Five objectives, one defensible method.

We facilitate a structured working session with the LRC team and Judicial Branch representatives to answer one question in writing: where should the Judicial Branch sit in its market — lead, match, or lag, and at what percentile? We bring options, the trade-offs of each (recruitment and retention vs. fiscal exposure), and precedent from comparable states. The output is a short, adopted compensation philosophy statement that governs every downstream recommendation.

You receive: a written, Commission-approved compensation philosophy with the market-position decision and its rationale.

Led by our Certified Job Evaluator, we review each position and its job description, confirm the description reflects the work actually performed, and evaluate positions on consistent factors — responsibility, required knowledge and skills, and working conditions. We then place each position correctly within the compensation structure and flag inversions, compression, and misclassifications. For the elected bench, internal equity means the constitutional and functional relationships between tiers; for the career workforce, it is a full classification review.

You receive: a position-by-position equity analysis, corrected job placements, and a documented set of classification recommendations.

We select an adequate, defensible set of benchmark positions and comparators across both public and private markets. For the elected judiciary, the anchor is the NCSC Survey of Judicial Salaries — the recognized national benchmark — supplemented with peer-state and private legal-market data. For the career workforce, we blend published public-sector and private surveys, age the data to a common date, and compute percentiles, market index, and compa-ratio. Because Kentucky is not one labor market, we apply cost-of-labor adjustments across regions so a rural comparison isn’t distorted by metro pay.

You receive: benchmark market data by position, market-position findings, and a documented geographic-differential model. See the live preview →

We translate the market analysis into pay ranges with a minimum, midpoint, and maximum for every benchmarked position, aligned to the adopted philosophy. We add the operating rules that make the structure last: progression and experience-rating logic, hiring-offer guidelines for HR, and policies for maintaining the plan over time. Where the location or size of a jurisdiction should shift placement, the guidance says so explicitly.

You receive: a complete pay structure (min/mid/max), administration policies and procedures, and hiring-offer guidelines. Try the pay-range workbench →

We cost every recommendation — not just the headline number but phased, optioned scenarios the legislature can actually choose among (for example, full implementation vs. a multi-year glide path). We produce the budget recommendations in a form built for the Interim Joint Committee on Appropriations & Revenue, with the fiscal impact by tier, by phase, and by fiscal year, and the assumptions stated plainly.

You receive: a costed set of recommendations with phased budget options and committee-ready materials.