THE COURT PERSONNEL SYSTEM IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ,' \'

An Analysis of the Federal Judiciary's New Personnel System and an Implementation Plan for the District of Arizona

/

Institute for Court Management Court Executive Development Program

Phase III Project May 1996

Roger Brockmeyer Human Resour& Division Manager

U.S. District court District Of h M

library National Center for State Courts

300 Newport Ave. Williarnsburg, VA 23 1 87-8798

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author thanks Institute for Court Management Fellow Mr. Richard Weare, District

Court ExecutivdClerk of Court for the District of Arizona, for encouraging the author to

enroll in the Court Executive Development Program. Thanks also to Mr. Weare, Mr.

Thomas Yamauchi, the District's Chief Probation Officer and Ms. Olivia Meza, the

District's Chief Pretrial Services Officer, for their support through all phases of the CEDP.

Finally, thanks to Chief Deputy Clerk of Court Ronnie Honey, also an Institute for Court

Management Fellow, and all staff members of the District's Human Resources Division,

for their support and encouragement.

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

NAPA Studies and Recommendations

Job Evaluation

Pay- for-Performance

District of Arizona's Organizational Description

Consolidated Administrative Services

Cost Control Monitoring System

NAPA's Recommendations

Court Personnel System Development

Classification System

Job Evaluation Factors

Occupational Groups

Classification of Supervisors and Managers

Grade Structure

Compensation

Qualifications

CPS Implementation

CPS Implementation Plan for Arizona

Training of Unit Executives and HRD Staff

Information Dissemination to Staff

Training of Managers and Supervisors

Conclusions

1

3

4

8

15

16

17

20

21

23

24

25

27

28

29

30

30

31

31

32

34

35

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Appendix H

LIST OF APPENDICES

CPS Benchmark Positions

Sample Benchmark Format

CPS Occupational Groups

CPS Salary Table

Classification Level and Step Memo to StafY

CPS Informational Booklet

CPS Fact Sheet

Subjects Covered During Supervisor Training

ABSTRACT

For 30 years the federal courts have used the Judiciary Salary Plan (JSP) to class@

positions in the courts, and to determine the appropriate grade level for employees. The .

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) makes most personnel decisions in

Washington, D.C. In 1996 the courts will implement a new personnel system, the Court

Personnel System (CPS). CPS will be controlled by individual district and circuit courts,

and the A 0 will move to an advisory role. Local managers will be responsible for the

financial impact of the hiring decisions they make, and there will also be a change in their

relationship with the AO.

The District of Arizona converted to CPS on February 5,1996. This project is a

discussion of the job evaluation techniques, a description of the District of Arizona, an

analysis of CPS and a pIan of action to implement CPS in Arizona.

INTRODUCTION

The federal courts are a constitutionally unique branch of government. The founding

fathers anticipated the potential for an overreaching president or Congress, and by design

gave the courts judicial independence. Besides the 94 federal districts courts, there are 11

circuit courts, several special purpose courts as well as the Supreme Court. While there is

judicial independence for all levels of the federal courts, historically, independence has not

extended to the courts' administrative functions. The Administrative Office of the United

States Courts (AO) provides guidance and oversight for the administrative functions of the

courts. For example, the courts' space and facilities needs are met by the General Services

Administration (GSA), just like GSA meets the space and facilities needs of executive

branch agencies. The federal courts may not acquire office space independently.

Likewise, courts must follow A 0 procedures regarding procurement of goods and

services. This oversight has extended to personnel issues as well, in the form of the 30

year old Judiciary Salary Plan (JSP).

For pay purposes, the JSP is identical to the General Schedule used by the executive

branch of the federal government. Positions are classified as being in one of 18 grades,

with grade 1 being lowest and grade18 being highest. In each grade there are 10 steps,

through which employees progress, based on time in each grade. For example, it takes

one year in each step to move from steps 1 through 4. Two years in grade are required to

move between steps 4 and 7, and three years are needed in grade are needed to move

between steps 8 through 10. Cash bonuses may be given to employees in step 10 of a

grade, to reward satisfactory performance for long-time employees who cannot earn more

in a grade.

1

More sigdicantly than the federal judiciary‘s reliance on the JSP to pay employees, the

classification component of the JSP is centrally controlled and rule-driven by the AO, with

very little opportunity for independent or creative action by local courts. Also, the JSP

differs fiom the General Schedule in that it provides classification for over I50 positions,

many of which are unique to the operations of the Courts, such as probation officer,

docket clerk, and so on. All Judiciary employees must occupy a position described in the

JSP. There is no provision for local creativity, without A 0 approval. Local managers

may not create unique positions to meet local needs, unless the A 0 approves. Generally

speaking, the A 0 decides the entry level for every employee hired by all courts. This

means courts may recruit, interview and select candidates to fill vacancies, but A 0 staf€

must decide the starting level of any candidate selected. Given that there are

approximately 26,000 employees in the federal judiciary, it is clear that this system is

overly centralized far fiom where staffing decisions are made, and leads to an awkward

situation where local managers offer positions to candidates without being able to specltjt

at what grade. This is because A 0 human resources staff cannot expeditiously evaluate

the qualifications and experience of aIl candidates chosen for positions in aIl the court units

at any one time around the country.

Further, court managers had become dissatisfied with the JSP, finding it “inflem’ble and

slow to accommodate changes in the nature of court work; grade levels are considered too

low for a number of landmark positions; the JSP does not provide the number and type of

supervisors appropriate to managing the changing nature of the courts’ work; and there is

limited ability to grant greater and /or more fiequent pay increases to deserving staff”

. . National Academy of Public Administration, 4 reprinted in Court Personnel System, Revised Interim Report (Washington, D.C.: Administrative Oflice of the U.S. Courts, September, 1994) vi.

2

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION STUDIES AND

RECOMMENDATION

Recognizing the probable need for change in the JSP and its administration by the courts,

the A 0 commissioned the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to

evaluate the JSP. The A 0 wanted to develop a simple and flexible nationwide system, one

which would also provide a compensation system appropriate for the whole country. The

A 0 also wanted to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the JSP, iden@ and

analyze its problems, and develop three approaches to solving JSP's problems.

NAPA found six broad areas of weakness in the JSP and how it operates.

1) There are too many landmark positions, which results in dexiiility and a burdensome

process.

2) Grades of positions are often changed to increase incumbents' salaries, not to reflect

changes in responsibilities or duties.

3) Decision makers are not concerned with the financial impact of their decisions to raise

pay or reclasslfj. positions. Once A 0 approval is received to do either for staffl full

fbnding is automatic for fbture years.

4) There is no centralized personnel data system which can produce useful management

information.

5 ) Performance appraisal systems cannot support a pay-for-performance compensation

system.

6) Some of the problems attributed to the JSP may actually be caused by inadequate

qualitications standards or lack of training in the use of the JSP.

3

NAPA's most significant recommendation was that the JSP should be replaced with a

benchmark system, with a relatively small number of key classes of positions to establish

an organizational hierarchy. This hierarchy may then be used as a fiamework to class@

most positions without outside approval. Ultimately the Court Personnel System (CPS)

was developed, giving local court managers the fieedom to make classification decisions,

and the responsibility of managing their courts' classification systems.

A complete discussion of CPS and how it will be implemented in Arizona is the most

important part of this CEDP Phase III project, and will be addressed later. But to

understand CPS thoroughly, it is important to discuss the theoretical underpinnings of

classifications systems in general, and benchmark systems in particular. For that we must

examine the historic and current literature and thought in this area.

JOB EVALUATION

One of the goals of CPS was to establish a hierarchy of jobs in the judiciary which could

be used as benchmarks to then analyze other jobs and assign them to the proper

classification level. Benchmark positions are like intervals on a yardstick. Other positions

are compared to the benchmarks and placed in the appropriate classification level. The

ultimate purpose is to determine how much to pay employees for the work they perform in

their jobs. This type of process is known as job ev&ation. Job evaluation has a long

history in business and government, and a search of the relevant available literature shows

that CPS is consistent with commonly used job evaluation techniques.

4

Pritchard and Murk defhe job evaluation as "a process for judging the relative size or

importance of jobs within an organization. 'I2 Thomason says job evaluation is "a term

used to cover a number of separate and distinct methods of systematically measuring the

relative worth of jobs, employing yardsticks which are derived fiom the actual content of

the jobs themsel~es."~ Q w d posits that job evaluation is "a device for the settlement of

the troublesome question of how to establish an internally equitable pay structure that is

also externally competitive. n4 These definitions include the most commonly described

characteristics of job evaluation. It is a systematic comparison of jobs in an organization

to determine each job's worth in comparison to all other jobs. While certain scientific

tools are used, such as graphs, scales, numbers, etc., one must remember the process is

not truly ~cientific.~ Ultimately, the process relies on the observations, beliefs and

opinions of people in a particular organization.

Quaid gives an excellent description of the history of job evaluation, particularly in the

public sector.6 In 1838 a group of clerks in the federal government was unhappy that

clerks in another branch received higher pay than they did. They petitioned Congress that

an inquiry be made concerning the perceived inequity, and that a law be passed requiring

* Derek Pritchard and Helen Murlis, q e w W- Evaluation (London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 1992) 40.

George F. Thomason, to Job Evaluatmn (London: Institute of Personnel Management, 1968) 5.

Maeve Quaid, J h U y a a (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993) 50.

Pritchard and Murlis, 50.

ti Quaid, 23-27.

5

that the amount of pay a clerk received was based on the complexities of the tasks

performed and that it be consistent throughout the government. Congress responded by

passing a resolution that such a study be conducted so that jobs were paid based on the

relative value of the work performed. While the resolution was passed, no formal job

classification study was conducted until 187 1.

During World War I the Bureau of Labor Statistics prepared a series of "Descriptions of

Occupations" for use in the U. S. Employment Service for selection and recruitment of

employees. Also during this time, state and municipal civil service commissions prepared

specifications for positions in their entities. It wasn't until the passage of the Federal

Classification Act of 1923 that the federal government established a comprehensive

program to class+ jobs. The Classification Act was amended many times, until it was

replaced by the Classification Act of 1949. The 1949 Act's explicit goal was to achieve

internal equity within the Federal govenunent. It is interesting to note that external equity,

that is, outside of the Federal government, was considered irrelevant. This Act established

the General Schedule and the Federal Wage System. As mentioned earlier, the JSP was

developed in the early 1960's based on the General Schedule.

There are many types of job evaluation. Paterson defines three categories of job

evaluation method.' The first is by qualitative judgment alone, which includes the job

ranking method and the job classification method. The second is by q u a n w g qualitative

judgments, which includes the point method and the factor comparison method. The third

T.T. Paterson, MI E v d d m . V- (London: Business Books Limited, 1972) 41-42.

6

is by comparing dflkrmces in decision-making, and this includes the castellion method,

the time-span method and the guide-chart profile method.

Pritchard and Muriis describe two categories of job evaluation. The first uses non-

analytical methods, "in which whole jobs are examined, without breaking down into

constituent parts or aspects" and " analytical methods", in which jobs are considered using

a number of criteria, factors or elements, with overall job size being an accumulation of

these separate judgments."%

For the purposes of this review we will limit our attention to job evaluations usig factor

comparisons, since this is the method, plus the use of benchmark positions, used for CPS.

First appearing in 1926, it was developed by Eugene Benge. Generally speaking, this

method compares jobs using one of five factors at a time.9 The factors developed by

Benge are mental requirements, skill requirements, physical requirements, responsibilities

and working conditions. It is recommended that no more than seven factors be used, since

using more than seven makes the process unwieldy. Whatever factors are used, they

obviously need to be relevant to the jobs being analyzed and compared.

Mer the factors are established, 15 to 25 key jobs, or benchmarks, are selected for

comparison using the factors. This is to develop a framework or hierarchy of jobs in the

organization, against which all jobs may be compared. Using the benchmarks as guides,

any job can be analyzed and placed in its proper grade level.

Pritchard and Murlis, 49,

Paterson, 82-85.

7

A committee of people from different parts of the organization being analyzed then rank

the benchmark jobs using each factor. lo The committee should agree on the ranking for

each job, by factor. Next, the committee assigns a percentage to each factor in each

benchmark job, to reflect the importance of that factor to performing each benchmark job

successfilly. Then the committee must assign the benchmark jobs to some type of pay

scale or pay rate.

The literature on job evaluation shows there are many tools available for organizations

which want to examine rationally the jobs in their hierarchy, and make changes to meet

changing needs. The CPS is a good example of a job evaluation based on factor

comparisons, and shows CPS was designed using commonly accepted methods of job

evaluation.

PAY -FOR-PERFORMANCE

One of the most intriguing parts of CPS is the optional pay-for-performance component.

In the same way that CPS revolutionizes the judiciary's personnel system, the option to

develop a pay-for-performance mechanism offers court managers an opportunity to

encourage the highest level of performance fiom court employees. The idea is logically

compelling11, in that any rational person should want to perform as well as they can so as

to receive higher pay. A simple example in the private sector would be salespersons who

lo Pritchard and Murlis, 65.

J. Edward Kellough and Heroin Lu, "The Paradox of Merit Pay in the Public Sector," ew 5 13.2 (Spring 1993): 45. . .

8

get some type of commission based on their d e s . Perfonnance is defined by the level or

amount of sales, with higher sales meaning higher pay. While apparently simple and

straightforward, pay-for-performance in the public sector has many nuances and

drawbacks which should be closely examined and analyzed before any Unit in the federal

courts opts to start such a compensation plan. Pay-for-performance in the public sector

has received much examination and analysis by experts in the field of public personnel

administration and the available literature is helpll to court managers.

All wage and salary systems are based on management's need to control employees'

activities and the operations of the organization. l2 Obviously there is an accepted

relationship between management and employees, in that management pays employees to

work in the organization as directed by management. Management decides what

employees will do and at what rate of pay. In turn, employees decide if they Win work for

the organization at the rate of pay offered, as well as accepting other conditions of

employment like work shifts, environmental conditions and so on. This basic concept

goes back centuries, and assumes that employees' strongest motivation in the workplace

is money. A strict adherence to this concept ignores the last hundred year's worth of

research, analysis and writings by experts in the fields of employee motivation, industrial

relations and organization development. While very sipficant, court managers need to

look beyond money as a motivating factor for employees' performance if they are to

encourage the highest level of performance possiile.

l2 Howard Risher, "The Emerging Model for Salaxy Management in the Private Sector: Is it Relevant to Government?" f i 23.4 (Winter 1994): 649.

9

The federal government's major step toward instituting a pay-for-performance system was

the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA). l3 The CSRA established a Merit Pay

System which linked pay increases for mid-level managers and supervisors, GS grades 13-

15, to their performance, rather than just to their length of service. l4 The theoretical

foundation for the CSRA was laid in Taylof s writings on scientific management, as well as

by Drucker's management by objective (MBO) system. l5 Basically stated, the premises

are that there is an identifiable best way of performing any function, and that activities can

be organized into discrete, measurable objectives. The next step is to establish accurate

evaluative instruments and systems, relying heavily on employee input. Identifiable levels

of exceptional performance need to be d e s c r i i along with associated financial rewards.

Managers and employees should receive all necessary training to perform successfully.

M e r all this is done, expectancy theory16 leads us to believe that employees will

recognize that they can earn more money by improving their performance, and they will

work toward that goal. Rewarding higher levels of performance will encourage more of

that performance in all employees. Employees not performing at an acceptable level will

be counseled and helped to perform, always with the achievable goal of extra pay for

better performance in sight. Non-performers are removed, either through reassignment or

dismissal. The entire organization should benefit by rewarding remarkable performance

with extra remuneration.

13. Kellough and Lu, 45.

(NewYorkHarper l4 0. Glenn Stahl, 4 and Row, 1983) 322.

. .

l5 John A. Nicolay, "Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay Response to Thayer," Review 1 1 0 . 1 (Fan 1989): 60. . .

l6 Kellough and Lu, 47

10

Theoretically, this approach is beguiling and very attractive. It is logical to assume people

will act in their own self-interest to earn more money. And, after all, if it works for

salespeople or in manut-gcturing environments, it should work in government. W h y not

utilize it in government, particularly when there is an a s d high level of public

dissatisfaction with governmental performance, with generally accepted low levels of

employee performance and operational efiiciency, specifidly in the federal g~vernment?~~

Government agencies rely heavily on positioning people in grades, and establishing pay

levels for those grades. Paying for performance is an attempt to pay the person, not just

pay the job. l8

No matter how intellectually attractive pay-for-performance may be, there are many issues

and considerations which must be considered before court managers avail themselves of

the pay-for-performance component of CPS. The fkst is the assumption that pay is the

primary motivator of employees. This assumption has been repeatedly challenged for

decades. According to Tannenbaum and Davis l9 and hosts of others, employees work in

an organization for many reasons, and pay is just one of them. Besides the intrinsic

l7 Testimony of Alan K. Campbell, Chairman, U.S. Civil service Commission, before the Committee on Post 06ce and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives (March 14, 1978), classics of ' (Oak Park Illinois: Moore Publishing Company, 1979) 77- 102.

l8 fisher, 656-658.

. . l9 Wendall L. French, Cecil H. Bell Jr. and Robert Zawacki, eds, 1 (Plano, Texas: Business hblications, Inc., 1983) 47-56.

11

rewards of working in any organization, it should be hoped that judiciary employees

recognize the vital role the federal courts play in our nation, and they should feel some

high level of satisfaction by being associated with such important work. Paying for

performance has little relationship with employees' beliefs that they are involved with a

higher calling. Obviously, not all judiciary employees necessarily feel this way, nor do all

those that feel this way feel it aU the time. Still, the importance and prestige of working in

the Courts is a powerful motivator of staff.

Another reason for questioning the efficacy of pay-for-performance is its reliance on clear,

thorough and all encompassing performance standards, as well as a properly implemented

performance evaluation system. Title II of the CSRA was meant to provide "for new

systems of appraising employee performance that will make it possible for agencies to do a

better job recognizing and rewarding good employees and of identlflmg and helping those

who are just getting by or are not performing at the level required."2o This seems

admirable enough, but requires great effort in any governmental environment, including

the judiciary. The foundation for such objective evaluation is measurable performance

standards for all employees which relate to the mission of the courts in general, and the

particular unit the employee is in, in'particular. The CSRA's policy guidelines required

that federal employees participate in designing their performance standards.21 The

standards need to be in an MBO format ifthere is to be a clear relationship between the

standards and paying for performance.

2o Campbell testimony, 87

21 Nicolay, 62.

12

Formulation of goals is crucial to MBO, and success requires that objectives be 1)

specific, measurable and linked to organizational goals; 2) time specific with a plan of

action and reviews; 3) quantifiable, or at least verifiable; and, 4) flexible enough to change

when needed.22 Again, while this seems simple enough, defining measurable objectives is

quite dficult, Thayer believes that employees do not really participate in the design of

their standardst3 While that is an extreme position, supervisors do make the ultimate

decision regarding performance standards, and the level of employee participation

undoubtedly varies.

Even if clear and measurable goals and performance standards are developed, there are

great challenges in the performance appraisal process itself Employee goals need to be

closely related to the organization's goals, a difficult task when the judiciary's ultimate goal

is the administration of justice. Managers in the private sector can much more easily relate

an individual's performance to the organization's performance due to the private sector's

"bottom tine", making a profit. Positive cash flow, profitability and other business

measures are available to business managers, and provide a clear benchmark when

determining employees' level of pay for performance.

In the public Sector there fiequently is the problem of rater leniend4 which makes it

dif€icuIt to have consistent ratings for all employees. This tends to lessen employees'

22 Ibid., 62-63. Citing M.L McConkie in Thompson, D., "Performance Appraisal and the Civil Sexvice Reform Act." 10,3 :28 1-288.

23 Frederick Thayer, "Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay: Thayer's Rejoinder," L 10.2 (Spring 1990): 72.

. .

24 Kellough and Lu, 5 1

13

confidence in the whole system and serves as a disincentive. Rater leniency is not

impossible to overcome, but it does require a shift in the thinking of supervisors who may

have a tendency to search for ways to find all employees "acceptable." However, creating

new ways of thinking and new approaches to classification is a large part of CPS, and

managers will have to adjust to many new processes.

Another problem with merit pay plans is that they typically try to measure individual

performance. Current management theory emphasizes organizing employees into teams,

and this further complicates pay for performance plans. Wit is diacult to measure a single

employee's performance, it is sigmflcantly more difficult to measure and reward individuals

wtro are part ofa team.25

There have been evaluations of pay-for-performance systems. Kellough and Lu

summarize 14 such evaluations, maLnfy in federal government agencies, and

overwhelmingly find them ~ n s u c c e s s ~ l . ~ ~ For example, they found that staff did not

believe merit pay increased their motivation or performance, nor did they support it.

There w a s also difficulty in linking performance to outcomes, which is a significant failing.

With there being scant evidence that pay-for-performance plans are effective, one wonders

why such plans continue to be discussed and offered. Kenough and Lu discuss several

One reason is the basic, compelling logic that people should be rewarded for

2s Risher, 652.

26 Ibid., 49-52.

27 Ibid., 55-58.

14

how well they perform. Judging by the record, however, this seems to be, at best, wishfid

thinking, or, at worst, conscious attempts at placating a disgruntled public with such plans'

symbolic v h e , not their actual day-to-day efFectiveness at improving employee

performance. A second reason is the assumption that ifit works in business it must work

in the public sector. A third is that it provides a means of strengthening political

accountability in upper levels of the bureaucracy. A fourth is that problems with merit pay

are due to implementation diflSiculties, not with the basic idea.

While paying for performance is an option in CPS, for FY% the A 0 must approve any

such plan before a court unit may implement it. Such oversight is removed when CPS is

completely decentralized to the districts in FY97. Any district unit contemplating

establishing a pay for performance plan must be completeiy aware of the drawbacks and

questionable benefits of such plans, and must be certain to design their system so that it

has a reasonable chance for success. Doing any less m y mean harming employee morale

and performance, rather than improving them.

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA'S ORGANIZATIONAL DESCRIPTION

There are three major components to the district court in Arizona. Fist is the office of the

clerk. The clerk's office is responsible for docketing hcoming cam, record keeping,

collecting fines and payments, making payments, space and facilities, etc. Simply put, the

clerk's office is responsible for all administrative aspects of the Court's operations. The

headquarters for the clerk's office is in the Phoenix courthouse, with a divisional office in

Tucson. Some trials are held in Prescott, and magistrates judges are stationed in Yuma,

Flagstaffand the Grand Canyon.

15

A second component is the pretrial seryices office. Pretrial Services is responsible for

preparing reports which magistrate judges use to make bail determinations for defendants

brought before them, or to determine if defendants should be kept in jail pending trial.

Pretrial services officers also supervise some defendants who are allowed to be in the

community pending their trials. Pretrial services is similar to the clerk's office in that the

headquarters is in the Phoenix courthouse with a divisional office in Tucson. Pretrial

services officers are also located in Yuma and Flag&.

The third component of the Court is the probation office. The probation office is

responsible for preparing presentence reports which judges use when sentencing offenders

who pleaded gwlty, or were found gudty. Probation officers also are responsiile for

working with offenders under supervised release. Some offenders go to prison for a set

period of time, and then are released fiorn prison to be on supervised release. Other

offenders are not first incarcerated but are sentenced directly to supervised release.

Probation also has headquarters in Phoenix and a divisional office in Tucson, and

supervision offices in Mesa, Glendale, Tucson, Hagstaff, Prescott, Pinetop, Sierra Vista

and Yuma.

CONSOLIDATED ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

In most districts around the country, the clerk's office, pretrial services and the probation

office have separate administrative services-type fimctions, such as personnel, budgeting

and procurement, space and facilities and automation. This leads to inevitable duplication

of staff, since each component will have stsengaged in similar activities. la an effort to

achieve more coordinated administrative efforts, in January, 1995 the Dktrict of Arizona

consolidated administrative services in three divisions under the supemision of the clerk's

16

office. One of these divisions is the Human Resources Division (HRD). It consists of the

author as division manager, two personnel specialists, a training coordinator and three

personnel assistants. Most personnel activities for the three court units, as wen as

providing some personnel service to judges and their H, are performed by consolidated

HRD. It d l be HRD's responsibility to administer CPS in the District of f i o n a .

COST CONTROL MONITORING SYSTEM

An important aspect of classification systems is their linkage to, and affect on, personnel

costs. Ideally, no classification or hiring decision should be made by a manager without

knowing how much that decision will cost the organization at the present time, and in the

future. This forces the manager to weigh the benefit received by hiring additional staff, or

by paying current staffmore due to promotions or reclassification. Interestingly, however,

that was not the case for federal court managers until fiscal year 1996, and is an example

of the inefficiencies of having the A 0 control so much in the area of personnel

management.

Prior to FY96, local federal court units received staffing allocations fiom the AO, based

on workload measurement formulae for each unit. For example, a certain number of

clerk's office &for amounts of cases filed, or X number of probation officers based on

offenders under supervision. Allocations varied from year to year based on workload

fluctuations; however, there was no financial disincentive to hire as many staffas allowed.

Court managers needed only to be certain staff payrolls could be met for the current fiscal

year. For each succeeding year, the A 0 would automatically pay for all StaBFcarried over

from one year to the next. Ifworkload went do& and stafiing allocations also declined,

generally the executive had until the end of the fiscal year to have his or her staffing level

17

down to the A 0 allocation. Even then, as long as allocation staflhg levels were met, A 0

would provide fbnds for all staff on board, regardless of the cost. There were some

supervisor-to-staffratios, but these had only marginal effect. Any effect was not financial

Since all staff on board were paid, assuming staffing levels were under A 0 limits.

Not only was there no incentive to save money, there was great incentive to have as highly

a paid staff as possible, since personnel hnds made available by personnel vacancies in a

fiscal year could be retained by the local manager for use elsewhere. It was therefore

rational to have as highly graded, and paid, staffas possible, because as individuals left,

their positions could be kept vacant until the end of the fiscal year. Any payroll not spent

may be spent for other purposes, and the vacancy would finally be filled just before the

end of the fiscal year, and the person selected would have their next year's salary paid in

full by the AO. In addition, it behooved the local manager to bring in staff at as high a

grade as possible, since the A 0 would pay their salary for the next year.

This incentive to have highly graded st@ was particularly strong when it came to

decisions to upgrade or reclassifL employees. Local managers needed only to convince

A 0 personnel staffthat an employee or employees should be at a higher grade, and

additional fUnding would be automatic. This led to a situation where the object was to get

A 0 approval, and not be concerned about the financial consequences. When in doubt, it

was logical to ask the A 0 for reclassifications and see ifthey agreed. There was no cost

to the focal manager.

There were several problems with this arrangement, besides the sigtllficant ones of

disincentives for local managers to control personnel costs, and focusing on numbers of

employees and not personnel costs. Another prominent problem was that so much of the

18

activity in this process took place at the A 0 and not at the local level where the managers

were. The A 0 decided whether candidates selected met qualification requirements, what

their starting grade would be and whether w e n t employees should be reclassified.

Considering there are approximately 26,000 employees in tbe judiciary, this was a

tremendous workload for the limited staffin the AO's Human Resources Division.

These decisions were not made randomly. Both A 0 and local staffrelied on the JSP and

its many rules and provisions. The JSP was cfearly a controlling mechanism which kept

power in the AO's hands. In recent years the A 0 has wi&y turned over more and more

decision making to local courts, most notably with budget decentralization. This allows

local managers to move h d s between budget accounts, fbnowing some basic rules,

without A 0 approval. In this spirit, and in conjunction with CPS, the A 0 developed the

cost control monitoring system (CCMS).

CCMS meets several of the objectives NAPA suggested the Judiciary strive to achieve

when designing a new classification system. First, it emphasizes personnel costs, not just

numbers of employees. Secondly, it places responsibilities for staffing decisions and

hancial control with the local managers, not the AO. Thirdly, it forces managers to

consider the long-range effects of their hiring and classification decisions.

CCMS still measures workload, but formulae are used to determine work units, not

numbers of sta. Briefly put, after some one-time calculations and procedures to convert

to CCMS in FY96, court organizations will be assigned work units, based on the

workload formulae, for a fiscal year. Ifthe organization's actual staflcing level is below the

work units assigned, the court organization gets h d h g fin each position under the

maximum work units available. Specdjcally, the national average salary for the particular

19

court organization. However, ifthe organization has more &than the assigned work

units, it will be penalized because it will not receive hnding fbr the additional positions.

For example, in FY96 the clerk's office workload formulae indicate that organization is

entitled to 100 work units. Assume the national average salary for clerks' offices is

$36,000. Ifthere are actually 98 employees on board, the clerk's office will be able to pay

those 98 staffmembers, and receive an "extra" $72,000 ($36,000 X 2). The simplicity of

this situation for FY96 is due to the AOs having established a baseline payroll amount late

in FY95, based on employees on board at a particular pay period. Courts were able to

request additional h d i n g due to staffcoming on board after the baseline was established.

The true "cost control" aspect of this plan comes into play in succeeding years. For FY97

and beyond, the A 0 will provide the previous year's fbnding, plus an additional two

percent to cover promotions and within grade increases. This means that all units can

project their payrolls into fiiture years and determine the level of hnding which will be

available. Local managers will have to determine the value of each decision to keep,

promote or add staff. This puts the responsibility where it should be, with the local

managers who are most familiar with the organization.

NAPA's RECOMMENDATIONS

Mer its study of the JSP, NAPA made several recommendations:

Replace the JSP classification system with a benchmark classification system;

Establish pay rates and ranges to fit the new classification structure, but maintain a

linkage to the executive branch General Schedule;

20

Revise the classification and compensation systems to clearly distinguish between

classification changes needed because of increased/decreased duties and

responsibilities and compensation changes needed to be competitive, in terms of

salary, in a given labor market;

SimplrfL and improve the qualifications standards program, integrating it with

recruitment, selection, and career progression of court employees;

Establish a cost control system;

Provide extensive training in the operation of the proposed system;

Improve personnel information management systems;

Periodically reassess the benchmarks, perhaps once every five years; and

Implement a review process to evaluate implementation and operation of the new

system.**

COURT PERSONNEL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

In response to the recommendations of NAPA, the A0 set out to develop a new personnel

system. Committees were formed comprised of court unit executives, A0 officials, court

managers at eight court locations, and other court managers. One of the most important

aspects of the development effort was the heavy involvement of managers and staff in the

courts around the country. This was to ensure the participation of personnel who were

actually involved in the day-to-day operation of the courts. Such personnel had first-hand

experience with the jobs performed by court staff, and were in the best positions to

develop a meaningfid system. Such court involvement would also increase the legitimacy

of the new system in the eyes of all court M.

2 8 B ,2-3.

21

The committees had many objectives. They were:

Classification and Compensation

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

e

0

Create criteria with which to measure relative job value and job value change.

Maintain the existing overall job hierarchy.

Establish a stable job hierarchy.

Create a fiamework within which classifhion authority can be administered

centrally or decentralized.

Separate job classifkition and compensation issues.

Provide no general salary increase.

Maintain linkage to executive branch General Schedule pay rates.

Increase opportunities for greater compensation flexibility at the court unit level

and create conditions for future additional compensation flexibility system-wide or

in individual units.

Promote a management decision process which requires concurrent consideration

of cost, &ciency, and human resources managemeat tradeofi.

Make the transition to the new system as easy as possible.

Qualifications Standards

Integrate within the broader context of human resources management.

SimphQ the structure for ease of development, maintenance, and use.29

29 bid., 3-4.

22

Before one can judge whether or not the personnel system ultimately known as CPS meets

the committees' stated objectives, one must examine CPS to identrfjl its component parts

and how it will operate.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

The JSP had no formal, systematic criteria to evaluate the relative worth of any job with

any other job in the judiciary. Proposed positions were compared to other jobs in the JSP,

in other government agencies or in the private sector. This lack of rigorous evaluation of

jobs inadvertently led to requests to upgrade entire classes of positions. This in turn led to

other requests for upgrading of positions to maintain the hierarchy of jobs. It was clear

this constant upward pressure on positions led to ever increasing personnel costs, and all

the pressure was on the A 0 since, as mentioned earlier, the A 0 h d e d positions on-board

if a unit's applicable workload formula permitted it.

Recognizing one of the JSP's main shortcomings, CPS established 3 1 benchmark non-

superVisory positions (Appendix A) to help guide managers in the classification of jobs.

These positions provide a framework to establish the hierarchy of jobs in the judiciary, and

to establish a method to compare the value of any proposed job with the benchmark

positions. The benchmark positions cover almost 75% of non-supervisory positions in the

judiciary and represent a wide range of non-supervisory positions.

It is important to note that unit executives and Type II chief deputies, those that have

similar duties to unit executives in the unit executive's absence, are not included in CPS

and will remain covered by JSP. This is because it was determined that unit executives

should not be put in the position of determining the level of pay for their own position.

23

JOB EVALUATION FACTORS

The JSP had no criteria to evaluate the worth of jobs in the judiciary. There was a

hierarchy of jobs 6om top to bottom, but proposed jobs were unsystematically compared

with jobs in the JSP, in other government agencies or in the private sector, to try to

determine the grade of the proposed position. CPS changes this. CPS includes six

weighted evaluation factors which are used to compare the relative worth of non-

supervisory jobs. Below are the factors, their weights and brief explanations of the

factors.

Job Requirements - 26V0 - What knowledge, skills and abilities are needed by the

incumbent to be able to perform the duties of the position?

Scope and Effect - 22% - What is the impact of the job as it relates to the goals of the

unit and how does the performance of these duties facilitate the work of others?

Complexity - 17V0 - How difficult is it to perform these duties?

Work Parameters - 17% - How much latitude does the incumbent have in performing

these duties? What guidelines andor supervision is available?

Personal Interactions - 13% - Who does the incumbent contact in performing these

duties? What is the nature and level of these contacts?

Environmental Demands -5% - What are the physical demands, risks, working

conditions, or other unusual conditions inherent in the job?

These factors give managers in the judiciary the criteria to evaluate systematically either

proposed jobs, or non-benchmark jobs, to determine the job's proper classification level.

24

There are three steps which must be taken when a position is classified. First, a position

description is developed in benchmark format (Appendix B). This includes an

introduction which indicates the position's location and the purpose of the position. There

is also a description of the major duties of the position, followed by a description of the

position's duties in terms of the job evaluation fhctors. Second, a benchmark is chosen

which analysis shows is closely related to the work of the position to be classified. If the

position's work is not similar to a benchmark position, then a benchmark is chosen which

is at a similar anticipated level in the hierarchy to the position to be analyzed. Third, the

position description of the position to be placed is compared to the benchmark selected,

on a factor by factor basis, to determine whether the duties of the position are equal to,

higher than or Iower than the benchmark position. While each factor is compared, the

final determination is based on the combination of all the fixtor comparisons. The goal is

to get a best fit for the position in relation to the benchmark positions. Ifthe comparison

to the benchmark indicates the position is more than one classification level higher or

lower than the benchmark, or ifthe results are inconclusive, then another benchmark or

benchmarks must be selected and the analysis is repeated until a position is properly placed

in the hierarchy, in relation to the benchmark positions.

OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS

The benchmark positions are divided into four occupational groups. See Appendix C for a

complete list of the benchmarks by occupational groups. These groups collect

benchmarks which share similar types of duties. The groups are Operational Court

Support, Administrative Court Support, Professional Administrative and Professional

Line.

25

Operational support positions "require experience in applying recurring procedures and

using specialized terminology that demonstrate ability to apply a body of rules,

regulations, directives or laws. " 30 Jobs in this group share the title "clerk. "

Administrative support positions "require experience specSc to the administrative

fbnctions

are not in areas related to the direct operations of the courts. Such positions include

financial technician and secretary to unit head. Positions in these support positions share

similar qualifications standards and grade structures.

Staffin these positions also perform recurring tasks, though they

Professional administrative positions "involve analyzing and evaluating varied information

from multiple sources, forming conclusions, and taking or recommending courses of

action. They require the application of theoretical and practical knowledge of a particular

administrative or technical field acquired through education andor experience. "32

Positions in this group have "specialist" or "analyst" in their job title.

Finally, their are professional line positions. They "involve analyzing and evaluating varied

information from multiple sources, forming conclusions, and taking or recommending

courses of action. They require the application of theoretical and practical knowledge in a

professional field at a level that requires specific academic preparation as a minimum for

30 q (Washington, D.C.: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, October, 1995) 119.

32 Ibid., 125.

26

performance in the field."33 These positions include librarian or pretrial services or

probation officer.

CLASSIFICATION OF SUPERVISORS AND W A G E R S

CPS has specific guidelines for the classification of supervisors and managers. A

supervisory position is defined as one which effectively provides administrative and

technical supervision to employees in a functional area. The key is technical supervision.

A supervisor must have enough technical knowledge to give operational direction and

advice to employees under his or her supervision. This is different than just administrative

supervision which includes ensuring work flows through a work group, approving leave,

and so on. A supervisor of support positions, such as probation clerks, holds a

classification level one or two grades higher than the highest classification level of

positions supervised. The exact classification level is at the discretion of the unit

executive, and depends on factors such as volume and complexity of work, skin levels of

workers supervised and deadlines. A supervisor of professional positions, such as pretrial

Services officer, has a classification level one level higher than the highest level of position

supervised.

A manager is defined as a second level or higher supervisor who supervises other

supervisors. A manager holds a classification level fiom one level higher than the

supervisors effectively supervised, to one level below the grade of the chief deputy.

33 Ibid., 131.

27

GRADE STRUCTURE

The JSP had 18 grades to cover aIl jobs in the judiciary. These range from grade 1

through 18. The CPS has a total of 12 classification levels to accommodate grades 1

through 16. The classification levels range from 21 through 32, and the numerals used

were selected so as not to have any stafF member experience a loss in numeric value when

converted to CPS. Otherwise, a JSP 12 would have been a CPS 8 or 9. To avoid any

resistance due to any personal loss of prestige, and to distance the CPS fiom the JSP, the

range 21 through 32 was selected. JSP grades I7 and 18 are not covered by CPS since, as

mentioned above, unit executives and chief deputies will remain under JSP, and those

positions are in grades 17 and 1 8.

CPS essentially compresses the 16 JSP grades into the 12 classification levels. This means

that the CPS classification levels are wider than the JSP grades. Each classification level

encompasses several JSP grades, and could be thought of as being wider than JSP grades.

This was done so that positions in the judiciary could be assigned one classification level,

rather than a series of JSP grades. For example, a position under JSP may begin a! a

grade 5 , with the incumbent being promoted to grade 6 after one year, and on to grade 7

after another year. This natural progression requires two promotions before the

incumbent reaches the target grade of 7. The CPS classification levels simplifies such a

job. That job would be a classification level 23. There is no need for promotions to

another classification level, since the position is a level 23 as long as the incumbent is in

the position. This makes for a more accurate system, and one which requires much less

administrative activity, since promotions necessitate various actions on the part of the

local court unit and the AO.

28

COMPENSATION

Not only is each classification level broader than JSP grades, the salary range is likewise

broader. This is to accommodate the progression in one dassification level which would

be in several JSP grades. See appendix D for a CPS salary table. The CPS salary table is

really two salary tables in one. Steps 1 through 24 are considered a developmental range.

Every 13 pay periods an employee is eligible for an increase. While the standard increase

is 6 steps, CPS allows managers to give employees up to 18 steps to reward staffwho

learn their jobs quickly, and who would have had to wait up to a year for a promotion

under the JSP.

Step 25 is the step at which stafTare considered at 1 1 1 performance, and it begins the full

performance range which extends to step 61. Staffwill receive yearly step increases and

there will no longer be waiting periods of more than one year. The number of steps per

year decreases the higher one goes in the steps. Specifically, a four step yearly increase

for steps 25 through 36, two steps per year for steps 37 through 54 and one step for steps

55 through 61. That there are fewer yearly steps the higher one goes is to mirror the

longer waiting periods under JSP the higher one goes in a grade.

The CPS salary table remains linked to the General Schedule at step 25. For example,

classification level 23, step 25 is equal to a GS-7, step 1. A classification level 27 step 25

is equal a GS-11, step 1. See Appendix D for all linkages. This linkage is important for

several reasons. First, yearly increases in the General Schedule need to be reflected in

yearly increases in the CPS. Second, linkage allows a comparison of salary level when

employees come from or go to employers who pay via the General Schedule.

29

QUALIFICATIONS

CPS provides qualification standards based on the occupational group in which a position

is located. They are consistent with standards currently used under ISP, but by being

grouped together, they are more likely to be used in a uniform fashion than the current

JSP standards. Individual courts have the ability to add requirements, or have more

specific requirements, to ensure that the standards meet local needs while assisting in the

effort to have them applied uniformly across the country.

CPS IMPLEMENTATION

Converting each staff member currently covered by JSP to CPS would be an arduous and

time consuming task if districts had to do it manually. It would require that each

employee's circumstances be analyzed by district HRD staE to determine the employee's

appropriate classification level and step. This would entail determining the target grade an

employee has, as well as the grade currently held. This is due to JSIs use of career

ladders, that is, a series of promotions fiom grade to grade until the person is in the

ultimate, MI performance grade. Related to the target grade determination is the issue of

how long each employee has spent in a grade with a particular waiting period. This is

sigxujicant since employees must get credit for the time they have served in a grade and

step, based on the waiting time required in the step they are in. These two issues must be

addressed to ensure each employee is converted to the correct classification level and step.

Particular attention needs to be paid to the step, Since this is where employees get credit

for the time they have served in a JSP waiting period.

30

Fortunately, the A 0 can use its automation capabilities to automatically analyze each

employee's circumstances and determine the correct classification level and step. Local

staffneed to confirm the accuracy of the AO's data, but, assuming the A 0 has correct

information, which is a relatively safe assumption since the AO's infomation system is

ultimately responsible for keeping track of employee data, then staff will convert to their

appropriate classification he1 and step.

CPS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR ARIZONA

Up to this point this paper has dealt with the personnel activity of the federal courts, a

description of the District of Arizona, a description of many types of job evaluation as

well as pay-for-performance plans, and an analysis of CPS. However, the primary

objective of this author's ICM project is to develop a CPS implementation plan for the

District of Arizona. Arizona would convert to CPS on February 5,1996. The remainder

of this paper will describe the actions either taken, or to be taken, to implement CPS in the

District. Interestingly, much of the activity to implement CPS coincided with the author's

work on this ICM project. Consequently, as this paper is prepared some of the actions to

implement CPS have already taken place and others have yet to OCCUT.

TRAINING OF UNlT EXECUTIVES AND HRD STAFF

For approximately a year and a halfbefore CPS implementation in Arizona, the A 0 did a

good job of distributing all current information on CPS. Howewer, actual training of

District staffwas needed to ensure a smooth implementation. All districts in the Ninth

Circuit, of which Arizona is a part, were scheduled to convert on February 5,1996. In

December 1995 staff from Arizona attend A 0 training on CPS. The 2 and 1/2 days long

31

training was held in Los Angeles, California, and A 0 staff allocated two weeks for training

all Nitb Circuit staff. The training was for unit executives, or chief deputies as

appropriate, and HRD s M . Attendees fiom Arizona were the chief pretrial services

officer, the chief probation officer, as well as a chief deputy clerk of court. Also attending

were the main personnel stafYfiom each of the three court units. Reflecting the District's

consolidation of personnel related activity, this author also attended due to being the

division manger of the human resources division.

The training was very thorough. In fact, some attendees said it was the best training they

had ever received &om A 0 staff This is a reflection of the hard work of A 0 staff, and

this author echoes that opinion. The training was a combination of lecture and small

group work. In small groups staffworked on exercises on the three main components of

CPS; dassification, compensation and qualifications. Also provided to attendees were

several resources. These inchded a CPS training manual and a workbook which

contained the exercises, as well as a human resources manual. The human resources

manual will be the ongoing resource for CPS, and will be updated as needed to provide

guidance to personnel staffin all districts.

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION TO STAFF

As stated above, conversion to CPS would automatically take place on February 5,1996.

Au on-board staff would be classifjed as a particular CPS classification level and step, and

no longer would they hold a JSP grade and step. It is natural that staffin the District of

Arizona would become comfortable with the JSP, no matter its flaws. The average

employee is not overly concerned with budget issues or how the District's personnel staff

32

interact with the A 0 on classification issuers. The average stemember wants to know

how CPS will affect them.

The A 0 anticipated the need to inform staffabout CPS, and produced art informational

video and accompanying booklet. In the district of Arizona, the booklet was distributed to

all staff subject to CPS conversion along with a memo notdjmg them of their CPS

classification level and step, come conversion to CPS. Appendix E is an example of the

memo to staff, and appendix F is the CPS booklet. The memo and booklet were sent to

staffto give them an opportunity to read about CPS and to tell them their classification

level and step. The memo also informed staff of presentations which would be presented

to allow staffto hear about CPS fiom local District HRD staff, their own colleagues, and

let them ask any questions they might have. This is an important step, since staffneed to

know that their concerns about conversion to CPS are considered important by district

management. There were two presentations in Phoenix and two in Tucson, which gave

the maximum numbex of staffthe opportunity to be present. A session was videotaped so

the tape could be sent to outlying offices.

Appendix G is a fact sheet which was distributed at the presentations, and it was used as

an agenda by HRD stafFin their presentations. Each part was discussed, with the use of

overhead projections. Presenters included the persome1 specialist Erom the clerk's office

and probation, as well as the author as HRD manager. Also acting as a presenter was the

stamember fiom pretrial services who deals with personnel issues. The presentations

w e d dual purposes, in that they covered CPS, but they also emphasized the District's

consolidation efforts to District staff Questions were solicited Erom attendees at each

presentation, and a memo describing all the questions and answers Win be sent to all

employees.

33

TRAUUING OF MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS

While CPS will produce few significant changes for managers and supervisors, managers

and supervisors do need to receive some additiod training. Appendix H is a description

of subjects to be covered in such training sessions. The primary subject will be the use of

the benchmark format when preparing position descriptions. When proposing new

positions or requesting reevaluation of current positions, managers and supervisors need

to examine the positions with an emphasis on the six job evaluation factors. This will be a

change for managers and supervisors, and HRD staffwill ultimately be responsible for

ensuring that all position descriptions are accurate and in the proper format. HRD staff

will need to consult with, and provide guidance to, managers and supetvisors as they make

the necessary adjustments in their ways of thinking and their approach to analyzing and

describing positions for which they are responsible. The qualification standards will also

be covered during the workshops.

The group work exercises used by A 0 stain the CPS training Win also be used in the

workshops.

Any pay-for-performance plans will take much time to develop, and probably would not

be implemented until fiscal year 1997 at the earliest. Therefore, any training on the pay-

for-performance option of CPS will be conducted after such a system is developed.

34

CONCLUSIONS

CPS is a significant change in the way the federal courts manage their human resources.

With its main empbases of job classification, compensation and qualification standards, it

provides local managers with the tools needed to have an efficient and professional

personnel system. CPS is consistent with theoretical approaches to job evaluation. It also

gives courts the option to develop and implement pay-for-performance plans, even though

the helphlness and efficiency of such programs are hotly debated. Given the nature of

other governmental organization's experiences with pay-for-performance, this author

recommends against implementing such a program at this time.

CPS is the latest effort of the A 0 to decentralize administrative responsibility to the

coucts, and its timing is fortuitous for the District of Arizona. By having already

consolidated its administrative services, including the human resources division, the

District will be able to have a consistent and accurate implementation and administration

of CPS in the three court units.

Ofgreat sign&ince to CPS is its relationship to CCMS. CCMS places the responsiiility

and incentives to save money with District management. Both CPS and CCMS wiU

invariable lead to a more efficient and t h & y federal court system, as local managers

determine the value of d positions to each district unit.

CPS was so thoroughly planned by the A 0 that the District needs to do very little to

implement it. Staffneed to be idormed of CPS conversion, supervisors and managers

need to be trained in the sipficance and use of the benchmark-format position

descriptions, and HRD staff need to monitor the system's use in the District to be sure

35

personnel actions are C O K ~ C ~ . While these steps are important, the material and training

provided by the A0 truly make CPS ct "turn key" system.

NAPA's objectives are met by CPS. The system shifts responsibility to local managers to

encourage personnel cost savings. It establishes a hierarchy in the judiciary where jobs,

and their values to the courts, can be compared, using the job evaluation fkctors. The A 0

should be commended on their efforts to develop CPS.

CPS is important since the federal judiciary needs to continuousiy strive to improve its

operations so as to efficiently and fairly administer justice in the United States, so that the

people of our nation continue to place their trust in this very crucial branch of

government.

.

36

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. . Burnes, Bernard. To OxguWmd Develooment_and. London: Pitman Publishing, 1992.

Clifford, James P. "Job Analysis: Why do it and How Should it be Done?" Public Personnel -23.2 (Summer 1994): 321-340.

.2nd ed. . . Connor, Patrick E, and Linda K. Lake. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. 1994.

. . French, Wendell L., Cecil H. Bell Jr. and Robert A. Zawacki. DevelqmmL &. Revised Edition. Plano, Texas: Business Publications, Inc, 1983.

Kellough, J. Edward. "The Paradox of Merit Pay in the Private Sector." Review of Public 13.2 (Spring 1993): 45-64. . .

Manese, Wilfred0 R. - l Classification. New York: Quorum Books, 1988.

. . Mink, Oscar G., et al. Change at W O ~ Transforrmnp. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993.

Nicolay, John A "Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay: Response to Thayer." kkya,f S 10.1 (Fall 1989): 60-66.

. .

Patterson, T.T. -Evaluation- V o m London: Business Books Limited, 1972.

Perry, James L. "Strategic Human Resource Management." Rwkw of puhlicpersannel 13.4 (Fall 1993): 59-71.

. .

Quaid,Maeve. . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.

Risher, Howard W. "The Emerging Model for Salary Management in the Private Seqtor: Is it Relevant to Government?" 23.4 (Winter 1994): 649-665.

Scheele, Raymond H. et al. "An Experimental Study of Reliability in Evaluating Benchmark Position Descriptions Using the Oliver System." Bmkw of hbhc -9.1 (Fall 1988): 61-69.

. .

Siegel, Gilbert B. "Three Federal Demonstration Projects: Using Monetary Performance Awards." 23.1 (Spring 1994): 153.163,

* * . New York: Harper and . . Stahl, 0. Glenn.

Row, 1983.

Thayer, Frederick. "Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay: Thayer's Rejoinder." Rwksd $10.2 (Spring 1990): 72-76. . .

Thompson, Frank J., ed. . Oak Park, Illinois: Moore Publishing Company, 1979.

Thomason, George F. to Job Evaluatton * . London: Institute for Personnel Management, 1968.

Appendix A

CPS Benchmark Positions

Grade Structure Based on Benchmarks

JSP Target Classification Grade Title Level (CL)

3 5 5 7 8 8 8 7* 9** 8 8 9 9 8* 9 9 9 9 10 11 11 11 11 10* 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 14 15 16

CL-21 No benchmarks fall within this classification level. Notice Clerk CL-22 Records & Reproduction Clerk Probation or Pretrial Services Clerk CL-23 Financial Technician CG24 Personnel Technician Property and Procurement Technician Library Technician Closing Clerk Electronic Courtroom Recorder Operator Intake Clerk Secretary to Unit Head Automation Support Specialist Docket Clerk

tion Clerk Estate Admmstm Case Administrator Appeals Processingi(Docket Clerk Data Quality Analyst No benchmarks fall within this classScation level. Property and Pmcurement Specialist Automation Specialist Courtroom Deputy (CCR) Calendar Clerk Jury Administration Clerk Personnel Specialist Budget Analyst Financial specialist Librarian Pretrial ServicesOfficer Probation 0th~ Systems Manager Probation or Retrial Services 0fEce.r (Specialist) Staf€Attorney No benchmarks fan within this classification level. No benchmarks hll within this dassiiication level.

. .

* Moved up in hierarchy ** Moved down in hierarchy

CL-25

CL-26 CL-27

CL-28

CL29

CL31 CL32

Human Resources M w t d 10/95 26

Appendix B

Sample Benchmark Format

BENCHMARX for CL 22 (Records and Reproduction Clerk)

Introduction

This position may be located in any court unit. The incumbent maintains the files for the court unit and makes copies of records for various requestors.

Representative Duties

Sorts, classifies and files case records.

Maintains integrity of the filing system by such means as monitoring proper access to records and maintaining timely and accurate f i g of documents.

Retrieves files and makes copies of records for court personnel, attorneys, and others.

Prepares and ships records to the appropriate Federal Records Center. Also retrieves records from centers when needed.

Operates a variety of copying and records equipment.

Factor 1, Job Requirements: Detailed knowledge of the court unit's filing system and operation of the copying and records equipment. Good knowledge of the different functions performed within and outside the unit in order to properly route materials.

Factor 2, Scope and Effect of Work Proper maintenance of files is important to the unit because prompt location and retrieval of files affect all concerned in terms of time and accuracy.

Factor 3, Complexity The filing and copying process are standard. Requestors are not always clear as to what they are seeking, requiring the incumbent to inspect different documents and look in several files in attempting to satisfl the request.

Factor 4, Work Parameters: Procedures and processes are well established and supeMsor(s) are readily available.

Humon Resources Manual 10BS 19

Factor 5, Personal Interactions: There is daily contact with others in the court to provide and receive files. There is also daily contact with attorneys and the public at large for the purpose of providing copies or information &om the files.

Factor 6, Environmental Demands: Work is normally performed in an office setting. Lifting heavy boxes is required.

Human Resources M a n d 10195 20

Appendix C

CPS Occupational Groups

Occupational Groups for Benchmarks

Occupational Classification Group Title Level (CL)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A A A A A

PA PA PA PA PA PA

PL PL PL PL PL

Legend O = A = PA = PL =

Notice Clerk Records & Reproduction Clerk Probation or Pretrial Services Clerk Library Technician Closing Clerk Electronic Courtroom Recorder Operator Intake Clerk Docket Clerk Estate Administration Clerk Case Administrator Appeals Fmcessing/Docket Clerk Data Qualitp. Analyst Courtroom DepuQ (CCR) Calendar Clerk Jury Administration Clerk

Financial Technician Personnel Technician Property and Procurement T e c h i a n Secretary to Unit Head Automation Support Specialist

Property and Procurement Specialist Automation Specialist Personnel Specialist Budget Analyst Financial Specialist Systems Manager

Librarian Pretrial Semices officer Probation 086icer Probation or Pretrial Services Specialist Staf€Attorney

Operational Court Support Administrative Court Support Professional Administrative Professional Line

C L 2 2

CL-23 C L 2 4

CL-25

CL-27

CL-24

C C 2 5

CG27

CG28

CG29

C L 2 8

CG29

Human Resources 1clOnuallOl95 I 1 8

Appendix D

CPS SaIaxy Table

# . . . 4.c. Table 01: REST OF THE UNITED STATES f -

1995 Pay Ratu of tbc Court Pemaod System with 3.74% Pay DiibeatW

CL 21, step 25 = GS 3, step 1 CL 22, step 25 = GS 5, step 1 CL 23, step 25 = GS 7, step 1 CL 24, step 25 = GS 8, step 1 CL 25, step 25 = GS 9, step 1 CL 26, step 25 = GS 10, step 1 CL 27, step 25 = GS 1 1, step 1 CL 28, step 25 = GS 12, step 1 CL 29, step 25 = GS 13, step 1 CL 30, step 25 = GS 14, step 1 CL 31, step 25 = GS 15, step 1 CL 32, step 25 = GS 15, step 1 x 1.17284

Appendix E

Classification Level and Step Memo to Staff

WIED STATES DISTRICT COURT WI'RICT OF ARIZONA IFFICE OF THE CLERK [man Resources Division

ATE: January 11, 1996

I:

{OM:

All Clerk's Office, Probation and Pretrial Services Staff

Roger +=-%-- 6 ockmeyer, HRD anager

JBJECT: Staff Orientation on the New Court Personnel System (CPS) Conversion - IMPORTANT!

fective February 5, 1996, most all employees of the Clerk's office, Probation Office and Pretrial rrvices will convert from the Judicial Salary Plan (JSP) to a new pay system called the Court rrsonnel System (CPS). Chambers staff, court reporters, court unit executives, Type I I chief puties and pro se law clerks will remain under their current classification system and will not Invert to CPS.

1 assist staff in understanding the new pay system, as well as the conversion from the JSP to 'S, w e will have a CPS orientation at 1O:OO am, 12:OO noon and 200 pm on Wednesday, lnuary 24 in the Phoenix Courthouse, and Thursday, January 25 in the Tucson Courthouse. Exact :ations will be announced.

i s is a very important system that will affect your position classification and salary. All staff who II convert to CPS should plan to attend. Employees who are not affected but are interested in irning more about the new system are also welcome to attend.

tached is a booklet on CPS, and a separate CPS summary, which provide good explanations of 'S and how it is different from the JSP. This material should answer most general questions out CPS. Please read the material, and feel free to contact Jackie Moore, VI Olivete or myself Phoenix at 514-71 10 if you have further questions. A session will be videotaped for the use staff in outlying offices in the District and HRD staff may be contacted to answer any specific

Jestions.

hile most aspects of CPS are significantly different than the JSP, the conversion on February 5 auld be invisible to staff being converted. However, one major change will be the conversion to

CPS salary table. No employee will lose money due to the conversion. Next week we will tify each staff member of their classification level and step effective February 5. There is a CPS ary table on page 10 of the CPS booklet, but this table does not reflect the January 8, 1996, 18% employment cost index increase. We will distribute an updated CPS salary table as soon it is received.

E automatic conversion will take into account the waiting period already served by all employees ler the JSP. There will be no two or three year waiting periods between steps under CPS.

ain, the attached material should answer many of your questions about CPS. No one will lose ney because of conversion, and the conversion is automatic effective February 5. All staff will notified of their CPS classification level and step before conversion. Feel free to call Jackie, Vi me with questions, and plan to attend a presentation on January 24 or 25.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE CLERK Human Resources Division

MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 13, 1996

TO:

FROM: Roger Brockmeyer, HRD Manager

SUBJECT: Conversion From JSP t o CPS Pay Increase as of January 8, 1996

As you know, on February 5, 1996, your Judiciary Salary Plan (JSP) grade and step will automatically convert to a Court Personnel System (CPS) classification level and step. Below is your current JSP status, and your CPS status as of February 5, 1996.

Current JSP status, grade and step:

CPS status as of February 5, classification level and step:

Any increase in pay due to conversion to CPS will be seen on the February 23, 1996, paycheck or direct deposit.

Please note that the CPS salary table 00 on page 10 of the booklet The Court Personnel System does not include any locality pay differential or the 2.38% increase we received effective January 8, 1996. Attached are tables 01 for JSP and CPS for 1996. Both reflect the 2.38% net increase effective January 8, 1996. Refer t o these tables when you compare your 1996 JSP and CPS salaries. This increase will appear on the January 26, 1996, paycheck or direct deposit.

Presentations on CPS will be held in Phoenix on Wednesday, January 24, 1996, in courtroom #7 on the third floor at 1O:OO am, 12:OO noon and 2:OO pm. Presentations in Tucson will be held on Thursday, January 25, 1996, in the jury assembly room in the basement of 55 East Broadway at 1O:OO am, 12:OO noon and 2:OO pm.

Feel free to contact Vi Olivete, Jackie Moore or myself in Phoenix at 51 4-7 1 10 if you have any questions about CPS.

Appendix F

CPS Informational Booklet

4 X a C a3 a

e-

2

Appendix G

CPS Fact Sheet

WHY CHANGE?

- Current JSP is inflexible and slow to change Lack of classification criteria to measure differences between jobs Cost control system is inadequate

- -

WHAT ARE THE BENEF/TS?

SimplHes the current JSP

- Establishes classification criteria Increases classification flexibilities

- Reduces the number of grades and broadens the pay ranges Increases pay flexibilities during development stage

Provides option for pay for performance system above full performance

- Requires concurrent consideration of cost, efficiency and Human

- Decentralizes classification and pay authority to the court unit level

level after decentralization in FY 1997

Resources Management issues

-

Establishes a cost control system

- Changes current position driven system to a dollar driven system Includes an annualized salary ceiling to control escalation of the salary base Provides increased personnel flexibilities within a court unit's budget Includes incentives to save at court unit level

- -

OTHER ISSUES

- No adverse impact on employees' salaries Maintains linkage to General Schedule for Employment Cost Index and - locality pay purposes

- Covers all employees except: - Chambers staff

- Court reporters - Court Unit Executives and Chief Deputies

IMPLEMENTA TION

- Nationwide Training and conversion will occur in FY 1996 - Question and answer

Appendix H

Subjects Covered During Supervisor Training

WORKSHOP FOR SUPERVISORS AND MANAGERS

Budget drives CPS

Elimination of career ladders

Importance and use of benchmark poSitions Position descriptions Format Position description exercise

Classification procedures Classification exercise

Qualification standards Occupational groups Qualifications exercise