U.S. Department of Commerce - Office of the Secretary U.S. Department of commerce seal


   
 
HR Practitioners banner

Home > HR Practitioners > Compensation & Leave

Commerce Alternative Personnel System Year Nine Report

Printable View

APPENDIX D-2, YEARS ONE – NINE

OBJECTIVE DATA RESULTS

PREVIOUS YEARS’ OBJECTIVE DATA RESULTS1

Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Employees

Year One—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Employees

Year Two—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Employees

Year Three—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants

Year Four—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants

    Note: This analysis is based on 2,099 of the 2,641 Demonstration Group participants for whom salary data were available.

Year Five—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants

Note: This analysis is based on the 2,723 of the 3,072 Demonstration Group participants for whom salary data were available.

Year Six—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants

Note: This analysis is based on 2,734 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants who had eligible performance ratings and for whom salary data were available.

Year Seven—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants

    Note: This analysis is based on 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants who had eligible performance ratings and for whom salary data were available.

Year Eight—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants


    Note:

    1. This analysis is based on 3,735 of the 4,650 Demonstration Group participants who had eligible performance scores2 and for whom salary data were available. There were an additional 262 Demonstration Group participants who had eligible performance scores but for whom salary data were not available.

Year Nine—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants

Note:

1. This analysis is based on 3,692 of the 7,699 Demonstration Group participants who had eligible performance scores and for whom salary data were available. There were an additional 361 Demonstration Group participants who had eligible performance scores but for whom salary data were not available.

Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Employees – By Wave

(This analysis was first performed in Year Seven.)

Year Seven—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants – Wave 1 Only

Year Seven—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants – Wave 2 Only

Year Eight—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants – Wave 1 Only

Year Eight—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants – Wave 2 Only

Year Nine—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants – Wave 1 Only

Year Nine—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Demonstration Group Participants - Wave 2 Only

Range of Percent Salary Increases for Comparison Group Employees

Year One—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Comparison Group Employees

Year Two—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Comparison Group Employees

Year Three—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Comparison Group Participants

Note: The Year Three bar for zero percent salary increases was revised in Year Four to reflect a correction. The corrected data point did not change the previously stated mean and standard deviation.

Year Four—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Comparison Group Participants

Note: This analysis is based on 1,619 of the 1,821 Comparison Group participants for whom salary data were available.

Year Five—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Comparison Group Participants

Note: This analysis is based on the 1,556 of the 1,811 Comparison Group participants for whom salary data were available.

Year Six—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Comparison Group Participants

    Note: This analysis is based on 1,865 of the 2,134 Comparison Group participants who had eligible performance ratings and for whom salary data were available.

Year Seven—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Comparison Group Participants

Note: This analysis is based on 1,834 of the 2,113 Comparison Group participants who had eligible performance ratings and for whom salary data were available.

Year Eight—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Comparison Group Participants

Note: This analysis is based on 1,951 of the 2,124 Comparison Group participants who had eligible performance ratings and for whom salary data were available.

Year Nine—Range of Percent Salary Increases for Comparison Group Participants

        Note: This analysis is based on 4,211 of the 5,230 Comparison Group participants who had eligible performance ratings and for whom salary data were available.

Range of Bonus Percentages for Demonstration Group Employees

Year One—Range of Bonus Percentages for Demonstration Group Employees

Year Two—Range of Bonus Percentages for Demonstration Group Employees

Year Three—Range of Bonus Percentages for Demonstration Group Participants

Year Four—Range of Bonus Percentages for Demonstration Group Participants

Notes:

1. This analysis is based on the 2,099 of the 2,641 Demonstration Group participants for whom bonus data were available.

2. Average bonus percentages are based on actions effective in November 2001, as reported in the Year Four data file provided by DoC.

Year Five—Range of Bonus Percentages for Demonstration Group Participants

Notes:

1. Average bonus percentages are based on actions effective in November 2002, as reported in the Year Five data file provided by DoC.

2. This analysis is based on the 2,723 of the 3,072 Demonstration Group participants for whom salary data were available.

3. In Year Five, the analysis of bonus/award data was addressed in two separate ways for the Demonstration Group. The original analysis was based solely on performance-based bonuses, consistent with previous years. The expanded analysis was based on all bonuses/awards received by Demonstration Group participants and allows inclusion of “Special Act” awards and Other Awards, given that these were accounted for in the Comparison Group calculation.

Year Six—Range of Bonus Percentages for Demonstration Group Participants

Notes:

1. This analysis is based on the 2,747 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants for whom bonus data were available.

2. Average bonus percentages are based on actions effective in November 2003, as reported in the Year Six data file provided by DoC.

3. In Years Five and Six, the analysis of bonus/award data was addressed in two separate ways for the Demonstration Group. The original analysis was based solely on performance-based bonuses, consistent with previous years. The expanded analysis was based on all bonuses/awards received by Demonstration Group participants and allows inclusion of “Special Act” awards and Other Awards, given that these were accounted for in the Comparison Group calculation.

Year Seven—Range of Bonus Percentages for Demonstration Group Participants

Notes:

1. This analysis is based on the 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants for whom bonus data were available.

2. Average bonus percentages are based on actions effective in November 2004, as reported in the Year Seven data file provided by DoC.

3. From Year Five on, the analysis of bonus/award data was addressed in two separate ways for the Demonstration Group. The original analysis was based solely on performance-based bonuses, consistent with previous years. The expanded analysis was based on all bonuses/awards received by Demonstration Group participants and allows inclusion of “Special Act” awards and Other Awards, given that these were accounted for in the Comparison Group calculation.

Year Eight—Range of Bonus Percentages for Demonstration Group Participants

    Notes:

    1. This analysis is based on the Demonstration Group participants for whom bonus data were available.

    2. From Year Five on, the analysis of bonus/award data was addressed in two separate ways for the Demonstration Group. The original analysis was based solely on performance-based bonuses, consistent with previous years. The expanded analysis was based on all bonuses/awards received by Demonstration Group participants and allows inclusion of “Special Act” awards and Other Awards, given that these were accounted for in the Comparison Group calculation.

Year Nine—Range of Bonus Percentages for Demonstration Group Participants

    Notes:

    1. This analysis is based on the Demonstration Group participants for whom bonus data were available.

    2. From Year Five on, the analysis of bonus/award data was addressed in two separate ways for the Demonstration Group. The original analysis was based solely on performance-based bonuses, consistent with previous years. The expanded analysis was based on all bonuses/awards received by Demonstration Group participants and allows inclusion of “Special Act” awards and Other Awards, given that these were accounted for in the Comparison Group calculation.

Range of Award Percentages for Comparison Group Employees

Year One—Range of Award Percentages for Comparison Group Employees

Year Two—Range of Award Percentages for Comparison Group Employees

Year Three—Range of Award Percentages for Comparison Group Participants

Year Four—Range of Award Percentages for Comparison Group Participants

Note: This analysis is based on the 1,619 of the 1,821 Comparison Group participants for whom salary data were available.

Year Five—Range of Award Percentages for Comparison Group Participants

Note: This analysis is based on the 1,556 of the 1,811 Comparison Group participants for whom salary data were available.

Year Six—Range of Award Percentages for Comparison Group Participants

Note: This analysis is based on 1,873 of the 2,134 Comparison Group participants who had eligible performance ratings and for whom award data were available.

Year Seven—Range of Award Percentages for Comparison Group Participants

Note: This analysis is based on 1,834 of the 2,113 Comparison Group participants who had eligible performance ratings and for whom award data were available.

Year Eight—Range of Award Percentages for Comparison Group Participants

    Note: This analysis is based on 1,955 of the 2,124 Comparison Group participants who had eligible performance ratings and for whom award data were available.

Year Nine—Range of Award Percentages for Comparison Group Participants

    Note: This analysis is based on 4,211 of the 5,230 Comparison Group participants who had eligible performance ratings and for whom award data were available.

Capped Employees by Race/National Origin

(This analysis was first performed in Year Six.)

Year Six—Capped Employees by Race/National Origin

RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN

REPRESENTATION AMONG CAPPED EMPLOYEES

REPRESENTATION AMONG NEARLY CAPPED EMPLOYEES

OVERALL REPRESENTATION IN THE DEMONSTRATION GROUP

White (not of Hispanic origin)

73%

80%

80%

Black (not of Hispanic origin)

21%

13%

12%

Hispanic

3%

3%

3%

Asian or Pacific Islander

3%

4%

4%

American Indian or Alaskan Native

0%

1%

<1%

Note: This analysis is based on the 150 (and 375) Demonstration Group participants who had eligible performance ratings and for whom salary data were available had salaries at the maximums (near the maximums) for their pay bands

Year Seven—Capped Employees by Race/National Origin

RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN

REPRESENTATION AMONG CAPPED EMPLOYEES

REPRESENTATION AMONG NEARLY CAPPED EMPLOYEES

OVERALL REPRESENTATION IN THE DEMONSTRATION GROUP

White (not of Hispanic origin)

81%

75%

79%

Black (not of Hispanic origin)

12%

16%

13%

Hispanic

3%

4%

3%

Asian or Pacific Islander

4%

5%

5%

American Indian or Alaskan Native

<1%

0%

<1%

Note: This analysis is based on the 424 (and 312) Demonstration Group participants who had salaries at the maximums (near the maximums) for their pay bands, had eligible performance ratings, and for whom salary data were available.

Year Eight—Capped Employees by Race/National Origin

RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN

REPRESENTATION AMONG CAPPED EMPLOYEES

REPRESENTATION AMONG NEARLY CAPPED EMPLOYEES

OVERALL REPRESENTATION IN THE DEMONSTRATION GROUP

White (not of Hispanic origin)

82%

82%

77%

Black (not of Hispanic origin)

11%

13%

13%

Hispanic

4%

1%

3%

Asian or Pacific Islander

3%

4%

6%

American Indian or Alaskan Native

0%

1%

<1%

Notes:

1. The first two columns are based on the 573 (and 280) Demonstration Group participants who had salaries at the maximums (near the maximums) for their pay bands, had eligible performance ratings, and for whom salary and race/national origin data were available.

2. The third column is based on all Demonstration Group participants in the database for whom race/national origin data were available.

Year Nine—Capped Employees by Race/National Origin

Race/National Origin

Representation Among Capped Employees

Representation Among Nearly Capped Employees

Overall Representation in the Demonstration Group

White (not of Hispanic origin)

84%

76%

78%

Black (not of Hispanic origin)

9%

15%

13%

Hispanic

3%

4%

3%

Asian or Pacific Islander

3%

5%

6%

American Indian or Alaskan Native

0%

1%

1%

Notes:

1. The first two columns are based on the 706 (and 338) Demonstration Group participants who had salaries at the maximum (near the maximum) for their pay bands, had eligible performance ratings, and for whom salary and race/national origin data were available.

2. The third column is based on all Demonstration Group participants in the database for whom race/national origin data were available.

Capped Employees by Band

(This analysis was first performed in Year Seven.)

Year Seven—Capped Employees by Band

BAND

REPRESENTATION AMONG CAPPED EMPLOYEES

REPRESENTATION AMONG NEARLY CAPPED EMPLOYEES

OVERALL REPRESENTATION IN THE DEMONSTRATION GROUP

Band 1

0%

1%

<1%

Band 2

4%

12%

11%

Band 3

40%

41%

34%

Band 4

44%

22%

44%

Band 5

13%

23%

11%

Note: This analysis is based on the 424 (and 312) Demonstration Group participants who had salaries at the maximums (near the maximums) for their pay bands, had eligible performance ratings, and for whom salary data were available.

Year Eight—Capped Employees by Band

BAND

REPRESENTATION AMONG CAPPED EMPLOYEES

REPRESENTATION AMONG NEARLY CAPPED EMPLOYEES

OVERALL REPRESENTATION IN THE DEMONSTRATION GROUP

Band 1

<1%

1%

2%

Band 2

4%

13%

12%

Band 3

40%

39%

33%

Band 4

37%

33%

42%

Band 5

19%

15%

11%

Notes:

1. The first two columns are based on the 573 (and 280) Demonstration Group participants who had eligible performance ratings, for whom pay band data were available, for whom salary data were available, and who had salaries at the maximums (or near the maximums for their pay bands).

2. The third column is based on all Demonstration Group participants in the database for whom band data were available.

Year Nine—Capped Employees by Band

Band

Representation Among Capped Employees

Representation Among Nearly Capped Employees

Overall Representation in the Demonstration Group

Band 1

<1%

<1%

1%

Band 2

6%

10%

12%

Band 3

40%

41%

36%

Band 4

34%

39%

41%

Band 5

20%

9%

9%

Notes:

1. The first two columns are based on the 706 (and 338) Demonstration Group participants who had eligible performance ratings, for whom pay band data were available, for whom salary data were available, and who had salaries at the maximums (or near the maximums for their pay bands).

2. The third column is based on all Demonstration Group participants in the database for whom band data were available.

Capped Employees by Career Path

(This analysis was first performed in Year Seven.)

Year Seven—Capped Employees by Career Path

CAREER PATH

REPRESENTATION AMONG CAPPED EMPLOYEES

REPRESENTATION AMONG NEARLY CAPPED EMPLOYEES

OVERALL REPRESENTATION IN THE DEMONSTRATION GROUP

ZP

65%

53%

62%

ZT

7%

6%

6%

ZA

22%

13%

22%

ZS

7%

29%

11%

Note: This analysis is based on the 424 (and 312) Demonstration Group participants who had salaries at the maximums (near the maximums) for their pay bands, had eligible performance ratings, and for whom salary data were available.

Year Eight—Capped Employees by Career Path

CAREER PATH

REPRESENTATION AMONG CAPPED EMPLOYEES

REPRESENTATION AMONG NEARLY CAPPED EMPLOYEES

OVERALL REPRESENTATION IN THE DEMONSTRATION GROUP

ZP

65%

52%

60%

ZT

6%

6%

6%

ZA

19%

18%

24%

ZS

10%

24%

11%

Notes:

1. The first two columns are based on the 573 (and 280) Demonstration Group participants who had eligible performance ratings, for whom career path data were available, for whom salary data were available, and who had salaries at the maximums (or near the maximums for their pay bands).

2. The third column is based on all Demonstration Group participants in the database for whom career path data were available.

Year Nine—Capped Employees by Career Path

Career Path

Representation Among Capped Employees

Representation Among Nearly Capped Employees

Overall Representation in the Demonstration Group

ZP

66%

58%

54%

ZT

5%

4%

6%

ZA

19%

15%

31%

ZS

10%

23%

10%

Notes:

1 The first two columns are based on the 706 (and 338) Demonstration Group participants who had eligible performance ratings, for whom career path data were available, for whom salary data were available, and who had salaries at the maximums (or near the maximums for their pay bands).

2. The third column is based on all Demonstration Group participants in the database for whom career path data were available.

Salary Capping in a Subset of the Demonstration Group and the Comparison Group

(This analysis was first performed in Year Seven.)

Year Seven—Comparison of Salary Capping in a Subset of the Demonstration Group and Comparison Group

SUBSET

PERCENTAGE CAPPED

 

DEMONSTRATION GROUP

COMPARISON GROUP

ZA, Band 4 (or, ZA Equivalent, GS 14, Step 10)

12%

15%

ZP, Band 4 (or, ZP Equivalent, GS 14, Step 10)

10%

21%

ZA, Band 5 (or, ZA Equivalent, GS 15, Step 10)

10%

31%

ZP, Band 5 (or, ZP Equivalent, GS 15, Step 10)

12%

34%

Note: This analysis is based on participants who had salaries at the maximums for their pay bands, had eligible performance ratings, and for whom salary data were available.

Year Eight—Comparison of Salary Capping in a Subset of the Demonstration Group and Comparison Group

SUBSET

PERCENTAGE CAPPED

 

DEMONSTRATION GROUP

COMPARISON GROUP

ZA, Band 4 (or, ZA Equivalent, GS 14, Step 10)

13%

20%

ZP, Band 4 (or, ZP Equivalent, GS 14, Step 10)

11%

22%

ZA, Band 5 (or, ZA Equivalent, GS 15, Step 10)

13%

37%

ZP, Band 5 (or, ZP Equivalent, GS 15, Step 10)

29%

37%

Note: This analysis is based on participants who had salaries at the maximums for their pay bands, had eligible performance ratings, and for whom salary data were available.

Year Nine—Comparison of Salary Capping in a Subset of the Demonstration Group and Comparison Group

Subset

Percentage Capped

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

ZA, Band 4 (or, ZA Equivalent, GS 14, Step 10)

13%

5%

ZP, Band 4 (or, ZP Equivalent, GS 14, Step 10)

13%

16%

ZA, Band 5 (or, ZA Equivalent, GS 15, Step 10)

19%

12%

ZP, Band 5 (or, ZP Equivalent, GS 15, Step 10)

37%

17%

Note:

1. This analysis is based on participants who had salaries at the maximums for their pay bands, had eligible performance ratings, and for whom salary data were available.

Average Performance-Based Pay Increase by Career Path

(This analysis was first conducted in Year Three.)

Year Three—Average Performance-Based Pay Increase by Career Path

CAREER PATH

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY INCREASE

ZP

2.36%

ZT

1.86%

ZA

2.70%

ZS

1.63%

Overall

2.29%

Notes:

1. Average pay increase by career path were computed for Demonstration Project participants for whom pay band data were available.

2. Overall average pay increase is a non-weighted average given that it is intended to represent the Demonstration Project as a single entity.

Year Four—Average Performance-Based Pay Increase by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY INCREASE

ZP

1,372

2.60%

ZT

120

2.29%

ZA

379

3.13%

ZS

228

2.07%

Overall

2,099

2.62%

    Note: Average pay increase by career path were computed for 2,099 of the 2,641 Demonstration Group participants for whom pay band and salary data were available.

Year Five—Average Performance-Based Pay Increase by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY INCREASE

ZP

1,745

2.76%

ZT

165

2.07%

ZA

509

3.29%

ZS

304

2.17%

Overall

2,723

2.75%

    Note: Average pay increase by career path were computed for 2,723 of the 3,072 Demonstration Group participants for whom pay band and salary data were available. Average overall pay increase was computed by generating a weighted average to account for the different number of employees in each band.

Year Six—Average Performance-Based Pay Increase by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY INCREASE

ZP

1,758

2.85%

ZT

151

2.12%

ZA

528

3.27%

ZS

297

2.15%

Overall

2,734

2.81%

    Notes:

    1. Average pay increase by career path were computed for 2,734 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and salary data were available.

    2. Average overall pay increase represents a non-weighted average across the Demonstration Group.

Year Seven—Average Performance-Based Pay Increase by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY INCREASE

ZP

2,469

3.5%

ZT

217

2.3%

ZA

876

3.3%

ZS

417

2.3%

Overall

3,979

3.2%

Notes:

1. Average pay increase by career path were computed for 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and salary data were available.

2. Average overall pay increase represents the average across the Demonstration Group; it does not represent a straight average of the averages for each career path.

Year Eight—Average Performance-Based Pay Increase by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY INCREASE

ZP

2339

3.6%

ZT

190

2.4%

ZA

836

3.5%

ZS

370

2.4%

Overall

3735

3.4%

    Notes:

    1. Average pay increase by career path were computed for 3,735 of the 4,650 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and salary data were available.

    2. The overall average performance-based pay increase represents the average across the Demonstration Group; it does not represent a straight average of the averages for each career path.

Year Nine—Average Performance-Based Pay Increase by Career Path

Career Path

Number Of Employees

Average Performance-Based Pay Increase

ZP

2,334

3.3%

ZT

162

2.5%

ZA

856

3.5%

ZS

340

2.3%

Overall

3,692

3.2%

    Notes:

    1. Average pay increase by career path were computed for 3,692 of the 7,699 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and salary data were available.

    2. The overall average performance-based pay increase represents the average across the Demonstration Group; it does not represent a straight average of the averages for each career path.

Average Bonus by Career Path

(This analysis was first conducted in Year Three.)

Year Three—Average Bonus by Career Path

CAREER PATH

AVERAGE BONUS

ZP

1.42%

ZT

1.28%

ZA

1.63%

ZS

1.81%

Overall

1.50%

    Notes:

    1. Average bonus by career path was computed for Demonstration Project participants for whom pay band data were available.

    2. Overall bonus is a non-weighted average given that it is intended to represent the Demonstration Project as a single entity.

Year Four—Average Bonus by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE BONUS

ZP

1,372

1.53%

ZT

120

1.47%

ZA

379

2.02%

ZS

228

2.41%

Overall

2,099

1.71%

    Note: Average bonus by career path was computed for 2,099 of the 2,641 Demonstration Group participants for whom pay band and salary data were available.

Year Five—Average Bonus by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE BONUS

ZP

1,745

1.57%

ZT

165

1.34%

ZA

509

2.05%

ZS

304

2.72%

Overall

2,723

1.77%

Note: Average bonus by career path was computed for 2,723 of the 3,072 Demonstration Group participants for whom pay band and salary data were available. Average overall bonus was computed by generating a weighted average to account for the different number of employees in each band.

Year Six—Average Bonus by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE BONUS

ZP

1763

1.55%

ZT

152

1.39%

ZA

529

2.03%

ZS

299

2.67%

Overall

2743

1.76%

Note: Average bonus by career path was computed for 2,743 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and bonus data were available. Average overall bonus represents a non-weighted average across the Demonstration Group.

Year Seven—Average Bonus by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE BONUS

ZP

2,469

1.7%

ZT

217

1.8%

ZA

876

2.1%

ZS

417

2.8%

Overall

3,979

1.9%

Notes:

1. Average pay increase by career path were computed for 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and salary data were available.

2. Average overall pay increase represents the average across the Demonstration Group; it does not represent a straight average of the averages for each career path.

Year Eight—Average Bonus by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE BONUS

ZP

2482

1.8%

ZT

212

1.9%

ZA

901

2.1%

ZS

386

2.8%

Overall

3981

2.0%

    Notes:

    1. Average bonus by career path were computed for 3,981 of the 4,650 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and salary data were available.

    2. The overall average performance-based pay increase represents the average across the Demonstration Group; it does not represent a straight average of the averages for each career path.

Year Nine—Average Bonus by Career Path

Career Path

Number Of Employees

Average Bonus

ZP

2,507

1.8%

ZT

190

2.1%

ZA

926

2.2%

ZS

366

3.2%

Overall

3,989

2.0%

          Notes:

          1. Average bonus by career path were computed for 3,989 of the 7,699 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and salary data were available.

          2. The overall average performance-based pay increase represents the average across the Demonstration Group; it does not represent a straight average of the averages for each career path.

Average Performance Score by Career Path

(This analysis was first conducted in Year Three.)

Year Three—Average Performance Score by Career Path

CAREER PATH

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORES

ZP

85.0 points

ZT

83.0 points

ZA

85.8 points

ZS

81.9 points

Overall

84.3 points

    Notes:

    1. Average scores by career path were computed for Demonstration Project participants for whom pay band data were available.

    2. Average overall performance score represents a non-weighted average across the Demonstration Group.

Year Four—Average Performance Score by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORES

ZP

1,373

85.9 points

ZT

120

83.2 points

ZA

380

87.3 points

ZS

228

83.2 points

Overall

2,101

85.7 points

    Notes:

    1. Average performance scores by career path were computed for 2,101 of the 2,641 Demonstration Group participants for whom pay band and performance score data were available.

    2. Average overall performance score represents a non-weighted average across the Demonstration Group.

Year Five—Average Year Five Performance Score by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORES

ZP

1,745

86.4 points

ZT

165

84.0 points

ZA

509

88.2 points

ZS

304

84.8 points

Overall

2,723

86.5 points

    Notes:

    1. Average performance scores by career path were computed for 2,723 of the 3,072 Demonstration Group participants for whom pay band and performance score data were available.

    2. Average overall performance score represents a non-weighted average across the Demonstration Group.

Year Six—Average Year Six Performance Score by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORES

ZP

1,763

87.0 points

ZT

152

85.3 points

ZA

529

88.5 points

ZS

299

84.8 points

Overall

2,743

86.9 points

Notes:

1. Average performance scores by career path were computed for 2,743 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants for whom pay band and performance score data were available.

2. Average overall performance score was computed for 2,752 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score data were available and represents a non-weighted average across the Demonstration Group.

Year Seven—Average Year Seven Performance Score by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORES

ZP

2,469

86.5 points

ZT

217

84.9 points

ZA

876

85.9 points

ZS

417

83.4 points

Overall

3,979

85.9 points

Notes:

1. Average performance scores by career path were computed for 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants for whom pay band and performance score data were available.

2. Average overall performance score was computed for 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score data were available and represents a non-weighted average across the Demonstration Group.

Year Eight—Average Performance Score by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORES

ZP

2486

86.6 points

ZT

213

85.6 points

ZA

908

86.7 points

ZS

390

84.0 points

Overall

3997

86.3 points

    Notes:

    1. Average performance appraisal scores by career path were computed based on the 3,997 of the 4,650 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and performance score data of 40 and above were available.

    2. Average overall performance score was also computed for 3,997 of the 4,650 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score data of 40 and above were available and represents a non-weighted average across the Demonstration Group.

Year Nine—Average Performance Score by Career Path

Career Path

Number Of Employees

Average Performance Appraisal Scores

ZP

2,535

86.2 points

ZT

193

86.0 points

ZA

955

86.9 points

ZS

370

84.3 points

Overall

4,053

86.2 points

    Notes:

    1. Average performance appraisal scores by career path were computed based on the 4,053 of the 7,699 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and performance score data of 40 and above were available.

    2. Average overall performance score was also computed for 4,053 of the 7,699 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score data of 40 and above were available and represents a non-weighted average across the Demonstration Group.

Performance Category and Performance-Based Pay Increases

Year Two—Performance Category and Performance-Based Pay Increases


PERFORMANCE CATEGORY


NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE PAY INCREASE PERCENT

    90-100

748

3.9%

    80-89

923

2.9%

    70-79

468

1.7%

    60-69

105

0.9%

    50-59

34

0.5%

    40-49

1

0.0%

Year Two—Performance Category and Demonstration Group Participants Receiving NoPerformance-Based Pay Increases

PERFORMANCE CATEGORY

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITH NO SALARY INCREASE

PERCENT RECEIVING NO SALARY INCREASE

      90-100

748

34

5%

      80-89

923

61

7%

      70-79

468

51

11%

      60-69

105

48

46%

      50-59

34

21

62%

      40-49

1

1

100%

(Beginning in Year Three, the two tables above were combined into the table below.)

Year Three—Performance Score Category and Performance-Based Pay Increases Among Demonstration Group Participants


PERFORMANCE

CATEGORY


NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

PERCENT OF EMPLOYEES RECEIVING PAY INCREASES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY INCREASE PERCENTAGE

    90-100

816

89.3%

3.5%

    80-89

1,001

88.5%

2.6%

    70-79

323

83.3%

1.5%

    60-69

57

49.1%

0.6%

    50-59

14

21.3%

0.2%

    40-49

42

0.0%

0.0%

Note: Some, if not all, of the 10.7 percent of employees in the highest performance score category, but with no pay increases, may be employees at or near the top of their paybands. Employees who were promoted or received a pay adjustment within 120 days of the end of the rating cycle are eligible to receive a score but are not eligible for a pay increase.

Year Four—Performance Score Category and Performance-Based Pay Increases Among Demonstration Group Participants


PERFORMANCE

SCORE CATEGORY


NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

PERCENT OF EMPLOYEES RECEIVING PAY INCREASES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY INCREASE PERCENTAGE

    90-100

797

91%

3.3%

    80-89

983

91%

2.5%

    70-79

262

78%

1.5%

    60-69

42

52%

0.7%

    50-59

8

0%

0.0%

    40-49

9

33%

1.6%

    Note: Some, if not all, of the 9 percent of employees in the highest performance score category, but with no pay increases, may be employees at or near the top of their paybands. Employees who were promoted or received a pay adjustment within 120 days of the end of the rating cycle are eligible to receive a score but are not eligible for a pay increase.

Year Five—Performance Score Category and Performance-Based Pay Increases Among Demonstration Group Participants


PERFORMANCE

SCORE CATEGORY


NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

PERCENT OF EMPLOYEES RECEIVING PAY INCREASES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY INCREASE PERCENTAGE

    90-100

1,120

    87.0%

    3.2%

    80-89

1,241

    89.5%

    2.7%

    70-79

295

    84.1%

    2.0%

    60-69

52

    32.7%

    0.3%

    50-59

6

    16.7%

    0.2%

    40-49

9

    0.3%

    0.0%

    Notes:

    1. The total number of employees in this analysis is based on the 2,723 employees for whom valid Year Five performance scores were available.

    2. Some, if not all, of the 13 percent of employees in the highest performance score category, but with no pay increases, may be employees at or near the top of their paybands. Employees who were promoted or received a pay adjustment within 120 days of the end of the rating cycle are eligible to receive a score but are not eligible for a pay increase.

Year Six—Performance Score Category and Performance-Based Pay Increases Among Demonstration Group Participants


PERFORMANCE

SCORE CATEGORY


NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES

PERCENT OF EMPLOYEES RECEIVING PAY INCREASES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY INCREASE PERCENTAGE

    90-100

1144 (41.8%)

90%

    3.19%

    80-89

1292 (47.3%)

92%

    2.81%

    70-79

239 (8.7%)

80%

    1.65%

    60-69

45 (1.6%)

29%

    0.26%

    50-59

9 (0.3%)

11%

    0.09%

    40-49

5 (0.2%)

20%

    0.24%

Note: This analysis is based on the 2,734 employees for whom valid Year Five performance scores and salary data were available.

Year Seven—Performance Score Category and Performance-Based Pay Increases Among Demonstration Group Participants


PERFORMANCE

SCORE CATEGORY


NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES

PERCENT OF EMPLOYEES RECEIVING PAY INCREASES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY INCREASE PERCENTAGE

    90-100

1,392 (35%)

83%

    3.5%

    80-89

2,049 (52%)

85%

    3.5%

    70-79

435 (11%)

79%

    1.8%

    60-69

75 (2%)

24%

    0.4%

    50-59

18 (<0%)

11%

    0.1%

    40-49

10 (<0%)

0%

    0.0%

Note: This analysis is based on the 3,979 employees for whom valid Year Seven performance scores and salary data were available.

Year Eight—Performance Score Category and Performance-Based Pay Increases Among Demonstration Group Participants


PERFORMANCE

SCORE CATEGORY


NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER AND PERCENT OF EMPLOYEES RECEIVING PAY INCREASES

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE-BASED PAY INCREASE PERCENTAGE

    90-100

1304 (33%)

979 (83%)

    4.2%

    80-89

2309 (58%)

1825 (84%)

    3.3%

    70-79

321 (8%)

209 (68%)

    1.3%

    60-69

51 (1%)

9 (18%)

    0.3%

    50-59

9 (<1%)

1 (13%)

    0.1%

    40-49

3 (<1%)

0 (0%)

    0.0%

    <40

1 (<1%)

0 (0%)

    0.0%

    Notes:

    1. The calculation of Number and Percentage of Employees is based on the 3,998 employees for whom valid Year Eight performance scores were available.

    2. The calculation of Number and Percentage of Employees Receiving Pay Increases is based on the 3,736 employees for whom valid Year Eight performance scores and salary data were available.

Year Nine—Performance Score Category and Performance-Based Pay Increases Among Demonstration Group Participants

Performance

Score Category

Number and Percentage of Employees

Number and Percent of Employees Receiving Pay Increases

Average Performance-Based Pay Increase Percentage

    90-100

1,289 (32%)

953 (84%)

    3.6%

    80-89

2,355 (58%)

1,859 (85%)

    3.3%

    70-79

335 (8%)

220 (72%)

    1.7%

    60-69

58 (1%)

11 (20%)

    0.4%

    50-59

13 (<1%)

2 (15%)

    0.3%

    40-49

3 (<1%)

0 (0%)

    0.0%

    <40

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

    0.0%

        Notes:

        1. The calculation of Number and Percentage of Employees is based on the 4,053 employees for whom valid Year Nine performance scores were available.

        2. The calculation of Number and Percentage of Employees Receiving Pay Increases is based on the 3,692 employees for whom valid Year Nine performance scores and salary data were available.

Correlation Between Performance Scores and Bonuses by Career Path

(This analysis was first conducted in Year Three.)

Year Three—Correlation Between Performance Scores and Bonuses by Career Path

CAREER PATH

CORRELATION BETWEEN PERFORMANCE SCORE AND BONUS

ZP

.46

ZT

.44

ZA

.48

ZS

.60

Overall

.46

    Notes:

    1. All results are significant at the p≤ .001 level.

    2. Correlation by career path were computed for Demonstration Project participants for whom pay band data were available.

    3. Overall correlation represents a non-weighted average across the Demonstration Group.

Year Four—Correlation Between Performance Scores and Bonuses by Career Path

CAREER PATH

CORRELATION BETWEEN PERFORMANCE SCORE AND BONUS

ZP

.46

ZT

.40

ZA

.30

ZS

.34

Overall

.37

Notes:

1. All results are significant at the p≤ .01 level.

2. Correlation by career path was computed for 2,099 of the 2,641 Demonstration Group participants for whom pay band data were available.

3. Overall correlation represents a non-weighted average across the Demonstration Group.

Year Five—Correlation Between Performance Scores and Bonuses by Career Path

CAREER PATH

CORRELATION BETWEEN PERFORMANCE SCORE AND BONUS

ZP

.45

ZT

.56

ZA

.45

ZS

.53

Overall

.44

Notes:

1. All results are significant at the p≤ .01 level.

2. Correlation by career path was computed for 2,502 of the 3,072 Demonstration Group participants for whom pay band data were available.

3. Overall correlation represents a non-weighted average across the Demonstration Group.

Year Six—Correlation Between Performance Scores and Bonuses by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

CORRELATION BETWEEN PERFORMANCE SCORE AND BONUS

ZP

1,763

.46

ZT

152

.64

ZA

529

.38

ZS

299

.48

Notes:

1. All results are significant at the p≤ .01 level.

2. Correlation by career path was computed for 2,743 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score, bonus data, and career path data were available.

Year Seven—Correlation Between Performance Scores and Bonuses by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

CORRELATION BETWEEN PERFORMANCE SCORE AND BONUS

ZP

2,469

.37

ZT

217

.30

ZA

876

.38

ZS

417

.49

Notes:

1. All results are significant at the p ≤ .01 level.

2. Correlation by career path was computed for 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score, bonus data, and career path data were available.

Year Eight—Correlation Between Performance Scores and Bonuses by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

CORRELATION BETWEEN PERFORMANCE SCORE AND BONUS

ZP

2339

.28

ZT

190

.44

ZA

836

.30

ZS

370

.29

    Notes:

    1. All results are significant at the p ≤ .01 level.

    2. Correlation by career path was computed for 3,735 of the 4,650 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score, bonus data, and career path data were available.

Year Nine—Correlation Between Performance Scores and Bonuses by Career Path

Career Path

Number of Employees

Correlation Between Performance Score
and Bonus

ZP

2,507

.34

ZT

190

.38

ZA

926

.39

ZS

366

.51

    Notes:

    1. All results are significant at the p ≤ .01 level.

    2. Correlation by career path was computed for 3,989 of the 7,699 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score, bonus data, and career path data were available.

Range of Pay Increases Upon Promotion

(This analysis was first conducted in Year Three.)

Year Three—Range of Pay Increases Upon Promotion

Promotion by Band

(or equivalent)

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

    Band after promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

    Band 2

    18

$8,997

    6

$7,171

    Band 3

    60

$10,206

    26

$9,727

    Band 4

    57

$14,173

    11

$6,181

    Band 5

    21

$17,537

    4

$1,985

    Average Range

 

$12,503

 

$7,912

    Notes:

    1. Band (equivalent) and salary information was not available for two participants in the Comparison Group who were promoted. Promotions are reported for those cases in which employees were promoted across bands (or the equivalent in the Comparison Group).

    2. Size of range was computed by subtracting the smallest promotion amount from the largest promotion amount.

    3. Average range was computed by generating a weighted average to account for the different number of employees in each band.

Year Four—Range of Pay Increases Upon Promotion

Promotion by Band

(or equivalent)

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

    Band after promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

    Band 2

    2

$2,116

3

    $714

    Band 3

    43

$10,270

    27

    $5,261

    Band 4

    55

$17,522

    38

    $9,663

    Band 5

    24

$13,885

    8

    $5,538

    Average Range

 

$14,055

 

    $7,312

Notes:

1. Promotions are reported for those cases in which employees were promoted across bands (or the equivalent in the Comparison Group).

2. Size of range was computed by subtracting the smallest promotion amount from the largest promotion amount.

3. Average range was computed by generating a weighted average to account for the different number of employees in each band.

Year Five—Range of Pay Increases Upon Promotion

Promotion by Band

(or equivalent)

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

    Band after promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

    Band 2

    12

    $10,037

59

    $8,761

    Band 3

    62

    $12,157

71

    $9,637

    Band 4

    82

    $15,461

62

    $11,524

    Band 5

    41

    $24,492

15

    $15,218

    Average Range

 

    $15,970

 

    $10,357

Notes:

1. Promotions are reported for those cases in which employees were promoted across bands (or the equivalent in the Comparison Group).

2. Size of range was computed by subtracting the smallest promotion amount from the largest promotion amount.

3. Average range was computed by generating a weighted average to account for the different number of employees in each band.

Year Six—Range of Pay Increases Upon Promotion

Promotion by Band

(or equivalent)

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

    Band after promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

    Band 2

5

$4,287

5

$1,128

    Band 3

39

$17,955

19

$7,807

    Band 4

47

$12,678

14

$3,316

    Band 5

22

$26,933

2

$486

    Notes:

    1. Promotions are reported for those cases in which employees were promoted across bands (or the equivalent in the Comparison Group).

    2. Size of range was computed by subtracting the smallest promotion amount from the largest promotion amount.

Year Seven—Range of Pay Increases Upon Promotion

Promotion by Band

(or equivalent)

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

    Band after promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

    Band 2

9

$15,401

0

0

    Band 3

55

$10,617

16

$6,083

    Band 4

50

$24,867

57

$11,651

    Band 5

31

$23,565

11

$5,162

    Notes:

    1. Promotions are reported for those cases in which employees were promoted across bands (or the equivalent in the Comparison Group).

    2. Size of range was computed by subtracting the smallest promotion amount from the largest promotion amount.

Year Eight—Range of Pay Increases Upon Promotion

Promotion by Band

(or equivalent)

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

    Band after promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

    Band 2

4

$9,168

5

$5,191

    Band 3

41

$10,816

46

$8,322

    Band 4

35

$17,877

50

$11,329

    Band 5

17

$11,082

10

$18,115

      Notes:

      1. Promotions are reported for those cases in which employees were promoted across bands (or the equivalent in the Comparison Group).

      2. Size of range was computed by subtracting the smallest promotion amount from the largest promotion amount.

Year Nine—Range of Pay Increases Upon Promotion

Promotion by Band
(or equivalent)

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

    Band after promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

Employees

Size of Range of Increase Upon Promotion

    Band 2

7

$17,661

0

-

    Band 3

72

$9,096

2

$568

    Band 4

79

$16,066

20

$7,747

    Band 5

37

$14,728

9

$9,381

      Notes:

      1. Promotions are reported for those cases in which employees were promoted across bands (or the equivalent in the Comparison Group).

      2. Size of range was computed by subtracting the smallest promotion amount from the largest promotion amount.

Supervisory Performance Pay and Distribution of Performance Scores

(This analysis was first conducted in Year Six.)

Year Six—Supervisory Performance Pay and Distribution of Performance Scores

PERFORMANCE SCORE CATEGORY

Eligible for Supervisory Performance Pay

Not Eligible for Supervisory Performance Pay

    90-100

78%

57%

    80-89

22%

40%

    70-79

0%

3%

    60-69

0%

1%

    50-59

0%

0%

    40-49

0%

0%

    TOTAL

100%

100%

Note: This analysis is based on the 276 of the 524 supervisors for whom supervisory performance pay data and performance score data were available.

Year Seven—Supervisory Performance Pay and Distribution of Performance Scores

PERFORMANCE SCORE CATEGORY

Eligible for Supervisory Performance Pay

Not Eligible for Supervisory Performance Pay

    90-100

70%

44%

    80-89

29%

49%

    70-79

0%

6%

    60-69

1%

1%

    50-59

0%

0%

    40-49

0%

0%

    TOTAL

100%

100%

    Note: This analysis is based on the 561 of the 617 supervisors for whom performance score data were available.

Year Eight—Supervisory Performance Pay and Distribution of Performance Scores

PERFORMANCE SCORE CATEGORY

Eligible for Supervisory Performance Pay

Not Eligible for Supervisory Performance Pay

90-100

58%

44%

80-89

38%

51%

70-79

4%

5%

60-69

0%

<1%

50-59

0%

0%

40-49

0%

0%

TOTAL

100%

100%

    Note:

    1. This analysis is based on the 590 of the 631 supervisors for whom performance score data were available.

Year Nine—Supervisory Performance Pay and Distribution of Performance Scores

Performance Score Category

Eligible For Supervisory Performance Pay

Not Eligible For Supervisory Performance Pay

90-100

57%

44%

80-89

40%

51%

70-79

2%

4%

60-69

0%

1%

50-59

0%

0%

40-49

0%

0%

TOTAL

100%

100%

Note:

1. This analysis is based on the 611 of the 957 supervisors for whom performance score data were available.

\Distribution Across Each Performance Score Category

(This analysis was first conducted in Year Six.)

Year Six—Distribution Across Each Performance Score Category

PERFORMANCE SCORE CATEGORY

Eligible for Supervisory Performance Pay

Not Eligible for Supervisory Performance Pay

Total

    90-100

41%

59%

100%

    80-89

22%

78%

100%

    70-79

0%

100%

100%

    60-69

0%

100%

100%

    50-59

-

-

-

    40-49

-

-

-

Note: This analysis is based on the 276 of the 524 supervisors for whom supervisory performance pay data and performance score data were available.

Year Seven—Distribution Across Each Performance Score Category

PERFORMANCE SCORE CATEGORY

Eligible for Supervisory Performance Pay

Not Eligible for Supervisory Performance Pay

Total

90-100

27%

73%

100%

80-89

12%

88%

100%

70-79

0%

100%

100%

60-69

29%

71%

100%

50-59

-

-

-

40-49

-

-

-

    Note: This analysis is based on the 561 of the 617 supervisors for whom performance score data were available.

Year Eight—Distribution Across Each Performance Score Category

PERFORMANCE SCORE CATEGORY

Eligible for Supervisory Performance Pay

Not Eligible for Supervisory Performance Pay

Total

90-100

30%

70%

100%

80-89

20%

80%

100%

70-79

22%

78%

100%

60-69

0%

100%

100%

50-59

-

-

-

40-49

-

-

-

    Note:

    1. This analysis is based on the 590 of the 631 supervisors for whom performance score data were available.

Year Nine—Distribution Across Each Performance Score Category

Performance Score Category

Eligible For Supervisory Performance Pay

Not Eligible For Supervisory Performance Pay

Total

90-100

36%

64%

100%

80-89

25%

75%

100%

70-79

18%

82%

100%

60-69

0%

100%

100%

50-59

-

-

-

40-49

-

-

-

    Note:

    1. This analysis is based on the 611 of the 957 supervisors for whom performance score data were available.

New Hires by Organization

(This analysis was first conducted in Year Seven.)

Year Seven—New Hires by Organization

ORGANIZATION

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF NEW HIRES

STAFFING INCREASE

ESA-BEA

538

69

15%

NTIA

86

8

10%

NOAA

3,542

253

8%

TA

28

1

4%

OS

414

60

17%

TOTAL

4,608

391

9%

    Notes:

1. Staffing increase was computed as the increase from the number of employees minus the new hires to the number of employees.

2. These data are based upon the objective data file.

Year Eight—New Hires by Organization

ORGANIZATION

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF NEW HIRES

STAFFING INCREASE

ESA-BEA

550

63

12.9%

NTIA

86

8

10.3%

NOAA

3556

297

9.1%

TA

25

0

0.0%

CFO/ASA

433

69

19.0%

TOTAL

4650

437

10.4%

    Notes:

    1. Staffing increase was computed as the increase from the number of employees minus the new hires to the number of employees.

    2. These data are based upon the objective data file.

Year Nine—New Hires by Organization

Organization

Number of Employees

Number of New Hires

Staffing Increase

NTIA-ITS

90

17

23.3%

OS-ASA

422

57

15.6%

NOAA-NWS

48

5

11.6%

ESA-BEA

548

55

11.2%

NOAA-NESDIS

806

71

9.7%

NOAA-NMAO

178

14

8.5%

NOAA-UNSEC

121

9

8.0%

NOAA-NMFS

2,969

209

7.6%

NOAA-OAR

719

49

7.3%

NOAA-NOS

1,176

35

3.1%

NOAA-STAFF OFFICES

600

11

1.9%

NOAA-PPI

9

0

0.0%

TA

13

0

0.0%

TOTAL

7,699

532

7.4%

    Notes:

    1. Staffing increase was computed as the increase from the number of employees minus the new hires to the number of new hire (i.e., 17/(90-17)).

    2. These data are based upon the objective data file.

    3. NOAA-Staff Offices includes NOAA’s Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (OCAO), Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Workforce Management Office (WFMO), and Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E).

Comparisons of Starting Salary Ranges Among New Hires
in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

Year Two—Comparisons of Starting Salary Ranges Among New Hires
in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

 

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

ZA

       

    Band 1

1

$0

1

$0

    Band 2

16

$16,492

2

$1,817

    Band 3

8

$23,000

2

$12,894

    Band 4

7

$18,171

6

$16,401

    Band 5

2

$10,754

0

$0

ZP

       

    Band 1

2

$7,372

5

$5,902

    Band 2

24

$20,059

56

$12,214

    Band 3

37

$25,927

31

$22,351

    Band 4

31

$31,657

10

$35,752

    Band 5

5

$21,505

0

$0

ZS

       

    Band 1

10

$6,513

3

$4,008

    Band 2

13

$5,106

5

$23,938

    Band 3

10

$10,656

11

$11,695

    Band 4

6

$10,585

4

$2,592

    Band 5

3

$6,278

0

$0

ZT

       

    Band 1

11

$8,814

25

$6,983

    Band 2

2

$7,526

32

$9,704

    Band 3

2

$8,063

3

$9,849

    Band 4

2

$5,858

0

$0

    Band 5

0

$0

0

$0

Notes:

1. The number of cases used in this analysis is based on the number of new hires for whom starting salary, career path, and pay band data were available (i.e., 192 out of 313 new hires)

2. Size of range of was computed as by subtracting the smallest starting salary from the largest starting salary.

3. For each comparison between the Demonstration Group and the Comparison Group, the wider range in starting salaries appears in bold.

Year Three—Comparison of Starting Salary Ranges Among New Hires
in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

 

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

ZA

       

    Band 1

1

$0

0

$0

    Band 2

9

$16,134

2

$2,311

    Band 3

9

$15,502

3

$27,009

    Band 4

5

$29,819

2

$12,806

    Band 5

7

$25,390

0

$0

ZP

       

    Band 1

6

$8,438

3

$6,486

    Band 2

38

$21,003

40

$23,247

    Band 3

18

$19,040

34

$28,427

    Band 4

20

$31,815

8

$31,651

    Band 5

6

$8,000

1

$0

ZS

       

    Band 1

6

$4,763

0

$0

    Band 2

12

$9,502

1

$0

    Band 3

16

$11,411

6

$11,154

    Band 4

5

$9,803

4

$10,756

    Band 5

1

$0

0

$0

ZT

       

    Band 1

13

$8,889

5

$2,850

    Band 2

11

$12,980

8

$9,620

    Band 3

3

$12,690

1

$0

    Band 4

1

$0

0

$0

    Band 5

0

$0

0

$0

Notes:

1. The number of cases used in this analysis is based on the number of new hires for whom starting salary, career path, and pay band data were available (i.e., 187 out of 280 new hires in the Demonstration Group and 118 out of 161 new hires in the Comparison Group).

2. Size of range of was computed as by subtracting the smallest starting salary from the largest starting salary.

3. For each comparison between the Demonstration Group and the Comparison Group, the wider range in starting salaries appears in bold.

Year Four—Comparison of Starting Salary Ranges Among New Hires
in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

 

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

ZA

       

    Band 1

5

$14,549

5

$5,113

    Band 2

17

$22,515

11

$13,041

    Band 3

17

$28,048

5

$16,832

    Band 4

7

$42,333

2

$22,470

    Band 5

2

$24,333

1

N/A

ZP

       

    Band 1

3

$5,104

5

$1,559

    Band 2

97

$26,969

51

$22,567

    Band 3

45

$28,047

37

$43,097

    Band 4

17

$32,343

7

$31,031

    Band 5

8

$25,783

0

N/A

ZS

       

    Band 1

18

$8,591

9

$2,351

    Band 2

24

$9,180

7

$3,183

    Band 3

12

$8,880

7

$11,891

    Band 4

17

$16,955

9

$10,959

    Band 5

0

N/A

0

N/A

ZT

       

    Band 1

13

$8,902

30

$6,415

    Band 2

5

$10,740

26

$11,229

    Band 3

2

$8,838

2

$5,252

    Band 4

1

N/A

0

N/A

    Band 5

0

N/A

0

N/A

Notes:

1. The number of cases used in this analysis is based on the number of new hires for whom starting salary, career path, and pay band data were available (i.e., 310 out of 344 new hires in the Demonstration Group and 214 out of 215 new hires in the Comparison Group).

2. Size of range of was computed as by subtracting the smallest starting salary from the largest starting salary.

3. For each comparison between the Demonstration Group and the Comparison Group, the wider range in starting salaries appears in bold.

Year Five—Comparison of Starting Salary Ranges Among New Hires
in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

 

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

ZA

       

    Band 1

1

$0

1

N/A

    Band 2

5

$12,500

5

$8,697

    Band 3

13

$24,478

6

$23,581

    Band 4

0

N/A

0

N/A

    Band 5

1

$0

1

N/A

ZP

   

88

 

    Band 1

1

$0

3

$1,102

    Band 2

35

$27,836

23

$14,076

    Band 3

12

$28,757

48

$34,698

    Band 4

12

$29,742

14

$23,156

    Band 5

1

$0

0

N/A

ZS

   

14

 

    Band 1

4

$4,585

2

$3,995

    Band 2

1

$0

2

$985

    Band 3

8

$10,500

6

$3,125

    Band 4

10

$14,609

4

$6,937

    Band 5

-

-

-

-

ZT

   

17

 

    Band 1

17

$13,289

4

$2,283

    Band 2

3

$6,080

11

$8,388

    Band 3

7

$12,594

2

$5,941

    Band 4

0

N/A

0

N/A

    Band 5

0

N/A

0

N/A

Notes:

1. The number of cases used in this analysis is based on the number of new hires for whom starting salary, career path, and pay band data were available (i.e., 131 out of 223 new hires in the Demonstration Group and 132 out of 160 new hires in the Comparison Group).

2. Size of range of was computed as by subtracting the smallest starting salary from the largest starting salary.

3. For each comparison between the Demonstration Group and the Comparison Group, the wider range in starting salaries appears in bold.

Year Six—Comparison of Starting Salary Ranges Among New Hires
in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

 

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

ZA

       

    Band 1

1

NA

0

NA

    Band 2

7

$20,329

6

$8,009

    Band 3

7

$22,549

16

$31,444

    Band 4

4

$24,620

3

$29,173

    Band 5

1

NA

0

NA

ZP

       

    Band 1

4

$11,257

8

$4,787

    Band 2

34

$22,700

20

$17,138

    Band 3

30

$28,784

13

$21,234

    Band 4

17

$27,857

8

$28,644

    Band 5

6

$19,733

3

$15,455

ZS

       

    Band 1

5

$3,718

3

$2,197

    Band 2

1

NA

6

$4,207

    Band 3

8

$11,297

1

NA

    Band 4

4

$6,558

2

$1,486

    Band 5

1

NA

2

$5,381

ZT

       

    Band 1

11

$11,201

2

$1,857

    Band 2

0

NA

4

$13,945

    Band 3

2

$17,285

4

$12,415

    Band 4

0

NA

1

NA

    Band 5

0

NA

0

NA

Notes:

1. The number of cases used in this analysis is based on the number of new hires for whom starting salary, career path, and pay band data were available (i.e., 143 out of 330 new hires in the Demonstration Group) and all 102 new hires in the Comparison Group.

2. Size of range of was computed as by subtracting the smallest starting salary from the largest starting salary.

Year Seven—Comparison of Starting Salary Ranges Among New Hires
in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

 

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

ZA

       

    Band 1

4

$6,186

N/A

N/A

    Band 2

19

$23,514

7

$3,270

    Band 3

9

$49,199

18

$25,668

    Band 4

12

$34,500

6

$29,141

    Band 5

3

$12,403

2

$20,049

ZP

       

    Band 1

2

$12,399

4

$8,284

    Band 2

42

$34,179

33

$13,237

    Band 3

24

$34,690

25

$34,569

    Band 4

19

$46,537

12

$41,013

    Band 5

5

$34,731

1

$0

ZS

       

    Band 1

11

$7,632

3

$3,554

    Band 2

14

$8,256

9

$3,730

    Band 3

6

$11,529

3

$3,047

    Band 4

13

$19,216

4

$3,297

    Band 5

2

$9,000

N/A

N/A

ZT

       

    Band 1

12

$8,950

3

$909

    Band 2

6

$15,552

5

$14,668

    Band 3

1

$0

4

$14,645

    Band 4

N/A

N/A

1

$0

    Band 5

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Notes:

1. The number of cases used in this analysis is based on the number of new hires for whom starting salary, career path, and pay band data were available (i.e., 204 of the 391) new hires in the Demonstration Group) and all 140 new hires in the Comparison Group.

2. Size of range of was computed as by subtracting the smallest starting salary from the largest starting salary.

Year Eight—Comparison of Starting Salary Ranges Among New Hires
in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

 

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

ZA

       

    Band 1

6

$11,419

2

$108

    Band 2

32

$28,430

11

$10,468

    Band 3

32

$33,559

8

$15,741

    Band 4

18

$37,285

9

$40,808

    Band 5

6

$11,753

0

-

ZP

       

    Band 1

8

$14,582

1

-

    Band 2

56

$23,531

24

$19,585

    Band 3

51

$64,200

29

$31,594

    Band 4

33

$50,404

6

$25,639

    Band 5

15

$44,774

1

-

ZS

       

    Band 1

11

$6,507

2

$88

    Band 2

9

$8,428

4

$2,915

    Band 3

20

$20,860

4

$10,058

    Band 4

20

$21,585

2

$7,212

    Band 5

2

$4,326

1

-

ZT

       

    Band 1

12

$14,000

0

-

    Band 2

3

$1,950

3

$134

    Band 3

2

$0

6

$12,528

    Band 4

0

-

1

-

    Band 5

0

-

0

-

Notes:

1. The number of cases used in this analysis is based on the number of new hires for whom starting salary, career path, and pay band data were available (i.e., 336 of the 435 new hires in the Demonstration Group and 114 of the 116 new hires in the Comparison Group).

2. Size of range of was computed as by subtracting the smallest starting salary from the largest starting salary.

Year Nine—Comparison of Starting Salary Ranges Among New Hires
in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

 

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

Number of New Hires

Size of Range of Starting Salaries

ZA

       

    Band 1

3

$15,000

0

-

    Band 2

17

$21,200

4

$5,148

    Band 3

25

$27,722

4

$0

    Band 4

21

$41,475

3

$26,614

    Band 5

3

$30,664

0

-

ZP

       

    Band 1

7

$16,438

40

$9,053

    Band 2

57

$29,406

80

$18,598

    Band 3

36

$40,161

25

$35,131

    Band 4

21

$34,647

23

$44,754

    Band 5

4

$23,200

3

$45,047

ZS

       

    Band 1

6

$3,327

3

$0

    Band 2

9

$8,928

0

-

    Band 3

9

$14,673

9

$11,337

    Band 4

7

$6,296

19

$15,440

    Band 5

0

-

0

-

ZT

       

    Band 1

10

$12,461

2

$0

    Band 2

8

$22,207

4

$9,956

    Band 3

0

-

12

$16,474

    Band 4

0

-

17

$29,392

    Band 5

0

-

0

-

Notes:

1. The number of cases used in this analysis is based on the number of new hires for whom starting salary, career path, and pay band data were available (i.e., 243 of the 532 new hires in the Demonstration Group and all 248 new hires in the Comparison Group).

2. Size of range of was computed as by subtracting the smallest starting salary from the largest starting salary.

Agency Data Request Results – Recruitment Methods

Year Three—Agency Data Request Results – Recruitment Methods

 

DEMONSTRATION GROUP

COMPARISON GROUP

Delegated examining authority3

    Total number of offers made*

    130

    89

    Total number of offers accepted

    127

    89

    Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

    16

    0

    Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offer made)

98%

100%

Merit assignment

    Total number of offers made

    174

    59

    Total number of offers accepted

    169

    59

    Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

    18

    0

    Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offer made)

97%

100%

    Average number of calendar days required to fill a position (from initial posting of vacancy to selection)

69 days

68 days

      * The total number of offers made may appear lower than typical given the Presidential hiring freeze.

Year Four—Agency Data Request Results – Recruitment Methods

 

DEMONSTRATION GROUP

COMPARISON GROUP

Delegated examining authority

    Total number of offers made

96

54

    Total number of offers accepted

94

54

    Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

26

5

    Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offer made)

98%

100%

Merit assignment

    Total number of offers made

224

57

    Total number of offers accepted

224

57

    Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

12

5

    Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offer made)

100%

100%

    Average number of calendar days required to fill a position (from initial posting of vacancy to selection)

58 days

56 days

Year Five—Agency Data Request Results – Recruitment Methods

 

DEMONSTRATION GROUP

COMPARISON GROUP

Delegated examining authority

    Total number of offers made

176

143

    Total number of offers accepted

173

138

    Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

34

0

    Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offer made)

98%

97%

Merit assignment

    Total number of offers made

194

33

    Total number of offers accepted

190

33

    Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

28

1

    Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offer made)

98%

100%

    Average number of calendar days required to fill a position (from initial posting of vacancy to selection)

48 days

42 days

Year Six—Agency Data Request Results – Recruitment Methods

 

DEMONSTRATION GROUP

COMPARISON GROUP

Delegated Examining Authority

    Total number of offers made

166

39

    Total number of offers accepted

151

39

    Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

18

4

    Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offer made)

91%

100%

Merit Assignment

    Total number of offers made

179

43

    Total number of offers accepted

161

43

    Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

16

0

    Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offer made)

90%

100%

Time to Fill Positions

    Average number of calendar days required to fill a position (from initial posting of vacancy to selection)

40 days

58 days

Year Seven—Agency Data Request Results – Recruitment Methods

 

DEMONSTRATION GROUP

COMPARISON GROUP

 

TOTAL

Wave 1

Wave 2

TOTAL

Delegated Examining Authority

Total number of offers made

222

200

22

26

Total number of offers accepted

211

189

22

25

Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

23

21

2

0

Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offers made)

95%

95%

100%

96%

Merit Assignment

Total number of offers made

190

145

45

14

Total number of offers accepted

183

138

45

14

Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

11

11

0

0

Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offers made)

96%

95%

100%

100%

Classification

Average amount of time needed to produce and classify a position

1 day

1 day

1 day

10 days

Average amount of time needed to process a classification action

1 day

1 day

<1 day

3 days

Time to Fill Positions

Average number of calendar days required to fill a position (from initial posting of vacancy to selection)

52 days

52 days

51 days

54 days

Year Eight—Agency Data Request Results – Recruitment Methods

 

DEMONSTRATION GROUP

COMPARISON GROUP

 

TOTAL

Wave 1

Wave 2

TOTAL

Delegated Examining Authority

Total number of offers made

104

71

33

53

Total number of offers accepted

103

70

33

51

Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

15

10

5

10

Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offers made)

99%

99%

100%

96%

Merit Assignment

Total number of offers made

94

60

34

48

Total number of offers accepted

94

60

34

47

Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

2

1

1

1

Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offers made)

100%

100%

100%

98%

Classification

Average amount of time needed to produce and classify a position

.6 day

.6 day

.5 day

.5 day

Average amount of time needed to process a classification action

.6 day

.6 day

.5 day

.5 day

Time to Fill Positions

Average number of calendar days required to fill a position (from initial posting of vacancy to selection)

69 days

63 days

75 days

86 days

      Note:

    1. The HR organizations collectively reported 197 new hires into the Demonstration Group during Year Eight. This total is less than the number of new hires documented in the objective data file because this total includes only those new hires brought on through delegated examining authority and merit assignment. It does not include other categories of new hires, such as temporary hires (e.g., students).

Year Nine—Agency Data Request Results – Recruitment Methods

 

Demo. Group

Comp. Group

 

TOTAL

Wave 1

Wave 2

Wave 3

TOTAL

Delegated Examining Authority

Total number of offers made

273

130

48

65

73

Total number of offers accepted

251

111

47

64

69

Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

23

15

1

4

11

Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offers made)

92%

85%

98%

98%

95%

Merit Assignment

Total number of offers made

284

147

45

71

65

Total number of offers accepted

267

132

44

71

65

Total number of offers re-negotiated (per candidate)

11

8

0

2

5

Acceptance rate (offers accepted/offers made)

94%

90%

98%

100%

100%

Classification

Average amount of time needed to produce and classify a position (in hours)

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.7

21.5

Average amount of time needed to process a classification action (in hours)

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.7

12.2

Time to Fill Positions

Average number of calendar days required to fill a position (from initial posting of vacancy to selection)

67.5

73.0

49.6

84.7

62.0

Notes:

1. The HR organizations collectively reported bringing 562 new hires into the Demonstration Group during Year Nine; this number varies somewhat from the number of new hires reported in the objective data file.

2. The breakdown by wave does not include candidates classified as Wave 2/Wave 3 due to incomplete classification information. However, all candidates are included in the totals for the Demonstration Group.

Demonstration Group Turnover Rates by Level of Performance

Year Two—Demonstration Group Turnover Rates by Level of Performance

PERFORMANCE SCORE

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES*

TURNOVER
RATE

All Scores

2,275

10%

    90-100

748

10%

    80-89

923

9%

    70-79

468

11%

    60-69

105

9%

    50-59

34

18%

    40-49

1

0%

    Note:

1. This analysis is based on Demonstration Group participants who had valid performance ratings in Year Two.

Year Three—Demonstration Group Turnover Rates by Level of Performance

PERFORMANCE SCORE

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF SEPARATED EMPLOYEES

TURNOVER
RATE

All Scores

2,253

    339*

15%**

    90-100

814

    119

15%

    80-89

998

    127

13%

    70-79

323

    66

20%

    60-69

57

    17

30%

    50-59

14

    8

57%

    40-49

42

    2

    5%

    Notes:

1. Overall, 436 employees separated during Year Three. Valid Year Three performance scores were available for 148 of the 436 who separated in Year Three. For an additional 191 of the 436 who separated in Year Three, valid Year Two performance scores were available (presumably these employees separated prior to receiving a Year Two score). This analysis is therefore based upon these 339 employees. This analysis does not include 97 employees who separated in Year Three but for whom neither Year Two nor Year Three performance scores were available.

2. 15 percent is the turnover rate among Demonstration Group participants for whom performance scores were available. The turnover rate presented elsewhere, 16 percent, is the rate for all Demonstration Group participants.

Year Four—Demonstration Group Turnover Rates by Level of Performance

PERFORMANCE SCORE CATEGORY

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF SEPARATED EMPLOYEES

TURNOVER
RATE

    90-100

797

    60

8%

    80-89

983

    106

11%

    70-79

262

    27

10%

    60-69

42

    2

5%

    50-59

8

    1

13%

    40-49

9

    1

    11%

Notes:

1. Overall, 403 employees separated during Year Four. The total number of separated employees in this analysis is based on 197 of the 403 employees who separated in Year Four for whom valid Year Four performance scores were available.

2. The total number of employees in this analysis is based on the 2,101 employees for whom valid Year Four performance scores were available.

3. In Year Four, this analysis was performed as it was in Year Two.

Year Five—Demonstration Group Turnover Rates by Level of Performance

PERFORMANCE SCORE CATEGORY

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF SEPARATED EMPLOYEES

TURNOVER
RATE

    90-100

1,120

    17

1.5%

    80-89

1,241

    30

2.4%

    70-79

295

    9

3.1%

    60-69

52

    4

7.7%

    50-59

6

    0

N/A

    40-49

9

    1

    11.1%

Notes:

1. The total number of employees in this analysis is based on the 2,723 employees for whom valid Year Five performance scores were available.

2. Overall, 158 employees separated during Year Five. The total number of separated employees in this analysis is based on 61 of the 158 employees who separated in Year Five for whom valid Year Five performance scores were available.

3. The overall turnover rate for the Demonstration Group is 5 percent, which differs from a weighted average of the rates presented in this table. The reason for this difference is that the overall turnover rate is based on the number of employees who separated during Year Five and the total number of employees in the Demonstration Group, regardless of whether performance scores were available.

Year Six—Demonstration Group Turnover Rates by Level of Performance

PERFORMANCE SCORE CATEGORY

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF SEPARATED EMPLOYEES

TURNOVER
RATE

    90-100

1,150

28

2.4%

    80-89

1,300

29

2.2%

    70-79

242

8

3.3%

    60-69

46

3

6.5%

    50-59

9

0

0.0%

    40-49

5

1

20.0%

Notes:

1. The total number of employees in this analysis is based on the 2,752 employees for whom valid Year Six performance scores were available.

2. Overall, 242 employees separated during Year Six. The total number of separated employees in this analysis is based on 69 of the 242 employees who separated in Year Six for whom valid Year Six performance scores were available.

3. The overall turnover rate for the Demonstration Group is 5.4 percent, which differs from a weighted average of the rates presented in this table. The reason for this difference is that the overall turnover rate is based on the number of employees who separated during Year Six and the total number of employees in the Demonstration Group, regardless of whether performance scores were available.

Year Seven—Demonstration Group Turnover Rates by Level of Performance

PERFORMANCE SCORE CATEGORY

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF SEPARATED EMPLOYEES

TURNOVER
RATE

    90-100

1,392

30

2.2%

    80-89

2,049

59

3.0%

    70-79

435

23

5.3%

    60-69

75

10

13.3%

    50-59

18

3

16.7%

    40-49

10

5

50.0%

Notes:

1. The total number of employees in this analysis is based on the 3,979 employees for whom valid Year Seven performance scores were available.

2. Overall, 341 employees separated during Year Seven. The total number of separated employees in this analysis is based on 130 of the 341 employees who separated in Year Seven for whom valid Year Seven performance scores were available.

3. The overall turnover rate for the Demonstration Group is 7.4 percent, which differs from a weighted average of the rates presented in this table. The reason for this difference is that the overall turnover rate is based on the number of employees who separated during Year Seven based on the total number of employees in the Demonstration Group, regardless of whether performance scores were available.

Year Eight—Demonstration Group Turnover Rates by Level of Performance

PERFORMANCE SCORE CATEGORY

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF SEPARATED EMPLOYEES

TURNOVER
RATE

    90-100

1304

25

1.9%

    80-89

2309

79

3.4%

    70-79

321

22

6.9%

    60-69

51

5

9.8%

    50-59

9

2

22.2%

    40-49

3

1

33.3%

    Notes:

    1. The total number of employees in this analysis is based on the 3,997 employees for whom valid Year Eight performance scores of 40 and above were available.

    2. Overall, 355 employees separated during Year Eight. The total number of separated employees in this analysis is based on 134 of the 355 employees who separated in Year Eight for whom valid Year Eight performance scores were available.

    3. The overall turnover rate for the Demonstration Group is 7.6 percent, which differs from a weighted average of the rates presented in this table. The reason for this difference is that the overall turnover rate is based on the number of employees who separated during Year Eight based on the total number of employees in the Demonstration Group, regardless of whether performance scores were available.

Year Nine—Demonstration Group Turnover Rates by Level of Performance

Performance Score Category

Number of Employees

Number of Separated Employees

Turnover
Rate

    90-100

1,289

25

1.9%

    80-89

2,355

78

3.3%

    70-79

335

28

8.4%

    60-69

58

6

10.3%

    50-59

13

0

0.0%

    40-49

3

1

33.3%

Notes:

1. The total number of employees in this analysis is based on the 4,053 employees for whom valid Year Nine performance scores of 40 and above were available.

2. Overall, 430 employees separated during Year Nine. The total number of separated employees in this analysis is based on 138 of the 430 employees who separated in Year Nine for whom valid Year Nine performance scores were available.

3. The overall turnover rate for the Demonstration Group is 5.6 percent, which differs from a weighted average of the rates presented in this table. The reason for this difference is that the overall turnover rate is based on the number of employees who separated during Year Nine from the total number of employees in the Demonstration Group, regardless of whether performance scores were available.

Average Turnover Rate by Career Path

(This analysis was first conducted in Year Three.)

Year Three—Average Turnover Rate by Career Path

CAREER PATH

AVERAGE TURNOVER RATE

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE SCORE

ZP

13%

85.0 points

ZT

25%

83.0 points

ZA

18%

85.8 points

ZS

23%

81.9 points

Overall

16%

84.3 points

    Notes:

    1. Rates by career path were computed for Demonstration Project participants for whom pay band data were available.

    2. Overall turnover rate is a non-weighted average given that it is intended to represent the Demonstration Project as a single entity.

    3. The overall turnover rate for the Demonstration Group is 16 percent, which may differ from a weighted average of the rates presented in this table. The reason for this difference is that the overall turnover rate is based on the number of employees who separated during Year Five and the total number of employees in the Demonstration Group, regardless of whether career path data were available.

Year Four—Average Turnover Rate by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE TURNOVER RATE

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORES

ZP

1,373

15%

85.9 points

ZT

120

14%

83.2 points

ZA

380

14%

87.3 points

ZS

228

20%

83.2 points

Overall

2,101

15%

85.7 points

    Notes:

    1. Turnover rates by career path were computed for Demonstration Project participants for whom pay band data were available.

    2. Average performance scores by career path were computed for 2,101 of the 2,641 Demonstration Group participants for whom pay band and performance score data were available; these averages are not limited to the subset of individuals who turned over in Year Four.

    3. The overall turnover rate for the Demonstration Group is 15 percent, which may differ from a weighted average of the rates presented in this table. The reason for this difference is that the overall turnover rate is based on the number of employees who separated during Year Five and the total number of employees in the Demonstration Group, regardless of whether career path data were available.

Year Five—Average Turnover Rate by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

AVERAGE TURNOVER RATE

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORES

ZP

1,745

2.3%

86.4 points

ZT

165

3.0%

84.0 points

ZA

509

1.6%

88.2 points

ZS

304

2.3%

84.8 points

Overall

2,723

5.1%

86.5 points

    Notes:

    1. Turnover rates by career path were computed for Demonstration Project participants for whom pay band data were available.

    2. Average performance scores by career path were computed for 2,723 of the 3,072 Demonstration Group participants for whom pay band and performance score data were available; these averages are not limited to the subset of individuals who turned over in Year Five.

    3. The overall turnover rate for the Demonstration Group is 5 percent, which may differ from a weighted average of the rates presented in this table. The reason for this difference is that the overall turnover rate is based on the number of employees who separated during Year Five and the total number of employees in the Demonstration Group, regardless of whether career path data were available.

Year Six—Average Turnover Rate by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO TURNED OVER

AVERAGE TURNOVER RATE

OVERALL AVERAGE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORE

ZP

1,763

37

2.1%

87.0 points

ZT

152

3

2.0%

85.3 points

ZA

529

10

1.9%

88.5 points

ZS

299

10

3.3%

84.8 points

Notes:

1. Average turnover rates were computed based on the 2,743 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path, performance score, and turnover data were available.

2. Average performance appraisal scores by career path were computed based on the 2,743 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and performance score data were available; these averages are not restricted to the subset of individuals who turned over in Year Six nor to those for whom turnover data were available.

Year Seven—Average Turnover Rate by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO TURNED OVER

AVERAGE TURNOVER RATE

OVERALL AVERAGE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORE

ZP

2526

148

5.9%

82.4 points

ZT

241

29

12.0%

76.5 points

ZA

884

97

11.0%

81.6 points

ZS

452

67

14.8%

78.1 points

Notes:

1. Average turnover rates were computed based on the 4,444 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and turnover data were available.

2. Average performance appraisal scores by career path were computed based on the 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and performance score data were available; these averages are not restricted to the subset of individuals who turned over in Year Seven nor to those for whom turnover data were available.

Year Eight—Average Turnover Rate by Career Path

CAREER PATH

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO TURNED OVER

AVERAGE TURNOVER RATE

OVERALL AVERAGE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SCORE

ZP

2775

156

5.6%

86.6 points

ZT

262

23

8.8%

85.6 points

ZA

1095

116

10.6%

86.6 points

ZS

518

60

11.6%

84.0 points

Notes:

1. Average turnover rates were computed based on 4,650 of the 4,650 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and turnover data were available.

2. Overall average performance appraisal scores by career path were computed based on the 3,998 of the 4,650 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and performance score data were available; these averages are not restricted to the subset of individuals who turned over in Year Eight nor to those for whom turnover data were available.

Year Nine—Average Turnover Rate by Career Path

Career Path

Number of Employees

Number of Employees Who Turned Over

Average Turnover Rate

Overall Average Performance Appraisal Score

ZP

3,999

173

4.3%

86.2 points

ZT

420

36

8.6%

86.0 points

ZA

2,304

158

6.9%

86.9 points

ZS

752

62

8.2%

84.3 points

Notes:

1. Average turnover rates were computed based on 7,475 of the 7,699 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and turnover data were available.

2. Overall average performance appraisal scores by career path were computed based on the 4,053 of the 7,699 Demonstration Group participants for whom career path and performance score data were available; these averages are not restricted to the subset of individuals who turned over in Year Nine nor to those for whom turnover data were available.

Average Turnover Rate by Organization and Wave

(This analysis was first conducted in Year Seven.)

Year Seven—Average Turnover Rate by Organization and Wave

ORGANIZATION

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF SEPARATED EMPLOYEES

TURNOVER
RATE

Wave 1

ESA-BEA

473

48

10.1%

NTIA

78

6

7.7%

NOAA

2381

175

7.3%

TA

28

2

7.1%

Wave 2

NOAA

939

61

6.5%

OS

362

48

13.3%

Note: This analysis is based on the 4,261 of the 4,608 of the Demonstration Group participants for whom organization and wave data were available.

Year Eight—Average Turnover Rate by Organization and Wave

ORGANIZATION

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

NUMBER OF SEPARATED EMPLOYEES

TURNOVER
RATE

Wave 1

ESA-BEA

550

48

8.7%

NTIA

86

9

10.5%

NOAA

2549

180

7.1%

TA

25

10

40.0%

Wave 2

NOAA

1007

38

3.8%

CFO/ASA

433

70

16.2%

    Note: This analysis is based on the 4,650 of the 4,650 of the Demonstration Group participants for whom organization and wave data were available.

Year Nine—Average Turnover Rate by Organization and Wave

Organization

Number Of Employees

Number of Separated Employees

Turnover
Rate

Wave 1

TA

13

7

53.8%

NTIA-ITS

90

12

13.3%

ESA-BEA

547

56

10.2%

NOAA-OAR

601

42

7.0%

NOAA-NMFS

1,112

71

6.4%

NOAA-NWS

48

3

6.3%

NOAA-NESDIS

781

40

5.1%

Wave 2

OS-ASA

422

63

14.9%

NOAA-OAR

86

7

8.1%

NOAA-NESDIS

25

2

8.0%

NOAA-NMFS

902

37

4.1%

NOAA-PPI

9

0

0.0%

Wave 3

NOAA-STAFF OFFICES

600

34

5.7%

NOAA-NOS

1,176

31

2.6%

NOAA-NMFS

908

21

2.3%

NOAA-UNSEC

121

2

1.7%

NOAA-NMAO

178

2

1.1%

NOAA-OAR

32

0

0.0%

        Notes:

        1. This analysis is based on the 7,651 of the 7,699 of the Demonstration Group participants for whom organization and wave data were available.

        2. NOAA-Staff Offices includes NOAA’s Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (OCAO),Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Workforce Management Office (WFMO), and Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E).

        3. The number of separated employee reported for Wave 3 only includes part of the year, October 2006 to March 2007, given that October 2006 is when Wave 3 entered the Demonstration Project. Given this, these turnover rates are likely underestimates of the actual turnover rates in the Wave 3 organizations.

Average Increases, Bonuses, and Total Awards as a Percent of Salary

Year Two—Average Increases, Bonuses, and Total Awards as a Percent of Salary

Type of Award

Average Award
(as a % of salary)

Pay Increase

 

    Stayers

2.9%

    Leavers

2.6%

Bonus

 

    Stayers

1.6%

    Leavers

1.7%

Total Awards

 

    Stayers

4.5%

    Leavers

4.3%

Note: The difference between performance-based pay increases was statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level. The difference between bonuses and the difference between total awards was not statistically significant at the p≤ .01 level.

Year Three—Stayers Versus Leavers: Percent Increases and Bonuses

Type of Award

Average Award

(as a Percentage of Salary)

Performance-Based Pay Increase

 

    Stayers

2.6%

    Leavers

2.8%

Bonus

 

    Stayers

1.7%

    Leavers

1.7%

Total Awards

 

    Stayers

4.3%

    Leavers

4.5%

Note: None of these differences was found to be statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level.

Year Four—Stayers Versus Leavers: Percent Increases and Bonuses

Type of Award

Average Award

(as a Percentage of Salary)

Performance-Based Pay Increase

 

    Stayers

2.6%

    Leavers

2.5%

Bonus

 

    Stayers

1.7%

    Leavers

1.6%

Total Awards

 

    Stayers

4.3%

    Leavers

4.1%

Note: None of these differences was found to be statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level.

Year Five—Stayers Versus Leavers: Percent Increases and Bonuses

Type of Award

Average Award

(as a Percentage of Salary)

Performance-Based Pay Increase

 

    Stayers

2.8%

    Leavers

2.2%

Bonus

 

    Stayers

1.8%

    Leavers

1.3%

Total Awards (Performance-Based Pay Increase Plus Bonus)

 

    Stayers

4.6%

    Leavers

3.5%

Note: The difference between performance-based pay increases was not statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level. The difference between bonuses and the difference between total awards was statistically significant at the p≤ .01 level.

Year SIx—Stayers Versus Leavers: Percent Increases and Bonuses

Type of Award

Average Award

(as a Percentage of Salary)

Performance-Based Pay Increase

 

    Stayers

2.8%

    Leavers

1.7%

Bonus

 

    Stayers

1.8%

    Leavers

1.3%

Total Awards (Performance-Based Pay Increase Plus Bonus)

 

    Stayers

4.6%

    Leavers

3.2%

Notes:

1. Average awards were computed for the Demonstration Group participants for whom turnover, salary, and bonus data were available (2,734 for the performance-based pay increase and total awards analysis and 2,748 for the bonus analysis).

2. The difference between performance-based pay increases was statistically significant at the p≤ .01 level. The difference between bonuses was statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level. The difference between total awards was statistically significant at the p≤ .01 level.

Year Seven—Stayers Versus Leavers: Percent Increases and Bonuses

Type of Award

Average Award

(as a Percentage of Salary)

Average Award (in Dollars)

Performance-Based Pay Increase

   

    Stayers

3.3%

$2,287

    Leavers

1.9%

$1,237

Bonus

   

    Stayers

1.9%

$1,433

    Leavers

1.8%

$1,378

Total Awards (Performance-Based Pay Increase Plus Bonus)

   

    Stayers

5.2%

$3,720

    Leavers

3.7%

    $2,615

Notes:

1. Average awards were computed for the Demonstration Group participants for whom turnover, salary, and bonus data were available (3,979 for the performance-based pay increase and total awards analysis and 3,979 for the bonus analysis).

2. The difference between performance-based pay increases was statistically significant at the p≤ .01 level. The difference between bonuses was statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level. The difference between total awards was statistically significant at the p≤ .01 level.

Year Eight—Stayers Versus Leavers: Percent Increases and Bonuses

Type of Award

Average Award

(as a Percentage of Salary)

Average Award

(in Dollars)

Performance-Based Pay Increase

   

    Stayers

3.4%

$2,511

    Leavers

1.7%

$1,275

Bonus

   

    Stayers

2.0%

$1,561

    Leavers

1.6%

$1,411

Total Awards (Performance-Based Pay Increase Plus Bonus)

    Stayers

5.4%

$4,020

    Leavers

3.2%

$2,558

Notes:

1. Average awards were computed for the Demonstration Group participants for whom turnover, salary, and bonus data were available (3,745 for the performance-based pay increase analysis and 3,997 for the bonus analysis).

2. The difference between performance-based pay increases for stayers and leavers was statistically significant at the p≤ .01 level. The difference between bonuses was not statistically significant. The difference between total awards was statistically significant at the p≤ .01 level.

3. The average award, in dollars, for the total awards is not a simple sum of the totals reported for performance-based pay increase and bonus because this calculation was based on only those individuals for whom both performance-based pay and bonus data were available.

Year Nine--Stayers Versus Leavers: Percent Increases and Bonuses

Type of Award

Average Award
(as a Percentage of Salary)

Average Award
(in Dollars)

Performance-Based Pay Increase

    Stayers

3.3%

$2,541

    Leavers

2.0%

$1,469

Bonus

   

    Stayers

2.0%

$1,675

    Leavers

1.6%

$1,266

Total Awards (Performance-Based Pay Increase Plus Bonus)

    Stayers

5.3%

$4,149

    Leavers

3.6%

$2,721

    Notes:

    1. Average awards were computed for the Demonstration Group participants for whom turnover, salary, and bonus data were available (3,692 for the performance-based pay increase analysis and 3,989 for the bonus analysis).

        2. Average awards (in dollars) were computed for the Demonstration Group participants for whom turnover, salary, and bonus data were available (3,757 for the performance-based pay increase and 4,053 for the bonus analysis).

        3. The difference between performance-based pay increases for stayers and leavers was statistically significant at the p .01 level. The difference between bonuses was statistically significant at the p .01 level. The difference between total awards was statistically significant at the p .01 level.

        4. The average award, in dollars, for the total awards is not a simple sum of the totals reported for performance-based pay increase and bonus because this calculation was based on only those individuals for whom both performance-based pay and bonus data were available.

Average Increases and Bonuses (in Dollars)

Year Two—Average Increases and Bonuses (in Dollars)

Type of Award

Average Award

Pay Increase

 

    Stayers

$1626

    Leavers

$1410

Bonus

 

    Stayers

$934

    Leavers

$946

Note: The difference between performance-based pay increases was statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level. The difference between bonuses was not statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level.

Year Three—Stayers Versus Leavers: Average Performance-Based Pay Increases and Bonuses

Type of Award

Average Award (in Dollars)

Performance-Based Pay Increase

 

    Stayers

$1,551

    Leavers

$1,650

Bonus

 

    Stayers

$1,037

    Leavers

$1,074

Note: Neither of these differences was found to be statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level.

Year Four—Stayers Versus Leavers: Average Performance-Based Pay Increases and Bonuses

Type of Award

Average Award (in Dollars)

Performance-Based Pay Increase

 

    Stayers

$1,627

    Leavers

$1,535

Bonus**

 

    Stayers

$1,126

    Leavers

$986

Note: The difference between performance-based pay increases was not statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level. The difference between bonuses was statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level.

Year Five—Stayers Versus Leavers: Average Performance-Based Pay Increases and Bonuses

Type of Award

Average Award (in Dollars)

Performance-Based Pay Increase

 

    Stayers

$1,791

    Leavers

$1,233

Bonus**

 

    Stayers

$1,235

    Leavers

$843

Note: The difference between performance-based pay increases was not statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level. The difference between bonuses was statistically significant at the p≤ .05 level.

Year Six—Stayers Versus Leavers: Average Performance-Based Pay Increases and Bonuses

Type of Award

Average Award (in Dollars)

Performance-Based Pay Increase

 

    Stayers

$1,942

    Leavers

$1,089

Bonus

 

    Stayers

$1,286

    Leavers

$997

(Beginning in Year Seven, these results were combined with the results in the previous section, “Stayers Versus Leavers: Percent Increases and Bonuses.”)

Turnover Among Supervisors

Year Two—Turnover Among Supervisors

Group

Total Number

Turnover Rate

Demonstration Group

   

    All Employees

2740

13%

    All Supervisors

218

13%

    Supervisors Receiving Supervisory Performance Pay

44

7%

Comparison Group

   

    All Employees

1928

10%

    Supervisors Only

149

7%

Note: The turnover rate was calculated as the number of individuals who separated divided by the total number of individuals.

Year Three—Turnover Among Supervisors

Group

Total Number

Number Who Separated

Turnover Rate

Demonstration Group

     

    All Employees

2781

    436

    16%

    All Supervisors

222

    39

    18%

      Supervisors Who Did Not Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

173

    30

    17%

      Supervisors Who Did Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

49

    9

    18%

Comparison Group

     

    All Employees

1808

    204

    11%

    All Supervisors

149

    13

    9%

Note: The turnover rate was calculated as the number of individuals who separated divided by the total number of individuals.

Year Four—Turnover Among Supervisors

Group

Total Number

Number Who Separated

Turnover Rate

Demonstration Group

     

    All Employees

2641

    403

    15%

    All Supervisors

189

    26

    14%

      Supervisors Who Did Not Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

132

    18

    14%

      Supervisors Who Did Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

57

    8

    14%

Comparison Group

     

    All Employees

1821

    281

    15%

    All Supervisors

149

    20

    13%

Notes:

1. Turnover rate was calculated as the number of individuals who separated divided by the total number of individuals.

2. “All Employees” includes supervisory and non-supervisory employees.

Year Five—Turnover Among Supervisors

Group

Total Number

Number Who Separated

Turnover Rate

Demonstration Group

     

    All Employees

3,072

    158

    5%

    All Supervisors

276

    14

    5%

      Supervisors Who Did Not Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

187

    7

    4%

      Supervisors Who Did Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

89

    7

    8%

Comparison Group

     

    All Employees

1,811

    75

4%

    All Supervisors

158

    6

4%

Notes:

1. Turnover rate was calculated as the number of individuals who separated divided by the total number of individuals.

2. “All Employees” includes supervisory and non-supervisory employees.

Year Six —Turnover Among Supervisors

Group

Total Number

Number Who Separated

Turnover Rate

Demonstration Group

     

    All Employees

4,465

    242

5.4%

    All Supervisors

524

    22

4.2%

      Supervisors Who Did Not Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

408

    9

2.2%

      Supervisors Who Did Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

92

    2

2.2%

Comparison Group

     

    All Employees

2,134

    114

5.3%

    All Supervisors

128

    5

3.9%

Notes:

1. Turnover rate was calculated as the number of individuals who separated divided by the total number of individuals.

2. “All Employees” includes supervisory and non-supervisory employees.

3. This analysis is based on the 500 of the 524 supervisors for whom supervisory performance pay data were available.

Year Seven —Turnover Among Supervisors

Group

Total Number

Number Who Separated

Turnover Rate

Demonstration Group

     

    All Employees

4,608

341

7.4%

    All Supervisors

617

46

7.5%

      Supervisors Who Did Not Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

494

36

7.3%

      Supervisors Who Did Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

107

10

9.3%

Comparison Group

     

    All Employees

2,113

105

5.0%

    All Supervisors

132

9

7.0%

Notes:

1. Turnover rate was calculated as the number of individuals who separated divided by the total number of individuals.

2. “All Employees” includes supervisory and non-supervisory employees.

Year Eight —Turnover Among Supervisors

Group

Total Number

Number Who Separated

Turnover Rate

Demonstration Group

     

    All Employees

4,650

355

7.6%

    All Supervisors

631

39

6.2%

      Supervisors Who Did Not Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

479

19

4.0%

      Supervisors Who Did Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

152

20

13.2%

Comparison Group

     

    All Employees

2,124

99

4.7%

    All Supervisors

136

6

4.4%

Notes:

1. Turnover rate was calculated as the number of individuals who separated divided by the total number of individuals.

2. “All Employees” includes supervisory and non-supervisory employees.

Year Nine—Turnover Among Supervisors

Group

Total Number

Number Who Separated

Turnover Rate

Demonstration Group

     

    All Employees

7,699

430

5.6%

    All Supervisors

957

45

4.7%

      Supervisors Who Were Not Eligible to Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

764

30

3.9%

      Supervisors Who Were Eligible to Receive Supervisory Performance Pay

193

15

7.8%

Comparison Group

     

    All Employees

5,230

260

5.0%

    All Supervisors

414

32

7.7%

Notes:

1. Turnover rate was calculated as the number of individuals who separated divided by the total number of individuals.

2. “All Employees” includes supervisory and non-supervisory employees.

Diversity of New Hires Compared to the Overall Demonstration Group

Year Two—Diversity of New Hires Compared to the Overall Demonstration Group


Category

New Hires
(N=313)

All Demonstration Group Employees (N=2,740)

Minority Status

   

    Minority

25%

20%

    Non-Minority

75%

81%

Gender

   

    Women

44%

40%

    Men

56%

60%

Veteran Status

   

    Veteran

12%

9%

    Non-Veteran

88%

91%

        Notes:

        1. May not add to 100% due to rounding.

        2. The number of new hires reported here is the number of new hires reported in the objective datafile.

Year Three—Diversity of New Hires Compared to the Overall Demonstration Group


Category

New Hires
(N=280)*

All Demonstration Group Employees (N=2,781)

Minority Status

   

    Minority

20%

20%

    Non-Minority

80%

80%

Gender

   

    Women

43%

41%

    Men

57%

59%

Veteran Status

   

    Veteran

16%

14%

    Non-Veteran

84%

86%

    Note: The number of new hires reported here is the number of new hires reported in the objective datafile.

Year Four—Diversity of New Hires Compared to the Overall Demonstration Group


Category

New Hires
(N=344)

All Demonstration Group Employees (N=2,641)

Minority Status

   

    Minority

20%

20%

    Non-Minority

80%

80%

Gender

   

    Women

53%

42%

    Men

47%

58%

Veteran Status

   

    Veteran

8%

13%

    Non-Veteran

92%

87%

Note: The number of new hires reported here is the number of new hires reported in the objective datafile.

Year Five—Diversity of New Hires Compared to the Overall Demonstration Group


Category

New Hires
(N=223)

All Demonstration Group participants (N=2,723)

Minority Status

   

    Minority

22%

20%

    Non-Minority

78%

80%

Gender

   

    Women

40%

41%

    Men

60%

59%

Veteran Status

   

    Veteran

11%

13%

    Non-Veteran

89%

87%

Note: The number of new hires reported here is the number of new hires reported in the objective datafile.

Year Six—Diversity of New Hires Compared to the Overall Demonstration Group

Category

New Hires
(N=330)

All Demonstration Group participants (N=4,465) in Year Six

All Demonstration Group participants (N=2,697) in Year One

Race/National Origin

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

72.7%

78.3%

80. 8%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

14.2%

13.0%

12.1%

    Hispanic

4.5%

3.0%

2.7%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

7.9%

5.3%

4.0%

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

0.6%

0.4%

0.3%

Gender

    Women

50.9%

42.0%

39.0%

    Men

49.1%

58.0%

61.0%

Veteran Status

    Veteran

8.2%

12.6%

9.2%

    Non-Veteran

91.8%

87.4%

90.8%

Note: The number of new hires reported here is the number of new hires reported in the objective datafile.

Year Seven—Diversity of New Hires Compared to the Overall Demonstration Group

Category

New Hires
(N=346)

All Demonstration Group participants (N=4,608) in Year Seven

All Demonstration Group participants (N=2,697) in Year One

Race/National Origin

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

69%

78%

81%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

15%

13%

12%

    Hispanic

5%

3%

3%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

11%

6%

4%

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

<0%

<0%

<0%

Gender

    Women

53%

43%

39%

    Men

47%

58%

61%

Veteran Status

    Veteran

10%

12%

9%

    Non-Veteran

90%

88%

91%

Note: The number of new hires reported here is based on the number of new hires reported in the objective datafile.

Year Eight—Diversity of New Hires Compared to the Overall Demonstration Group

Category

New Hires
(N=437)

All Demonstration Group participants (N=4,650) in Year Eight

All Demonstration Group participants (N=2,697) in Year One

Race/National Origin

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

72%

77%

81%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

16%

13%

12%

    Hispanic

4%

3%

3%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

8%

6%

4%

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

<1%

<1%

<1%

Gender

    Women

52%

43%

39%

    Men

48%

57%

61%

Veteran Status

    Veteran

14%

12%

9%

    Non-Veteran

86%

88%

91%

    Note: The number of new hires reported here is based on the number of new hires reported in the objective datafile.

Year Nine—Diversity of New Hires Compared to the Overall Demonstration Group

Category

New Hires
(N=532)

All Demonstration Group participants (N=7,699) in
Year Nine

All Demonstration Group participants (N=2,697) in Year One

Race/National Origin

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

71%

78%

81%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

17%

13%

12%

    Hispanic

2%

3%

3%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

9%

6%

4%

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

2%

1%

<1%

Gender

    Female

46%

44%

39%

    Male

54%

56%

61%

Veteran Status

    Veteran

12%

12%

9%

    Non-Veteran

88%

88%

91%

Note:

1. The number of new hires reported here for Year Nine is based on the number of new hires reported in the objective datafile.

Average Performance Appraisal Scores (Raw), Pay Increase Percentages (Raw and Adjusted), and Bonus Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) for the Demonstration Group

Year One—Average Performance Appraisal Scores (Raw), Pay Increase Percentages (Raw and Adjusted), and Bonus Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) for the Demonstration Group

Subgroup

Performance Appraisal Scores

Average Pay Increase Percentage

Average Bonus

Percentage

Raw

Adjusted

Raw

Adjusted

Minority

80.34 points

2.73%

2.70%

1.46%

1.50%

Non-Minority

82.33 points

2.73%

2.74%

1.72%

1.71%

Female

82.64 points

3.10%

2.76%

1.95%

1.88%

Male

81.53 points

2.50%

2.71%

1.50%

1.54%

Veteran

79.38 points

2.26%

2.67%

1.49%

1.63%

Non-Veteran

82.22 points

2.78%

2.74%

1.69%

1.67%

Total

81.95 points

2.73%

--

1.67%

--

    Notes:

    1. The average performance appraisal score for each Demonstration Group subgroup is the average number of points received under the 100-point system. Performance data for Demonstration Group employees are based on appraisals conducted in September 1998, and as reported in the January 1999 data file provided by DoC. Average increase and bonus percentages are based on actions effective in November 1998, as reported in the January 1999 data file provided by DoC.

    2. The minority group includes all non-White personnel.

    3. Adjusted averages were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, and length of service.

Year Two—Average Performance Appraisal Scores (Raw), Pay Increase Percentages (Raw and Adjusted), and Bonus Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) for the Demonstration Group

 

Performance Appraisal Scores

Average Pay Increase Percentage

Average Bonus

Percentage

 

Raw

Adjusted

Raw

Adjusted

Minority

82.7 points

2.8%

2.7%

1.5%

1.5%

Non-Minority

83.6 points

2.9%

2.9%

1.6%

1.6%

Female

83.9 points

3.1%

2.7%

1.8%

1.8%

Male

83.1 points

2.7%

2.9%

1.5%

1.5%

Veteran

81.8 points

2.5%

2.8%

1.4%

1.5%

Non-Veteran

83.6 points

2.9%

2.9%

1.6%

1.6%

Total

83.4 points

2.9%

--

1.6%

--

    Notes:

    1. The average performance appraisal score for each Demonstration Group subgroup is the average number of points received under the 100-point system. Performance data for Demonstration Group employees are based on appraisals conducted in September 1999, and as reported in the Year Two data file provided by DoC. Average increase and bonus percentages are based on actions effective in November 1998, as reported in the Year Two data file provided by DoC.

    2. The minority group includes all non-White personnel, specifically Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians.

    3. Adjusted averages were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, and length of service.

Year Three—Average Performance Appraisal Scores, Pay Increase Percentages (Raw and Adjusted), and Bonus Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) for the Demonstration Group

 

Average Performance Appraisal Scores

Average Performance-Based Pay Increase Percentage

Average Bonus

Percentage

 

Raw

Adjusted

Raw

Adjusted

Minority

83.5 points

2.6%

2.5%

1.5%

1.5%

Non-Minority

84.9 points

2.7%

2.7%

1.7%

1.7%

Female

84.7 points

2.9%

2.7%

1.8%

1.8%

Male

84.5 points

2.4%

2.6%

1.6%

1.6%

Veteran

83.2 points

2.1%

2.4%

1.5%

1.5%

Non-Veteran

84.8 points

2.7%

2.7%

1.7%

1.7%

Average

84.3 points

2.6%

--

1.6%

--

    Notes:

    1. The average performance appraisal score for each Demonstration Group subgroup is the average number of points received under the 100-point system. Performance data for Demonstration Group employees are based on appraisals conducted in September 2000, and as reported in the Year Three data file provided by DoC. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages are based on actions effective in November 1999, as reported in the Year Three data file provided by DoC.

    2. The minority group includes all non-White personnel, specifically Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians.

    3. Adjusted averages were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, and length of service.

Year Four—Average Performance Appraisal Scores, Pay Increase Percentages (Raw and Adjusted), and Bonus Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) for the Demonstration Group

   

Average Performance-Based Pay Increase Percentage

Average Bonus

Percentage

 

Raw

Adjusted

Raw

Adjusted

Minority

85.3 points

2.6%

2.4%

1.6%

1.6%

Non-Minority

85.8 points

2.6%

2.7%

1.7%

1.7%

Female

85.9 points

2.9%

2.6%

1.9%

1.9%

Male

85.7 points

2.5%

2.6%

1.6%

1.6%

Veteran

83.6 points

2.0%

2.4%

1.5%

1.6%

Non-Veteran

86.1 points

2.7%

2.7%

1.7%

1.7%

Notes:

1. The average performance appraisal score for each Demonstration Group subgroup is the average number of points received under the 100-point system. Performance data for Demonstration Group employees are based on appraisals conducted in September 2001, and as reported in the Year Four data file provided by DoC. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages are based on actions effective in November 2001, as reported in the Year Four data file provided by DoC.

2. The minority group includes all non-White personnel, specifically Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians.

3. Adjusted averages were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, and length of service.

4. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages were computed for 2,099 of the 2,641 Demonstration Group participants for whom salary data were available. Average performance scores were computed for 2,101 of the 2,641 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score data were available.

Year Five—Average Performance Appraisal Scores, Pay Increase Percentages (Raw and Adjusted), and Bonus Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) for the Demonstration Group

   

Average Performance-Based Pay Increase Percentage

Average Bonus

Percentage

 

Raw

Adjusted

Raw

Adjusted

Minority

85.9 points

2.6%

2.5%

1.7%

1.7%

Non-Minority

86.6 points

2.8%

2.8%

1.8%

1.8%

Female

86.8 points

3.1%

2.8%

2.0%

2.0%

Male

86.2 points

2.5%

2.8%

1.6%

1.6%

Veteran

84.9 points

2.3%

2.7%

1.5%

1.6%

Non-Veteran

86.7 points

2.8%

2.8%

1.8%

1.8%

Notes:

1. The average performance appraisal score for each Demonstration Group subgroup is the average number of points received under the 100-point system. Performance data for Demonstration Group employees are based on appraisals conducted in September 2002, and as reported in the Year Five data file provided by DoC. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages are based on actions effective in November 2002, as reported in the Year Five data file provided by DoC.

2. The minority group includes all non-White personnel, specifically Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians.

3. Adjusted averages were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, and length of service.

4. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages were computed for 2,723 of the 3,072 Demonstration Group participants for whom salary data were available. Average performance scores were computed for 2,723 of the 3,072 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score data were available.

(Beginning in Year Six, the preceding table was divided into the two tables to follow.)

Year Six—Average Performance Scores by Group

 

Average Performance score

 

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

87.0 points

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

86.7 points

    Hispanic

85.9 points

    Asian or Pacific Islander

87.7 points

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

84.5 points

   

Female

87.3 points

Male

86.7 points

   

Veteran

85.6 points

Non-Veteran

87.1 points

Year Six—Average Pay Increase Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) and Bonus Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) for the Demonstration Group

 

Average Performance-Based Pay Increase Percentage

Average Bonus

Percentage

 

Raw

Adjusted

Raw

Adjusted

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

2.9%

2.9%

1.8%

1.8%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

2.4%

2.6%

1.8%

1.7%

    Hispanic

2.7%

2.8%

1.9%

1.9%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

2.7%

2.7%

1.6%

1.7%

         

Female

3.1%

2.8%

2.0%

1.8%

Male

2.6%

2.8%

1.6%

1.8%

         

Veteran

2.1%

2.6%

1.5%

1.7%

Non-Veteran

2.9%

2.8%

1.8%

1.8%

Notes:

1. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages are based on appraisals conducted in September 2004 and actions effective in November 2004, as reported in the Year Six data file provided by DoC.

2. Adjusted averages were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path length of service, and organization.

3. Average performance-based pay increase percentages were computed for 2,734 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants for whom data were available on pay increases, performance score, career path (or equivalent), length of service, and organization.

4. Average bonus percentages were computed for 2,743 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants for whom data were available on bonuses/awards, performance score, career path (or equivalent), length of service, and organization.

5. Average performance scores were computed for 2,752 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score data were available.

6. The sample sizes for this analysis ranged from 81 to 2,187.

Year Seven—Average Performance Scores by Group

 

Average Performance Score

 

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

86.3 points

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

83.6 points

    Hispanic

86.0 points

    Asian or Pacific Islander

86.2 points

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

83.9 points

   

Female

86.1 points

Male

85.9 points

   

Veteran

84.0 points

Non-Veteran

86.2 points

Year Seven—Average Pay Increase Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) and Bonus Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) for the Demonstration Group

 

Average Performance-Based Pay Increase Percentage

Average Bonus

Percentage

 

Raw

Adjusted

Raw

Adjusted

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

3.4%

3.3%

1.9%

1.9%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

2.5%

3.1%

1.8%

1.8%

    Hispanic

3.0%

3.1%

2.1%

2.0%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

3.5%

3.2%

2.0%

2.0%

         

Female

3.5%

3.3%

2.2%

2.0%

Male

3.0%

3.2%

1.7%

1.9%

         

Veteran

2.3%

3.0%

1.7%

1.9%

Non-Veteran

3.4%

3.3%

2.0%

1.9%

Notes:

1. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages are based on appraisals conducted in September 2004 and actions effective in November 2004, as reported in the Year Seven data file provided by DoC.

2. Adjusted averages were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path length of service, and organization.

3. Average performance-based pay increase percentages were computed for 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants for whom data were available on pay increases, performance score, career path (or equivalent), length of service, and organization.

4. Average bonus percentages were computed for 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants for whom data were available on bonuses/awards, performance score, career path (or equivalent), length of service, and organization.

5. Average performance scores were computed for 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score data were available.

6. The sample sizes for this analysis ranged from 117 to 3,127.

Year Eight—Average Performance Scores by Group

 

Average Performance Score

 

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

86.6 points

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

84.9 points

    Hispanic

86.0 points

    Asian or Pacific Islander

86.3 points

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

86.1 points

   

Female

86.4 points

Male

86.2 points

   

Veteran

84.7 points

Non-Veteran

86.5 points

Year Eight—Average Pay Increase Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) and Bonus Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) for the Demonstration Group

 

Average Performance-Based Pay Increase Percentage

Average Bonus

Percentage

 

Raw

Adjusted

Raw

Adjusted

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

3.4%

3.4%

2.0%

2.0%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

2.7%

3.1%

1.8%

1.8%

    Hispanic

3.2%

3.3%

2.0%

2.1%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

3.9%

3.7%

2.1%

2.1%

         

Female

3.6%

3.3%

2.2%

2.0%

Male

3.2%

3.4%

1.8%

2.0%

         

Veteran

2.6%

3.3%

1.8%

2.1%

Non-Veteran

3.5%

3.4%

2.0%

2.0%

    Notes:

    1. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages are based on appraisals conducted in September 2005 and actions effective in November 2005, as reported in the Year Eight data file provided by DoC.

    2. Adjusted averages were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, length of service, and organization.

    3. Average performance-based pay increase percentages were computed for 3,735 of the 4,650 Demonstration Group participants for whom data were available on pay increases, performance score, career path (or equivalent), length of service, and organization.

    4. Average bonus percentages were computed for 3,981 of the 4,650 Demonstration Group participants for whom data were available on bonuses/awards, performance score, career path (or equivalent), length of service, and organization.

    5. The sample sizes for this analysis ranged from 109 to 3,501.

Year Nine—Average Performance Scores by Group

 

Average Performance Score

 

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

86.3 points

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

85.5 points

    Hispanic

86.8 points

    Asian or Pacific Islander

86.2 points

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

84.5 points

Female

86.4 points

Male

86.0 points

Veteran

84.8 points

Non-Veteran

86.4 points

Year Nine—Average Pay Increase Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) and Bonus Percentages (Raw and Adjusted) for the Demonstration Group

 

Average Performance-Based Pay Increase Percentage

Average Bonus

Percentage

 

Raw

Adjusted

Raw

Adjusted

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

3.3%

3.2%

2.0%

2.1%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

2.8%

3.0%

2.0%

1.9%

    Hispanic

3.3%

3.4%

2.1%

2.1%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

3.6%

3.4%

2.0%

2.1%

         

Female

3.5%

3.3%

2.3%

2.1%

Male

3.0%

3.2%

1.8%

2.0%

         

Veteran

2.7%

3.2%

2.0%

2.1%

Non-Veteran

3.3%

3.2%

2.0%

2.0%

Notes:

1. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages are based on appraisals conducted in September 2006 and actions effective in November 2006, as reported in the Year Nine data file provided by DoC.

2. Adjusted averages were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, length of service, and organization.

3. Average performance-based pay increase percentages were computed for 3,692 of the 7,699 Demonstration Group participants for whom data were available on pay increases, performance score, career path (or equivalent), length of service, and organization.

4. Average bonus percentages were computed for 3,989 of the 7,699 Demonstration Group participants for whom data were available on bonuses/awards, performance score, career path (or equivalent), length of service, and organization.

5. The sample sizes for this analysis ranged from 105 to 3,537.

Comparison of Performance Appraisal Scores (Raw), Average Pay Increases (Adjusted),
and Average Bonuses/Awards (Adjusted)

Year One—Comparison of Performance Appraisal Scores (Raw), Average Pay Increases (Adjusted),
and Average Bonuses/Awards (Adjusted)

Subgroup

Performance
Appraisal Scores

Average

Pay Increase Percentage

Average

Bonus/Award Percentage

Demonstration Group

Comparison

Group

Demonstration Group

Comparison

Group

Demonstration Group

Comparison

Group

Minority

80.34 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.70%

1.94%

1.50%

1.28%

Non-Minority

82.33 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.74%

1.92%

1.71%

1.11%

Female

82.64 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.76%

1.93%

1.88%

1.22%

Male

81.53 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.71%

1.92%

1.54%

1.09%

Veteran

79.38 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.67%

1.72%

1.63%

0.70%

Non-Veteran

82.22 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.74%

1.94%

1.67%

1.17%

Notes:

1. The average performance appraisal score presented for each Demonstration Group subgroup is the average number of points received under the 100-point system. The numbers presented for the Comparison Group subgroups are the percentages of employees who received “Pass” or “Fail” under the 2-level system. Performance data for Demonstration Group employees are based on appraisals conducted in September 1998, and as reported in the January 1999 data file provided by DoC. Performance data for Comparison Group employees are based on appraisals occurring between March 28, 1998 and January 31, 1999 and as reported in the January 1999 data file provided by DoC.

2. Average pay increase and bonus/award percentages are based on actions occurring between March 28, 1998 and January 31, 1999 as reported in the January 1999 data files provided by DoC.

Year Two—Comparison of Performance Appraisal Scores (Raw), Average Pay Increases (Adjusted),
and Average Bonuses/Awards (Adjusted)

 

Performance
Appraisal Scores

Average

Pay Increase Percentage

Average

Bonus/ Award Percentage

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison

Group

Demonstration Group

Comparison

Group

Demonstration Group

Comparison

Group

Minority

82.7 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.7%

2.5%

1.5%

1.2%

Non-Minority

83.6 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.9%

2.5%

1.6%

1.3%

Female

83.9 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.7%

2.8%

1.8%

1.5%

Male

83.1 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.9%

2.3%

1.5%

1.2%

Veteran

81.8 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.8%

2.3%

1.5%

0.9%

Non-Veteran

83.6 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.9%

2.5%

1.6%

1.3%

Notes:

1. The performance appraisal score presented for the Demonstration Group is the average number of points received under the 100-point system. The numbers presented for the Comparison Group are the percentages of employees who received “Pass” or “Fail” under the 2-level system. Performance data for Demonstration Group employees are based on appraisals conducted in September 1999, and as reported in the Year Two data file provided by DoC. Performance data for Comparison Group employees are based on appraisals occurring between April 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000 and as reported in the Year Two data file provided by DoC.

2. Average pay increase and bonus/award percentages are based on actions occurring during the 1999 performance evaluation cycle that ended 9/30/99 and as reported in the Year Two data file provided by DoC.

Year Three—Comparison of Performance Appraisal Scores, Average Performance-Based Pay Increases,
and Average Bonuses/Awards Across Groups

 

Performance
Appraisal Scores

Average
Pay Increase Percentage

Average
Bonus/ Award Percentage

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

Minority

83.5 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.5%

0.3%

1.5%

1.1%

Non-Minority

84.9 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.7%

1.2%

1.7%

1.9%

Female

84.7 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.7%

1.3%

1.8%

1.8%

Male

84.5 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.6%

0.9%

1.6%

1.8%

Veteran

83.2 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.4%

2.4%

1.5%

0.9%

Non-Veteran

84.8 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.7%

0.9%

1.7%

1.9%

Notes:

1. The performance appraisal score presented for the Demonstration Group is the average number of points received under the 100-point system. The numbers presented for the Comparison Group are the percentages of employees who received “Pass” or “Fail” under the 2-level system. Performance data for Demonstration Group employees are based on appraisals conducted in September 2000, and as reported in the Year Three data file provided by DoC. Performance data for Comparison Group employees are based on appraisals occurring between April 1, 2000 and March 31, 2001 and as reported in the Year Three data file provided by DoC.

2. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus/award percentages are based on actions occurring during the performance evaluation cycle that ended 9/30/00 and as reported in the Year Three data file provided by DoC.

3. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages for the Demonstration Group are based on adjusted averages that were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, and length of service.

Year Four—Comparison of Performance Appraisal Scores, Average Performance-Based Pay Increases,
and Average Bonuses/Awards Across Groups

 

Performance
Appraisal Scores

Average
Pay Increase Percentage

Average
Bonus/ Award Percentage

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

Minority

85.3 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.4%

1.6%

1.6%

2.2%

Non-Minority

85.8 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.7%

1.6%

1.7%

2.2%

Female

85.9 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.6%

1.6%

1.9%

2.4%

Male

85.7 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.6%

1.6%

1.6%

2.1%

Veteran

83.6 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.4%

1.3%

1.6%

1.6%

Non-Veteran

86.1 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.7%

1.7%

1.7%

2.3%

Notes:

1. The performance appraisal scores presented for the Demonstration Group is the average number of points received under the 100-point system. The numbers presented for the Comparison Group are the percentages of employees who received “Pass” or “Fail” under the 2-level system. Performance data for Demonstration Group employees are based on appraisals conducted in September 2001, and as reported in the Year Four data file provided by DoC. Performance data for Comparison Group employees are based on appraisals occurring between April 1, 2001 and March 31, 2002 and as reported in the Year Four data file provided by DoC.

2. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus/award percentages are based on actions occurring during the performance evaluation cycle that ended September 30, 2001 and as reported in the Year Four data file provided by DoC.

3. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages for the Demonstration Group are based on adjusted averages that were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, and length of service.

4. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages were computed for 2,099 of the 2,641 Demonstration Group participants for whom salary and demographic data were available. Average performance scores were computed for 2,101 of the 2,641 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score and demographic data were available.

5. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages were computed for 1,434 of the 1,821 Comparison Group participants for whom data were available on pay increases, bonuses, performance score, career path, and length of service.

Year Five—Comparison of Performance Appraisal Scores, Average Performance-Based Pay Increases,
and Average Bonuses/Awards Across Groups

 

Performance
Appraisal Scores

Average
Pay Increase Percentage

Average
Bonus/ Award Percentage

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group

Minority

85.9 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.5%

1.5%

1.7%

1.8%

Non-Minority

86.6 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.8%

1.5%

1.8%

2.0%

Female

86.8 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.8%

1.5%

2.0%

2.3%

Male

86.6 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.8%

1.5%

1.6%

1.9%

Veteran

84.9 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.7%

1.1%

1.6%

1.7%

Non-Veteran

86.7 points

100% Pass;

0% Fail

2.8%

1.6%

1.8%

2.0%

Notes:

1. The performance appraisal scores presented for the Demonstration Group is the average number of points received under the 100-point system. The numbers presented for the Comparison Group are the percentages of employees who received “Pass” or “Fail” under the 2-level system. Performance data for Demonstration Group employees are based on appraisals conducted in September 2002, and as reported in the Year Five data file provided by DoC. Performance data for Comparison Group employees are based on appraisals occurring between April 1, 2002 and March 31, 2003 and as reported in the Year Five data file provided by DoC.

2. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus/award percentages are based on actions occurring during the performance evaluation cycle that ended September 30, 2002 and as reported in the Year Five data file provided by DoC.

3. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages for the Demonstration Group are based on averages that were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, and length of service.

4. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages were computed for 2.723 of the 3,072 Demonstration Group participants for whom salary and demographic data were available. Average performance scores were computed for 2,723 of the 3,072 Demonstration Group participants for whom performance score and demographic data were available.

5. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages were computed for 1,555 of the 1,811 Comparison Group participants for whom data were available on pay increases, bonuses, performance score, career path, and length of service.

Year Six—Comparison of Average Pay Increases and Average Bonuses/Awards Between Demonstration Group and Comparison Group

 

Average
Pay Increase Percentage

Average
Bonus/ Award Percentage

 

Demo Group

Comp Group

Demo Group

Comp Group

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

2.9%

2.7%

1.8%

1.6%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

2.6%

2.2%

1.7%

1.7%

    Hispanic

2.8%

4.2%

1.9%

2.2%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

2.7%

2.1%

1.7%

1.5%

         

Female

2.8%

3.0%

1.8%

1.7%

Male

2.8%

2.4%

1.8%

1.5%

         

Veteran

2.6%

2.0%

1.7%

1.3%

Non-Veteran

2.8%

2.7%

1.8%

1.6%

Notes:

1. Demonstration Group average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages are based on appraisals conducted in September 2004 and actions effective in November 2004, as reported in the Year Six data file provided by DoC.

2. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus/award percentages are based on actions occurring during the performance evaluation cycle that ended September 30, 2004 and as reported in the Year Six data file provided by DoC.

3. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages for the Demonstration Group are based on averages that were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, length of service, organization.

4. Average performance-based pay increase percentages were computed for 2,327 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants, and the 1,842 of the 2,134 Comparison Group, for whom data were available on pay increases, performance rating, career path (or equivalent), length of service, and organization.

5. Average bonus percentages were computed for 2,504 of the 4,465 Demonstration Group participants, and the 1,850 of the 2,134 of the Comparison Group, for whom data were available on bonuses/awards, performance score, career path (or equivalent), length of service, and organization.

6. The sample sizes for this analysis ranged from 81 to 2187 for the Demonstration Group and 30 to 1567 for the Comparison Group.

Year Seven—Comparison of Average Pay Increases and Average Bonuses/Awards Between Demonstration Group and Comparison Group

 

Average
Pay Increase Percentage

Average
Bonus/ Award Percentage

 

Demo Group

Comp Group

Demo Group

Comp Group

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

3.3%

2.7%

1.9%

1.9%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

3.1%

2.4%

1.8%

1.6%

    Hispanic

3.1%

3.4%

2.0%

2.1%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

3.2%

2.9%

2.0%

1.4%

         

Female

3.3%

3.0%

2.0%

2.0%

Male

3.2%

2.5%

1.9%

1.7%

         

Veteran

3.0%

2.3%

1.9%

1.5%

Non-Veteran

3.3%

2.7%

1.9%

1.9%

Notes:

1. Demonstration Group average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages are based on appraisals conducted in September 2005 and actions effective in November 2005, as reported in the Year Seven data file provided by DoC.

2. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus/award percentages are based on actions occurring during the performance evaluation cycle that ended September 30, 2005 and as reported in the Year Seven data file provided by DoC.

3. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages for the Demonstration Group are based on averages that were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, and length of service.

4. Average performance-based pay increase percentages were computed for 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants, and the 1,834 of the 2,113 Comparison Group, for whom data were available on pay increases, performance rating, career path (or equivalent), and length of service.

5. Average bonus percentages were computed for 3,979 of the 4,608 Demonstration Group participants, and the 1,834 of the 2,113 Comparison Group, for whom data were available on bonuses/awards, performance score, career path (or equivalent), and length of service.

6. The sample sizes for this analysis ranged from 117 to 3,127 for the Demonstration Group and 33 to 1,551 for the Comparison Group.

Year Eight—Comparison of Average Pay Increases and Average Bonuses/Awards Between Demonstration Group and Comparison Group

 

Average
Pay Increase Percentage

Average
Bonus/ Award Percentage

 

Demo Group

Comp Group

Demo Group

Comp Group

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

3.4%

2.9%

2.0%

1.7%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

3.1%

1.8%

1.8%

1.4%

    Hispanic

3.3%

2.9%

2.1%

2.0%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

3.7%

3.3%

2.1%

1.6%

         

Female

3.3%

2.9%

2.0%

1.7%

Male

3.4%

2.7%

2.0%

1.6%

         

Veteran

3.3%

2.5%

2.1%

1.5%

Non-Veteran

3.4%

2.9%

2.0%

1.7%

Notes:

1. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages for the Demonstration Group are based on averages that were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, and length of service.

2. Average performance-based pay increase percentages were computed for 3,735 of the 4,650 Demonstration Group participants, and the 1,936 of the 2,124 Comparison Group, for whom data were available on pay increases, performance rating, career path (or equivalent), and length of service.

3. Average bonus percentages were computed for 3,981 of the 4,650 Demonstration Group participants, and the 1,940 of the 2,124 Comparison Group, for whom data were available on bonuses/awards, performance score, career path (or equivalent), and length of service.

4. The sample sizes for this analysis ranged from 109 to 3,501 for the Demonstration Group and 37 to 1,736 for the Comparison Group.

Year Nine—Comparison of Average Pay Increases and Average Bonuses/Awards Between Demonstration Group and Comparison Group

 

Average
Pay Increase Percentage

Average
Bonus/ Award Percentage

 

Demo Group

Comp Group

Demo Group

Comp Group

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

3.2%

3.0%

2.1%

1.5%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

3.0%

2.7%

1.9%

1.2%

    Hispanic

3.4%

2.8%

2.1%

1.5%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

3.4%

2.5%

2.1%

1.4%

         

Female

3.3%

3.7%

2.1%

1.5%

Male

3.2%

2.8%

2.0%

1.4%

         

Veteran

3.2%

2.4%

2.1%

1.3%

Non-Veteran

3.2%

3.1%

2.0%

1.5%

    Notes:

    1. Average performance-based pay increase and bonus percentages for the Demonstration Group are based on averages that were computed by statistically controlling for performance score, career path, and length of service.

    2. Average performance-based pay increase percentages were computed for 3,692 of the 7,699 Demonstration Group participants, and the 4,211 of the 5,230 Comparison Group, for whom data were available on pay increases, performance rating, career path (or equivalent), and length of service.

    3. Average bonus percentages were computed for 3,989 of the 7,699 Demonstration Group participants, and the 4,211 of the 5,230 Comparison Group, for whom data were available on bonuses/awards, performance score, career path (or equivalent), and length of service.

    4. The sample sizes for this analysis ranged from 105 to 3,537 for the Demonstration Group and 122 to 3,711 for the Comparison Group.

Turnover in the Demonstration Group, All Participants and High Performers

Year Two—Turnover in the Demonstration Group, All Participants and High Performers

 

All Demonstration Group Participants

Demonstration Group High Performers


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

Minority

520

63

12%

113

10

9%

Non-Minority

2,220

301

14%

638

62

10%

TOTAL

2,740

364

13%

751

72

10%

Note: “High performers” is defined as performance scores of 90–100.

Year Three—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration Group Between All Participants and High Performers

 

All Demonstration Group Participants

Demonstration Group High Performers


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

Minority

556

77

14%

136

11

8%

Non-Minority

2,225

349

16%

687

61

9%

TOTAL

2,781

436

16%

823

72

9%

Note: “High performers” is defined as performance scores of 90–100.

Year Four—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration Group Between All Participants and High Performers

 

Demonstration Group

All Participants

Demonstration Group

High Performers


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

Minority

522

90

17%

127

9

7%

Non-Minority

2,119

313

15%

670

51

8%

TOTAL

2,641

403

15%

797

60

8%

Note: “High performers” is defined as performance scores of 90–100.

Year Five—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration Group Between All Participants and High Performers

 

Demonstration Group

All Participants

Demonstration Group

High Performers


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

Minority

    620

    32

5%

    197

    1

0.5%

Non-Minority

    2,452

    126

5%

    923

    16

2.0%

TOTAL

    3,072

    158

5%

    1,120

    17

1.5%

Note: “High performers” is defined as performance scores of 90–100.

Year Six—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration Group Between All Participants and High Performers

 

Demonstration Group

All Participants

Demonstration Group

High Performers


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

3,498

185

5.3%

939

20

2.1%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

581

41

7.1%

129

7

5.4%

    Hispanic

132

5

3.8%

30

0

0.0%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

235

10

4.3%

50

1

2.0%

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

19

1

5.3%

2

0

0.0%

TOTAL

4,465

242

5.4%

1,150

28

2.4%

Note: “High performers” is defined as performance scores of 90–100.

Year Seven—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration Group Between All Participants and High Performers

 

Demonstration Group

All Participants

Demonstration Group

High Performers


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

3,576

256

7.2%

1,130

25

2.2%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

602

48

8.0%

146

2

1.4%

    Hispanic

145

15

10.3%

43

2

4.7%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

266

20

7.5%

69

1

1.4%

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

19

2

10.5%

4

0

0.0%

TOTAL

4,608

341

7.4%

1,392

30

2.1%

Note: “High performers” is defined as performance scores of 90–100.

Year Eight—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration Group Between All Participants and High Performers

 

Demonstration Group

All Participants

Demonstration Group

High Performers


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

3598

252

7.0%

1054

21

2.0%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

616

69

11.2%

143

3

2.1%

    Hispanic

143

19

13.3%

30

0

0%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

274

13

4.7%

73

1

1.4%

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

19

2

10.5%

4

0

0%

TOTAL

4650

355

7.6%

1304

25

1.9%

Year Nine—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration Group Between All Participants and High Performers

 

Demonstration Group
All Participants

Demonstration Group
High Performers

Group

Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

5,982

322

5.4%

1,003

18

1.8%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

1,035

72

7.0%

157

3

1.9%

    Hispanic

210

18

8.6%

34

1

2.9%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

430

17

4.0%

91

3

3.3%

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

42

1

2.4%

4

0

0.0%

TOTAL

7,699

430

5.6%

1,289

25

1.9%

Note:

1. “High performers” is defined as those with performance scores of 90–100.

Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

Year Two—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

Minority

520

63

12%

232

32

14%

Non-Minority

2,220

301

14%

1,696

151

9%

TOTAL

2,740

364

13%

1,928

183

10%

Year Three—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

Comparison Group


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

Minority

556

77

14%

219

27

12%

Non-Minority

2,225

349

16%

1,589

177

11%

TOTAL

2,781

436

16%

1,808

204

11%

Year Four—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

All Participants

Comparison Group

All Participants


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

Minority

522

90

17%

233

40

17%

Non-Minority

2,119

313

15%

1,588

241

15%

TOTAL

2,641

403

15%

1,821

281

15%

Year Five—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

All Participants

Comparison Group

All Participants


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

Minority

    620

    32

5%

    239

    5

2%

Non-Minority

    2,452

    126

5%

    1,572

    70

5%

TOTAL

    3,072

    158

5%

    1,811

    75

4%

Year Six—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

All Participants

Comparison Group

All Participants


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

3,498

185

5.3%

1,803

97

5.4%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

581

41

7.1%

188

10

5.3%

    Hispanic

132

5

3.8%

37

3

8.1%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

235

10

4.3%

98

4

4.1%

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

19

1

5.3%

8

0

0.0%

TOTAL

4,465

242

5.4%

2,134

114

5.3%

Year Seven—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

All Participants

Comparison Group

All Participants


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

3,576

256

7.2%

1,787

88

4.9%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

602

48

8.0%

184

13

7.1%

    Hispanic

145

15

10.3%

37

0

0.0%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

266

20

7.5%

93

4

4.3%

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

19

2

10.5%

12

0

0.0%

TOTAL

4,608

341

7.4%

2,113

105

5.0%

Year Eight—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group

All Participants

Comparison Group

All Participants


Group


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated


Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

3598

252

7.0%

1798

84

4.7%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

616

69

11.2%

175

9

5.1%

    Hispanic

143

19

13.3%

41

1

2.4%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

274

13

4.7%

96

5

5.2%

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

19

2

10.5%

14

0

0.0%

TOTAL

4650

355

7.6%

2124

99

4.7%

Year Nine—Comparison of Turnover Rates in the Demonstration and Comparison Groups

 

Demonstration Group
All Participants

Comparison Group
All Participants

Group

Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

Number

Number Separated

Percent Separated

    White (not of Hispanic origin)

5982

322

5.4%

4595

231

5.0%

    Black (not of Hispanic origin)

1035

72

7.0%

266

18

6.8%

    Hispanic

210

18

8.6%

148

3

2.0%

    Asian or Pacific Islander

430

17

4.0%

179

6

3.4%

    American Indian or Alaskan Native

42

1

2.4%

42

2

4.8%

TOTAL

7699

430

5.6%

5230

260

5.0%

1 This appendix is a compendium of data tables from previous reports and is provided for the ease of the reader in making comparisons with the Year Seven data. Note that some analyses were not performed in all years.

2 For this analysis and those to follow, the term “eligible performance score” refers to the definition provided in Section 3.1.2.

3 This was originally referred to as “agency-based staffing” in the Demonstration Project.




A - Z HR Policy Library for HR Practitioners