and Reproduction Services 1,888$ 2,738$ 1,840$

2820 Purchased Services 23,100$ 24,254$ -$

3120 Books/Periodicals/Subscriptions -$ 2,203$ 6,666$

3123 Postage 11,566$ 6,663$ 13$

4150 Interest Expense 40,473$ 67$ -$

4170 Miscellaneous Fees And Fines 1,447,511$ 948,241$ 69,667$

4250 Health Insurance Claims Paid 170,155,513$ 182,716,140$ 194,380,922$

4255 Health Insurance Premiums Paid 156,849,317$ 154,866,989$ 150,368,538$

4256 Other Benefit Plan Expense 26,174,537$ 30,392,797$ 31,419,935$

7000 Operating Transfers to State Dept & Tabor Ent - Same Cabinet 1,977,642$ -$ -$

700A Operating Transfers to Personnel 2,644,941$ -$ -$

7A0A Operating Transfers to Personnel - Intrafund 3,440,374$ 4,270,148$ 4,252,770$

Grand Total 382,128,447$ 393,540,428$ 401,147,583$

Employee Benefits Plan Fund


Portions of both Employee and State share of medical insurance premiums


This fund was created to establish the group benefit plans reserve fund. All payments

received from employees and the State for group benefit plans are deposited into this

fund. The money in this fund is used for the payment of premiums, claims costs, and

other administrative fees and costs associated with the group benefit plans including

wellness program activities.

FY19 Projection

These funds will continue to be used for the payment of premiums, claims costs,

wellness activities and other administrative fees and costs associated with the group

benefit plans in a manner reflected below.


department of person nel fy 2018-19 joint ......8-jan-2018 1 personnel-hearing department of person...

Documents