Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and Training & Development SEA Report

Transcription

1 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES GENERAL INFORMATION Mission: To provide human resource leadership and support to recruit, develop, motivate, and retain a diverse, high-performing workforce. The following targets for key goals are defined in the FY 2005 budget: FY 2005 Target Federal EEO compliance and county targeted AA goals and objectives satisfied 90% Percentage of EEO cases and affirmative action inquiries processed, managed, negotiated and settled internally 90% Classification/pay structure recommendations approved by County Executive or Board of County Supervisors 100% satisfied with benefit program services 90% Organization: The human resources service area comprises five programs under the responsibility of two different units, as follows: Human Resources Unit Equal employment/affirmative action Classification and compensation Employee and staffing services and Development Unit Employee and development Organizational development as The information in this chapter relates to the Human Resources (HR) and the and Development (T&D) Units. Resources: FY 2005 Budget: $2,099,976 FY 2005 Authorized Staffing: 18.5 FY 2005 Adopted Budget by Program $526,368 & Development $997,757 Employee & Staffing Services $362,274 Classification & Compensation $213,577 Equal Employment/ Affirmative Action 93

2 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report SUMMARY OF HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICE EFFORTS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS FISCAL YEARS 1999 THROUGH 2004 (unless otherwise indicated) as The following table lists some of the notable program results for the human resources service area. A page reference to a more detailed discussion of each summarized item is also provided in the table. Spending Efficiency Results Spending per capita, Modest increases in HR The number of training hours per adjusted for inflation, increased 74 percent over the period FY 1999 through FY That increase includes spending on the training and development function (T&D) that began in FY The per capita spending growth for T&D from staff from FY 1999 through FY 2004 have somewhat reduced the number of employees served per HR staff member. (page 101) However, in FY 2004, Prince William s HR staff served more employees per staff member FTE grew substantially during the period, from an average of.034 hours in FY 1999 to an average of 6.96 hours in FY Prior to FY 2002, human resources did not have a separate training function. (page 105) FY 2002 through FY 2004 was 174 percent while during the same period, the growth for the remainder of the HR function was 8.5 percent. (page 96) than any of the comparison jurisdictions. (page 103) The percent of positions paid in Prince William spent less per capita than all other reporting jurisdictions, including Henrico, Arlington, and Chesterfield. (page 98) accordance with the compensation policy grew substantially during the period FY 2001 through FY Thirty-seven percent were paid in accordance with the policy in FY 2001 while 92 percent were paid per the policy in FY (page 116) The turnover rate declined each year since FY 2001 although it remains greater than Chesterfield s turnover rate. In FY 2004, Chesterfield s turnover, excluding retirements, was.053 while Prince William s rate was.078. (pages ) Average hours of sick leave used per employee declined from 69.7 hours in FY 2003 to 54.1 hours in FY In FY 2004, among the comparison jurisdictions, only Chesterfield experienced a lower rate of sick leave usage. (pages 112 and 113) In a 2004 report on the results of the first organization survey that will be conducted regularly every few years, 86 percent of employees surveyed indicated that they were satisfied with the county as an employer. (page 117) 94

3 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Detailed SEA Information: More detailed trend and comparative information is contained in the following pages along with contextual information. These following pages present specific human resources services spending and staffing indicators followed by outputs and then results. Use of SEA Data: Variances in SEA data between jurisdictions should be used as a basis for looking into and considering differences in the mix of services offered and operating methods between jurisdictions. The information may also be used to at least partially explain why certain services cost Prince William residents more or less than what citizens in other jurisdictions spend. Because additional factors beyond those identified in this report may impact spending and operating results, the data should not be used to make a final determination that one jurisdiction is operating more efficiently than another. Note further that some results measures could not be obtained from the comparison jurisdictions. We are continuing efforts to try and obtain a more complete picture of results. as 95

4 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Spending Per Capita Adjusted For Inflation as Purpose: To provide an indicator of the relative level of effort the County expends on human resources services (including training and development). This is not an efficiency measure since it does not consider the output generated for the level of spending. Total human resources operating expenditures are divided by the total service area population. The figures are adjusted for inflation to maintain comparability between years. The current budget year, Fiscal Year 2005, is used as the base year for inflation adjustments. $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 $3.71 HR and T&D T&D only HR only Spending Per Capita Adjusted For Inflation Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004 $3.91 $4.43 $5.14 $4.60 $0.54 $5.55 $4.71 $0.84 $6.47 $4.99 HR and T&D HR only $1.48 T&D Only Actual HR Expenditures $875,736 $976,088 $1,176,245 $1,470,604 $1,684,927 $2,115,022 HR Expenditures Adj. For Inflation $1,028,075 $1,118,704 $1,307,179 $1,590,411 $1,785,431 $2,179,989 T&D Expenditures Adj. For Inflation $0 $0 $0 $166,340 $269,430 $499,220 HR Expenditures Without T&D Expenditures Adj. for Inflation $1,028,075 $1,118,704 $1,307,179 $1,424,072 $1,516,002 $1,680,768 Equal Employment/Affirmative Action $129,456 $152,836 $178,145 $118,511 $121,072 $138,137 Classification & Compensation $194,911 $175,208 $225,306 $250,650 $278,404 $295,733 Employee & Staffing Services $703,709 $790,660 $903,728 $1,054,912 $1,116,526 $1,246,898 Population 277, , , , , ,820 Trend: Human resources spending per capita adjusted for inflation, increased from $3.71 to $4.43 between FY 1999 and FY 2001 and grew to $4.99 in FY and development spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, increased 174 percent from $0.54 in FY 2002 to $1.48 in FY The training and development function began as a new program in FY During the same period, HR only spending per capita increased 8.5 percent from $4.60 in FY 1999 to $4.99 in FY

5 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Trend (continued): Overall human resources spending per capita, including training and development, grew to $6.47 in FY This represents an increase of 74 percent over total human resources per capita spending in FY 1999 of $3.71. Fiscal Year 2005 Adopted Budget: Budgeted spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, is up 5.3 percent in FY 2005 compared to the FY 2004 adopted budget. Comments: During the period, training and development began as a new program, eventually growing to 3 staff members by FY 2004, providing over 17,000 hours of training in that year while expending almost $500,000. as 97

6 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Spending Per Capita Adjusted For Inflation Comparisons Purpose: To provide information on spending per capita by jurisdiction. Spending is adjusted for inflation to FY 2005 dollars (the current fiscal year). Human resources spending, as presented, includes training and development. $25 Spending Per Capita Adjusted For Inflation by Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year 2004 as $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 $17.28 $10.73 $6.64 $5.55 Fiscal Year 2004 $19.61 $11.78 $6.77 $6.47 FY 2003 Chesterfield Prince William Henrico Arlington FY 2004 Arlington Henrico Chesterfield Prince William Prince William Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Arlington Actual Expenditures $2,115,022 $1,888,277 Not available $3,208,177 $3,799,653 Expenditures Adj. For Inflation $2,179,989 $1,946,279 Not available $3,306,722 $3,916,366 Population 336, ,333 1,035, , ,755 Compared to Other Jurisdictions: In FY 2004 Prince William had the lowest level of per capita spending on human resources services among the comparison jurisdictions. Arlington s FY 2004 per capita spending of $19.61 is considerably higher than Prince William s $6.47 per capita. All jurisdictions showed an increase in per capita spending from FY 2003 to FY 2004 (adjusted for inflation). Although Prince William s training and development program was new in FY 2002, all comparison jurisdictions have long-standing training units. 98

7 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Thousand Residents Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the relative level of human resources staffing per thousand residents between years and between jurisdictions. The unit of measure is in full-time equivalents (FTEs) Thousand Residents Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year HR and T&D T&D only HR only as Authorized HR and T&D Positions Authorized T&D Positions Only Authorized HR Positions Only Population 277, , , , , ,820 Trend: The total number of authorized human resources positions per thousand residents increased during the period FY 1999 through FY 2004 from.043 in FY 1999 to.055 in FY Although there was a slight decrease in total authorized positions in FY 2003, a greater increase in FY 2004 was driven by an increase in training and development positions. Fiscal Year 2005 Adopted Budget: The FY 2005 budget does not change the total number of human resources authorized positions. 99

8 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Authorized Positions Per Thousand Residents Comparisons 0.20 Authorized Positions Per Thousand Residents by Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year 2004 as Chesterfield Henrico Prince William Arlington Fiscal Year FY 2003 FY Arlington Henrico Chesterfield Prince William Prince William Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Arlington Authorized HR Positions not available Population 336, ,333 1,035, , ,755 Compared to Other Jurisdictions: Prince William had a lower staffing rate than Chesterfield, Henrico, and Arlington. Fairfax data were unavailable. Among the reporting jurisdictions, all except Arlington increased to some extent between FY 2003 and FY Arlington decreased slightly from to positions per thousand population. 100

9 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report County per Human Resources Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the relative level of human resources staffing, including training and development staff, to serve all county employees. The unit of measure is in full-time equivalents (FTEs) Position Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year HR including T &D FY FY 2004 Authorized Staffing (FTEs) Authorized County 2, , , , , , Authorized Total HR Staff Authorized T&D Staff Only Authorized HR Staff Only as Trend: The number of county employees per human resources staff member declined 23 percent from in FY 1999 to in FY and development staff are included for the period FY 2002 through FY During the period FY 1999 through FY 2004 the number of county employees grew about 19 percent from 2,632 to 3,131. During the same period, total human resources staff grew 54 percent from 12 to The total staff data include one training and development staff member in FY 2002 and FY 2003 during their startup, and two additional staff members in FY

10 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report as Trend (continued): When data for training and development and HR staff were broken out separately, the number of county employees served per training and development staff member was 2,929 in FY 2002 (entire workforce divided by the single T&D staff member) and then plummeted in FY 2004 to 1,044 when the T&D staff grew to three. During the same 3-year period, HR staff served 195 employees per staff member in FY 2002 and 202 employees per staff member in FY The FY 2004 level represented an 8-percent drop since FY 1999 when HR staff served 219 employees per HR staff member. Comments: Beginning in FY 2002, training and development functions and staff were added. There was one staff member dedicated to T&D in FY 2002 and FY 2003 and three in FY

11 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report County per Human Resources Comparisons Position by Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year Chesterfield Henrico Arlington Prince William FY 2003 FY 2004 Fiscal Year Prince William Chesterfield Arlington Henrico Authorized Staffing (FTEs) Prince William Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Arlington Authorized County 3, , not available 3, , Authorized HR Total Staff not available as Compared to Other Jurisdictions: Prince William s number of county employees per total human resources staff member in FY 2004 was considerably higher than Chesterfield, Arlington and Henrico. From FY 2003 to FY 2004, the rate decreased for Chesterfield (48.1 percent), Prince William (11 percent), and Henrico (.5 percent). Arlington s rate increased 5.2 percent. Fairfax data were not available. Comments: The number of employees served directly reflects a combination of changes in number of employees and changes in human resources staff members. It does not account for other variations in workload. 103

12 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Change in Spending Adjusted for Inflation Compared to the Change in Purpose: To provide an indicator of the relative change of spending versus the change in selected outputs. Percent Change in HR Expenditures and From FY 1999 Through FY 2004 Served by HR FTEs 19.0% as Resumes Received and Processed Classification Studies Completed HR-only Expenditures 63.5% 226.3% 313.7% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% Percentage Change from FY 1999 Through FY 2004 for Inflation-adjusted Expenditures and FY 1999 FY 2004 Percent Change HR expenditures $1,028,075 $1,680, % Classification studies completed % Resumes received and processed 6,100 25, % served by HR staff 2,632 3, % Changes from FY 1999 to FY 2004: HR spending adjusted for inflation grew about 63.5 percent during the six-year period. Growth in outputs ranged from about 19 percent (employees served by HR staff) to 314 percent (resumes received and processed) and included about a 226 percent increase in classification studies completed. Comments: These data do not include training and development expenditures and outputs which began as a separate function in FY The substantial increase in classification studies largely resulted from special studies of a number of complete job series including planners, engineers, and others. In addition, during the period, the number of staff members devoted to classification studies grew from one person to two. 104

13 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the level of training provided to county employees through human resources. The unit of measure is hours of training per full-time equivalent (FTE) Average Hours per FTE Fiscal Year 2000 Through Fiscal Year Hours per FTE FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 T&D Hours ,959 13,080 14,969 EEO Hours Not available 925 7,623 5, ,824 County-wide FTEs 2,632 2,730 2,829 2,929 3,043 3,131 as Trend: The number of training hours per county employee grew from.34 hours per FTE in FY 2000 to 6.96 hours in FY Prior to FY 2002, human resources did not have a separate training function. During the period, while the number of employees grew, the growth in training hours outpaced the growth in number of employees, thereby resulting in an increase in training per employee. Comments: Beginning in FY 2002, a new training and development function was established and staffed. 105

14 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the effectiveness of HR-managed soft skills training such as general employee training (both instructor-led and self-study) such as leadership, supervision, professional development, communication, and facilitation. It does not include specialized skills training such as police academy training, spreadsheet software training, or similar technical training). The measure for T&D training is the percent of employee participants who completed a course evaluation and agreed or strongly agreed that the training was useful and valuable. The measure for EEO training is the percent of employee participants rating the training as excellent. as 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 95% Percent of Employee Participants in Sessions Providing Positive Feedback Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year % 98% 98% 95% 98% 96% Percent Satisfied with T&D Percent Rating EEO as Excellent 98% 97% Employee Participants Attending EEO Sessions ,620 1,834 2,341 Employee Participants Attending T&D Sessions Program started in FY ,214 2,586 Average Quality Score of T&D Sessions (5-pt scale) Program started in FY Trend: Since the start of the T&D program in FY 2002 through FY 2004, the percent of employee participants in T&D training sessions who were satisfied with the training grew from 95 percent to 97 percent, respectively. For EEO training, the percent of participants rating the training as excellent grew from 95 percent in FY 1999 and FY 2000 to 98 percent since then. 106

15 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the level of turnover of employees. The unit of measure is computed in two different ways: (1) separations including retirements divided by full-time employees and (2) separations excluding retirements divided by full-time employees. The two measures may highlight two separate situations. A high turnover rate that includes retirements may suggest that vacancies may be influenced by natural progression of staff careers rather than intentional or forced departures that could indicate staff or employer dissatisfaction Including Retirements and Excluding Retirements FY 2000 Through FY Turnover including retirements Turnover excluding retirements FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY as Voluntary & Involuntary Separations Not available Retirements Not available Full-time employees 2,282 2,482 2,419 2,515 2,630 2,729 Trend: During the period FY 2000 through FY 2004, the turnover rate peaked in FY 2001 and then declined through FY 2004 to below the FY 2000 level. Comments: The county s equity pay plan began in FY 2001 and may have contributed to the subsequent reduction in turnover. 107

16 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Comparisons 0.25 Excluding Retirements by Jurisdiction for FY 2003 and FY Prince William Chesterfield as FY 2003 FY 2004 Including Retirements by Jurisdiction for FY 2003 and FY Prince William Chesterfield FY 2003 FY 2004 Fiscal Year 2003 Prince William Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Arlington Voluntary and Involuntary Separations Not available Not available Not available Retirements Not available Not available Not available Full-time employees Not available 3592 Not available Fiscal Year 2004 Prince William Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Arlington Voluntary and Involuntary Separations Not available Not available Not available Retirements Not available Not available Not available Full-time employees Not available 3676 Not available 108

17 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Compared to Other Jurisdictions: Prince William had higher turnover rates in FY 2003 and FY 2004 than Chesterfield. Data for Fairfax, Henrico, and Arlington were not available. as 109

18 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the level of employee concern regarding employment practices. The unit of measure is grievances per 1,000 employees. as Grievances to Panel Level per 1,000 Full-time and Part-time Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year Grievances per 1, Grievances to panel level Full-time employees Part-time employees Trend: The number of grievances remained relatively steady during the period FY 1999 through FY 2004 never less than one or more than two. Comments: During the period, minor variations in the grievance rate are largely attributed to slight changes in levels of employment in the county. Generally, the number of grievances is fairly consistent. 110

19 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Comparisons Grievances to Panel Level per 1,000 Full-time and Part-time By Jurisdiction, Fiscal Year Grievances per 1, Chesterfield Henrico Arlington Prince William Fiscal Year 2004 Prince William Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Arlington Grievances to panel level 1 0 not available 2 7 Full-time employees and part-time empl. 3,011 4,141 not available 3,737 3,336 Trend: In FY 2004, Prince William experienced a lower grievance rate (.332) than Arlington (2.098) and Henrico (.535) but a higher rate than Chesterfield s zero grievances in that year. Fairfax data were not available. as Comments: During the period, except for Arlington s high of seven grievances, the other jurisdictions all had zero, one, or two. 111

20 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the level of employee use of sick leave, which is one of the ICMA indicators for human resources support services. The unit of measure is average number of hours of sick leave used per employee, per year Average Hours of Sick Leave Used Per Employee Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004 as Average Sick Leave Usage 54.1 FY 2003 FY 2004 Hours of Sick Leave Used Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available 202, ,869.0 Full-time 2,282 2,482 2,419 2,515 2,630 2,729 Part-time Trend: Average sick leave usage declined 22 percent from an average of 69.7 hours per employee in FY 2003 to an average of 54.1 hours in FY Sick leave data are not available for years prior to FY Comments: Prince William has a program that rewards low sick leave usage by awarding up to 2 days of additional annual leave for employees using only a few days of annual leave during the year. 112

21 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Comparisons Average Hours of Sick Leave Used Per Employee by Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year Chesterfield Henrico Arlington Prince William Prince William 6.4 FY 2003 FY 2004 Fiscal Year 2004 Arlington Henrico Chesterfield Prince William Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Arlington Hours of Sick Leave Used 162,869 26,582 Not available 268, ,062 Full-time and part-time employees 3,011 4,141 Not available 3,737 3,336 Henrico's sick leave hours used was computed from their reported 71.9 hours per person average utilization. as Compared to other jurisdictions: For FY 2004, Arlington and Henrico used sick leave at a greater rate than Prince William. Arlington, Prince William, and Henrico sick leave utilization far exceeded Chesterfield s rate in both FY 2003 and FY Data for Fairfax were not available. 113

22 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the timeliness of certifying candidates for interview as a part of the process of filling vacant positions. It captures the average number of days from the vacancy announcement closing date to the date the that HR provides a certification list of candidates eligible for interview. as Average Days from Closing to Certification for Interview Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year Days from closing to certification Trend: Number of days from closing to certification fluctuated from a low of 10 in FY 2001 to a high of 22 in FY Comments: During the 6-year period, there was a 314-percent increase in the number of resumes received and processed. Due to e-recruiting effectiveness in the hiring process, the FY 2006 goal will be to certify within 10 days. 114

23 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Comparisons Average Days from Closing to Certification for Interview by Jurisdiction for Fiscal Year Arlington Prince William 14 Days to Certify 15 Fiscal Year 2004 Prince William Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Arlington Days from closing to certification 15 not available not available not available 14 Vacancies during the year not available not available not available as Compared to Other Jurisdictions: Arlington reported 14 days from closing to certification and Prince William reported 15 days from closing to certification. Similar data for Chesterfield, Henrico, and Fairfax were not available. 115

24 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report Positions Paid Per Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of success in achieving the county s compensation policy. The measure is the percentage of all positions that are paid within the acceptable range in accordance with compensation policy, as determined by salary studies conducted by HR. as 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Percent of Position Classifications Within Acceptable Salary Range In Accordance With Fiscal Year2001 Through Fiscal Year % 77.0% Percent of position classifications within acceptable salary range 81.0% 92.0% FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Total Number of Position Classifications Number of Position Classifications Within Acceptable Salary Range Not available Not available Trend: The percentage of positions paid within the acceptable range grew substantially from 37 percent in FY 2001 to 92 percent in FY Comments: The county implemented a 5-year compensation plan to make salaries more competitive in the labor market. The graph indicates the results of implementing the compensation plan. 116

25 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report as Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of how satisfied Prince William County employees are with their employer. The measure is the percent of employees surveyed who indicated they were satisfied. This question was included in a 2004 report on the results of the first organization survey that will be administered regularly every few years % 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Percent of Satisfied With Prince William County As A Place to Work Fiscal Year % Data first compiled in 2004 Percent of Satisfied Satisfaction with county as a place to work Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available 86.6% (first measure was by survey in 2004) Trend: 86.6 percent of employees were satisfied with Prince William County as a place to work in as 117

26 Prince William County 2004 Human Resources and & Development SEA Report as Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of how Prince William County employees view the changes in employment with the County government over two years ago. The measure is the percent of employees surveyed who responded in accordance with the indicated view of any changes. This question was included in a 2004 report on the results of the first organization survey that will be administered regularly every few years. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent of Considering Prince William County As Better, Same, or Worse Than Two Years Fiscal Year % 40.9% Response Category Percent Believing BETTER Percent Believing SAME Percent Believing WORSE Change in county as an employer from 2 years ago a BETTER place to work 47.6% about the SAME Not measured until FY % WORSE 11.5% 11.5% Trend: The vast majority of employees (88.5 percent) believe that the county, as their employer, is the same or better than two years ago. 118