Program Performance Review

Transcription

1 Program Performance Review Human Resources Division of the Finance and Administrative Services Department September 9, 2009 Report No Office of the County Auditor Evan A. Lukic, CPA County Auditor

2 Table of Contents Topic Page Executive Summary... 1 Purpose and Scope... 3 Background... 3 Section 1: Assessment of Human Resources Division s Accountability System... 8 Section 2: Assessment of Human Resources Division s Performance Efficiency: Peer Analysis Effectiveness: Focus Group Results and Follow Up Appendix A: Focus Group Attendees and Agenda Appendix B: Human Resource Customer Focus Group Summary of Ratings Appendix C: Summary of Focus Group Discussions... 44

3 Executive Summary This report presents the results of our Program Performance Review of the Human Resources Division (HRD) within the Finance and Administrative Services Department. Section 1: Assessment of HRD s Accountability System (pages 8-15) Some HRD sections have made efforts to implement an effective accountability structure, including collecting and analyzing unit cost and internal operational data and conducting benchmarking activities to improve results. However, HRD generally lacks complete and meaningful performance data to effectively monitor operations and to help policymakers make informed budget and policy decisions. To further enhance its accountability system, we recommend that HRD: o Identify, collect and analyze pertinent unit cost data, using full cost methodology, for major services; o Expand benchmarking activities to include all major services; and o Improve data collection by addressing existing information system deficiencies. Section 2: Evaluation of HRD s Performance (pages 16-41) To evaluate HRD s efficiency we compared its staffing and resource allocation levels against peers and human resource standards. Based on two commonly used efficiency indicators, HRD s current staffing and resource levels appear appropriate. For example, the human resources staff to County employee ratio and annual per FTE expenditure for human resource services is below average based on data reported by the Society for Human Resource Management and the International City/County Management Association and is generally comparable to local peers. To evaluate HRD s effectiveness we (a) conducted five focus groups consisting of 31stakeholder participants, and (b) analyzed available performance data. Based on our analysis, we identified four service areas that are generally considered to be effective in meeting objectives and four service areas that need to be improved to enhance HRD effectiveness. Services which are generally effective: o Employee Assistance Program employee counseling and organizational intervention services specifically received the highest ratings from stakeholders. o Learning and Organizational Development stakeholders mainly praised the variety of training opportunities and quality of leadership development classes. o Open enrollment focus group participants particularly recognized the ease of enrolling for benefits and ongoing communication throughout the process. 1

4 o Reduction in Force many stakeholders appreciated HRD s efforts to avoid layoffs and find placements for all affected employees. Areas that need improvement: o HR Recruiter and New Hire Process: Users expressed dissatisfaction with the prescreening process, the quality of referred candidates, the length of time to fill a position, and challenges using HR recruiter. Despite improvements to its new hire process, including significant prescreening workload reductions, challenges remain that should be addressed. o Position and Compensation Reviews: Stakeholders identified concerns, including (1) lack of regular classification and compensation system reviews, (2) ineffective oversight of Human Resource Officers, (3) lack of written policies to guide work processes, and (4) untimely reclassification and salary adjustment reviews. o Succession Planning: HRD has made minimal efforts to develop a comprehensive succession management plan in accordance with industry best practices. o Performance Management: Stakeholders cited several interrelated concerns that related to (1) updating performance evaluation instruments, (2) disciplining and terminating poorly performing employees, and (3) rewarding high performing employees. In partnership with County Administration, HRD is currently taking steps to develop a new employee evaluation process. To further improve HRD s effectiveness, we recommend that the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Administrator to implement the following actions and report progress by December 31, 2009: o Evaluate opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of hiring processes, including developing more comprehensive prescreening review processes and determining the feasibility of making enhancements to HR Recruiter, and update the Internal Control Handbook and provide applicable staff training relative to hiring processes; o Develop comprehensive policies and procedures on reviewing reclassification salary adjustment and range reallocation requests, and reviews of the classification plan, and update the Internal Control Handbook accordingly; o Develop a comprehensive succession management plan; and o Continue efforts to update performance appraisal processes and explore the feasibility of developing a program to reward and encourage high performing employees 2

5 Purpose and Scope This report presents the results of a Program Performance Review of the Human Resources Division (HRD) within the Finance and Administrative Services Department. The purpose of this review is to assess the quality of the Division s accountability system, evaluate its performance and identify options for improving services. To accomplish our objectives, we: Reviewed pertinent performance measurement, general management, and human resources services literature, Analyzed available performance data for HRD operations, Analyzed information provided by HRD Managers and employees relative to specific management processes and controls, Reviewed applicable HRD records and documents, including relevant policies and procedures, Interviewed HRD Managers and employees, and Conducted focus groups with HRD Managers, Human Resource Officers and County agency stakeholders. Background Human Resources Division is an enterprise-wide internal service agency providing human resources management support. This encompasses a wide variety of responsibilities such as employment applicant screening and testing, maintenance of position classifications and personnel policies, coordinating employee training and benefit programs, processing personnel actions, upkeep of employee records, discipline and grievance handling and administration of collective bargaining agreements. HRD is funded by both the General Fund and the Human Resources Employee Benefits Fund. The Division s total fiscal year 2009 operating budget is $67,879,380 and includes 55 positions. 1 General Fund Services As depicted in Exhibit 1 on the following page, General Fund dollars support the Administration, General Services and Learning and Organizational Development sections within HRD. 1 Broward County s human resources functions are generally centralized within HRD; however, several Departments (Human Services, Broward County Aviation, Port Everglades, Public Works, Water and Wastewater Services Division, and the Office of Transportation) fund their own out-stationed Human Resource Officer positions. Human Resource Officers provide dedicated human resource services to their respective agencies but receive support and follow policy as directed by HRD. As these positions are not funded by HRD, they are not reflected in the budget amounts shown here. 3

6 Exhibit 1: For FY 2009, HRD s General Fund budget includes $4,027,280 in funding and 40 positions Fund Section FY 2009 Budget # of Positions Administration $ 655,040 5 General Fund General Services $ 2,100, Learning and Organizational Development $ 1,271,870 8 Total $ 4,027, Source: Office of Management and Budget The Administration section provides oversight and guidance to the entire Division in the delivery of human resource services. The General Services budgetary section encompasses three operational units: Staffing Services, Compensation and Records, and Labor Relations. Staffing Services (SS) is responsible for providing fair and defensible recruitment and applicant evaluation services with the goal of referring the highest quality candidates in order for the County to provide the highest quality public service. The unit maintains the County s online job application system known as HR Recruiter. Compensation and Records (CR) provides for the administration and maintenance of the County s classification and pay system and development of compensation related policies. This unit also maintains official personnel records, processes personnel transactions and administers the Employee Service Recognition Award Program. Labor Relations (LR) negotiates and administers the County s eight collective bargaining agreements with four separate unions. To help protect the County from liability, the LR section is to provide defensible, pro-active and ethical services and guidance to all County Divisions in matters such as employee performance appraisals, disciplinary actions and grievances. The Learning and Organizational Development (LOD) section manages classroom and computer based training courses, including mandatory trainings. LOD provides individual and organizational learning and development support through training needs assessments and analyses, consulting and coaching assistance, and programs such as tuition reimbursement and internships. Employee Benefits Fund Services As depicted in Exhibit 2 on the following page, the Employee Benefits Fund supports the Employee Assistance Program, Employee Benefits Services and Employee Benefits Administration sections within HRD. The Employee Benefits Fund is primarily funded 4

7 through transfers from the General Fund, Enterprise Funds through cost allocations and employee contributions for various benefit programs. Exhibit 2: For FY 2009, HRD s Employee Benefits Fund budget includes $63.9 million and 15 FTEs Fund Section FY 2009 Budget # of Positions Employee Benefits Fund Employee Benefits Administration $ 1,088, Employee Benefits Services $ 62,370,340 N/A Employee Assistance Program $ 393,260 4 Total $ 63,852, Source: Office of Management and Budget The Employee Benefits Administration section designs, implements and administers County sponsored benefit programs. 2 This includes managing the annual open enrollment process and conducting employee informational sessions regarding available benefits. The County s Health and Wellness Program, including the Employee Wellness Center, are also administered by this section. Employee Benefits Services portion of HRD s budget represents the total costs for all benefits related contracts administered by Employee Benefits Administration. Approximately $42 million of this amount is obtained through transfers from the General and Enterprise Funds for County contributions towards employee benefits, while $14 million represents direct employee and retiree payments for insurance premiums, with an additional $6 million in reserves. This section does not have budgeted staff positions; all employee positions are reflected in the Administration section of the budget. The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) offers confidential assessment, referral and case management services to employees and/or family members seeking assistance with personal problems that may affect job performance. The section also provides Department of Transportation Substance Abuse Professional assessment and follow up services 3 as well as organizational needs assessments, managerial coaching, and critical incident debriefings. 2 Broward County offers its benefit eligible active employees, retirees and COBRA beneficiaries a variety of voluntary contribution programs including health, vision, dental, flexible spending and Consumer Driven Health Plan Health Reimbursement Accounts, life insurance, long term disability insurance, long term care insurance, cancer/dread disease insurance, pre-paid legal services, and Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP). 3 The Department of Transportation requires funded agencies such as Broward County to provide drug/alcohol testing, referral and follow up services for employees with Commercial Driver s Licenses in safety-sensitive positions. 5

8 Broward County s Workforce As stated on HRD s website, People are Broward County s greatest asset. The County employs over 7,300 individuals annually representing a great diversity of people, skills and knowledge. According to OMB, employee compensation (salaries and benefits) in FY2008 was in excess of $400 million. As displayed in Exhibit 3 below, this represents 34.6% of the County s actual fiscal year 2008 budget, making employees one of Broward County government s most important and costly resources. 4 Exhibit 3: In FY 2008, compensation represented 34.6% of Broward County s operating budget FY 2008 Operating Expenditures 34.6% Personnel Expenditures 65.4% Other Expenditures Source: Office of the County Auditor analysis of OMB data In fiscal year 2008, the County s budget included 5,891positions for full time, part time and other statuses. 5 Over the span of the entire year, 7,344 individuals were employed. As shown in Exhibit 4 on the following page, from fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the majority (87%) of County employees are full time staff. Due in part to reductions in the number of budgeted positions, the County s total number of individuals employed annually has declined approximately 8% (632 individuals) from fiscal year 2006 to 2008 as the number of budgeted positions also decreases. Broward County employees can be hired to fill one of 1,000 different job classifications, many of which are regulated by union contracts. County employment covers a wide range of skills and experience, spanning job titles such as: Accountant, Attorney, Building Code Inspector, Bus Operator, Carpenter, Engineer, Family Therapist, Information System Analyst, Lifeguard, Librarian, Mechanic, Mosquito Control Inspector, Natural Resource Specialist, Nurse Practitioner, Purchasing Agent, Recreation Aide, Security Guard, Storekeeper, Toxicologist, Traffic Signal Technician and Zoning Plans Examiner. 4 Fiscal year 2008 budget amount excludes capital expenses, debt service, transfers and reserves. 5 Other statuses include seasonal, temporary, student and will-call positions. 6

9 Exhibit 4: From fiscal years 2006 to 2008, Broward County s total workforce declined from 7,975 individuals to 7,343 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 # of County Employees Other Source: Office of the County Auditor analysis of HRD information Part Time Full Time As demonstrated in Exhibit 5, slightly over one half of all classifications (514) are for represented (union) positions while the remainder (486) are unrepresented. In fiscal year 2008, approximately 80% of full time and part time (20 hour) benefit eligible employees were in represented classifications. Exhibit 5: In fiscal year 2008, 51% of employee classifications and 80% of benefit eligible employees were represented by labor agreements % Represented Classifications % Represented Employees 51% 49% 80% 20% Represented Classifications Unrespresented Classifications Source: Office of the County Auditor analysis of HRD data Represented Employees Unrepresented Employees 7

10 Section 1: Assessment of Human Resources Division s Accountability System This section presents our assessment of the Human Resources Division s accountability system. Establishing an effective accountability system is essential to ensure public funds are spent in a manner that achieves desired results and improves the provision of public services. An effective accountability system provides quality information to enable: Citizens to hold elected officials, managers, employees and private contractors accountable for the efficient and effective use of public funds; Elected officials and other policymakers to make informed budget and policy decisions; and Managers to detect and correct operational deficiencies and improve program results. Our assessment examines the extent to which HRD has developed and implemented key components of its performance measurement and reporting system. Specifically, we examined whether the Division has: Collected and analyzed unit cost data for each major service and activity; Benchmarked its performance through contacting other governmental or nonprofit agencies that provide similar services; Collected and analyzed data to assess operational efficiency and effectiveness; Established processes to ensure performance data reliability; and Used performance data to modify current practices or change operational processes in order to achieve better program results. Best Practice: Collect and analyze unit cost data for major services Unit cost refers to the cost of producing an output or outcome. 6 Collecting and analyzing unit cost data is important because it can be used by an agency to: compare performance to similar service providers predict how changes in the demand for services will affect its budget assess how changes in operations could affect costs identify wasteful processes estimate the impact of budget decisions 6 Source: Florida Legislature s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability 8

11 Although unit cost data was collected for LOD and EAP services, the calculations were not meaningful; as a result comparative analyses provided to County managers were of limited value Analyzing reliable unit cost data for primary services is an important management tool. Agencies can use information to identify cost savings through comparisons of historical performance, against peers or outside vendors, or to determine if fees for services have been appropriately set. Therefore, we asked HRD Managers to provide us with unit cost analyses for its major activities or services. Examples were provided for two of the Division s six operational units. In fiscal year 2008, both LOD and EAP presented unit cost comparisons of their services to County managers. LOD prepared an annual report to County Administration summarizing its program activities, while EAP presented its cost data in its 2009 Results Team Program Proposal form. While it is recognized that these sections have made efforts to analyze their costs, the methodology used in making the calculations limit the usefulness of the information presented. Specifically: In fiscal year 2008, LOD presented its training cost to be $7.49 per hour as compared to ASTD s published industry standard for government agencies of $ This comparison appears to reflect considerable economy of services; however, while LOD s cost calculations included materials and instructor fees, it failed to include the salaries of County staff persons who provide training hours, process oversight and supervision, plus indirect costs such as facility expenses. As a result, the comparison significantly overstated the savings realized. EAP s Fiscal Year 2009 Results Team Program Proposal form listed several hourly costs for similar services from vendors but did not provide EAP s hourly costs for comparison. This information is necessary to determine if savings could be achieved by contracting out all or portions of the services provided. The packet also included a peer comparison of cost per case and per hour of training provided. However, these calculations were made using total program costs rather than the actual portion (%) of total program costs attributable to the service. As a result, the comparisons were not based on actual expenditures. A more meaningful comparison for future consideration is cost per counseling hour, as the intensity of services provided may differ across programs. Due to these errors or omissions in the data presented, no conclusions about the efficiency of EAP services can be made. However, we note that EAP s analysis included total program cost per capita (employee), which is an important measure for evaluating the level of resources dedicated to the program. 7 Although this agency formally uses the acronym ASTD as its name, it is also known as the American Society for Training Development. 9

12 Other sections in HRD have not demonstrated use of unit cost data to analyze operational efficiency Although LOD and EAP have made efforts to examine the efficiency of their services through unit cost analyses, HRD was unable to demonstrate the use of unit cost calculations for the remaining four sections. To increase its knowledge of the efficiency of its other operations, HRD should expand its current practices to include additional sections within the Division. Additional practical examples of unit cost measures specific to human resource operations include benefits cost per employee or cost per new hire. HRD can also develop cost analyses for various regularly occurring internal activities such as cost per filled records request or cost per personnel action processed. Recommendation In an era of budget cuts, it becomes more important than ever for County programs to operate efficiently. To provide Division and Department managers and County policymakers with meaningful information to determine if services are provided as economically as possible, we recommend the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Administrator to take the following action and report progress by December 31, 2009: 1. Identify, collect and analyze pertinent unit cost data suggested in this report or other measures identified by the Division. Unit costs calculations should use full cost methodology. Best Practice: performance Contacting outside sources to benchmark The Government Finance Officers Association recommends benchmarking as a method of obtaining information that can be used to identify inefficient practices and develop strategies to achieve better results. Benchmarking refers to performance comparisons of organizational business processes against an internal or external standard of recognized leaders. In order to ensure high performance in its operations, County managers should systematically and routinely compare their policies, practices, and performance measures against those of high-performing organizations, other local governments and private industry leaders that provide similar services. Benchmarking resources available to HRD include the Florida Benchmarking Consortium (FBC), Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Several professional organizations also publish reports examining various aspects of human resource operations. All of these agencies provide useful data for an organization to benchmark its overall performance, use of resources as well as specific operational measures. 10

13 LOD and EAP have made efforts to compare their performance against peer organizations In response to our requests for examples of benchmarking activities, HRD Managers provided us with information gathered from the LOD and EAP sections. These two sections have taken action to benchmark specific areas of performance against peer agencies. LOD has demonstrated consistent efforts in benchmarking. Specifically, LOD has participated in the ASTD (American Society for Training and Development) Workplace Learning and Performance Scorecard to compare its performance against other organizations. This process gauges organizational training in the areas of alignment, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability. Participating agencies report data which is then compared against the mean score of 200 other organizations. 8 In other activities, LOD has benchmarked its Tuition Reimbursement Program against peers and has compared its training programs against the general market through the identification of similar training classes. Both LOD and EAP have compared their costs against peers. As noted in the previous section of this report, these efforts have been of limited value as calculations were not meaningful; however, it is recognized that these sections have initiated work in this best practice. HRD initiated use of benchmarking resources to analyze its overall performance, but expanding current efforts can provide managers with more meaningful comparisons HRD s benchmarking of overall Division performance and efficiency has been limited until the current fiscal year. For example, in 2006, 2007 and 2008, HRD provided data to the Florida Benchmarking Consortium. HRD Managers state that in the past, FBC s annual service reports were reviewed upon receipt and meetings were held with management staff to discuss the overall results. However, no further analysis or specific use of the compiled data reports was completed until the recent 2010 budget process. In June 2009, the Division provided the BOCC with data comparing the County s human resource staffing to other jurisdictions. At this time, HRD completed a benchmarking analysis comparing itself to other Florida counties, using fiscal year 2008 data obtained from the FBC. The analysis presented to the Board also compared Broward s performance against information compiled by ICMA and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). Based on the data compiled, Broward s human resource staffing levels appears to fall within an average range. This analysis was an 8 Broward s overall index score was 56, which falls somewhat below the mean score of 60 for all participating organizations. HRD managers state that due to concerns in definitions and subjectivity in scoring they have chosen not to participate again for 2008 and will instead be using ASTD s State of the Industry report as a more valuable benchmarking tool in the future. 11

14 important step in comparing efficiency levels against peers. However, additional analyses of other standards, as well as narrowing benchmarking studies to focus only on the most comparable organizations could provide policy makers with additional valuable information. We have initiated this analysis in Section 2 of this report, pages Although HRD used compiled average data from ICMA in its report to the BOCC, this organization publishes annual reports that provide additional valuable information for future analyses by HRD. For example, the report lists organizational criteria HRD can use to identify peers, such as: HR centralization and reporting structure, total number of employees, number of HR employees, percentage of employees in unions and number of job classifications. Examples of specific performance measures that could help HRD evaluate its services include: employee benefits as percentage of total salaries and wages, number of working days for external and internal recruitments, reclassification of occupied positions, sick leave hours used, number of grievances and appeals per 100 employees, percentage of grievance resolved before passing from management control, and percentage of employee performance reviews completed on schedule. Recommendation To further facilitate benchmarking, which could help HR identify areas for improvement; we recommend the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Administrator to take the following action and report progress by December 31, 2009: 2. Expand existing benchmarking practices through (1) review and analysis of FBC and ICMA reports to identify most comparable peers and valuable service comparisons; (2) independent research to identify other peers, services or performance measures which are commonly benchmarked; and (3) gathering data and completing analyses, and (4) identify potential areas for improvements and initiate action as appropriate. Best Practice: Collect and analyze internal operational data To effectively manage County programs and operations, managers need more data than what is reported in the annual budget. The data reported in the annual budget generally relates to an entity s overall performance rather than specific functions or activities. While the budget data is useful for accountability purposes, it provides limited information for managers to use in managing their programs on a daily basis. Therefore, as a part of our Program Performance Review process, we look beyond the Division s basic reporting requirements to determine how the organization utilizes other reports and data collection systems to improve its services. Specifically, we seek to identify internal reporting systems that allow Division Management to assess how their programs are meeting customer needs while providing cost efficient services. 12

15 Technology limitations affect policymakers ability to evaluate HRD programs As a Division, HRD encompasses a variety of services and programs. Each section collects data regarding its own individual operations. This is accomplished through the use of many different software applications. However, to be effective as an enterprise wide internal service agency, HRD must look beyond its own day to day operations and examine human resource management on a County-wide basis. In our fieldwork, we found some instances where HRD collects and analyzes information on a comprehensive basis (see page 15 for examples). We also identified other opportunities for improved data collection which can assist HRD in its role as Countywide internal service agency. As noted by HRD Managers throughout this review process, technology limitations have impeded the Division s ability to complete comprehensive analyses of program and operations as a whole. Concerns cited by Division Managers include: Use of multiple systems resulting in a lack of integration and increased complexity Heavy reliance on Enterprise Technology Services (ETS) Obtaining support for products with sun-setting maintenance agreements Inefficiencies due to data redundancies and manual processes Cumbersome modules of primary technology systems (Cyborg and Advantage) Lack of user friendly interfaces Lack of centralized, real time, detailed data County s continued reliance on paper based systems As a result of these issues, the Division faces several challenges in gathering data needed for the management of day to day operations. Further, these challenges also affect HRD s ability to serve as a County-wide resource. For example: LOD relies on the Registrar system to track training hours provided by the section. However, there is no system to track all training hours provided to County staff (i.e. ETS software trainings, internal/agency specific sessions or paid attendance at outside trainings). This limits LOD s ability to effectively determine ongoing training needs, or to benchmark employee training hours and expenditures against peers. EAP uses manual sign in sheets to track client appointments. This process is time consuming and may lead to errors in reporting services. Records and Compensation uses Excel spreadsheets to track classification and salary review work completed by HRD staff, but does not track the work completed by HROs. Without this information, Managers do not know the work effort County-wide and may not be able to identify trends in services. No comprehensive records of public record requests are maintained and many requests are not recorded at all. As the County is able to charge a fee for records request services, this information is important in ensuring fees are appropriately assessed and collected. 13

16 Forms such as BC (Personnel Action Form) are handled by several individuals/agencies causing delays in timely processing; as a result employees may not receive correct wages in a timely manner. County Employees and managers do not have the ability to independently track the status of many requests such as BC processing, benefit changes, grievances, etc. Due to limitations in the quantity of data collected and the Cyborg system, HRD does not have the ability to generate employee statistical data reports to assist in County-wide planning and management activities. For example, reports regarding reasons for employee separations or retirement projections lack sufficient detail for thorough analysis (see pages for additional information in regard to succession planning activities). Although HR Recruiter provides some reporting capabilities, as applications progress through the evaluation process, previous data is not retained, limiting the ability to analyze some processes (see pages of this report for more detailed discussions of the HR Recruiter system). Recommendation It is important for County managers to make informed decisions based upon complete and reliable information. To enhance the quality and quantity of data collected by HRD we recommend the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Administrator to take the following action and report results by December 31, 2009: 3. Ensure the collection of meaningful human resource related information through (1) identifying valuable types of data; (2) ensuring existing systems are used to the utmost of existing capabilities; (3) completing feasibility assessments regarding acquisition of software upgrades or modifications that would improve costeffectiveness; (4) implementing cost effective and necessary data solutions. Best Practice: Use of performance data to improve operations According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the benefit of collecting performance data is only fully realized when the information is actually used by managers to make decisions directed towards improving results. Managers can use performance information to identify operational problems and their causes, and to develop corrective actions; to effectively plan and prioritize workload and resources; and to identify more effective approaches to program implementation. HRD sections collect a variety of performance data and use the information to improve services We found that sections within HRD have made significant efforts to gather information about services provided. The data is used by managers to assess service delivery, and modify for improvement when needed. Two primary examples of the use of performance data to improve County wide operations include: 14

17 Learning and Organizational Development: LOD extensively surveys its users and collects data needed to ensure its programs meet County needs. When gaps or deficiencies are recognized, adjustments are made to program services. Similarly, identified strengths can be drawn upon to continue the effective delivery of services. Specific examples of information collected and used by LOD include: In June 2008, LOD completed a study surveying County Department Directors opinions regarding organizational development needs and the value of LOD s existing training programs. The report identified leadership concerns and developed recommendations for future training needs. In August 2008, LOD completed another study which surveyed supervisors and training liaisons regarding the value of existing training classes, identifying the courses considered to be the most and least needed. Information from this report is considered by LOD when developing future training calendars and establishing the frequency and type of course offerings. LOD completed an in depth examination of its Advanced Facilitation Skills Program by surveying graduates about their experiences. Based on the feedback provided, course content and practical exercises were modified. In October 2008, LOD completed a report analyzing the usage of the Tuition Reimbursement Program and surveying participants. The report offers recommendations to improve program effectiveness while managing costs. As part of each training class offered by LOD, participants complete pre and post tests to measure increases in subject knowledge. Attendees also complete satisfaction surveys which provide information about the course content and instructors. Responses are compiled on spreadsheets and reviewed to determine the effectiveness and popularity of classes. Information is then considered when developing future training schedules. Labor Relations: This section gathers information regarding disciplinary actions, grievances, drug and alcohol testing and related return to work agreements and unemployment compensation hearings. Managers state that information includes actions taken by HRO staff to ensure the full scope of County activities is monitored. Information is tracked over time, and trends, when identified, are acted upon. For example, a large number of grievances in one section were traced to employee assignments following reduction in force; as applicable employee and supervisory responsibilities were reviewed with staff and the number of filings was reduced. Trend data is also used by the section to identify potential training needs. 15

18 Section 2: Assessment of Human Resources Division s Performance In this section we evaluate HRD s efficiency and effectiveness as the County s provider of human resource services. Our assessment of HRD s efficiency was completed through benchmarking HR staffing and resource levels against peer agencies using common industry measures. To assess HRD s effectiveness, we conducted several focus groups to gather opinions regarding the Division s services. The feedback received was reviewed to identify Division strengths and weaknesses, each of which was then further examined in additional detail. In summary, we found that HRD s staffing resources are generally comparable to peers for the efficiency measures reviewed (pages 16-19). Secondly, through the use of focus groups, we identified four service areas with high levels of customer satisfaction- (1) employee assistance, (2) employee training, (3) open enrollment, and (4) reduction in force efforts (pages 20-23). Similarly we identified areas with lower satisfaction levels that have been summarized into four categories (1) new hire process, (2) compensation and classification reviews, (3) succession planning, and (4) performance management (pages 23-41). Each of these areas was reviewed in detail to assess potential deficiencies in the current level of services provided and where applicable, analyze performance and provide suggestions for improvements. Efficiency: Peer Analysis Efficiency can be defined as operating with the least possible expenditure of resources. Efficient organizations do things right and avoid wasted time and effort. Ensuring efficiency in operations is critical in times of limited resources when government agencies are commonly being asked to do more with less. Therefore, we sought to assess HRD s efficiency by comparing its staffing levels and resource allocations against peers. We completed this analysis using two performance ratios recognized by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM): HR Employee to Total Employee and HR Expense per FTE. Based upon the results of this work, HRD appears to have efficient operations, staffing levels below its peers and resource allocations which are below or comparable to peers. In completing our analysis, we used information compiled by HRD and other peer counties for reporting to the FBC for fiscal year For the purpose of our review, peer counties were considered to be Pinellas, Hillsborough and Palm Beach counties, as these jurisdictions had total numbers of employees most similar to Broward as well 9 The FBC report for 2008 has not yet been released; however, HRD obtained this data for benchmarking purposes and shared available information for this analysis. HRD managers state that the data is based upon actual, not budgeted, positions and dollars expended. 16

19 as comparable human resource functions. 10,11 To supplement our research, we also used benchmarking data compiled by SHRM and ICMA. It is important to note that the human resources structure in Broward County encompasses both HRD as a centralized service provider and out-stationed HRO positions. In most cases HRO staff provide the same or similar compensation, labor relations, and staffing services to their sponsoring agencies as central HRD staff provide to other County divisions. HROs also act as liaisons to other areas of HR. Therefore, in each of the analyses below we provide information based on HRD plus additional HRO resources. 12 HR Employee to Total Employee Ratio According to SHRM, the use of HR Employee to Total Employee ratios can be a powerful technique to measure and compare staffing levels across HR departments. 13 This metric is calculated as a ratio between the numbers of human resource FTEs as compared to 100 FTEs in the organization as a whole. This information is valuable because it allows agencies to compare how many HR staff they have to support the total number of staff organization-wide relative to others. Based upon our analyses of this indicator, Broward County staffing levels (for filled positions) appear to be efficient when compared to peers. As shown in Exhibit 6 on the following page, in fiscal year 2008, Broward County s HR Employee to Total Employee ratio, inclusive of HRO staff was.86. For similarly sized and complex organizations, this result is significantly lower than the most recent data provided by SHRM and ICMA which is 1.05 and 1.04, respectively. 14 In our second analysis (Exhibit 7 on the following page) we compared Broward s staffing levels to comparable Florida peer counties. At.86 HR staff to Total FTEs, Broward s ratio is comparable to its peers. 10 Miami-Dade County is not considered a peer organization for the purpose of these analyses as it employs over 30,000 staff and its Human Resources Division manages payroll functions, which is not comparable to Broward County. Orange County is not considered in our analysis due to large numbers of outsourced HR staff who perform a variety of mixed functions, as a result a clear understanding of HR staff or resources could not be developed. 11 To better ensure comparability of data in peer analyses: (1) Broward s EAP resources were removed as other counties HR Departments do not directly provide these services, and (2) Information provided by Palm Beach was modified to include employee benefits services (budgeted in the Risk Management Division), as all other counties have this program within their HR Departments. 12 In FY 2008, there were eight budgeted and seven filled HRO positions available to supplement the work of HRD staff; in FY 2009, two of the budgeted positions were eliminated. When this occurs, HRD central re-assumes the responsibilities formerly managed by the HRO staff person. 13 HR to Employee Ratio, SHRM Metric of the Month, 9/1/ SHRM comparative data was obtained from the 2008 SHRM Human Capital Benchmarking report, and based upon the complexity of Broward County operations, 75 Th percentile data was used for with organizations 2,500-7,499 employees. ICMA data is based upon the organization s most recent report for 2007 data for responding jurisdictions with populations of 500,000 or more, providing complete employee counts for centralized and decentralized human resource staff. 17

20 Exhibit 6: At.86, Broward s HR Employee to Total Employee Ratio is below published industry standards for similar organizations 1.20 HR Employee to Total Employee Ratio BROWARD SHRM ICMA Source: Office of the County Auditor Analysis Exhibit 7: At.86, Broward s HR Employee to Total Employee Ratio is comparable to peer counties ratio HR Employee to Total Employee Ratio Source: Office of the County Auditor Analysis BROWARD Palm Beach Hillsborough Pinellas HR Expense per FTE Ratio Another metric commonly used to demonstrate the level of investment an organization has in its human resource function is the HR Expense per FTE ratio. This ratio is calculated by dividing the total human resource expenditures in a fiscal year by the number of FTEs within the organization. According to SHRM, this measure is valuable because it enables managers to put an exact dollar amount per employee on HR spending and allows easy interpretation in determining if HR budgets are appropriate. Further, this ratio readily allows organizations to compare if they are spending more or less on human resource services than peers HR Expense per FTE Ratio, SHRM Metric of the Month, 12/1/

21 Based upon our analyses of this indicator, Broward County s dedicated human resource levels are generally comparable to peers. As shown in Exhibit 8 below, in fiscal year 2008, Broward County (inclusive of HRD and HRO staff) expended $872 in human resources per employee, which is lower than the SHRM mean of $1,176 per employee. 16 In our second analysis of this ratio shown in Exhibit 9, we compared Broward to peer Florida counties. At $872 per employee, Broward s human resource level is 13% higher than our peer counties average of $770 per employee. Exhibit 8: Broward s HR Expense of $872 per FTE is 26% lower than SHRM average $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $- HR Expense per FTE $872 BROWARD Source: Office of the County Auditor Analysis $1,176 SHRM Exhibit 9: Broward s HR Expense of $872 per FTE is 13% higher than peers average $1,200 HR Expense per FTE $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $872 $566 $729 $1,014 $200 $- BROWARD Palm Beach Hillsborough Pinellas Source: Office of the County Auditor Analysis SHRM Human Capital Benchmarking report; ICMA data not available for this measure. 19

22 Effectiveness: Focus Group Results and Follow Up Analysis To accomplish our objective of assessing HRD s effectiveness as an organization wide service agency, we used focus groups as a tool to gain insights and opinions about HRD s services. A total of five sessions with 31 participants were held from February 4 th through 24 th, Separate focus groups were conducted for central HRD Managers and out posted HR Officers and three customer groups were composed of middle to upper management staff from Divisions throughout the County. Focus group discussions centered on identifying What Works Well and Areas for Improvements. Participants were asked to identify what they considered to be the most critical areas for improvement and to brainstorm solutions. Summary notes recorded for each session were based on participant consensus. Customer focus groups also completed a survey rating various HRD functions on a scale of one to ten. Following the completion of all five sessions, survey ratings were averaged and feedback was reviewed to identify common themes. Appendix A on page 42 provides a listing of participating Department/Divisions. Appendices B and C on pages 43-47, respectively provide a summary of the ratings received and a compilation of all focus group discussion comments. Based on the feedback provided by all groups, we identified four strengths and four areas of concern within HRD services. Functions most positively identified by the groups include: (1) Employee Assistance Program, (2) Employee Training, (3) Open Enrollment, and (4) Reduction in Force. Functions most commonly viewed as needing improvement include: (1) HR Recruiter System/New Hire Process, (2) Succession Planning, (3) Classification and Compensation Reviews, and (4) Performance Management. Each of these eight subjects is discussed in further detail throughout this section of the report. What Works Well EAP, LOD, Open Enrollment and Reduction in Force were recognized for effective service delivery by focus group participants Employee Assistance Program (EAP) EAP was recognized as the highest area of success by focus group participants. In group discussions, each of the five groups cited EAP services as What Works Well. In our customer survey, Counseling, referral and case management services received the highest average rating of 8.6 and Organizational interventions received the second highest average rating of 8.4. The EAP Manager provided us with information about the section s programs. County employees (or their families) may seek EAP services for a wide range of concerns including depression, stress, substance abuse, and relationship issues. Depending on 20

23 needs and individual circumstances, clients may receive short term counseling by EAP staff or referrals to outside counseling services. The goal of the program is to assist employees in resolving emotional difficulties, enabling them to be productive and effective in their work. EAP also completes organizational intervention services which range from supervisory coaching and crisis debriefings to full studies of an agency to determine underlying causes of systemic problems and make recommendations for improvements. EAP reported to OMB the following performance measure achievements in 2008: 646 office visits 89% of clients follow through with outside referral or obtain services directly through EAP counselors 281 organizational intervention related activities Employee Training (Learning and Organization Development (LOD)) Employee training, as administered by LOD, was also recognized by focus groups as an effective area of service. For example, Quality of available training courses received an average customer survey rating of 7.2 and four of five groups acknowledged LOD and/or various training programs as What Works Well. Interviews with the LOD Manager were held to learn more about the programs offered. LOD strives to provide high quality classes to help educate and advance the skills of County employees. LOD continuously surveys training participants, supervisors and managers to determine the effectiveness of its programs. The majority of classes are provided by vendors although LOD and other County staff also play an active role in training. Some of the most valuable courses include: Employee Essentials, Supervisor s Apprenticeship, Positive Start, Emerging Leaders and Advanced Facilitation Skills. Outputs highlighting the work completed by LOD in 2008 include the following: 251 employees assisted through the Tuition Reimbursement Program 245 of learning events offered in 224 instructor led classes and 21 computer based courses 29,647 hours of training provided to 3,797 employee participants 98% of employees rating completed training as helpful in their job 98% of class registrations processed electronically through the Registrar system Open Enrollment (Employee Benefits) Customer focus groups consistently identified Employee Benefits Services and the Open Enrollment process as an area of high satisfaction/performance. For example, Open Enrollment Process received an average customer survey rating of 8.4 (tied for second highest score) while Assistance in handling employee benefit related actions/concerns received a similarly high rating of 7.9. Open Enrollment was cited as 21

24 What Works Well by two of three customer groups; while the third group recognized the section as being responsive regarding benefits. Based on information obtained through interviews with the Employee Benefits Manager, customer service is a high priority for staff. During open enrollment process, staff provide educational sessions and ongoing updates to employees to keep them informed of critical submission dates and important changes in benefit programs. The Employee Wellness Resource Center is used to provide health information and educational sessions to staff and hosts various health programs throughout the year such as The Biggest Loser. The section also strives to be responsive to employees planning retirement, seeking assistance with current benefits or making modifications to their benefits as the result of changes in life circumstances. Noteworthy activities completed by the section in 2008 include the following: 3,998 employees, or 64% enrolled in benefits using the online system 20 open enrollment seminars to educate employees on available health plans 7 Florida Retirement System seminars with Deferred Compensation vendors 3 health fairs with 700 attendees 800 employees participated in free flu shot campaign 6,736 benefit plan employee assistance contacts provided by staff Reduction in Force The Reduction in Force (RIF) process was also positively recognized by focus groups. The Division s efforts in this area were cited as What Works Well by four of five focus groups. Feedback acknowledged that lay-offs were successfully avoided and that creative solutions were used to ensure employees were offered jobs. For fiscal years 2008 and 2009, a total of 265 filled positions were eliminated due to budgetary cutbacks. HRD Managers state that although some employees chose to retire or found outside employment prior to the start of the new fiscal year, all remaining affected persons were offered opportunities to remain employed with Broward County. As a result, no employee lay-offs were necessary. HRD Managers state that the success of the RIF process was due to the cooperative efforts of all sections within the Division. For example, once confirmation of the position being eliminated was received, Labor Relations consulted with unions to determine displacement ( bumping ) rights. When the affected employees were identified, HRD staff personally met with each employee and provided official notice from the HRD Director informing them of the pending circumstances. Employees were provided with resource materials and a webpage to access information and resources. Each person was assigned an HR professional from Staffing Services (and/or other sections as needed) to serve as an employment counselor during the placement process. Counselors met with RIF affected employees to assess their skills and experience and find viable alternative options for continued County employment. Assistance in applying for jobs through HR Recruiter was provided. Employee Benefits 22

25 offered retirement counseling and paperwork processing for those who were interested in this option. Learning and Organizational Development scheduled training classes in resume writing, interviewing and career planning which were led by Staffing Services. Individuals experiencing stress or emotional challenges during this time were assisted through the Employee Assistance Program. Finally, Compensation and Records provided access to employee files for review by interviewing Divisions, handled classification and compensation issues and processed all resulting BC s once placements were completed. Areas for Improvements HR Recruiter/New Hire Process, Compensation and Classification Reviews, Succession Planning and Performance Management were identified as areas of concern by focus group participants HR Recruiter and New Hire Process Customer focus groups consistently identified the HR Recruiter electronic employment application system and the hiring process as an area for improvement. Participants voiced dissatisfaction with the HR Recruiter system and had specific concerns about the application pre-screening process for rated positions. All three customer groups considered this to be a critical issue. Primary complaints focused on a lack of prescreening, the quality of referred candidates, challenges in using HR Recruiter and the length of time to fill a position. The average customer survey rating for Referring qualified candidates was relatively low at 5.9. Therefore as part of our review, we sought to evaluate the work completed by the Staffing Services (Staffing) section during the employee recruitment process through the use of HR Recruiter. To accomplish this goal we: Interviewed HRD and Staffing Services Managers Received a demonstration of the HR Recruiter system Reviewed HRD s Internal Control Handbook and other policies or procedures as available Reviewed and analyzed data and reports as available and provided by HRD Reviewed the OMB process improvement study completed in December Filling Vacancies Faster 17 Reviewed previous report issued by the Office of the County Auditor on May 2, Review of the Strategic Testing and Recruiting (STAR) System Project and HR Recruiter System In April 2006, ETC Institute completed a Management and Efficiency Study which included an extensive survey of Broward County employees. In the subsequent report, reducing the time needed to fill job vacancies was identified as a Top Priority for Action. In response to this identified need, County Administration initiated the process improvement study Filling Vacancies Faster. 18 Report # 05-04, issued May 2,

26 Overall, it appears that HRD has made some improvements to its new hire processes and significant prescreening activities are being completed. However, additional steps need to be taken to further increase process efficiency and customer satisfaction. HR Recruiter and Application Rating Process Overview HR Recruiter is a web based employment application and review system which has been in use by Broward County since June The system allows interested members of the public to create profiles, upload resumes and list years of relevant job experience. Persons can apply for employment vacancies listed under Hot Jobs or can link their profile to positions of interest, should an opening occur in the future. Of the 1,000 available position classifications within County employment, 617 or 62% are presently contained in the system. 19 Approximately 20% of these classifications are for tested positions where the applicant may take a test (or a series of tests) and be placed in a ranked listing of eligible candidates, while 80% of position classifications are filled through an application rating and interview process. According to HRD Managers, tested positions represent 66% of the Division s recruitment and placement activities, while rated positions represent 34% of the activity. Based upon focus group feedback, the hiring of applicants using the rating system was examined in additional detail. When vacancies in County employment are posted, it is common for there to be a large number of applications submitted through HR Recruiter. When the vacancy is for a rated position, each application requires review to determine if the candidate possesses the needed skills, knowledge or experience to fill the position. Typically this rating process is completed by the human resources professional and two persons from the hiring agency who are considered subject matter experts. However, prior to forwarding a list of all applicants to the hiring agency for rating, the assigned HRD staff person may pre-screen the applications. 20 During the pre-screening process, the Staffing employee reviews the applications and eliminates candidates who do not meet minimum job requirements. This decreases the total number of applications requiring a formal rating by the hiring agency. By reducing the number of applications to be rated, the hiring agency should have a both a reduced workload as well as a refined list of clearly eligible candidates. HRD lacks formal policies to guide staff through employee recruitment and application prescreening and rating processes During our review we found that HRD lacks formal policies to guide their staff through the current recruitment processes. As a result we cannot determine if application pre- 19 HRD states that the majority of the remaining positions are for single person incumbent classifications such as Division Directors. 20 Steps described in this process may be completed by the Staffing Services section, or Human Resource Officers. 24

27 screening or ratings were completed in accordance with desired practices or established criteria. For example, the Internal Control Handbook, Chapter 2, Filling a Vacant Position only provides guidance in completing paper based employee recruitment. This section of the handbook was last updated in February 2005, eight months after the implementation of the HR Recruiter system in June However, the latest update failed to incorporate the HR Recruiter system, electronic submission of job applications, electronic testing or on-line application rating and review. In response to our concerns, HRD Managers state the entire ICH is currently being updated. Secondly, HRD Managers acknowledge that there is no written policy or guideline for their staff regarding pre-screening, although the practice has been in place since June HRD Managers state that pre-screening involves the independent judgment of experienced HR professionals in the evaluation of a candidate s background in relation to the minimum requirements for a position ; as such, staff are generally instructed to remove applicants who are clearly ineligible for the position under consideration, giving the benefit of the doubt to the candidate. Written policies are important tools to guide staff and help ensure that services are delivered in a consistent and efficient manner directed at achieving desired outcomes. Due to limited data, we cannot fully determine the extent of pre-screening activities In interviews, HRD Managers acknowledged that pre-screening is not consistently completed in all cases. Reasons why pre-screening may not occur include: receipt of few applications overall indicating pre screening is not a priority, HRD staff person workload, or the hiring agency s request to have immediate access to applications, precluding HRD s ability to pre-screen. As HRD staff do not track the number of applicant lists that have been pre-screened prior to forwarding to the hiring agency, we were not able to determine how often pre-screening actually occurs. This information was important to our review, based upon the feedback received from our focus group stakeholders. Therefore, to evaluate the extent to which prescreening occurs, additional analysis was required. By removing ineligible candidates from consideration, pre-screening has increasingly reduced the number of applications to be rated from 18 to 63% from fiscal years 2005 through 2008 We asked Staffing to provide us with data regarding the total number of applications received for rated positions and the actual number of applications rated. The difference between these two numbers reflects the number of applications removed from the rating process by pre-screening. As shown in Exhibit 10 on the following page, pre-screening activities have significantly reduced the number of applications requiring rating by the 25

28 hiring agency. Specifically, in fiscal year 2005, only 18% of all applications were eliminated during the prescreening process, requiring 82% of all submitted applications to be rated by the hiring agency. By fiscal year 2008, increased prescreening activities resulted in 63% of all applications being eliminated prior to review by the hiring agency, leaving a reduced workload requiring only 37% of submitted applications to be reviewed. Exhibit 11 below graphically demonstrates the number of applications rated and the number of applications eliminated through prescreening for fiscal years 2005 through HRD Managers note that the number of applications eliminated through pre-screening depends on the number of applications received and the quality of the candidates applying for the position; both of which are highly dependent upon the local labor market. Exhibit 10: From fiscal years 2005 through 2008, prescreening activities have eliminated 18% to 63% of ineligible applications from the need for additional review # Applications for rated requisitions 28,695 37,668 26,673 30,850 # Applications rated 23,660 23,582 12,965 11,406 # Applications eliminated through prescreening 5,035 14,086 13,708 19,444 % Applications eliminated through prescreening 18% 37% 51% 63% % Applications rated 82% 63% 49% 37% Source: Office of the County Auditor analysis of HRD data Exhibit 11: Prescreening activities help to eliminate ineligible applications from the rating process 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Application Prescreening Activity Source: Office of the County Auditor analysis of HRD data # Applications Eliminated through Prescreening # Applications Rated To further analyze the rating process, we calculated the number of applications rated by the hiring agency per posted vacancy. As demonstrated in Exhibit 12 on the following page, from fiscal year 2005 to 2008, the average number of applications which require rating has generally decreased from 42.4 to 33.8 (20.3%). HRD Managers state that 26

29 recent fluctuations in the number of rated applications may be due to reduction in force protocols where applications for displaced County employees are given additional consideration across multiple positions. Exhibit 12: The average number of applications rated per requisition has generally declined 20% from fiscal years 2005 to 2008 # Applications Rated per Requisition Source: Office of the County Auditor analysis of HRD data Based on the results of these analyses, it appears that the pre-screening process significantly reduces the workload of hiring agency. However, to examine the effectiveness of pre-screening services, we requested that Staffing Services provide us with actual candidate ratings, but the complete set of data has not been retained by the HR Recruiter system. This information would have been useful to determine if the prescreening process/criteria effectively removes all ineligible persons, or if additional applications could potentially be eliminated, further increasing the value of the services provided. Additional communication by HRD during the recruitment process may help improve customer service perceptions regarding prescreening The feedback received by the focus groups that prescreening does not occur appears to be in conflict with the activities evidenced in Exhibits above. However, we note that HRD does not communicate to the hiring agency the results of its prescreening reviews. This omission may inadvertently be contributing to user dissatisfaction levels. For example, some agencies may be unaware that the prescreening process is in place or the benefits that have been realized through the elimination of ineligible applications. Secondly, in a rush to fill a vacancy, agencies may be unknowingly requesting applicant lists immediately after a posting closes, thus preventing HR staff from completing this important task which could have reduced the workload of hiring agency raters. By consistently completing pre-screening activities in coordination and communication with the hiring agency, HRD may improve customer satisfaction. 27

30 In an effort to improve the recruitment process, HRD has added pre-rating meetings and paper-based recruitment options; however, additional enhancements to the HR Recruiter system are not being considered at this time In December 2006, OMB completed a process improvement study titled Filling Vacancies Faster. In this report, several process delays and solutions were identified. In addition to active pre-screening other high priority solutions identified in the report (relative to HRD services) are pre-rating meetings, rate while screening, and paper based recruitment option. As part of our review, we examined HRD s implementation of these recommendations. Pre-Rating Meetings: A pre-rating meeting was recommended to help reduce scoring discrepancies across raters. The goal of the meeting was to increase the HRD staff person s understanding of the hiring agency s recruitment needs and to provide raters with uniform definitions of the rating scales. HRD Managers state that the pre-rating meeting has been implemented and is currently in place. As an additional improvement, directions to hiring agencies for determining ratings are readily available through HR Recruiter. However, we are unable to determine the effectiveness of these measures as HRD has not tracked the number of pre-rating meetings or the subsequent number of reconciliation meetings that have occurred. Rate While Screening: Due to limitations of the HR Recruiter system, HRD staff cannot enter ratings for applicants while they are completing the pre-screening review. Staff must repeat their review of applicants during the formal rating process and can only enter their scores at this time. Therefore, it was recognized that adding a feature to the software enabling rating to occur concurrently with prescreening would be beneficial. At the time, the cost of such an upgrade was not known, but was considered to be high. HR Managers have since created a wish list of ten prioritized enhancements to the HR Recruiter system, including estimated pricing. The addition of this feature would have an approximate cost of $13,000. Paper-based Recruitment Option: This option allows hiring agencies to bypass the HR Recruiter system and use paper resumes and applications instead. HRD states that this choice is available to hiring agencies upon approval from the Staffing Services Manager. Typical examples of paper based recruitment can be found in the Additional Career Opportunities listing contained on the Broward County career opportunity web pages. These job postings contain specific instructions which do not require applying through the HR Recruiter system. The process improvement report also contained various other suggestions for HR Recruiter system enhancements. As focus group stakeholders expressed dissatisfaction with this system, we questioned managers about the implementation of additional improvements. HRD Managers state that these recommendations were considered along with employee/user group feedback when developing their HR Recruiter wish list. All ten prioritized wish list items have a total approximate cost of $140,000, with the majority of items costing $15,000 or less each. Examples of 28

31 enhancements include adding new user roles, changing how scores are viewed, adding next buttons, adding designations for education and experience, showing interview statuses, and allowing more than ten positions to be filled from a single requisition. Although HRD Managers anticipate that HR Recruiter will be in use until it is replaced by another system the pursuit of these system enhancements is currently on hold due to the County s review of an enterprise-wide information and data solution and applicable funding. HRD Managers state all funding contained in the original contract for additional services have been expended; any further system enhancements would require a contract amendment. Presently, managers do not have plans to identify funding for the enhancements, or to amendment the existing contract. HRD minimally improved the amount of time to generate candidate referral list for vacant positions Customer focus groups also expressed dissatisfaction with the length time to fill positions. To determine if the improvements made by HRD have resulted in reduced time frames to fill vacancies, we compared baseline data contained in the 2006 Filling Vacancies Faster study to fiscal year For the study review period of August 2005 through March 2006 the average number of days for HRD to generate a referral list for tested and rated vacancies were 17 and 69 days, respectively. HRD reports to OMB the average number of days from receipt of an approved requisition to referral of candidates for tested job classifications. No reporting or tracking of the number of days to refer candidates for rated positions is currently in place; however, at our request, HRD created such a report using the HR Recruiter system. HRD Managers note that they track these time frames from the date of approved requisition (not the date of vacancy) to the date a candidate referral list is generated. HRD Managers feel that this approach focuses on the work completed by their Division; however Managers also note that in the case of rated positions, part of the rating work is completed by hiring agency subject matter experts and is not entirely within the span of HRD s control. As shown in Exhibit 13 on the following page, the average time frame for HRD to generate candidate referral lists for tested positions (representing 66% of recruitment activity) was reduced from 17 to 15 days. For rated positions (representing 34% of recruitment activity), the average time frame was reduced from 67 to 65 days. These reductions reflect process time improvements of 12% and 7% respectively. 29

32 Exhibit 13: Some improvements have been made in reducing the average number of days from approved requisition to candidate referral lists Tested Positions Source: Office of the County Auditor analysis of HRD data Recommendations: Average # of Days to Referral List Rated Positions Filling Vacancies Faster Report FY2008 To further reduce the time needed to fill vacant positions and improve customer agency satisfaction, we recommend the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Administrator to implement the following action steps and report progress by December 31, 2009: 4. Evaluate opportunities for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of hiring processes, including but not limited to: Enhancing the existing pre-screening practices to be more generally applicable to all rated recruitments and to communicate the results of pre-screening to hiring agencies. Determining the cost effectiveness of HR Recruiter Wish List enhancements and feasibility of purchasing the most beneficial modifications. Increasing communication between HRD and hiring Divisions regarding time saving and customization options available during the recruitment process. 5. Update the Internal Control Handbook to reflect current/improved business practices and provide staff training as applicable. Compensation and Classification Reviews The review of employee classifications and compensation was recognized by four of five focus groups as an area for improvement and was identified by two groups to be a critical issue. In our customer survey, the items Reviewing position classification change requests and Completing Compensation Reviews both received a relatively low rating of 5.8. Feedback received from the groups also included concerns regarding classification change requests, job descriptions and a lack of policy and procedures. 30

33 Work completed by the Compensation and Records section (CR) of HRD (or HRO field staff) applicable to these concerns include: Review of agency requests for position classification changes, salary adjustments, range reallocations, and Maintenance and review of the classification and compensation schedule. Therefore to evaluate the work completed and assess the claims made by the focus groups, we: Interviewed HRD Managers Reviewed applicable OMB reported performance measures Reviewed HRD tracking spreadsheets and sample correspondence for reclassification, salary adjustment and range reallocation activities Reviewed HRD s ICH Reviewed Unrepresented Employee Compensation Study, May 2007 We found that HRD does not have sufficient written procedures to guide staff through the consistent application of review processes for reclassifications, salary adjustments or range reallocations. Furthermore, as HRD does not regularly monitor or track work completed by HROs, we cannot determine the actual number of reviews conducted in fiscal year 2008 or the timeliness of all responses. However, nearly half of the reviews completed by HRD staff were not completed within the fourteen day target goal. HRD Managers state that the majority of classification and compensation plan reviews are completed based upon agency request rather than HRD assuming a proactive approach as indicated by the ICH. The number or frequency of these reviews is not tracked. 46% of reclassification requests are not completed within target timeframe of 14 days One of the concerns voiced by our customer focus groups was the length of time to complete position classification change requests and salary adjustment reviews. To assess HRD s performance in this area, we evaluated tracking information provided by HRD. While HRD does not have written policies that specify an expected time frame for staff to complete their reviews, Managers state that CR maintains an informal goal of responding within two weeks of receipt. However, Managers also note that incomplete agency requests or extenuating circumstances may impede staffs ability to respond quickly. Agencies requesting the reclassification of a position submit a Position Classification Questionnaire or PCQ form (Form BC ) and a current organizational chart to HRD for review. Reclassification requests can be submitted for upward, downward or 31

34 lateral changes and may be for vacant or filled positions. 21 HRD Managers state requests are evaluated based upon the actual job responsibilities of the current and requested classifications. According to summary spreadsheets provided by HRD, in fiscal year 2008, 112 requests were reviewed. Of these, 98 were approved while fourteen were denied. Tracking data was available for 106 of these reviews. As shown in Exhibit 14 below, 54% were completed within the target goal of two weeks; however 46% of the requests took longer, with 9% requiring more than 90 days to complete. Exhibit 14: 46% of PCQ requests are not completed within a two week time frame Time to Complete PCQ Requests days 11% Less than 15 days 54% 15 days or more 46% days 26% 90+ days 9% Source: Office of the County Auditor Analysis of HRD data Although tracking data for salary adjustment requests is limited, it appears that none of the reviews were completed within the 14 day target Salary Adjustment Requests are typically submitted by requesting agencies in memorandum form. To determine if pay inequities exist, CR reviews the current salaries and applicable experience of personnel in the same classification. According to summary spreadsheets provided by HRD, a total of 24 requests were received in calendar year Of these, 20 were approved, two were denied and two requests were pending a determination at the close of the year. Tracking data was available for six of the completed reviews; date of receipt and/or date of determination were not recorded for the remaining eighteen. The average length of time to complete these six salary adjustment reviews was 47 days, and none were completed in less than 15 days. Delays in completing classification and salary readjustment reviews can negatively impact agencies and staff. For example, extended delays in determining the appropriate classification for a position can hinder the posting of vacant positions or the 21 For a filled position to receive an upward reclassification, the position incumbent must meet any applicable additional requirements needed for eligibility in the promotional classification. 32

35 appropriate assignment of staff responsibilities. Extended waiting periods for reclassification or salary adjustment reviews can adversely affect staff morale and may also impact budget and reduction in force processes. HRD does not have written policies sufficient to guide employees in completing reviews and does not monitor HRO activities Although CR has a training manual which provides a basic overview of classification and compensation activities, this guide does not provide step by step directions to staff in the actual review and completion of agency requests. Therefore, we cannot determine if the requests were evaluated or responded to in an appropriate, consistent and timely manner. It is also important to note that the activities detailed above include only the work of HRD staff and do not include PCQ or salary adjustment reviews completed by HRO staff. HRD does not track the completion of these activities on a County-wide basis. As a result, we cannot determine the total number of reviews occurring each year, the dispositions of the requests or the overall time frames to complete them. HRD Managers state that while formal written policies are not available, staff training does occur and that HRD staff are available to assist HRO staff upon request. However, in response to our concerns, Managers stated that CR will begin tracking HRO activities immediately. Classification and compensation reviews for all positions are not completed on a periodic basis Chapter 6 of the Internal Control Handbook states the following: Maintaining the Classification Plan involves periodic scheduled reviews of each classification and the accompanying pay range in the classification system. Every classification is scheduled to be evaluated once every five years. Additionally, a benchmark survey will be conducted periodically. 22 HRD Managers state that they do not follow this ICH policy. Instead, comprehensive classification (job titles and descriptions) and range reallocation reviews are only completed upon agency request. HRD Managers state that classification updates include modifying and recording the latest revision date on County web pages. However, HRD was unable to provide us with the number of reviews actually completed and/or implemented as this collective information is not tracked by either HRD or assigned HROs. 23 Therefore, we cannot determine the number or percentage of the 1,000 different classifications that have been reviewed in the past five years. 22 ICH, Human Resources Procedures, Chapter 6, Change 21, March 30, Actual changes to job titles or the addition/deletion of classifications are presented to the BOCC for approval as part of the Annual Compensation Package; range reallocations that are determined to be necessary are presented to the BOCC for approval on an as needed basis. 33

36 Completing periodic reviews of all classifications within an organization is considered to be a human resource best practice. This can also be an important function because job responsibilities and technology expectations can be fluid in the modern workplace. Furthermore, during our fieldwork HRD Managers acknowledged that not all classifications are currently in use by County agencies. Although some titles may be vacant or are being held active pending future need, this discrepancy indicates that comprehensive and regular reviews of the classification system may be warranted to remove unneeded classifications. While some of this activity occurs during the review of the annual compensation package, a more comprehensive and periodic review of classifications, including consolidation of same/similar classifications, can help to ensure consistency and equity across County agencies. Pay ranges for some unrepresented positions were reviewed in 2007 and represented positions were last reviewed in 2001 In May 2007, HRD staff completed a compensation study for a sampling of unrepresented classifications. In this report, the salary ranges of 54 positions (22 of which are at the Director level) were examined based upon a peer survey. Overall, the conclusions of the report indicated that actual salaries as well as salary ranges are competitive with other jurisdictions however, there are some job classifications that are significantly below market. The study also concluded that range widths for County positions were generally wider than peers and Department Head salaries were 7% above the median of their comparative survey groups. Compensation for Division Directors and managers was found to be slightly higher than that of peers, with a few exceptions where salaries were significantly lower. As the study addressed only 54, or 11% of all 486 unrepresented position classifications, the majority of unrepresented positions were not considered. HRD Managers state that a compensation review of selected represented positions was last completed in While budgetary concerns may currently restrict the County s ability to increase salary ranges, ensuring that pay is appropriate and competitive in the future will increase the County s ability to attract and retain the most competent and qualified staff. Recommendations: To ensure the appropriate review of employee classifications and compensation and the collection of valuable data for managers, we recommend the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Administrator to complete the following action steps and provide a status report by December 31, 2009: 6. Develop policies and procedures sufficient to guide HRD and HRO staff through the review of reclassification, salary adjustment and range reallocation requests. Guidelines should include but not be limited to: tracking of activities completed by HRD and HRO staff, supervisory review, and staff training. 34

37 7. Develop policies and procedures to ensure the regular review of the Classification Plan, inclusive of pay ranges, in accordance with guidelines reflected in the Internal Control Handbook. Succession Planning Succession Planning received the lowest satisfaction rating (5.3) in our customer survey and was identified by three focus groups as an area for improvement. To determine if HRD s current succession planning activities meet best practices recognized in the field, we met with HRD Managers to discuss this concern and reviewed data reports provided to us. One of the first recognized steps in a successful succession management program is an assessment of the workforce and its potential volatility. According to the International Public Management Association for Human Resources (IPMA-HR), public sector organizations need to assess their workforces, determining those individuals likely or eligible to retire and how changes may impact the organization s ability to carry out its mission. 24 For example, a significant loss of long term employees through retirement (or other means such as budget reductions) can lead to a loss of critical institutional knowledge, increasing the need for an effective knowledge management strategy. HRD has not completed comprehensive analyses of employee separation data; as a result, limited information is available to County managers In IPMA-HR s study of public sector organizations, 19% of survey respondents estimate that 26-50% of their workforce is likely to retire in five years. Based upon data compiled by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median age of the nation s 2006 workforce was In Broward County government (fiscal year 2008), the average employee age is much higher at 48. Based on this information, it appears that the need to develop and implement succession management plans should be a priority of County managers. However, based upon information provided by HRD Managers, the Division s ability to assess the nature of Broward County s workforce is limited; as a result, succession planning activities to date have been minimal. First, the Division is unable to determine the number of employees eligible for retirement in the next five years. Specifically, the number of years a person has been employed by the County is known, but the number of years of employment a person may have under the Florida Retirement System as a whole is unknown. As a result, HRD is unable to develop effective retirement projections. Instead, the only data the Division has available is the number of County employees in the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP). As of March 2009, 333 County employees, or 5.4% of individuals occupying 24 IPMA-HR, The Impact of the Aging Workforce on Public Section Organizations and Missions; February US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Median ages of the labor force, by sex, race and ethnic origin; December 2,

38 6,193 budgeted positions, are scheduled to retire through this program. While it is recognized that retirement projections may not be exact predictions of individual choices, having this information is an important first step in succession planning as an organization s most tenured employees are more likely to be in management positions or to possess institutional knowledge. Secondly, the Division has not completed comprehensive studies regarding other types of employee separations. This information is also an important part of succession planning as past trends in overall or first year turnover rates as well as voluntary separations can be helpful predictors for the future. Without the periodic analysis of workforce trends, HRD is limited in its ability to assist County managers in the effective development of succession plans for their respective agencies, or for the County as a whole. HRD is assisting County Administration efforts to identify and develop employee skills needed to maintain a quality workforce When asked to provide examples of current succession management activities, Division Managers cite employee training and recent activities of the Executive Leadership Team subgroup Workforce Focus Team. The most significant succession planning activity completed within HRD is the development of employee training programs designed to help County staff increase their supervisory and management skills. These trainings, as offered by LOD, are valuable as they provide staff with the skills necessary for personal advancement as well as increasing the County s ability to rely on existing internal resources. Under the direction of the County Administrator, the Executive Leadership Team subgroup Workforce Focus Team has taken on the task of addressing succession planning and employee evaluations. As a member of this subgroup, the HRD Director states that the new performance evaluation instrument being developed will also include Individual Development Plans (IDPs). IDPs will be used to identify needed skills for employees to maintain their current positions as well as development for future growth and advancement opportunities. Further, in September 2008, all Department Directors were required to submit to the County Administrator a succession management matrix identifying mission critical positions, required knowledge and experience, potential candidates and proposed methods to accomplish the transfer of needed skills. These actions are important steps in anticipating future staffing needs, identifying valuable knowledge resources and providing employees with opportunities for skill development. Expansion of assessment activities will allow the County to further tailor these developing programs to better meet future challenges. 36

39 Recommendation: Like many public sector organizations, Broward County may soon be facing the loss of long term and experienced employees through retirement and budget reductions. To ensure the ongoing and future success of County operations, it is important to have a knowledgeable and experienced employee base. To improve succession planning and succession management activities, we recommend the Board of County Commissioners direct the County Administrator to take the following actions and report progress by December 31, 2009: 8. Develop a comprehensive succession management plan to assist the County as well as individual agencies in determining and meeting succession planning needs. This may include, but not be limited to: (1) comprehensive separation projection data, (2) ongoing identification of key management positions and required skill sets, (3) improved methods to evaluate employee performance and needed skill development, (4) development of executive training and leadership programs such as classroom training or other innovations to strengthen the County s ability to use existing staff resources. Performance Management This review area is inclusive of several interrelated concerns such as the disciplining and terminating of poorly performing employees, the rewarding of high performance and the performance evaluation system as a whole. One or more of these issues were identified as areas for improvement by all three customer focus groups as well as the HRO focus group. In contrast to this feedback, the customer survey rating for HRD s Assistance provided for corrective actions, terminations and grievances was somewhat above average at 7.6. This discrepancy may be reflective of customer dissatisfaction with the process overall rather than the direct support provided by HRD staff. To evaluate the concerns expressed by focus group participants, we: Interviewed HRD and Labor Relations Managers Reviewed HRD s Internal Control Handbook and other policies or procedures as available Reviewed personnel forms BC , BC , BC Reviewed and analyzed data and reports as provided by HRD We found that HRD is taking a proactive approach to educating County supervisors and managers in the areas of performance management and progressive discipline. This is reflected in seemingly low numbers of disciplinary actions and grievances County-wide. Although the current employee appraisal forms were developed many years ago, HRD Managers state that the performance evaluation process is currently under review and is being updated in accordance with recent best practices. 37

40 Employee performance evaluation instruments are being updated to better capture performance criteria and guide skill development According to Chapter 15 of the Human Resources Internal Control Handbook: the primary purpose of a performance evaluation is to express management s job related opinion to employees as to how well they are prerforming their work, the areas in which they can improve their work performance and what corrective action may be needed to attain satisfactory performance. Currently, County supervisors use one of two appraisal forms to evaluate employees. Form BC , Performance Appraisal is used for most blue collar positions and employs a Quality Point Average system with scaled ratings for sixteen individual performance measurement factors. This form was created over twenty years ago in 1986 and was last revised in June Form BC , Leadership Performance Review is used for most professional classifications and rates employees in meeting job expectations and attaining assigned professional development objectives and performance acheivements. This form was created ten years ago in March 1999 and was last updated in December In response to our concerns about the continued use of these forms and efforts to update them, HRD Managers stated that the Exectutive Leadership Team Workforce Focus subgroup has the task of developing a new performance evaluation instrument. It was reported that the new tool is being developed using current best practices and will evaluate staff on core competencies aligned with Sterling business management criteria. Also as part of the new evaluation process, employees will have Individual Development Plans (IDP). As discussed previously on page 36, plans will identify desired skills and training for employees and will be reviewed annually as part of the regular evaluation process. HRD Managers state that the updated tools are still in development and have not yet been approved for use. Non-monetary means to reward high performance are being considered Focus group participants voiced concerns over their inability to reward high performing staff. However, the County s ability to offer financial incentives such as raises and bonuses based upon performance evaluations are restricted by both union agreements and budgetary limitations. Existing and limited County-wide employee reward programs include Rapid Reward days and Employee Service Recognition program. Additional recognition efforts such as employee of the month type programs vary across individual agencies. HRD Managers recognize the importance of Employee Recognition and state that the identification and use of potential programs are being explored within FASD, and if successful may later be expanded across other County agencies. 38

41 Formal disciplinary actions are effective at improving employee performance The Labor Relations (LR) section of HRD provides oversight and management for all aspects of employee performance, including evaluations, disciplinary actions and grievances. Activities completed by HRD and HRO staff include providing guidance and advice to agencies, assisting with completion of required documentation, attendance at disciplinary action and grievance meetings, arbitrations and unemployment compensation hearings. LR Managers state that they work in association with HROs and centralize the management and tracking of these activities to help ensure consistency, compliance with labor agreements and defensibility of County actions. Exhibit 15 demonstrates the total number of employee disciplinary actions for fiscal years 2006 to When formal disciplinary action is taken against an employee, a written reprimand on form BC is completed and becomes part of the employee s permanent file. For fiscal years , an average of 311 disciplinary actions were taken each year. 26 Following the issuance of a BC , employee behaviors or performance concerns were corrected, on average, 88% of the time. Exhibit 15: From fiscal years 2006 through 2008 there has been an average of 311 disciplinary actions per year # Formal Disciplinary Actions Source: Office of the County Auditor analysis of HRD data In other instances, the outcome of the disciplinary action is not successful and additional actions are taken. Exhibit 16 on the next page demonstrates the number of disciplinary actions which ultimately resulted in employee separations due to terminations for cause, at-will resignations and probationary rejections for fiscal years 2006 through These figures do not include other informal methods of performance management such as verbal reprimands or employee memorandums. 39

42 Exhibit 16: Probationary rejection is the most common type of employee separation resulting from disciplinary actions 30 Employee Separations due to Disciplinary Actions # Probation Rejections # Terminations # At-will Separations Source: Office of the County Auditor analysis of HRD data Nearly all employee grievances are effectively resolved without requiring arbitration LR also provides support to County agencies when employees file grievances. There are two primary types of grievances. For example, an employee may use the grievance process (1) to protest disciplinary action, or (2) in complaint of perceived violations of labor agreement terms or adverse working conditions such as harassment. Exhibit 17 demonstrates the number of employee grievances filed from fiscal year 2006 to The number of grievances declined from 147 in 2006 to 84 and 86 in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Exhibit 17: The average number of employee grievances has declined from fiscal year 2006 to 2008 # of Grievances Filed Source: Office of the County Auditor analysis of HRD data 40

43 If a grievance cannot be resolved internally, the dispute may then go to arbitration. In the human resources field, a performance measure used to determine the effectiveness of the grievance process is the percentage of grievances resolved before passing from management control (requiring arbitration). This is considered by ICMA to be reflective of an effective working relationship between labor and management. Furthermore, arbitration hearings can be time consuming and costly. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, HRD reports that 100% of grievances were resolved internally. In 2008, 84 of 86, or 98% of grievances were resolved without requiring an arbitration hearing. Of these, one was resolved in the County s favor and one was ruled in favor of the bargaining unit. ICMA s 2007 annual report contains comparative performance data for these measures, yet cautions that jurisdictional differences in definitions can lead to variations in the numbers submitted. Therefore, a comparison of HRD s performance in this area has not been completed as part of this review but may be a valuable exercise for HRD staff. Trainings prepare County managers to better handle employee relations To help ensure the success of the practices described above, the Labor Relations section provides County staff with training on a variety of labor relations topics. The goal is to provide managers with the skills and knowledge needed to deal with difficult personnel issues they may be confronted with on a daily basis. For example, Labor Relations staff delivers modules in the Positive Start supervisory training program directed at progressive discipline and performance management. Similarly topics such as maximizing performance through performance evaluations and managing County employees are addressed in the Fast Forward management training program. In addition to regularly scheduled sessions, Labor Relations staff are responsive to individual agency needs and in the past two years have provided specialized trainings for Libraries, Urban Planning and Redevelopment, County Records, Animal Care and Regulation, Parks and Recreation. Topics include labor relations, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), sick leave monitoring, probationary periods, performance management and progressive discipline. Recommendations: As the size of the County s workforce decreases due to the necessity of reduction in force protocols, retaining high quality employees becomes more important than ever. To help ensure that all employees meet required performance standards, we recommend that the Board of County Commissioners direct County Administrator take the following actions and report progress to the Board by December 31, 2009: 9. Continue efforts to update performance appraisal process and ensure that employee evaluation criteria are aligned with organizational values. 10. Explore the feasibility of developing additional programs to reward and encourage high performing employees. 41

44 Appendix A: Focus Group Attendees and Agenda Focus Group Attendees A total of five focus groups consisting of 31 participants/stakeholders were held: Group 1: Five participants consisting of all five currently filled HR Officers positions in the following Departments/Divisions: Human Services, Aviation, Public Works, Water/Wastewater Services and Office of Transportation. The HR Officer position for Port Everglades was vacant. Group 2: Eleven participants representing Human Services, Aviation, Public Works, Water/Wastewater Services and Office of Transportation. Group 3: Four participants representing Office of Equal Opportunity, Environmental Protection, Office of Public Communications. Group 4: Six participants consisting of HR Managers from all six functional areas of HRD (EAP, LOD, CR, LR, SS and EB). Group 5: Five participants in a make-up session consisting of representatives from Office of Management and Budget, Port Everglades and Finance and Administrative Services. Other Departments/Offices invited but not in attendance include: FASD, Community Services. 42

45 Appendix B: Human Resource Customer Focus Group Summary of Ratings Focus Group Participants were given the following instructions to complete the survey: Please rate the following services provided by Human Resources, using a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 representing the highest level of satisfaction; if you are not familiar with a service area, indicate N/A : Average Item 8.1 Employee Assistance Program 8.6 Counseling, referral and case management services 7.2 Substance abuse screening/monitoring 8.4 Organizational interventions 6.4 Staffing Services 7.4 Posting vacant positions 5.9 Referring qualified applicants 5.9 Reduction in force placements 6.7 Compensation and Records 8.0 Filling record requests 5.8 Reviewing position classification change requests 5.8 Completing compensation reviews 7.1 Processing BC-102's 6.5 Learning and Organizational Development 6.8 Training courses provide employees with needed skills 7.2 Quality of available training courses 5.3 Succession planning 7.6 Labor Relations 7.6 Assistance provided for corrective actions, terminations and grievances 7.6 Assistance with interpreting collective bargaining agreement language 8.2 Employee Benefits 8.4 Open enrollment process 7.9 Assistance in handling employee benefit related actions/concerns 6.5 Human Resources (overall rating) Source: office of the County Auditor Analysis Note: The three highest ratings have been identified in green; the three lowest ratings have been identified in red. 43

46 Appendix C: Summary of Focus Group Discussions Table 1A: HR Officer and HR Manager Staff Feedback: What Works Well HR Officer HR Manager Employee Assistance Program EAP Program Availability of EAP Learning and Organizational Development County-wide Training Variety of training & mode LOD-productive and effective Other Comments HRO Function Communication with HR Central Humanistic Employer Employee orientated Progressive discipline Avoidance of lay-offs Sound counsel to Divisions Responsiveness to varied requests Industry Leader Responsiveness with limited resources Adaptability Commitment to quality Professional responses to unprofessional actions Get in front of liability Wide benefit package 44

47 Table 1B: HR Officer and HR Manager Staff Feedback: Areas for Improvement HR Officer Technology/Information Systems Functionality of automated management systems * Succession Planning Succession planning (management and below) HR Manager Technology (lack of) * Succession planning* Compensation and Classification/Pay for Performance Compensation plan & rewards and recognition * Employee classifications Performance appraisals Other Comments Updating policies Training field staff Communication from HR Central to HROs Better alignment and understanding of agency business needs Attention to HR staffing levels Lack of resources to meet agency business needs Contract negotiation Reduction in force and training Negative image across County* Better BOCC direction Better Education of HR reality Increased consideration of feedback provided Untimely agency notification Educate Executive on HR Services (2, later combined with Education of HR reality) Note: Asterisk (*) denotes the areas considered to be most critical by the groups. 45

48 Table 2A: HR Customer Feedback: What Works Well Customer Group 1 Customer Group 2 Customer Group 3 Employee Assistance Program EAP High quality organizational assessments Outstanding service EAP Reduction In Force RIF placement Reduction in Force end results (Labor Relations) Creative solutions to ensure employees offered jobs (RIF) Prevent lay-offs Learning and Organizational Development LOD trainings Training Training opportunities Online training registration Specialty training coordination Positive Start training Supervisory coaching Open Enrollment/Employee Benefits Open enrollment Open enrollment process Always answers phones Responsive re: benefits Personalized services to individual employees Customer Service Good response time Back-up from HR Central Other Comments Hiring process Succession planning HRO position essential Employee correspondence Community involvement Immediate initial response (Labor Relations) Easily accessible (Staffing Services)(All sections) Professional and knowledgeable staff In house labor relations (Port/HRO) Central HR labor relations 46

49 Table 2B: HR Customer Feedback: Areas For Improvements Customer Group 1 Customer Group 2 Customer Group 3 HR Recruiter/New Employee Hiring Process HR Recruiter * HR Recruiter* HR Recruiter * Background screening Staffing Services Testing antiquated and/or Applicant Testing Disagreements re: irrelevant Applicant Disqualification interview ratings Rigid rules for interviews and appointments Classification and Compensation Reviews Compensation reviews * Classification and Compensation schedule Compensation reviews Classification schedule PCQ process and documentation Decision documentation Inconsistent application of working out of class Job descriptions antiquated and/or irrelevant Succession Planning Succession planning Pay for Performance Inability to effectively deal with poor performers* Progressive Discipline Pay for performance restrictions Annual evaluation process (outdated) Other Comments HR Policy development and interpretation Consistency in labor agreements Timeliness of labor negotiations HR and OEO disconnect RIF Process Employee well being during emergencies Difficulty terminating employees Inconsistent policy application and communication Union contracts create inequities Lack of communication to organization * County policy re: disciplinary action is too lenient (collective bargaining)* Labor Relations Lack of policy and procedures HR staff resources Learning and Development (LOD) Streamline FMLA Note: Asterisk (*) denotes the areas considered to be most critical by the groups. 47