Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Assumptions
Chapter 29, Section 6 states that “The operating budget shall indicate the number of positions proposed to be authorized for each state agency or such other public instrumentality for the ensuing fiscal year, the number of positions for each state agency in the current and ensuing fiscal years and such other information as may be held to explain the anticipated results of the proposed expenditures”.
To address this requirement, the House 1 recommendation includes employee counts summarized at the Government area level. Additional detail is included throughout the Budget Recommendations to indicate the employee level within specific departments.
Effect of the Budget on Personnel to Date
Reduction in Workforce
Since the fall of 2008 the Administration has provided strict FTE caps to the Executive Branch Departments, prioritizing hiring in areas where positions are critical for public health and safety or where a position results in additional revenue or cost savings for the Commonwealth. FTE caps are implemented at the department level and reviewed regularly by ANF budget analysts to ensure agencies are taking the necessary steps to live within capped levels.
FTE caps are meant to be consistent with amounts allocated for FTE spending. If an agency does not project that enough funding is available to maintain an FTE level, a “reduction in force” plan must be submitted to the Human Resources Division within ANF. These plans are reviewed for their impact on public health and safety or other impact on service levels provided to the Commonwealth’s residents. Agencies are asked to ensure that everything that possible is done to avoid a meaningful impact on users of state services as a result of layoffs.
Between the fall of 2008 and December 2010, the state workforce for jobs in the Executive Branch funded with operating dollars has declined by 3,350 jobs. The reduction can be attributed to layoffs, attrition and retirement across all agencies in the Executive Branch. Furthermore, after accounting for an increase of 2,700 positions in January 2010 corresponding to transition of seven county sheriffs’ offices to state agencies, Non-Executive Branch (Judiciary, Legislature, Sheriffs, Higher Education) agencies have seen a decline of roughly 2,500 positions.
|PREVIOUS PAY PERIOD||01/01/11||34,935|
|CURRENT PAY PERIOD||01/15/11||34,930|
|VARIANCES VS. CURRENT|
|YTD VARIANCE FROM *||01/20/07||(2,543)|
|YTD VARIANCE FROM *||10/11/08||(3,355)|
|PREVIOUS VS. CURRENT||(5)|
|BENCHMARK VS. CURRENT *||10/11/08||38,285|
|* 1269 jobs adjusted for MassDOT reform as of 11/01/2009|
H.1 Employment Levels
In reviewing the funding levels available to them for 2012, agencies must critically evaluate their employee level and determine further reductions are necessary to maintain a balanced budget. The fiscal year 2012 H.1 recommendation estimates 66,242 FTEs. This amount includes FTEs from both Executive and Non-Executive departments as well as positions funded from the operating accounts listed within the budget.
|Administration and Finance||2,740||2,752||12|
|Energy & Environmental Affairs||1,991||1,821||(170)|
|Health and Human Services||19,644||19,477||(167)|
|Housing & Economic Development||728||731||3|
|Labor & Workforce Development||311||311||-|
|Executive Adjusted Total *||34,368||34,045||912|
|Higher Education Campuses||13,683||13,683||-|
|Non-Executive Adjusted Total *||31,305||30,660||(645)|
|Adjusted Grand Total||65,673.0||64,705.0||(968.0)|
|* H.1 proposes to
re-organize the Department of Community
Supervision (formerly Commissioner or Probabtion
and Community Corrections) from the Judiciary to
the Executive Office of Public Safety.|
** H.1 proposes to increase the fiscal year 2012 FTEs by as many as 1,537 new staff attorneys and other support positions at the newly created Department of Public Counsel Services. For comparison purposes these FTEs are eliminated from the FY2012 Non-Executive Adjusted Total
The fiscal year 2012 projected budgeted FTEs reflects the Governor’s proposal to transform the cost-ineffective manner in which the state currently provided constitutionally-required legal services to indigent criminal defendants. The Governor proposes to shift from a system that relies almost entirely on expensive private attorneys that bill for hourly services to a system that is staffed entirely by salaried state employees. The new system will require adding up to an additional 1,537 attorneys, investigators and state support positions (as reflected in the budgetary FTE amount of 66,242) but will generate approximately $46 million in savings from fiscal year 2011. Total budgeted FTEs are projected to increase by 569 positions in fiscal year 2012, but absent of this change they would be reduced by roughly 970 positions to 64,705 FTEs. This compares to current budgeted FTE levels of up to 65,673 in fiscal year 2011.
Workforce Planning Goals
As discussed earlier, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (ANF) and the Human Resources Division have worked together to implement clear policies surrounding employees. Each fall, ANF engages each agency in a spending plan process in which each account is evaluated to determine how funds will be spent for the current fiscal year. This requires a detailed description of employees for the current year - including those currently on staff, positions that are open and intended to be filled and new positions for which funding is available. The goals of the employee caps that have been in place since fiscal year 2009, at the start of the fiscal crisis, and the subsequent review of all employee spending are to:
- Restrain Growth in State Employee Levels - Since payroll is a large portion of many agency expenditures, and reductions in force can take so long that savings cannot be realized in a fiscal year, caps are needed to manage hiring within available funding levels. Although some hiring may have small costs for the current year, the full year value of new staff have budget impacts that must be considered.
- Mitigate Shifts to Other Funding Sources – Employees come onto the state payroll several ways including the operating budget (FTEs and contractors), the capital budget, federal grants and trusts. All sources are carefully reviewed to ensure we are maintaining compliance with employment laws and also to ensure that we are not using one time sources to pay for ongoing costs.
- Manage Overtime Costs – Although hiring restrictions are important, overtime costs must be considered to ensure that proper staffing levels are maintained for public health and safety where responsibilities are 24 hours / 7 days per week. Oftentimes, the savings of FTE restrictions are simply shifted to higher overtime. Therefore, prudent management of both overtime and staffing levels must be evaluated.
During fiscal year 2011 FTE caps have continued to be in place in order to continue to manage the state workforce. For the Executive Branch, head count will be managed for all funding sources but specifically for the operating budget funds recommended in the H.1 recommendation.
Key initiatives Impacting the State Workforce
In June 2009, Governor Patrick signed Chapter 25 of the Acts of 2009 creating the new, streamlined Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). MassDOT represents a merger of the former Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works (EOT) with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA), the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD), the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV), the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC) and the Tobin Bridge. The new organization also assumed responsibility for many of the bridges and parkways formerly operated by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). Implementing the reform act has lead to changes in the classification of transportation FTEs, namely the transition of the 1,200 former EOT and DCR budgetary FTEs to an off budget trust fund.
A year ago, Governor Patrick proposed the alignment of all 14 Massachusetts State and County Sheriffs under the state budgeting and finance laws. The Legislature approved the Governor’s proposal through passage of the sheriff transfer legislation, Chapter 102 of the Acts of 2009, which was approved by the Governor on August 6, 2009. This act transferred the remaining 7 county sheriff departments to the Commonwealth effective January 1, 2010. Since then, sheriff departments have successfully transitioned onto the state budgeting and accounting system and all sheriff employees have been placed on state payroll, increasing the state FTE count by approximately 2,750 employees. However, this does not represent a parallel increase in state spending as sheriff operations prior to the transfer were predominantly funded by the Commonwealth. Additionally, deeds excise revenue previously funding sheriff operations will now be remitted to the Commonwealth.
Information Technology Realignments
Because of an initiative to transfer all information technology employees to secretariats, those employees that have routinely been funded from off-budget sources are being transferred into Intragovernmental Service Fund accounts where they will report to staff at the secretariat-level, but continue to be paid from the off-budget sources. This represents an “increase” of nearly 300 FTEs on the overall totals.
Contractor / Capital Conversions
Given the cost associated with paying for employees from capital funds and the renewed focus on wage enforcement efforts, every effort continues to be made to convert contract employees to full-time equivalents, and to transfer employees onto the operating budget. Along with conversions that have already been made, H.1 includes an outside section that allows for certain capital and operating costs to be exchanged so that appropriate operating dollars spent on capital needs can be shifted to the capital budget and vice versa. This section will have an impact on our budgeted employee level but it should be noted that these are not new state employees, they are just new to the operating budget.
Like all departments, the non-executive branch agencies will be working to evaluate impacts on employees. Additionally, because funding at the Higher Education campuses comes from various sources, some employee impacts may be mitigated. Additionally, certain FTE increases due to compliance with legal settlements and to address needs around public health and safety must be considered.
top of page