human resources & training and development...human resources spending per capita adjusted for...

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

Page93

HUMAN RESOURCES AND

TRAINING &DEVELOPMENT

SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW

SPENDING AND STAFFING:Spending per CapitaAuthorized Positions per 1,000 Residents

OUTPUTS:County Employees per HR Staff MemberChange in Spending and Outputs

RESULTS:Training Hours per PositionEmployee Satisfaction with TrainingTurnover RateGrievances per Thousand EmployeesSick Leave Utilization RateDays to Certify CandidatesPositions Paid per Compensation PolicyEmployee Views of PWC as a Place to WorkEmployee Views of PWC Compared to Two Years Ago

HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES GENERAL INFORMATION

Mission:To provide human resource leadership and support to recruit, develop, motivate, andretain a diverse, high-performing workforce.

The following targets for key goals are defined in the FY 2005 budget:

FY 2005Target

Federal EEO compliance and county targeted AA goals and objectives satisfied 90%

Percentage of EEO cases and affirmative action inquiries processed, managed,

negotiated and settled internally 90%

Classification/pay structure recommendations approved by County Executive

or Board of County Supervisors 100%

Employees satisfied with benefit program services 90%

FY 2005 Adopted Budget by Program

$362,274

$997,757

$213,577

$526,368

Equal Employment/Affirmative Action

Classification & Compensation

Employee & Staffing Services

Training & Development

Organization:The human resources service area comprises five programs under the responsibility oftwo different units, as follows:

Human Resources Unit♦ Equal employment/affirmative action♦ Classification and compensation♦ Employee and staffing services

Training and Development Unit♦ Employee Training and development♦ Organizational development

The information in this chapter relates to the Human Resources (HR) and the Training andDevelopment (T&D) Units.

Resources:FY 2005 Budget: $2,099,976FY 2005 Authorized Staffing: 18.5


Page94

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




SUMMARY OF HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICE EFFORTS ANDACCOMPLISHMENTS FISCAL YEARS 1999 THROUGH 2004(unless otherwise indicated)

The following table lists some of the notable program results for the human resourcesservice area. A page reference to a more detailed discussion of each summarized item isalso provided in the table.

Spending Efficiency Results ♦ Spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, increased 74 percent over the period FY 1999 through FY 2004. That increase includes spending on the training and development function (T&D) that began in FY 2002. The per capita spending growth for T&D from FY 2002 through FY 2004 was 174 percent while during the same period, the growth for the remainder of the HR function was 8.5 percent. (page 96) ♦ Prince William spent less per capita than all other reporting jurisdictions, including Henrico, Arlington, and Chesterfield. (page 98)

♦ Modest increases in HR staff from FY 1999 through FY 2004 have somewhat reduced the number of employees served per HR staff member. (page 101) However, in FY 2004, Prince William’s HR staff served more employees per staff member than any of the comparison jurisdictions. (page 103)

♦ The number of training hours per FTE grew substantially during the period, from an average of .034 hours in FY 1999 to an average of 6.96 hours in FY 2004. Prior to FY 2002, human resources did not have a separate training function. (page 105) ♦ The percent of positions paid in accordance with the compensation policy grew substantially during the period FY 2001 through FY 2004. Thirty-seven percent were paid in accordance with the policy in FY 2001 while 92 percent were paid per the policy in FY 2004. (page 116) ♦ The turnover rate declined each year since FY 2001 although it remains greater than Chesterfield’s turnover rate. In FY 2004, Chesterfield’s turnover, excluding retirements, was .053 while Prince William’s rate was .078. (pages 107-109) ♦ Average hours of sick leave used per employee declined from 69.7 hours in FY 2003 to 54.1 hours in FY 2004. In FY 2004, among the comparison jurisdictions, only Chesterfield experienced a lower rate of sick leave usage. (pages 112 and 113) ♦ In a 2004 report on the results of the first organization survey that will be conducted regularly every few years, 86 percent of employees surveyed indicated that they were satisfied with the county as an employer. (page 117)


Page95

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Detailed SEA Information:More detailed trend and comparative information is contained in the following pages alongwith contextual information. These following pages present specific human resourcesservices spending and staffing indicators followed by outputs and then results.

Use of SEA Data:Variances in SEA data between jurisdictions should be used as a basis for looking intoand considering differences in the mix of services offered and operating methods betweenjurisdictions. The information may also be used to at least partially explain why certainservices cost Prince William residents more or less than what citizens in other jurisdictionsspend. Because additional factors beyond those identified in this report may impactspending and operating results, the data should not be used to make a final determinationthat one jurisdiction is operating more efficiently than another. Note further that someresults measures could not be obtained from the comparison jurisdictions. We arecontinuing efforts to try and obtain a more complete picture of results.


Page96

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Spending Per Capita Adjusted For Inflation

Purpose: To provide an indicator of the relative level of effort the County expends onhuman resources services (including training and development). This is not an efficiencymeasure since it does not consider the output generated for the level of spending. Totalhuman resources operating expenditures are divided by the total service area population.The figures are adjusted for inflation to maintain comparability between years. Thecurrent budget year, Fiscal Year 2005, is used as the base year for inflation adjustments.

Trend:♦ Human resources spending per capita adjusted for inflation, increased from $3.71 to

$4.43 between FY 1999 and FY 2001 and grew to $4.99 in FY 2004.♦ Training and development spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, increased 174

percent from $0.54 in FY 2002 to $1.48 in FY 2004. The training and developmentfunction began as a new program in FY 2002. During the same period, HR onlyspending per capita increased 8.5 percent from $4.60 in FY 1999 to $4.99 inFY 2004.

Spending Per Capita Adjusted For Inflation Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004

$1.48

$6.47$5.55

$5.14

$0.84$0.54

$4.99$4.71$4.60$4.43

$3.91$3.71

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

HR and T&DT&D onlyHR only HR and T&D

HR only

T&D Only

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Actual HR Expenditures $875,736 $976,088 $1,176,245 $1,470,604 $1,684,927 $2,115,022

HR Expenditures Adj. For Inflation $1,028,075 $1,118,704 $1,307,179 $1,590,411 $1,785,431 $2,179,989

T&D Expenditures Adj. For Inflation $0 $0 $0 $166,340 $269,430 $499,220HR Expenditures Without T&D Expenditures Adj. for Inflation $1,028,075 $1,118,704 $1,307,179 $1,424,072 $1,516,002 $1,680,768

Equal Employment/Affirmative Action $129,456 $152,836 $178,145 $118,511 $121,072 $138,137

Classification & Compensation $194,911 $175,208 $225,306 $250,650 $278,404 $295,733

Employee & Staffing Services $703,709 $790,660 $903,728 $1,054,912 $1,116,526 $1,246,898

Population 277,359 285,871 294,798 309,351 321,570 336,820


Page97

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Trend (continued):♦ Overall human resources spending per capita, including training and development, grew

to $6.47 in FY 2004. This represents an increase of 74 percent over total humanresources per capita spending in FY 1999 of $3.71.

Fiscal Year 2005 Adopted Budget:♦ Budgeted spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, is up 5.3 percent in FY 2005

compared to the FY 2004 adopted budget.

Comments:♦ During the period, training and development began as a new program, eventually

growing to 3 staff members by FY 2004, providing over 17,000 hours of training inthat year while expending almost $500,000.


Page98

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Spending Per Capita Adjusted For Inflation—Comparisons

Purpose: To provide information on spending per capita by jurisdiction. Spending isadjusted for inflation to FY 2005 dollars (the current fiscal year). Human resourcesspending, as presented, includes training and development.

Compared to Other Jurisdictions:♦ In FY 2004 Prince William had the lowest level of per capita spending on human

resources services among the comparison jurisdictions. Arlington’s FY 2004 percapita spending of $19.61 is considerably higher than Prince William’s $6.47 percapita.

♦ All jurisdictions showed an increase in per capita spending from FY 2003 toFY 2004 (adjusted for inflation).

♦ Although Prince William’s training and development program was new in FY 2002,all comparison jurisdictions have long-standing training units.

Prince William Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Arlington

Actual Expenditures $2,115,022 $1,888,277 Not available $3,208,177 $3,799,653Expenditures Adj. For Inflation $2,179,989 $1,946,279 Not available $3,306,722 $3,916,366Population 336,820 287,333 1,035,150 280,714 199,755

Fiscal Year 2004

Spending Per Capita Adjusted For Inflation by JurisdictionFiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year 2004

$6.47

$19.61

$6.64$6.77

$5.55

$10.73$11.78

$17.28

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

FY 2003 FY 2004

ChesterfieldPrince WilliamHenricoArlington

ChesterfieldPrince William

Arlington

Henrico


Page99

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Authorized Positions per Thousand Residents

Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the relative level of human resourcesstaffing per thousand residents between years and between jurisdictions. The unit ofmeasure is in full-time equivalents (FTEs).

Trend:♦ The total number of authorized human resources positions per thousand residents

increased during the period FY 1999 through FY 2004 from .043 in FY 1999 to .055in FY 2004.

♦ Although there was a slight decrease in total authorized positions in FY 2003, a greaterincrease in FY 2004 was driven by an increase in training and development positions.

Fiscal Year 2005 Adopted Budget:♦ The FY 2005 budget does not change the total number of human resources authorized

positions.

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Authorized HR and T&D Positions 12.0 12.0 13.0 16.0 16.0 18.5

Authorized T&D Positions Only 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0

Authorized HR Positions Only 12.0 12.0 13.0 15.0 15.0 15.5

Population 277,359 285,871 294,798 309,351 321,570 336,820

Authorized Positions per Thousand ResidentsFiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004

0.0031

0.052 0.050

0.055

0.0089

0.0032

0.0470.048

0.046

0.044

0.0420.043

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

HR and T&D

T&D only

HR only


Page100

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Authorized Positions Per Thousand Residents—Comparisons

Compared to Other Jurisdictions:♦ Prince William had a lower staffing rate than Chesterfield, Henrico, and Arlington.

Fairfax data were unavailable.♦ Among the reporting jurisdictions, all except Arlington increased to some extent

between FY 2003 and FY 2004. Arlington decreased slightly from 0.173 to 0.165positions per thousand population.


Authorized HR Positions 18.5 30.0 not available 40.0 33.0Population 336,820 287,333 1,035,150 280,714 199,755

Fiscal Year 2004

Authorized Positions Per Thousand Residents by JurisdictionFiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year 2004

0.054

0.104

0.1420.141

0.0550.050

0.1650.173

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

FY 2003 FY 2004

Chesterfield

Henrico

Prince William

Arlington

Chesterfield

Prince William

Arlington

Henrico


Page101

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




County Employees per Human Resources Staff Member

Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the relative level of human resourcesstaffing, including training and development staff, to serve all county employees. The unitof measure is in full-time equivalents (FTEs).

Trend:♦ The number of county employees per human resources staff member declined 23

percent from 219.3 in FY 1999 to 169.3 in FY 2004. Training and development staffare included for the period FY 2002 through FY 2004.

♦ During the period FY 1999 through FY 2004 the number of county employees grewabout 19 percent from 2,632 to 3,131. During the same period, total humanresources staff grew 54 percent from 12 to 18.5. The total staff data include onetraining and development staff member in FY 2002 and FY 2003 during their startup,and two additional staff members in FY 2004.

County Employees per HR Position Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004

219.3227.5

217.6

183.1190.2

169.3

0

50

100

150

200

250

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

HR including T&DFY 2002 - FY 2004

Authorized Staffing (FTEs) FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Authorized County Employees 2,631.69 2,729.86 2,829.04 2,928.88 3,043.33 3,131.19Authorized Total HR Staff 12.00 12.00 13.00 16.00 16.00 18.50Authorized T&D Staff Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00Authorized HR Staff Only 12.00 12.00 13.00 15.00 15.00 15.50


Page102

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Trend (continued):♦ When data for training and development and HR staff were broken out separately,

the number of county employees served per training and development staff memberwas 2,929 in FY 2002 (entire workforce divided by the single T&D staff member)and then plummeted in FY 2004 to 1,044 when the T&D staff grew to three.During the same 3-year period, HR staff served 195 employees per staff member inFY 2002 and 202 employees per staff member in FY 2004. The FY 2004 levelrepresented an 8-percent drop since FY 1999 when HR staff served 219employees per HR staff member.

Comments:♦ Beginning in FY 2002, training and development functions and staff were added.

There was one staff member dedicated to T&D in FY 2002 and FY 2003 and threein FY 2004.


Page103

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




County Employees per Human Resources Staff Member—Comparisons

Compared to Other Jurisdictions:♦ Prince William’s number of county employees per total human resources staff member

in FY 2004 was considerably higher than Chesterfield, Arlington and Henrico.♦ From FY 2003 to FY 2004, the rate decreased for Chesterfield (48.1 percent), Prince

William (11 percent), and Henrico (.5 percent). Arlington’s rate increased 5.2 percent.Fairfax data were not available.

Comments:♦ The number of employees served directly reflects a combination of changes in number

of employees and changes in human resources staff members. It does not account forother variations in workload.

Authorized Staffing (FTEs) Prince William Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Arlington

Authorized County Employees 3,131.19 3,446.00 not available 3,914.00 3,711.00Authorized HR Total Staff 18.5 30.0 not available 40.0 33.0

Fiscal Year 2004

County Employees per HR Position by Jurisdiction Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year 2004

221.3

97.9

190.2

169.3

114.9

98.4112.5106.9

0

50

100

150

200

250

FY 2003 FY 2004

ChesterfieldHenricoArlingtonPrince William

Chesterfield

HenricoArlington

Prince William


Page104

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Change in Spending Adjusted for Inflation Compared to the Change in Outputs

Purpose: To provide an indicator of the relative change of spending versus the changein selected outputs.

Changes from FY 1999 to FY 2004:♦ HR spending adjusted for inflation grew about 63.5 percent during the six-year

period. Growth in outputs ranged from about 19 percent (employees served byHR staff) to 314 percent (resumes received and processed) and included about a226 percent increase in classification studies completed.

Comments:♦ These data do not include training and development expenditures and outputs which

began as a separate function in FY 2002.♦ The substantial increase in classification studies largely resulted from special studies

of a number of complete job series including planners, engineers, and others. Inaddition, during the period, the number of staff members devoted to classificationstudies grew from one person to two.

Percent Change in HR Expenditures and O utputsFrom FY 1999 Through FY 2004

63.5%

226.3%

313.7%

19.0%

0% 100% 200% 300% 400%

Employees Served by HR FTEs

Resumes Received and Processed

Classification Studies Completed

HR-only Expenditures

Percentage Change from FY 1999 Through FY 2004 for Inflation-adjusted Expenditures and OutputsFY 1999 FY 2004 Percent Change

HR expenditures $1,028,075 $1,680,768 63.5%Classification studies completed 80 261 226.3%Resumes received and processed 6,100 25,236 313.7%Employees served by HR staff 2,632 3,131 19.0%


Page105

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Training Hours per Position

Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the level of training provided to countyemployees through human resources. The unit of measure is hours of training per full-timeequivalent (FTE).

Trend:♦ The number of training hours per county employee grew from .34 hours per FTE in

FY 2000 to 6.96 hours in FY 2004. Prior to FY 2002, human resources did not havea separate training function.

♦ During the period, while the number of employees grew, the growth in training hoursoutpaced the growth in number of employees, thereby resulting in an increase intraining per employee.

Comments:♦ Beginning in FY 2002, a new training and development function was established and

staffed.

Average Training Hours per FTEFiscal Year 2000 Through Fiscal Year 2004

4.01

2.69

0.34

4.52

6.96

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Training Hours per FTE

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

T&D Training Hours 0 0 0 5,959 13,080 14,969EEO Training Hours Not available 925 7,623 5,787 687 6,824County-wide FTEs 2,632 2,730 2,829 2,929 3,043 3,131


Page106

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Employee Satisfaction with Training

Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the effectiveness of HR-managed softskills training such as general employee training (both instructor-led and self-study) suchas leadership, supervision, professional development, communication, and facilitation. Itdoes not include specialized skills training such as police academy training, spreadsheetsoftware training, or similar technical training). The measure for T&D training is thepercent of employee participants who completed a course evaluation and agreed orstrongly agreed that the training was useful and valuable. The measure for EEO trainingis the percent of employee participants rating the training as excellent.

Trend:Since the start of the T&D program in FY 2002 through FY 2004, the percent ofemployee participants in T&D training sessions who were satisfied with thetraining grew from 95 percent to 97 percent, respectively.

♦ For EEO training, the percent of participants rating the training as excellent grewfrom 95 percent in FY 1999 and FY 2000 to 98 percent since then.

♦

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Employee Participants Attending

EEO Training Sessions 200 300 934 1,620 1,834 2,341Employee Participants Attending

T&D Training Sessions Program started in FY 2002 630 2,214 2,586

Average Quality Score of

T&D Training Sessions (5-pt scale) Program started in FY 2002 4.6 4.7 4.7

Percent of Employee Participants in Training Sessions Providing Positive Feedback

Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004

97%96%95%

98%98%98%98%95%95%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Percent Satisfied with T&D TrainingPercent Rating EEO Training as Excellent


Page107

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Turnover Rate

Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the level of turnover of employees. Theunit of measure is computed in two different ways: (1) separations including retirementsdivided by full-time employees and (2) separations excluding retirements divided byfull-time employees. The two measures may highlight two separate situations. A highturnover rate that includes retirements may suggest that vacancies may be influenced bynatural progression of staff careers rather than intentional or forced departures that couldindicate staff or employer dissatisfaction.

Trend:♦ During the period FY 2000 through FY 2004, the turnover rate peaked in FY 2001

and then declined through FY 2004 to below the FY 2000 level.

Comments:♦ The county’s equity pay plan began in FY 2001 and may have contributed to the

subsequent reduction in turnover.

Turnover Rate Including Retirements and Excluding RetirementsFY 2000 Through FY 2004

0.113

0.147

0.1200.109

0.0960.104

0.124

0.105

0.0900.078

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Turnover includingretirementsTurnover excludingretirements

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Voluntary & Involuntary Separations Not available 258 300 263 236 213

Retirements Not available 22 56 38 50 49

Full-time employees 2,282 2,482 2,419 2,515 2,630 2,729


Page108

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Turnover Rate Comparisons


Voluntary and Involuntary Separations 236 174 Not available Not available Not availableRetirements 50 48 Not available Not available Not availableFull-time employees 2630 3012 Not available 3592 Not available


Voluntary and Involuntary Separations 213 164 Not available Not available Not availableRetirements 49 47 Not available Not available Not availableFull-time employees 2729 3109 Not available 3676 Not available

Fiscal Year 2003

Fiscal Year 2004

Turnover Rate Excluding Retirements by Jurisdiction for FY 2003 and FY 2004

0.0900.078

0.058 0.053

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

FY 2003 FY 2004

Prince WilliamChesterfield

Turnover Rate Including Retirements by Jurisdiction for FY 2003 and FY 2004

0.1090.096

0.0740.068

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

FY 2003 FY 2004

Prince WilliamChesterfield


Page109

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Compared to Other Jurisdictions:♦♦♦♦♦ Prince William had higher turnover rates in FY 2003 and FY 2004 than Chesterfield.

Data for Fairfax, Henrico, and Arlington were not available.


Page110

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Grievances per Thousand Employees

Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the level of employee concernregarding employment practices. The unit of measure is grievances per 1,000employees.

Trend:♦ The number of grievances remained relatively steady during the period FY 1999

through FY 2004—never less than one or more than two.

Comments:♦ During the period, minor variations in the grievance rate are largely attributed to slight

changes in levels of employment in the county. Generally, the number of grievances isfairly consistent.

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Grievances to panel level 1 2 2 2 2 1Full-time employees 2282 2482 2419 2515 2630 2729Part-time employees 312 380 292 344 274 282

Grievances to Panel Levelper 1,000 Full-time and Part-time EmployeesFiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004

0.386

0.6990.738

0.700 0.689

0.332

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Grievances per 1,000 Employees


Page111

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Grievances per Thousand Employees—Comparisons

Trend:♦ In FY 2004, Prince William experienced a lower grievance rate (.332) than Arlington

(2.098) and Henrico (.535) but a higher rate than Chesterfield’s zero grievances inthat year. Fairfax data were not available.

Comments:♦ During the period, except for Arlington’s high of seven grievances, the other

jurisdictions all had zero, one, or two.

Grievances to Panel Levelper 1,000 Full-time and Part-time Employees

By Jurisdiction, Fiscal Year 2004

0.332

2.098

0.535

0.0000.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

Chesterfield Henrico Arlington Prince William

Grievances per 1,000 Employees


Grievances to panel level 1 0 not available 2 7Full-time employees and part-time empl. 3,011 4,141 not available 3,737 3,336

Fiscal Year 2004


Page112

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Sick Leave Utilization Rate

Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the level of employee use of sickleave, which is one of the ICMA indicators for human resources support services. Theunit of measure is average number of hours of sick leave used per employee, per year.

Trend:♦ Average sick leave usage declined 22 percent from an average of 69.7 hours per

employee in FY 2003 to an average of 54.1 hours in FY 2004.♦ Sick leave data are not available for years prior to FY 2003.

Comments:♦ Prince William has a program that rewards low sick leave usage by awarding up to 2

days of additional annual leave for employees using only a few days of annual leaveduring the year.

Average Hours of Sick Leave Used Per Employee

Fiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004

69.7

54.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

FY 2003 FY 2004

Average Sick Leave Usage

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Hours of Sick Leave Used Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available 202,338.0 162,869.0Full-time Employees 2,282 2,482 2,419 2,515 2,630 2,729Part-time Employees 312 380 292 344 274 282


Page113

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Sick Leave Utilization Rate—Comparisons

Compared to other jurisdictions:♦ For FY 2004, Arlington and Henrico used sick leave at a greater rate than Prince

William. Arlington, Prince William, and Henrico sick leave utilization far exceededChesterfield’s rate in both FY 2003 and FY 2004. Data for Fairfax were not available.

Average Hours of Sick Leave Used Per Employee by Jurisdiction

Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal Year 2004

6.4

71.9

91.7

54.1

6.6

69.1

91.1

69.7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

FY 2003 FY 2004

ChesterfieldHenricoArlingtonPrince William

Henrico

Prince William

Arlington

Chesterfield


Hours of Sick Leave Used 162,869 26,582 Not available 268,690 306,062Full-time and part-time employees 3,011 4,141 Not available 3,737 3,336

Henrico's sick leave hours used was computed from their reported 71.9 hours per person average utilization.

Fiscal Year 2004


Page114

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Days to Certify Candidates

Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of the timeliness of certifying candidatesfor interview as a part of the process of filling vacant positions. It captures the averagenumber of days from the vacancy announcement closing date to the date the that HRprovides a certification list of candidates eligible for interview.

Trend:♦ Number of days from closing to certification fluctuated from a low of 10 in FY 2001

to a high of 22 in FY 2004.

Comments:♦ During the 6-year period, there was a 314-percent increase in the number of

resumes received and processed.♦ Due to e-recruiting effectiveness in the hiring process, the FY 2006 goal will be to

certify within 10 days.

Average Days from Closing to Certification for InterviewFiscal Year 1999 Through Fiscal Year 2004

15

10 10

22

15 15

0

5

10

15

20

25

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Days from closing to certification 15 10 10 22 15 15


Page115

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Days to Certify Candidates—Comparisons

Compared to Other Jurisdictions:♦ Arlington reported 14 days from closing to certification and Prince William reported

15 days from closing to certification. Similar data for Chesterfield, Henrico, andFairfax were not available.

Average Days from Closing to Certification for Interviewby Jurisdiction for Fiscal Year 2004

1415

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Days to Certify

ArlingtonPrince William


Days from closing to certification 15 not available not available not available 14Vacancies during the year 650 432 not available not available not available

Fiscal Year 2004


Page116

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Positions Paid Per Compensation Policy

Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of success in achieving the county’scompensation policy. The measure is the percentage of all positions that are paid withinthe acceptable range in accordance with compensation policy, as determined by salarystudies conducted by HR.

Trend:♦ The percentage of positions paid within the acceptable range grew substantially from

37 percent in FY 2001 to 92 percent in FY 2004.

Comments:♦ The county implemented a 5-year compensation plan to make salaries more

competitive in the labor market. The graph indicates the results of implementing thecompensation plan.

Percent of Position Classifications Within Acceptable Salary Range In Accordance With Compensation Policy

Fiscal Year2001 Through Fiscal Year 2004

37.0%

77.0%81.0%

92.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Percent of position classificationswithin acceptable salary range

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Total Number of Position Classifications 520 527 530 500 600 550Number of Position Classifications Within Acceptable Salary Range Not available Not available 196 385 486 506


Page117

Employee Views of PWC as a Place to Work

Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of how satisfied Prince William Countyemployees are with their employer. The measure is the percent of employees surveyedwho indicated they were satisfied. This question was included in a 2004 report on theresults of the first organization survey that will be administered regularly every few years.

.

Trend:♦ 86.6 percent of employees were satisfied with Prince William County as a place to

work in 2004.

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




Percent of Employees Satisfied With Prince William CountyAs A Place to Work

Fiscal Year 2004

86.6%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Data first compiled in 2004

Percent of EmployeesSatisfied

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Satisfaction with county as a place to work Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available 86.6%

(first measure was by survey in 2004)


Page118

HUMAN RESOURCES AND


SECTION LOCATOR

OVERVIEW




FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Change in county as an employer from 2 years ago a BETTER place to work 47.6% about the SAME 40.9% WORSE 11.5%

Not measured until FY 2004

Employee Views of PWC Compared to Two Years Ago

Purpose: This measure provides an indicator of how Prince William County employeesview the changes in employment with the County government over two years ago. Themeasure is the percent of employees surveyed who responded in accordance with theindicated view of any changes. This question was included in a 2004 report on theresults of the first organization survey that will be administered regularly every few years.

Trend:♦ The vast majority of employees (88.5 percent) believe that the county, as their

employer, is the same or better than two years ago.

Percent of Employees Considering Prince William County As Better, Same, or Worse Than Two Years Ago

Fiscal Year 2004

47.6%

40.9%

11.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Response Category

Percent Believing BETTERPercent Believing SAMEPercent Believing WORSE

human resources & training and development...human resources spending per capita adjusted for...

Documents