A performance audit of the Department of Administration - Personnel Division

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION -
PERSONNEL DIVISION
SEPTEMBER 1981
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 81 - 9
-=-
STATE OF ARIZONA
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 30, 1981
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Dr. Robert C. Dickeson, Director
Department of Administration
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Department of Administration - Personnel Division. T h i s
report is i n response to a January 30, 1980, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted as
a part of the Sunset review s e t f o r t h i n A. R. S. $$ 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The blue pages present a summary of the report; a response from the
Department of Administration - Personnel Division is found on the yellow
pages preceding the appendices.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items i n t h e r e p o r t .
Respectfully submitted,
~ o u i l a sR . Norton
Auditor General
Staff: Gerald A. Silva
Coni R. Good
Steve H. Thacker
Karen C. Holloway
Sylvia E. Forte
Gail Parin
Randolph D. Gross
cc: Richard Rabago, Assistant Director
DOA- Personnel Division
Enclosure
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES WING SUITE 200 STATE CAPITOL PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007 255- 4385
y .
OFFICE OF THE AUZITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATI ON -
PERSONNEL DIVISION
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEG1 SLATURE
REPORT 81- 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTORS
FINDINGS
FINDING I
!' '
The Department of Administration - Personnel
Division has f a i l e d t o maintain the Uniform
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Plan properly.
CONCLUSION
RECOPIMENDATI ONS
FINDING I1
Improvements are needed i n the Personnel
Division's recruitment e f f o r t for h a r d - t o - f i l l
job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATI ONS
FINDING I11
Reducing r e q u i s i t i o n cancelations w i l l eliminate
unproductive work f o r the Personnel Division.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING I V
% Ill- defined training r o l e s impair the Personnel
Division's a b i l i t y t o improve S t a t e employees'
pro duct i v i t y .
C ONC LUSI ON
RECOMMENDATI ONS
OTHER PERTINENT INFORJTATI ON
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Page
i
1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I -
APPENDIX I1 -
APPENDIX I11 -
APPENDIX I V -
APPENDIX V - . ,,.
APPENDIX V I -
APPENDIX V I I -
APPENDIX V I I I -
Governor's Merit System Reform Commission
Recommendations
Auditor General Survey of State- service Employees
Auditor General Survey of State- service
Supervisors and Managers
Auditor General Survey of Agency Directors
Personnel- related Legislative Proposals
Supported by Assistant Director, DOA- Personnel
Age of Class Specifications, Summarized by
Calendar Year
Additional Hard- t o - f i l l Classes
Training Policy and Courses, Department of
Corrections
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1
DOA- Personnel workload indicators for f i s c a l years
1977- 78 through 1981- 82
TABLE 2
Personnel Division actual expenditures and full- time
' equivalent employees for f i s c a l years 1977- 78 through
1979- 80, and estimates for f i s c a l years 1980- 81 and 1981- 82
I, .
TABLE 3
Comparison of Division s t a f f i n g l e v e l to several major
workload indicators, f i s c a l years 1977- 78 through 1980- 81
TABLE 4
Age of class specifications i n use as of A p r i l 9 , 1981
TABLE 5
High- volume class s e r i e s which have received l i t t l e
or no review since calendar year 1975
TABLE 6
Survey opinions regarding soundness of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
plan
TABLE 7
Responses to supervisory survey questions about
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s
TABLE 8
Individual review requests pending and completed a t
Central Personnel, July 1980 - April 1981
TABLE 9
Analysis of three indicators of DOA- Personnel's
a b i l i t y t o provide qualified applicants to agencies
during the period March through December 1980
TABLE 10
Results of an Auditor General survey of supervisors
and managers regarding the quality of candidates
referred by the Division i
TABLE 11
Summary of high- volume classes and t h e i r associated
supplemental hiring list r a t e for the period March
through December 1980
TABLE 12
Comparison of recruitment advertising budget available
to DOA- Personnel, selected large Arizona c i t i e s and
Maricopa County
- Page
4
TABLE 13
Recruitment workload indicators, f i s c a l years 1977- 78
through 1980- 81
TABLE 14
Cancelation of r e q u i s i t i o n s received between March 1
and December 31, 1980
TABLE 15
DOA- Personnel training and employee .2velopment a c t i v i t i e s ,
f i s c a l years 1975- 76 through 1980- 81
1' .
TABLE 16
Summary of training programs i n the eight l a r g e s t
State- service agencies
TABLE 17
Summary of responses t o t r a i n i n g questions i n a survey
of State- service supervisors/ managers and employees
TABLE 18
Division's average turnaround times for providing hiring
lists during f i s c a l years 1977- 78 through 1980- 81
TABLE 19
Appeals f i l e d with Personnel Board, f i s c a l years 1978- 79
through 1980- 81
TABLE 20
Rule violation complaints f i l e d with the Personnel
Board during f i s c a l years 1978- 79 through 1980- 81
TABLE 21
Auditor General survey of supervisors, managers
and employees i n State service regarding a v a i l a b i l i t y
and complexity of grievance procedures
TABLE 22
Auditor General survey of supervisors, managers
and employees i n State service regarding t h e f a i r n e s s
of grievance procedures and the p o s s i b i l i t y of
r e t a l i a t i o n for f i l i n g grievances
TABLE 23
Summary of Auditor General survey responses from
supervisors and managers regarding t h e i r preparedness
for handling grievances
TABLE 24
Summary of Auditor General survey responses from State-service
supervisors/ managers and employees regarding the
value of grievance procedures
- Page
49
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
S t a t e of Arizona, Department of Administration - Personnel Division i n
response to a January 30, 1980, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted a s a p a r t of
the Sunset review s e t f o r t h i n Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) $ 541- 2551
through 41- 2379.
Most of the S t a t e functioned under an appointive personnel system u n t i l
1968. During the 1968 l e g i s l a t i v e session the Legislature enacted laws
establishing a State- service merit system," a Personnel Commission and a
s t a f f u n i t under a personnel d i r e c t o r to administer day- to- day
a c t i v i t i e s . In 1973 Personnel Commission s t a f f members were moved to a
division within the newly created Department of Administration
\
( DOA- personnel), and the Personnel Commission was renamed the Personnel
Board. The 1973 consolidation d i d n o t , however, c e n t r a l i z e State- service
personnel administration. S t a t e agencies continued t o operate t h e i r own
personnel o f f i c e s . In 1977, i n response to l e g i s l a t i v e concern regarding
the cost and effectiveness of t h i s decentralized condition, the
Legislature used its appropriative power t o c e n t r a l i z e personnel
administ r a t i o n by abolishing agency- based personnel positions within S t a t e
service and creating 47 new positions i n DOA- Personnel.
The Arizona work force t o t a l s 33,000 permanent full- time employees,
earning more than $ 600 million a year. Approximately half t h i s work force
is included i n the State- service merit system, while the remainder works
i n agencies covered by other personnel systems.
" The term S t a t e service is applied t o employees and agencies governed
by the merit system of 1968. The three S t a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s , Department
of Public Safety, the over nor's Office, the Legislature, the courts,
the School f o r the Deaf and the Blind, the Board of Regents and Board
of Directors for Community Colleges were exempted from t h i s system.
A l l other departments are subject t o the merit system laws.
Our review found t h a t the Division has f a i l e d to maintain the Uniform
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Plan properly. An ongoing c l a s s i f i c a t i o n maintenance
review ( CPB) program was not implemented u n t i l f i s c a l year 1980- 81. More
than half the classes i n the Uniform C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Plan, representing
I half the positions i n State service, have not been reviewed within the
l a s t f i v e years. A s a r e s u l t , the foundation of the personnel system is
obsolete and t h e D i v i s i o n ' s a b i l i t y to achieve other personnel objectives
is seriously impaired. In addition, surveyed State- service supervisors
and managers express a s u b s t a n t i a l lack of confidence i n the
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan. ( page 17)
Our review also found t h a t DOA- Personnel successfully r e c r u i t s s u f f i c i e n t
numbers of qualified applicants for most State- service jobs. However, a
number of job classes - p a r t i c u l a r l y those i n short- supply occupational
groups - are d i f f i c u l t to f i l l . The Division conducts a largely passive
recruitment program as compared to those of nongovernmental employers and
other governmental j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n Arizona. Unless more aggressive
recruitment methods are used, the S t a t e w i l l continue t o compete a t a
disadvantage i n a t t r a c t i n g qualified applicants for positions i n
short- supply occupational groups. A s a r e s u l t , the S t a t e may be
a t t r a c t i n g l e s s - q u a l i f i e d a p p l i c a n t s f o r hard- to- f ill classes. ( page 37)
In addition, our review found that many personnel requisitions received by
the Division are canceled by requesting agencies a f t e r the recruitment
process has begun. I n 1980, the percentage of r e q u i s i t i o n cancelations
was v i r t u a l l y the same as the percentage i n 1972, when requisition
cancelations were s i m i l a r l y i d e n t i f i e d as a problem. Canceled
requisitions generate: 1) a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of nonproductive work,
. and 2) s i g n i f i c a n t public r e l a t i o n s problems for the Division. Although
the Division has addressed some of the causes for requisition
cancelations, a f u r t h e r reduction i n the percentage' of cancelations is
unlikely unless the Division c o l l e c t s and analyzes data regarding the
sources of and reasons for cancelations. ( page 55)
Finally, our review found t h a t the Division has performed its training
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s on a limited and i n c o n s i s t e n t b a s i s . A s a r e s u l t ,
agencies have been without direction f o r t h e i r training a c t i v i t i e s , and
wide d i s p a r i t y e x i s t s among agencies i n employee development and training
opportunities. In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e is a potential for duplication of
training programs among agencies. The Division's limited and inconsistent
training record appears to be due to: 1) a lack of c l e a r l y defined roles
for the Division and other State agencies and 2 ) inconsistent funding for
Division training programs. ( page 61)
Consideration should be given to the following recommendations:
1. Amend State law and Personnel Board rules t o require an ongoing
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n maintenance review ( CMR) program and to express a
goal of reviewing a l l classes within five- year cycles.
2. Staff the CMR u n i t continuously a t a level which w i l l enable the
Division to systematically review a l l classes by 1985 and take
appropriate measures to protect those resources from diversion to
special projects.
3. S t a b i l i z e the increasing backlog of individual review rquests by:
a. Increasing the resources devoted to t h i s a c t i v i t y a t the
Division c e n t r a l o f f i c e , or
b. Delegating more authority to agency- based personnel offices
to handle such requests, and establishing a strong audit
function a t the Division to monitor these decentralized
a c t i v i t i e s .
4. Establish a formal, comprehensive training and development
program for c l a s s i f i c a t i o n analysts.
5. Conduct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and salary studies for c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
analyst positions to determine i f increases are needed so the
Division w i l l be competitive with o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s .
6. The D i v i s i o n i n c l u d e i n its budget request the resources needed
t o accomplish these recommendations, s u b j e c t t o review by the
J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Budget Committee s t a f f .
We a l s o recommend t h a t :
1. The Division improve its management information system regarding
recruitment a c t i v i t i e s i n order t o determine p e r i o d i c a l l y :
a. Which employment c l a s s e s need s p e c i a l recruitment methods,
and .
b. How e f f e c t i v e s p e c i f i c recruitment t a c t i c s a r e i n a t t r a c t i n g
q u a l i f i e d applicants.
2. The Division f u l l y u t i l i z e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r f r e e public s e r v i c e
announcements on radio and t e l e v i s i o n t o promote
d i f f i c u l t - t o - f i l l job openings.
3. The Division, i n conjunction w i t h appropriate S t a t e agencies,
take the following s t e p s t o r e c r u i t f o r openings i n short- supply
occupational groups :
a. Increase the r e c r u i t i n g of i n d i v i d u a l s at t e c h n i c a l schools
and colleges and develop S t a t e agency employees a s part- time
r e c r u i t e r s .
b. Publish recruitment brochures describing career/ promotional
o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e i n S t a t e service.
c. E s t a b l i s h i n t e r n s h i p programs which w i l l be a t t r a c t i v e t o
students of short- supply occupations.
d. U t i l i z e immediate t e s t i n g and r e f e r r a l procedures more often
f o r h a r d - t o - f i l l c l a s s e s .
4. The Division use the e x p e r t i s e of p r o f e s s i o n a l a d v e r t i s i n g
agencies more o f t e n f o r h a r d - t o - f i l l job c l a s s e s .
5. The Legislature consider:
a . Increasing DOA- Personnel funding f o r advertising job
openings, and
b. Revising A. R. S. $ 35- 196.01 to allow the S t a t e to pay
interview expenses of out- of- State candidates f o r selected
hard- t o- f ill classes.
In addition, we recommend that:
1. The Division develop an information system which w i l l allow
c o l l e c t i o n and analysis of data on a continuous basis regarding
the sources of and reasons f o r cancelations. An adequate system
can be developed by using existing equipment and modifying
current forms.
2. Based on such analysis, the Division i d e n t i f y those agencies with
excessive cancelation r a t e s , determine the causes f o r such
cancelations and i n i t i a t e corrective action.
3. The Division monitor the impact of corrective actions by
continuing to c o l l e c t and anaylze cancelation data.
Finally, we recommend that:
1. The Legislature determine and distinguish appropriate t r a i n i n g
roles for: 1) DOA- Personnel and 2) other S t a t e agencies, and
c l e a r l y express these r o l e s and t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
s t a t u t o r i l y .
2. The training roles of the Division and other agencies be
specified i n Personnel Board rules and/ or written p o l i c i e s issued
by the Governor's Office.
3. The Division request s u f f i c i e n t funds and s t a f f to enable it t o
meet its t r a i n i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
State of Arizona, Department of Administration - Personnel Division i n
response to a January 30, 1980, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted as a p a r t of
the Sunset review s e t forth i n Arizona Xevised S t a t u t e s ( A. R. s.) $$ 41- 2351
through 41- 2379. .
Arizona created its f i r s t merit system i n 1942, but limited it t o those
agencies which were required t o h i r e employees under a merit system i n
order to qualify for Federal funds. I n 1948, the Arizona Law Enforcement
Merit System Council was established f o r the Highway Patrol, which l a t e r
was incorporated i n t o a Department of Public Safety ( DPS). Most of the
State, however, functioned under an appointive system u n t i l 1968. During
the 1968 l e g i s l a t i v e session, the Legislature enacted laws establishing a
State service merit system,* a Personnel Commission composed of f i v e
appointed members t o administer t h a t system and an operating u n i t under a
personnel d i r e c t o r to administer Commission- delegated, decision- making
powers and day- to- day a c t i v i t i e s . I n September 1969 the Commission
adopted personnel rules and regulations, and by July 1970 it had
established a Statewide job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan and salary schedule.
* The term S t a t e service is applied t o employees and agencies governed
by the merit system of 1968. The three S t a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s , DPS, the
Governor's Office, the L e g i s l a t u r e , t h e c o u r t s , t h e School f o r the
Deaf and the Blind, the Board of Regents and Board of Directors for
Community Colleges were exempted from t h i s system. A l l other
departments are subject t o the merit system laws.
Prior t o 1969, each S t a t e agency was responsible f o r its own personnel
matters and each operated according t o its own procedures. A s such, no
uniformity or c r i t e r i a Statewide regarding s a l a r i e s , benefits,
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r positions, hiring, f i r i n g , promoting and demoting
existed. Consequently, there were wide d i s p a r i t i e s among agencies i n
s a l a r i e s and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r comparable positions.
In 1972, the Legislature established by s t a t u t e the Department of
Administration ( DOA), an umbrella agency consolidating several State
functions. ' Effective July 1, 1973, Personnel Commission s t a f f members
were moved to a division within DOA ( DOA- personnel), the personnel
director became the DOA a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r for personnel administration
and the Personnel Commission was renamed the Personnel Board.
I n i t i a l l y the terms of the incumbent members were retained. Board members
since then have been appointed by the Governor to five- year terms.
Currently, no more than three Board members can be a f f i l i a t e d with the
same p o l i t i c a l party. The Board must include two persons i n t e r e s t e d i n
personnel administration, one professional personnel administrator, one
State employee and one person active i n business management. ( A. R. S.
$ 41- 781 . A)
The Personnel Board is required t o " promulgate rules and regulations
r e l a t i n g to personnel matters", to " hear and review appeals" and to
" conduct investigations when necessary regarding personnel matters.. . ."
( A. R. s. $ 41- 782), and the DOA- Personnel a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r is authorized
to develop and administer a program of personnel administration f o r the
State service i n conformance with rules and regulations of the Personnel
Board ( A. H. s. $ 41- 763).
The 1973 c o n s o l i d a t i o n of the Personnel Division i n t o DOA did not,
however, c e n t r a l i z e S t a t e s e r v i c e personnel administration. S t a t e
agencies continued t o operate t h e i r own personnel o f f i c e s . I n 1977, i n
response t o l e g i s l a t i v e concern regarding t h e c o s t and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of
t h i s d e c e n t r a l i z e d condition, the L e g i s l a t u r e used its a p p r o p r i a t i v e power
t o c e n t r a l i z e personnel administration. The 1977 appropriations b i l l
abolished agency- based personnel p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n S t a t e s e r v i c e and
created 47 new p o s i t i o n s i n DOA- Personnel t o s t a f f Division branch
personnel o f f i c e s i n the l a r g e r agencies ( ~ ~ e n cPyer sonnel Management
Services s e c t i o n ) . .
I n 1978, the Board hired a s t a f f responsible d i r e c t l y t o it and separated
its o f f i c e physically from the Division. I n f i s c a l year 1979- 80 the Board
was appropriated funds separate from those of the Division. According t o
the Board's s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n t , these changes were designed t o maintain the
Board a s an independent body, a d e s i r a b l e s t a t u s f o r the execution of the
Board's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o adjudicate D i v i s i o n d e c i s i o n s .
I n 1979 the Governor appointed a Merit System Reform Commission t o define
philosophy and purpose of the system, review s t a t u t e s , r u l e s and
r e g u l a t i o n s , and review the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of personnel functions. I n
July 1980 the Commission reported its findings and recommendations t o the
Governor. *
Table 1 presents s e v e r a l major workload i n d i c a t o r s f o r the Personnel
Division f o r f i s c a l years 1977- 78 through 1981- 82.
* According t o its r e p o r t , the Commission reviewed s e v e r a l major a r e a s
of concern: u t i l i z a t i o n of personnel resources; compensation and
b e n e f i t s ; pro blem- solving procedures; compliance w i t h F e d e r a l laws;
f l e x i b i l i t y ; organization; and administration. Appendix I contains a
sunmary of 42 Commission recommendations.
TABLE 1
DOA- PERSONNEL WORKLOAD INDICATORS
FOR FISCAL YEARS 1977- 78 THROUGH 1981- 82
Fiscal Year
Workload Indicator 1977- 78 1978- 79 1979- 80 1980- 81 1981- 82
( ~ s t i m a t e )
Requisitions received 6,937 7,500 8,151 7,345 6,800
Applications processed 60,659 61,000 80,636 77,642 78,000
Positions f i l l e d 8,018 8,047 8,456 7,538 7,000
Employees pa. rticipating
i n State health
insuranc e plans 26,586 27,659 28,394 30,750 31,850
Employees participating
i n State dental
insurance plan 0" 0" 27,643 31,607 33,000
Permanent full- time
employees i n State
service agencies 16,575 16,504 17,040 17,328 17,500
The Arizona work force t o t a l s 33,000 permanent full- time employees,
earning more than $ 600 million a year. Approximately half t h i s work force
is included i n the S t a t e s e r v i c e merit system, while the remainder works
i n agencies covered by other personnel systems."" A s of July 1981
DOA- Personnel provided services to approximately 85 agencies, 17,500
full- time employees and an additional 3,000 part- time, temporary or
seasonal employees. The Division also is responsible for:
1) administering insurance programs f o r a l l permanent full- time employees,
and 2) providing personnel assistance to health and emergency services
agencies i n eleven counties.
Expenditures and full- time equivalent employees of DOA- Personnel for
f i s c a l years 1977- 78 through 1981- 82 are summarized i n Table 2.
* State dental insurance plan was not available.
** See footnote on page 1 for a list of these agencies.
TABLE 2
PERSONNEL DIVISION ACTUAL EXPENDITURES AND FULL- TIME
EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES FOR FISCAL YEARS
1977- 78 THROUGH 1979- 80, AND ESTIMATES
FOR FISCAL YEARS 1980- 81 AND 1981- 82
GENERAL FUND*
1977- 78 1978- 79 1979- 80 1980- 81 1981- 82
Actual Actual Actual Estimate Estimate
Full- time equivalent positions 120.5
Expenditures
Personal services $ 1,583,287 $ 1,788,891 $ 1,936,281 $ 2,347,300 $ 2,610,700
Employee- related expenses 267,601 328,607 353,678 477,400 526,300
Professional and outside
services 100,451 122,875 127,203 122,200 198,700
Travel -
In- State 10,927 11,595 14,398 13,400 19,000
Out- of- State 3 , 538 3,532 3,429 3,700 4,100
Other operating expenses 273,565 269,832 331,064 395,400 460,100
Equipment 19,498 4,945 3,698 18,100 39,200
Executive recruitment 0 0 0 17,500 19,300
$ 2,258,867 $ 2,530,277 $ 2,769.751 $ 3,395,000 $ 3.877.400
@ FEDERAL FUNDS
Full- time equivalent
positions** 2% 52 ZL. 2 37.5 f
Expenditures - Projects***
Intergovernmental personnel
grants $ 215,500 $ 145,400 $ 171,300 $ 169,800 $ 169,800
P u b l i c S e r v i c e Employment
CETA**** 6,174,300 4,528,500 3,171,400 4,860,900 *****
Public Works
Ant i r e c e s s i o n 0 0 17,500 41,900 5 , 700
$ 6,389,800 $ 4,673,900 $ 7,360,200 $ 5,072,600 $ 175.500
I, * Source: Appropriations Report ( p e r t i n e n t y e a r s ) , published by
the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Budget Committee.
** Source: Division estimates.
*** Source: Federal Programs ( p e r t i n e n t published by the
Executive Budget Office.
**** Most of the CETA ( comprehensive Employment and Training ~ c t )
0 funds were used t o pay s a l a r i e s of CETA p a r t i c i p a n t s working i n
S t a t e agencies. The remainder supported Division a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
of the CETA program. *=** No CETA funds available i n f i s c a l year 1981- 82.
The Auditor General expresses g r a t i t u d e t o the employees of the Personnel
Board and Department of Administration - Personnel Division f o r t h e i r
cooperation, a s s i s t a n c e and c o n s i d e r a t i o n during the course of the a u d i t .
SUNSET FACTORS
Nine factors were reviewed to aid i n the process of determining whether
the Department of Administration - Personnel Division ( DOA- personnel)
should be continued or terminated, i n accordance with A. R. S. $$ 41- 2351
through A. R . S. 41- 2379.
SUNSET FACTOR: OBJECTIVE AND
PURPOSE I N ESTABLISHING THE DIVISION
There is no e x p l i c i t statement of l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i n the s t a t u t e s '
establishing DOA- Personnel. However, A. R. S. s41- 763 does prescribe that
the a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r for personnel s h a l l perform c e r t a i n duties:
" 2. Have authority f o r developing and administering a
Drogram of ~ e r s o n n e l administration for the s t a t e
service i n conformance with the r u l e s and regulations
of the personnel board.
" 3. Have authority to e s t a b l i s h such o f f i c e s as may be
necessary to maintain an effective and economical
program of personnel administration.
" 4. Have the power to deputize employees i n various
s t a t e agencies where c e r t a i n of the functions of the
personnel administration division can be performed by
such deputies.
" 5. Subject to approval of the personnel board, make
an annual recommendation t o the l e g i s l a t u r e and the
joint l e g i s l a t i v e budget committee of a salary plan and
adjustments t o the plan f o r employees i n the s t a t e
service and executive service. .. . " (~ mphasisa dded)
Further, Personnel Board Rule R2- 5- 02 explains the i n t e n t of a personnel
system based on merit:
" A. Purpose: The purpose of these Rules is t o
implement and give e f f e c t to the i n t e n t and
requirements of the Act which establishes f o r the S t a t e
a system of personnel administration based on merit
principles and s c i e n t i f i c methods governing the
recruitment. examination. a ~ ~ o i n t m e n t . ~ romotion.
t r a n s f e r , l a y o f f , removal, d i s c i p l i n e , development and
welfare of its c i v i l employees and other incidents of
State employment." (~ mphasis added)
For f i s c a l year 1980- 81 the Division adopted the following goals:
" 1. Hiring or promoting individuals with the
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o s a t i s f y or exceed performance
standards, and who have t h e d e s i r e f o r continuing
careers.
" 2. Retaining employees who have demonstrated the
required knowledge, a b i l i t i e s and s k i l l s t o meet
or exceed performance standards f o r t h e i r
positions, thereby minimizing unwanted turnover.
" 3. Improving employee performance, conduct and
productivity levels.
" 4. Delivering personnel services i n such a manner a s
to f a c i l i t a t e agencies achieving t h e i r goals and
objectives."
SUNSET FACTOR: THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE DIVISION
HAS BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF THE
PUBLIC AND THE EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH I T HAS OPERATED
The Division was not created t o serve d i r e c t l y the needs of the general
public, except that a State government personnel system based on merit
principles and which promotes productivity is i n the public i n t e r e s t .
Our audit revealed t h a t some improvements are needed to enhance the
~ i v i s i o n ' sa b i l i t y to operate e f f i c i e n t l y :
1. The S t a t e service position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan is seriously
outdated, impairing the a b i l i t y of agency managers to conduct
S t a t e programs e f f i c i e n t l y and e f f e c t i v e l y , and jeopardizing the
merit principles underlying the personnel system. ( page 17)
2. The Division generally provides s u f f i c i e n t numbers of qualified
applicants for S t a t e s e r v i c e p o s i t i o n s . However, it has
d i f f i c u l t y ' f i l l i n g some positions, thus impairing some agency
programs. ( page 27)
3. A consistently high proportion of requests for hiring lists are
canceled, causing recruitment work which is never used. ( page 55)
4. The p o t e n t i a l for costly duplication of agency training programs
e x i s t s due to a l a c k of coordination by DOA- Personnel. ( page 61)
Overall efficiency of the Division f o r the period 1977.- 78 through 1980- 81
appears to have improved. Table 3 reveals t h a t increases i n major
workload indicators have outstripped a 6.1 percent increase i n Division
s t a f f , suggesting an improvement i n overall efficiency.
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF DIVISION STAFFING LEVEL TO
SEVERAL MAJOR WORKLOAD INDICATORS,
FISCAL YEARS 1977- 78 THROUGH 1980- 81
Percentage
Increase 1980- 81
1977- 78 1978- 79 1979- 80 1980- 81 over 1977- 78
4
Full- time equivalent employees 154.5 15r .5 159.0 164 . O 6.1%
Applications processed 60,659 61,000 80,636 77,642 28.0
Requisitions received 6,937 7,500 8 , 151 7,345 5.9
Employees p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n
State health insurance plans 26,586 27,659 28,394 30,750 15 - 7
Employees p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n
State dental insurance plan 8 * 27,643 31,607 N/ A
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DIVISION
HAS OPERATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
In April 1981 Auditor General s t a f f surveyed d i r e c t o r s ,
supervisors/ managers and employees of State service agencies
regarding several major a c t i v i t y areas of the Division. Sample
sizes and response r a t e s for each group were as follows:
Number Number
Receiving Completing Response
Questionnaire Questionnaire Rate
Agency d i r e c t o r s
with more than three FTEs 5 7 3 8 6 7%
~ u ~ e r v i s o r s / m a n a ~ e r s 936 293 3 1%
Full- time permanent
employees 1,357 574 42%
Appendices 11, 111 and I V contain the questionnaires and summary of
responses for these surveys. Highlights are presented i n the
following t e x t according t o function: t r a i n i n g , recruitment and
selection, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and compensation and employee grievance
procedures.
* No plan offered.
DOA- Personnel promotes its supervisory training programs f a i r l y
effectively i n that 72 percent of the supervisors and managers responding
were aware of the programs. Survey respondents cited Division publicity
most often a s the source of t h e i r information.
Most supervisors/ managers ( 64 percent) and employees ( 61 percent) have - not
discussed t h e i r career or promotional opportunities or t r a i n i n g needs with
t h e i r supervisors or an agency o f f i c i a l .
Recruitment and Selection
Nost agency d i r e c t o r s ( 6 1 percent) and supervisors/ managers ( 64 percent)
indicated t h a t job candidates referred t o them from the Division usually
or always meet minimum q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . Of the d i r e c t o r s and
supervisors/ managers responding, 64 percent and 53 percent, respectively,
indicated t h a t hiring lists usually or always are current.
Of the d i r e c t o r s and supervisors/ managers responding, 44 percent and 31
percent, respectively, indicated t h a t hiring lists usually or always
ranked candidates generally i n the order i n which they would have ranked
them. Twenty- five percent of the d i r e c t o r s and 32 percent of
supervisors/ managers indicated the need for s u b s t a n t i a l improvements i n
the Division's recruitment and s e l e c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s .
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and Compensation
The Division's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s generally received poor marks
from respondents. Only 31 percent of supervisors/ managers and 43 percent
of directors indicated that the S t a t e position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan is
basically sound and helps them run e f f e c t i v e , e f f i c i e n t and economical
organizations.
Approximately h a l f t h e supervisors/ managers responding answered three
questions* negatively regarding the quality of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n a l y s t s '
a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e i r organizations. Directors responded more positively to
these same questions, however.
A l l three groups - employees, supervisors/ managers and agency d i r e c t o r s -
indicated t h a t compensation f o r S t a t e positions generally is not
competitive with similar jobs outside Arizona government. Agency
d i r e c t o r s expressed the strongest sentiment of the three groups with 68
percent indicating t h a t compensation is not competitive.
Employee Grievance Procedures
Written procedures for submitting grievances or complaints appear t o be
readily available t o most employees. Most employees ( 64 ~ e r c e n t,)
supervi sors/ managers ( 79 percent) and d i r e c t o r s ( 92 percent) , responded
favorably when questioned about a v a i l a b i l i t y of written procedures.
Most employees ( 55 ~ e r c e n t ) , however, are undecided as t o the f a i r n e s s of
grievance procedures t o a l l p a r t i e s , while only 19 percent of
supervisors/ managers and none of the d i r e c t o r s c r i t i c i z e d procedures as
unfair.
Most supervisors/ managers ( 68 percent) and d i r e c t o r s ( 89 percent) f e e l
adequately prepared to handle employee grievances and complaints. In
addition, 52 percent of supervisors/ managers and 76 pecent of d i r e c t o r s
indicated t h a t they receive s u f f i c i e n t assistance from DOA- Personnel i n
correcting employee d i s c i p l i n a r y problems.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH RULES AND
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE DIVISION ARE
CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE IUNDATE
The Division does not promulgate rules and regulations governing personnel
matters. That is the duty of the Personnel Board, a s expressed i n A. R. S.
* See questions 17, 18 and 19 i n Appendix 111.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DIVISION
HAS ENCOURAGED INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC BEFORE
PROMULGATING ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND THE
EXTENT TO WHICH I T HAS INFORMED THE PUBLIC AS TO
ITS ACTIONS AND THEIR EXPECTED IMPACT ON THE PUBLIC
Although the Division does not promulgate rules and regulations, it has
published a manual f o r S t a t e agency managers and supervisors e n t i t l e d
State Personnel Board Rules and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , t h e
Division's agency- based o f f i c e s provide a means of: 1) obtaining input
from agency managers and employees regarding Board rules, and
2) explaining Board rules and t h e i r impact to agency managers and
supervisors. The Division also publishes and d i s t r i b u t e s a monthly
newsletter, Personnel Highlights, which announces Personnel Board rules
and decisions and explains t h e i r impact on employees and agency managers.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DIVISION
HAS BEEN ABLE TO INVESTIGATE AND RESOLVE
COMPLAINTS THAT ARE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION
The Division becomes involved i n t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of employee complaints
under the following circumstances:
1. When a formal grievance is not resolved within an agency and is
f i l e d with the Division. ( page 81)
2. When the Personnel Board asks the Division t o investigate an
alleged violation of a Board rule. ( page 80)
3. When a probationary employee is dismissed and the DOA- Personnel
a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r accepts a request to review the matter.
The Division also has t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for reviewing c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of
i n d i v i d u a l p o s i t i o n s when requested by management and position
incumbents. These requests come from employees, supervisors or managers
who believe t h e i r positions are inappropriately c l a s s i f i e d . The Division
devoted a s u b s t a n t i a l portion of its c l a s s i f i c a t i o n resources t o t h i s
a c t i v i t y u n t i l f i s c a l 1980- 81, when it implemented a systematic
maintenance review program. ( page 17)
There appears to . be some confusion among employees as to appropriate
avenues f o r pursuing various complaints. ( page 83)
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE
AGENCY OF STATE GOVERNPENT HAS THE AUTHORITY
TO PROSECUTE ACTIONS UNDER ENABLING LEGISLATION
According to A. R. S. $ 41- 775 violations of provisions of the personnel
s t a t u t e s are considered misdemeanors and are subject to prosecution by the
State Attorney General o r t h e county attorney. However, v i r t u a l l y a l l
personnel s t a t u t e s are incorporated i n t o r u l e s of the Personnel Board;
t h e r e f o r e , a s t a t u t o r y v i o l a t i o n generally also is a violation of a Board
rule. According to the Board's special a s s i s t a n t , personnel- related
improprieties usually are pursued as Board r u l e v i o l a t i o n s r a t h e r than as
s t a t u t o r y v i o l a t i o n s requiring Attorney General involvement.
A. R. S. $ 41- 782.01 gives the Board authority to enforce its rules by
investigating alleged v i o l a t i o n s , holding hearings and issuing orders. I f
the Board finds a v i o l a t i o n , it may order t h e o f f e n d e r ' s compensation
suspended u n t i l the r u l e no longer is being violated. In addition, the
Board may apply to the Superior Court for injunctive r e l i e f against an
agency, o f f i c e r o r employee believed to be violating a Board rule.
Prior to 1980 the Office of the Attorney General regularly provided legal
counsel t o the Board. However, i n June 1980 the Attorney General
determined t h a t such a p r a c t i c e c o n s t i t u t e s a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t because
of h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to represent S t a t e agencies a t Board hearings. H i s
decision was based on Arizona State Bar Ethics Opinion Number 79- 2, issued
i n December 1979 concerning a similar s i t u a t i o n i n the City of Phoenix
personnel system. A s a r e s u l t , the Personnel Board now contracts with an
outside attorney for l e g a l advice.
The Board's s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n t c i t e s two weaknesses i n the Board's a b i l i t y
t o enforce its rules: 1) no s t a f f resources t o investigate alleged rule
violations by or involving DOA- Personnel, and 2) inadequate authority to
enforce a decision a g a i n s t an agency i n an appeals case.
A. R. S. $ 41- 782.01 permits the Board t o delegate its power t o investigate
alleged rule violations t o the Division except when the Division i t s e l f is
the alleged v i o l a t o r . Under the l a t t e r circumstance, the Board's own
limited s t a f f must conduct t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a s time permits. According
t o the Board's special a s s i s t a n t , 12 alleged r u l e violations were pending
against or involving the Division as of August 12, 1981, extending a s f a r
back a s January 1981. The Board intends t o request another full- time
position f o r f i s c a l year 1982- 83 t o investigate alleged Division rule
violations, along with o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i v e duties.
A. R. S. $ 41- 785 allows an employee who is dismissed, demoted or suspended
for more than 40 hours t o appeal such action to the Board. However, i f
the Board decides i n favor of the employee it has no way t o enforce its
decision. Statutes do not permit the Board t o f i l e with the court t o
force agency o f f i c i a l s t o comply, although t h a t enforcement method is
available f o r r u l e violations. In f i s c a l 1980- 81 agency o f f i c i a l s refused
to honor the Board's decision i n two appeal cases, and the employees had
t o i n i t i a t e r e s t i t u t i o n through the courts on t h e i r own. The Board
intends t o d r a f t proposed l e g i s l a t i o n which would enable the Board i t s e l f
to seek court enforcement of its appeals decisions against agencies.
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DIVISION HAS
ADDRESSED DEFICIENCIES I N THE ENABLING STATUTES WHICH
PREVENT IT FROM FULFILLING ITS STATUTORY MANDATE
The present a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r , DOA- Personnel, has i n i t i a t e d or supported
many proposed changes t o the s t a t u t e s regarding personnel a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
since he assumed t h e post i n November 1977. The proposals covered many
t o p i c s , including: employee b e n e f i t s , overtime pay, merit i n c r e a s e s and a
merit awards, funding of p o s i t i o n r e c l a s s i f i c i a t i o n s , employee grievance
procedures, appeal of d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s and retirement. Many of the
proposals became law. Appendix V c o r t a i n s a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of each
proposal and its d i s p o s i t i o n .
SUNSET FACTOR: THE EXTENT TO WHICH CHANGES ARE
NECESSARY I N THE LAWS OF THE DIVISION TO ADEQUATELY
COMPLY WITH THE FACTORS LISTED I N SUBSECTION
Our review determined s t a t u t o r y changes a r e needed f o r DOA- Personnel to
comply adequately with the Sunset f a c t o r s . These changes a r e d e t a i l e d on
pages 34, 54 and 73.
FINDING I
THE DEPARTPENT OF ADMINISTRATION - PERSONNEL DIVISION HAS FAILED TO
MAINTAIN THE UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION PLAN PROPERLY.
State law requires the Personnel Board to adopt a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan
which appropriately groups and defines jobs f o r State service positions.
The Board has promulgated rules s t a t i n g such a p l a n s h a l l be maintained
by: 1 ) e s t a b l i s h i n g new job c l a s s e s , and 2) a l t e r i n g or abolishing
existing ones. Further, Board rules s t a t e t h a t the Department of
Administration - Personnel Division ( DOA- personnel), hereinafter also
referred t o a s the Division, must a s s i s t the Board with t h e s e d u t i e s .
A s the foundation of the State service personnel system, the usefulness of
a position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan rapidly erodes unless it is maintained on a
current basis. The Division has f a i l e d to maintain the Arizona Uniform
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Plan properly since its adoption i n 1969- 70. More than
half the P l a n ' s c l a s s e s , representing a t l e a s t 50 percent of the positions
i n S t a t e service, have not been reviewed within the l a s t f i v e years. The
Division's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s t a f f resources have been consumed l a r g e l y by
individual position reviews a s requested by management and position
incumbents. Therefore, the S t a t e service personnel system may well be
incurring s u b s t a n t i a l hidden costs of i n e q u i t i e s and low morale resulting
from obsolete p o s i t i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .
Uniform P o s i t i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Plan Adopted
Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s ( A. R. s.) $ 41- 783 d e f i n e s t h e Personnel Board's
duty regarding a position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan and s t a t e s , i n part:
" The rules of the personnel board s h a l l include:
" 1. A position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan f o r a l l positions
i n the s t a t e service."
Position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n is the organization of jobs i n t o groups or classes
on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r duties, r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and required
qualifications. A c l a s s is defined i n the Personnel Board Rule R2- 5- 01.10
as follows:
" ' Class' means a group of positions s u f f i c i e n t l y
s i m i l a r a s to duties ~ erformed. scoDe of d i s c r e t i o n and
r e s ~ o n s i b i l i t v . minimum reauirements of training.
experience, or s k i l l , and such other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
that the same t i t l e , the same t e s t of f i t n e s s , and - the
same schedule of compensation have been or may be
applied t o each position i n the group and f o r which a
c l a s s s p e c i f i c a t i o n has been approved. " ( ~ m ~ h a s i s
added)
In f i s c a l year 1969- 70, the Personnel Board adopted a State service
Uniform C l a s s i f i c i a t i o n Plan. Personnel Board Rules define the Board's
authority t o change the Plan by establishing new c l a s s e s and dividing,
combining, a l t e r i n g or abolishing e x i s t i n g c l a s s e s ( ~ 2 - 5 - 4 1 . ~ . 2 ) . The
Division is charged with recommending appropriate changes to the Board
a f t e r conducting a n a l y t i c a l reviews.
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Plan Is the
Foundation of a Personnel System
The Uniform C l a s s i f i c i a t i o n Plan is the foundation of the State service
personnel system. According to a u t h o r i t a t i v e l i t e r a t u r e , the purpose of
such a plan is t o a s s i s t such basic personnel functions as salary
administration, recruitment, examination of candidates and in- service
training. 0. Glenn Stahl, author of numerous public personnel
administration textbooks, summarizes the principal uses and advantages of
position c l a s s i f i c i a t i o n as follows:
" 1. F a c i l i t a t i n g other personnel objectives:
a. It provides a r a t i o n a l c r i t e r i o n f o r control
of pay l e v e l s by making it possible t o equate
whole classes of positions with common salary
ranges.
" b. It reduces a v a r i e t y of occupations and
positions t o manageable proportions so t h a t
recruitment. q u a l i f i c a t i o n reauirements.
examination, and s e l e c t i o n can be made for
whole classes of positions or more a t a time.
c. It defines i n ob- j ective terms the content of
jobs ( or what is expected) against which the
performance of incumbents ( how well it is
done) can be measured.
d. It furnishes job information upon which the
content of orientation and other in- service
training can be based.
e. Although it does not of i t s e l f guarantee a
good promotion and placement policy, it
supplies a systematic picture o f
opportunities and position relationships,
which is e s s e n t i a l t o an o r d e r l y promotion
and placement procedure.
f. It provides a foundation f o r common
understanding between supervisor and employee
a s t o the job and pay, which f a c i l i t a t e s
employee- management r e l a t i o n s and helps
promote work- centered motivation.
" 3. P a r t i c u l a r values i n the public service...
a. It assures the c i t i z e n and taxpayer t h a t
there is some l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between
expenditures f o r personal services and the
services rendered.
b. It o f f e r s as good a protection as has been
found against p o l i t i c a l or personal
preferment i n determination of public
s a l a r i e s . " (~ mphasis added)
Thus, effective personnel administration is s u b s t a n t i a l l y dependent on the
existence of a r a t i o n a l , equitable and objective position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
plan.
Plan Must Be Continually Maintained
A position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan's usefulness rapidly erodes i f it is not
D
continually revised and updated to account f o r changes which a f f e c t the
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , duties and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r individual jobs.
D r . Stahl explains:
" Because of changes i n personnel, i n governmental
functions, and i n the s t r u c t u r e of the public service,
no sooner is a c l a s s i f i c i a t i o n plan adopted than its
revision and adaptation must be undertaken."
While Personnel Board Rule R2- 5- 41. B. 1 requires t h a t material and
permanent changes i n t h e d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of a position be
reported t o the Board, such changes i n actual practice are reported t o
Division s t a f f . Changes are reported by: 1) agency managers wanting to
reorganize and so t o t r a n s f e r e x i s t i n g , and/ or e s t a b l i s h new, positions,
2) position incumbents who believe t h e i r jobs should be r e c l a s s i f i e d
( assigned t o a d i f f e r e n t c l a s s of p o s i t i o n s ) , and 3) agency managers who
believe the positions of t h e i r employees should be r e c l a s s i f i e d .
According t o Division s t a f f , position incumbents usually are hopeful that
the r e c l a s s i f i c i a t i o n w i l l provide higher compensation. When such changes
are reported, Division analysts review t h e p o s i t i o n s t o determine i f a
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n change is needed. For the period July 1980 through April
1981, the r e s u l t s of individual position reviews ( not including
reorganizations) were as follows: eight percent downgraded, 57 percent
upgraded and 35 percent unchanged. Sometimes the Division also recommends
the creation of new classes or revisions t o existing c l a s s specifications.*
* According to Personnel Board Rules R2- 5- 01.11:
" Class s p e c i f i c a t i o n is an o f f i c i a l description of the
type and l e v e l of duties and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the
positions assigned to a c l a s s , and the necessary
p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r performing those duties. The
o f f i c i a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n w i l l include the t i t l e of the
c l a s s , description of the type of duties and
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , knowledge, a b i l i t i e s and s k i l l s , the
required t r a i n i n g and experience, a class code, and
o f f i c i a l date of adoption or revision."
The Division does not and, according to a u t h o r i t a t i v e l i t e r a t u r e , should
not, r e l y e n t i r e l y on managers and incumbents to report changes i n
position duties and r e s o n s i b i l i t i e s .
D r . Stahl warns:
" In s p i t e of the most conscientious e f f o r t s t o maintain
currency through these means, unreported changes are
almost c e r t a i n t o occur. Because of t h i s , periodic
audits or resurveys a r e e s s e n t i a l to keep the
c l a s s i f i c a ~ t i o n s i n tune with the f a c t s of the
situation."
In a 1979 report reviewing Arizona's DOA - Personnel Division, the U. S.
Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) said:
" The only [ ~ e d e r a l ] Merit Systems Standards*
requirement regarding c l a s s i f i c a t i o n is t h a t the
j u r i s d i c t i o n maintain its c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan on a
current basis. To meet t h i s requirement, a schedule of
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n reviews must be established and carried
out.
OPM recommends that a l l positions i n a s t a t e government merit system be
reviewed systemtically every f i v e years. This requires a formal
maintenance review schedule based on occupational groups and/ or
organizational u n i t s so t h a t : 1 ) a l l positions i n a p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s ( or
s e r i e s of classes) or organizational u n i t a r e reviewed simultaneously,
and 2) within a five- year period a l l positions thus would be reviewed a t
l e a s t once. **
* State and local governmental agencies p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n designated
Federal grant- in- aid programs must be covered by personnel systems
which meet the Federal Merit System Standards.
** Some classes deserve even more frequent a t t e n t i o n because of the
rapidly- changing nature of those career f i e l d s .
Uniform C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Plan
Is Substantially Obsolete
P r i o r t o f i s c a l year 1980- 81, the Division d i d n o t conduct
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n reviews on a formal, planned basis. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
resources were dedicated almost e n t i r e l y to responding to review
requests from agency managers and position incumbents. A s a r e s u l t ,
the Uniform C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Plan is s u b s t a n t i a l l y obsolete. A l l
c l a s s e s e x i s t i n g as of April 9, 1981, were analyzed a s to when each
c l a s s . s p e c i f i c a t i o n was adopted or l a s t revised. Table 4 summarizes
by calendar y e a r t h e r e s u l t s of t h i s analysis."
TABLE 4
AGE OF CLASS SPECIFICATIONS I N USE
AS OF APRIL 9, 1981""
Number of
Years Since
Class Specification
Was Adopted
or Last Revised
( whichever is l a t e r )
Less than 3 years
3- 5 years
5- 8 years
More than 8 years
Totals
( 1) ( 2
Positions Included i n
Classes i n Column ( 1)
Classes ) e o f 4
A s a Percentage a l l State Service
Number of A l l Classes Number*"" Po s i t i o n s
* Appendix V I contains a more detailed analysis of the data
summarized i n Table 4.
** A l l nonexempt classes.
*** Includes temporary, part- time, seasonal and permanent full- time
positions, as well as positions which were not being u t i l i z e d
as of April 9, 1981.
A s shown i n Table 4, 51 percent of the c l a s s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , representing
50 percent of a l l S t a t e service positions, were adopted or l a s t revised
( whichever is l a t e r ) more than f i v e years ago. Some of the revisions were
only minor and did not include an e n t i r e c l a s s review. Therefore, Table 4
o v e r s t a t e s t h e number of c l a s s reviews completed, and - more - than 51 percent
of a l l classes have not been reviewed i n f i v e years. In addition,
Division s t a f f reported such c l a s s reviews conducted before f i s c a l year
1980- 81 were completed on a c r i s i s basis, not as p a r t of a systematic
long- term approach t o plan maintenance.
Table 5 i d e n t i f i e s high- volume class series* which have received l i t t l e or
no review since t h e i r establishment more than f i v e years ago.
* A class s e r i e s is a group of career- related classes. Often a s e r i e s
contains s e v e r a l c l a s s e s which form a promotional ladder-- such as
Secretary I, I1 and 111.
TABLE 5
HIGH- VOLUME CLASS SERIES WHICH HAVE RECEIVED
LITTLE OR NO REVIEW SINCE CALENDAR YEAR 1975"
Stenographic and s e c r e t a r i a l
Typing
Public and s o c i a l services
Cash collection and disbursement*"
Stores and r e l a t e d c l a s s e s
Food services
Correctional custody
Building and i n d u s t r i a l trades
General labor
Labor, trades and custodial
supervision
Mechanical trades
Mechanical equipment operation
Professional nursing and therapy
Budget and management analysis*"
Legal and r e l a t e d c l a s s e s
C i v i l engineering and related***
classes
Auditing and accounting**
Correctional counseling and
treatment
Cartography and drafting***
Right- of- way and r e a l property
Positions i n Classes
Not Reviewed since
Total Number of Calendar Year 1975****
Positions Covered A s a
by Classes i n Percentage
t h i s Series Number of Column 1
- x- Only those c l a s s s e r i e s which meet both of the following
conditions were selected f o r t h i s table:
1 ) the s e r i e s includes more than 100 positions, and
2) a t l e a s t 70 percent of the positions a r e i n classes which
have not been reviewed since 1975.
) ~ t Part of t h i s s e r i e s was included i n the f i s c a l year 1980- 81
maintenance review schedule.
w* The e n t i r e s e r i e s was included i n the f i s c a l year 1980- 81
maintenance review schedule.
+*++ The list was compiled under the assumption that a class
s p e c i f i c a t i o n revision date means t h a t - a l l positions i n the class
were reviewed a t t h a t time, although t h i s was not always true.
A l l but two of the s e r i e s i n Table 5 contain classes which are common t o
more than one agency. It should be noted t h a t the basic theory of a
position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan assumes common classes are periodically
reviewed to ensure t h a t similar positions are c l a s s i f i e d consistently from
agency to agency.
Lack of Plan Maintenance Can Be Costly
I f a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan is not maintained currently, low morale and
s a l a r y i n e q u i t i e s r e s u l t . According to D r . Stahl:
" Once a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ~ l a nis a d o ~ t e d . i t is ~ o i n t l e s s
-- -- -
t o do anything l e s s than provide f o r continuous,
painstaking maintenance on a c u r r e n t basis, e l s e once
d i f f e r e n t positions t h a t have actually become similar
t o each other remain i n d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s , and some
former cognates t h a t have become q u i t e d i f f e r e n t
continue i n the same class. Such a program often seems
expensive. But to s t i n t too much on t h i s out- of- pocket
cost may create still higher hidden costs growing out
of lowered morale. Door ~ r o d u c t i o n . delayed operating
Dronrams. excessive Dav f o r s i m ~ l e work. and low - oav
f o r responsible work ( r e s u l t i n g i n poorly qualified
executives and professionals)- all normal concomitants
of inadequate, hasty, or out- of- date c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . "
Keeping position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s current also f a c i l i t a t e s a t t r a c t i o n and
selection of well- qualified candidates, employee motivation, performance
appraisal, and e f f e c t i v e i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . Thus, a poorly maintained
plan w i l l adversely a f f e c t s u b s t a n t i a l f a c t o r s i n effective personnel
administration.
Lack of a systematic maintenance review program has undermined the
confidence of: 1) supervisors and managers within the Uniform
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Plan, and 2) agency d i r e c t o r s . A s mentioned e a r l i e r , OPM
conducted reviews of the Division i n 1978 and 1979 and leveled c r i t i c i s m
a t the absence of a maintenance program. I n its 1978 review OPM noted a
lack of confidence among agency personnel and recommended ongoing
maintenance reviews as a means of restoring confidence.
This lack of confidence is still present. A s part of t h i s audit the
Auditor General surveyed S t a t e service supervisors, managers and agency
directors regarding the position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan and Division
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . " Supervisors, managers and agency directors
were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement:
" The S t a t e position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan is basically
sound and helps me as a supervisor/ manager t o run an
e f f e c t i v e , e f f i c i e n t and economical organization."**
Two hundred ' and seventy- five supervisors/ managers and 35 agency d i r e c t o r s
responded t o t h i s statement a s shown i n Table 6.
TABLE 6
SURVEY OPINIONS REGARDING SOUNDNESS OF CLASSIFICATION PLAN
Respondents were asked t o indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with
t h i s statement: " The S t a t e position c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan is basically
sound and helps me as a supervisor/ manager t o run an e f f e c t i v e , e f f i c i e n t
and economical organization."
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree
~ u~ ervisors/ managers
Number 2 5 81 8 5 82 2
Percentage 9.1 29.5 30 9 29.8 0 7
Agency d i r e c t o r s
Number 4 10 6 15 0
Percentage 11.4 28.6 17.1 42 * 9 0
* See page 10 for description of sample s i z e s and response r a t e s . ** See Question 21 i n Appendices I11 and I V .
A s demonstrated i n Table 6, 39 percent of surveyed supervisors/ managers
and 40 percent of the responding agency directors disagreed with the
statement while another 31 percent and 17 percent, respectively, had no
opinion, Only a third of the supervisors/ managers ( 30 percent) and l e s s
than half the directors ( 43 percent) responding to the survey expressed
confidence i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan.
Further, more than two- thirds ( 71 percent) of the surveyed agency
d i r e c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d c l a s s e s of positions i n t h e i r agencies which they
" strongly believe need adjustment i n order to maintain a f a i r
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan."* When asked to comment on the effects of these
inequities, they mentioned many of D r . Stahl's cited e f f e c t s - low
employee morale, d i f f i c u l t y i n recruiting well- qualified employees, more
rapid turnover, d i f f i c u l t y i n motivating employees and hindrance to
employees' career development.
Reasons for the Absence of
Maintenance Review Program
There is no evidence that before 1979 the Division attempted a sustained
maintenance review program. Instead, individual requests from agency
managers and position incumbents consumed available c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s t a f f
resources. According to Division o f f i c i a l s , e n t i r e classes were reviewed
on a c r i s i s basis only with the larger agencies and more influencial
agency directors receiving f i r s t p r i o r i t y . Consequently, the Division
reviewed some classes several times, ignored others and adjusted classes
without regard to other related personnel system classes. According to
Division s t a f f , t h i s piecemeal approach ultimately was self- defeating i n
that it merely created additional review requests from position incumbents
who believed an inequity had been established, further diverting Division
s t a f f from large scale reviews.
* See Question 20 i n Appendix I V .
A study by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee s t a f f i n f i s c a l year
1977- 78 concluded t h a t the Uniform C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Plan was not functioning
properly and recommended a consultant be hired t o guide a major overhaul
of the e n t i r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system. Division s t a f f agreed and requested
funds f o r t h i s project. The Legislature r e j e c t e d the request i n two
consecutive years and d i r e c t e d t h e Division t o overhaul and maintain the
plan with existing resources. Consequently, i n 1979 the Division prepared
a four- year maintenance review schedule covering a l l classes i n the State
service. However, l e s s than 20 percent of the f i r s t y e a r ' s schedule was
a c t u a l l y accomplished. According to Division o f f i c i a l s , continuing
pressure from S t a t e agencies f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n services ( s i n g l e p o s i t i o n
review requests and reorganizations) prevented greater accomplishments;
however, poor management of the maintenance review program and
inexperienced analysts also appear t o be f a c t o r s .
CMR Program Implemented i n Fiscal Year 1980- 81
In October 1980 a one- year c l a s s i f i c a t i o n maintenance review ( CMR)
schedule was adopted t o review approximately one- fifth of t h e S t a t e
service positions. The DOA d i r e c t o r and the a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r , Personnel
Division, claimed fundamental policy and organizational changes were
needed t o improve the p o s s i b i l i t y of the schedule's success. The DOA
d i r e c t o r sent policy memorandums to agency d i r e c t o r s , s t a t i n g maintenance
reviews would receive f i r s t p r i o r i t y among the ~ i v i s i o n ' s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
a c t i v i t i e s . Four personnel analysts were transferred t o the Division
c e n t r a l o f f i c e from agency- based personnel o f f i c e s and f o u r a n a l y s t s
within the c e n t r a l o f f i c e were assigned to accomplish the CMR schedule.
Three analysts were committed to handling requests f o r new positions and
agency reorganizations, while the equivalent of only - one was available for
individual review requests." Another position was established i n the
a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r ' s o f f i c e t o review c l a s s i f i c a t i o n appeals.
* Limited- classification authority is delegated t o agency- based
personnel o f f i c e s . However, few r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n reviews are
performed by agency- based analysts. In the four- month period January
through April 1981, only 24 reviews were performed by agency- based
analysts.
A s of July 1981, the Division had made substantial progress i n the f i s c a l
year 1980- 81 CMR schedule, but most completion dates had not been met.*
The Division anticipates additional setbacks and a t t r i b u t e s review delays
to:
1. The diversion of CMR s t a f f t o unexpected s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s ,
2. Inexperienced analysts,
3. Staffing shortages, and
4. Unrealistic scheduling.
Special Projects Disrupt CMR Schedule
Actions by State agencies, the Legislature, the voters and the Federal
government i n f i s c a l year 1980- 81 generated a number of unexpected special
projects and diverted CMR s t a f f from t h e i r schedule. Specifically, the
following projects have consumed hundreds of CMR s t a f f hours since October
1980 :
1. The S t a t e l o t t e r y , approved by the voters i n November 1980,
2 . The new Department of Water Resources,
3. A new s e r i e s of special agent classes for the Office of the
Attorney General, and
4. Transfer of the Navajo Ordnance Depot from the Federal government
to the State.
Each of these projects required the creation of new classes of positions
and thus the diversion of CMR s t a f f .
Inexperienced Analysts
According to Division s t a f f , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n maintenance work ( including
developing and a l t e r i n g class specifications) is the most d i f f i c u l t of
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n analyst functions. I f analysts are not thorough and
professional i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n work, t h e i r decisions w i l l not be
well- received by agency managers and employees, and thus w i l l generate
additional discontent and mistrust of the system. Hence the need for
well- trained c l a s s i f i c a t i o n analysts.
* Only two of the eleven s e r i e s i n the 1980- 81 review schedule were
completed according to original deadlines. The other nine s e r i e s were
completed or are expected to be completed one to nine months l a t e r
than original deadlines.
Two- thirds of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n analysts have advanced within the
Division and have not received substantial academic education or
experience which would prepare them appropriately for c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
a c t i v i t i e s . In i t s 1978 report on the Division, OPM noted t h i s lack of
expertise and recommended t h a t the Division " develop and implement a
comprehensive training and career development program f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
analysts." The 1979 OPM report reiterated t h i s need for technical
training.
According to the Division's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n group manager, CMR analysts
need substantial technical training, but limited budget resources and
f i s c a l year 1980- 81 CMR schedule deadlines forced them to forego formal,
planned training.
Staff Shortages
The Division has had d i f f i c u l t y hiring qualified senior c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
analysts. Although it committed eight analyst positions to CMR i n the
f a l l of 1980, s t a f f members were not obtained for a l l positions u n t i l May
1981. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n group manager stated that Arizona is a t a
serious disadvantage i n recruiting experienced c l a s s i f i c a t i o n analysts
because s a l a r i e s a r e not competitive with other jurisdictions. Our
limited analysis of s a l a r i e s paid by adjacent s t a t e s for comparable
positions revealed that three of the five s t a t e s pay salaries 14 to 30
percent higher than i n Arizona.
Unrealistic Scheduling
The schedule overrun also can be attributed p a r t i a l l y t o the Division's
inexperience with a maintenance review program. According to Division
s t a f f , substantially more time has been required to gather data and to
investigate thoroughly for class reviews than had been originally
estimated.
Five- Year Goal W i l l Not Be Accomplished
The Division claims a five- year review of the e n t i r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan
is essential. However, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n group manager has stated the
five- year goal w i l l not be met i f present conditions and s t a f f i n g l e v e l s
continue. In order to meet the schedule there would have to be l e s s data
gathering, fewer desk audits and fewer sessions with the supervisors and
employees involved i n the reviews. Division s t a f f members fear that such
shortcuts would generate more challenges of analyst decisions and greater
mistrust o f ' the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system. Results of our survey of
supervisors and managers indicate one- third or fewer of the respondents
had favorable a t t i t u d e s regarding personnel analysts' a c t i v i t i e s . Table 7
summarizes the responses to three survey questions relating t o
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s .
TABLE 7
I; CTE: Respondents were asked:
,, . hcw m~ ch do ycu agree o r
dlsagree wlth the following
statements?"
RESPONSES TO SUPERVISORY SURVEY QUESTIOLJS
ABOUT CLASSIFICATION ACTIVITIES*
A l l Respondents Having Involvement with
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s A c t i v i t i e s a t Some Time During:
Last
Last 3 Yeers 12 Months
Strcnely
Disagree
Strongly Strongly c r
Disagree Disagree Undecided & Agree Disagree
17. Personnel Division a n s l y s t s obtain an
adequate understandily of ny organization
and t h e p o s i t i o n s being reviewed when doing
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n work. 1.1% 33% 29% 25% 2% 44%
18. I am adequately involved and consulted
by the Personnel Division when c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
work i s being done i n my area of supervision. 8% 34% 24% 33% 1% 40%
19. The Personnel Division makes adequate e f f o r t
to educate supervisors/ menagers about the
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n prccess and procedures. 14% 38% 2 1% 26% 1% 52%
* See questions 17, 18 and 19 i n Appendix 111.
I) a 6
A s Table 7 demonstrates, 42- 52 percent of the respondents disagree or
strongly disagree with the three statements concerning analysts'
a c t i v i t i e s ( compared with only 27- 34 percent agreed), i n d i c a t i n g t h e need
for continued, if not increased, onsite analysis and the involvement of
agency personnel affected by the reviews.
Backlog of Reclassification
Reauests Threatens CMR Schedule
An increasing backlog of individual requests f o r r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n reviews
also t h r e a t e n s t h e timely implementation of a long- term CMR program. Such
requests originate from agency managers and position incumbents asking for
review of t h e i r positions. A s noted e a r l i e r , the equivalent of one
analyst only a t the c e n t r a l personnel o f f i c e has been assigned t o t h i s
type of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a c t i v i t y since the f a l l of 1980. Requests are
f i l e d as received and normally are addressed on a first- come, f i r s t - s e r v e d
basis. Table 8 shows the increasing backlog of requests since July 1980.
TABLE 8
INDIVIDUAL REV1 EW REQUESTS PENDING AND COMPLETED
AT CENTRAL PERSONNEL, JULY 1980 - APRIL 1981
Month
July 1980
August
September
October
November
December
January 1981
February
March
April
Reviews
Completed
During Month
Percentage Increase
Requests Over the Requests
Pending a t Pending a t the End
End of Month of October 1980"
60
3 6
7 0
6 9
86
14 3
9 9
13 8
14 9
18 5
* The 1980- 81 CMR schedule began i n October 1980; at t h a t time the s t a f f i n g
changes occurred as explained on page 28.
Table 8 reveals t h a t the backlog of individual review requests increased
from 69 a t the end of October 1980 t o 185 a t the end of April 1981, a 168
percent increase i n only s i x months. The Division's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n group
manager expects t h i s backlog t o continue increasing.
CONCLUSION
The Personnel Division has f a i l e d to maintain the Uniform C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
Plan properly. An ongoing c l a s s i f i c a t i o n maintenance review ( CMR) program
was not implemented u n t i l f i s c a l year 1980- 81. More than half t h e c l a s s e s
i n the Uniform C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Plan, representing h a l f t h e positions i n
S t a t e service, have not been reviewed within t h e l a s t f i v e years. A s a
r e s u l t , the foundation of the personnel system is obsolete and the
Division' s a b i l i t y to achieve other personnel objectives is seriously
impaired. In addition, surveyed S t a t e service supervisors and managers
express a s u b s t a n t i a l lack of confidence i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n plan.
Since an ongoing CMR program is e s s e n t i a l to an effective State service
merit system, the Division appears to be committed t o a maintenance review
program. However, the schedule's timely implementation is endangered by
the following conditions:
1. Diversion of CMR s t a f f to s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s , usually on the
request or action of the Legislature or the Governor.
2. Lack of training and experience i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n maintenance
work.
3. Inadequate s t a f f i n g l e v e l s t o accomplish a five- year CMR schedule
and respond t o other requests without reducing the quality of
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n work.
REC OMMENDATI ONS
Consideration should be given t o the following recommendations:
1. Amend S t a t e law and Personnel Board Rules t o require an ongoing
CMR program and t o express a goal of reviewing a l l classes within
five- year cycles.
2. Staff the CMR u n i t continuously a t a level which w i l l enable the
Division to systematically review a l l classes by 1985 and take
appropriate measures t o protect those resources from diversion to
special projects.
3. S t a b i l i z e the increasing backlog of individual review rquests by:
a. Increasing the resources devoted t o t h i s a c t i v i t y a t the
Division c e n t r a l o f f i c e , or
b. Delegating more authority to agency- based personnel offices
to handle such requests, and establishing a strong audit
function a t the Division t o monitor these decentralized
a c t i v i t i e s .
4. Establish a , formal, comprehensive t r a i n i n g and development
program f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n analysts.
5. Conduct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and s a l a r y s t u d i e s f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
a n a l y s t p o s i t i o n s t o determine i f increases are needed so the
Division w i l l be competitive with o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s .
6. The Division include i n its budget request the resources needed
to accomplish these recommendations, subject to review by the
J o i n t Legislative Budget Committee s t a f f .
FINDING I1
IMPROVEPENTS ARE NEEDED I N THE PERSONNEL DIVISION'S RECRUITMENT EFFORT FOR
HARD- TO- FILL JOB CLASSIFICATIONS.
The Personnel Division is able to a t t r a c t s u f f i c i e n t numbers of qualified
applicants f o r most S t a t e positions. However, some job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ,
including some high- volume c l a s s e s , are hard t o f i l l . Our review of the
Division's recruitment e f f o r t f o r these h a r d - t o - f i l l c l a s s e s revealed t h a t
the Division has a competitive disadvantage with nongovernmental employers
and other governmental e n t i t i e s i n Arizona because competing employers use
more aggressive recruitment programs. A s a r e s u l t , the S t a t e may be
a t t r a c t i n g l e s s - q u a l i f i e d a p p l i c a n t s for h a r d - t o - f i l l classes. The
Division has used successfully specialized recruitment practices on a
limited basis f o r h a r d - t o - f i l l classes. The Division should use t h e s e
successful recruitment practices more often.
DOA- Personnel Generally
Provides Qualified A ~ ~ l i c a n t s
Our review revealed t h a t the Division is successful i n a t t r a c t i n g
s u f f i c i e n t numbers of qualified applicants f o r most job openings." Audit
s t a f f members gathered and analyzed four indicators of t h e D i v i s i o n ' s
effectiveness i n providing qualified applicants to hiring agencies f o r the
period March through December 1980. These four indicators are the
percentages of: 1) personnel r e q u i s i t i o n s which involved a request for a
supplemental hiring list, 2) hiring lists which e i t h e r had fewer than
seven or fewer than four applicar-; s, 3) hiring list questionnaire
responses which indicated t h a t t h e h i r i n g list was of poor q u a l i t y , and
4) surveyed supervisors and managers who indicated d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with
candidates referred by the Division. DOA- Personnel o f f i c i a l s discussed
the appropriateness of the f i r s t t h r e e i n d i c a t o r s with audit s t a f f and
agreed t h a t they are appropriate indicators of hard- to- fill job c l a s s e s ,
although the supplemental hiring list percentage was judged t o be the most
r e l i a b l e of the three. Table 9 shows the f i r s t t h r e e i n d i c a t o r s and the
overall r e s u l t s of our analyses.
* When an agency wants candidates for S t a t e s e r v i c e p o s i t i o n s from
outside S t a t e government, it sends a r e q u i s i t i o n t o the Division
i n d i c a t i n g t h e c l a s s and number of vacant positions. Upon r e c e i p t ,
the Division begins the recruitment process: 1) advertising the
vacancy, 2) screening applications and t e s t i n g applicants ( s e l e c t i o n
phase), 3) ranking the top candidates on a list ( list of c e r t i f i e d
applicants) and 4) sending the list t o the requesting agency. The
agency interviews candidates on the list and makes a selection.
TABLE 9
ANALYSIS OF THREE INDICATORS OF DOA- PERSOIINEL'S ABILITY
TO PROVIDE QUALIFIED APPLICANTS TO AGENCIES
DURING THE PERIOD hL4RCH THROUGII DECEMBER 1980
I n d i c a t o r Results of Analysis
1. The percentage of r e q u i s i t i o n s which required Number of r e q u i s i t i o n s i n analysis: 4,732
a request for a supplemental hiring l i s t . Number of r e q u i s i t i o n s requiring supplements: 506
( A supplemental l i s t is required when the f i r s t list Percentage: 10.7%
sent to the agency is not adequate.)
2. The percentage of hiring l i s t s which had
a. fewer than seven c e r t i f i e d applicants*
b. fewer than four c e r t i f i e d applicants
3 . The percentage of hiring list questionnaire
responsesY* which indicated t h a t the hiring
l i s t was of poor quality.
Number of hiring lists i n sample: 951
a. Number with fewer than seven c e r t i f i e d
applicants: 2 40
Percentage: 25.25%
b. Number with fewer than four c e r t i f i e d
applicants: 131
Percentage: 17.8$
lumber of questionnaires i n analysis: 1,406
Number of responses indicating poor quality: 108
Percentage: LLd$
* Personnel Board Rule R2- 5- 13. B. 1 s t a t e s the Division should r e f e r t o
the agency the seven most q u a l i f i e d applicants f o r an opening,
although fewer than seven names still c o n s t i t u t e s a v a l i d h i r i n g l i s t .
** Prior to March 1981, a simple questionnaire was sent to the agencies
with each hiring list. The questionnaire asked: " Was the q u a l i t y of
the majority of applicants: [ ] Excellent [ S a t i s f a c t o r y
[ j Below level required." Agencies were asked to r e t u r n t h e
questionnaire along with the used hiring list, although t h i s was not
always done. Since the conversion to an automated system i n March
1981, the question is printed d i r e c t l y on t h e h i r i n g list.
Table 9 demonstrates t h a t generally the Division provides requesting
agencies with s u f f i c i e n t numbers of qualified applicants. Only eleven
percent of personnel r e q u i s i t i o n s require a supplemental list, a
s i g n i f i c a n t improvement over the 20 percent r a t e i n October 1977, as cited
i n a 1978 Joint Legislative Budget Committee report. Of a l l hiring lists,
75 percent contained a t l e a s t seven c e r t i f i e d applicants, and 86 percent
contained a t l e a s t four. Only eight percent of the returned hiring list
questionnaires were rated a s poor.
The fourth indicator of effectiveness is an April 1981 Auditor General
survey of a random sample of S t a t e service supervisors and managers.
Respondents were asked t o what extent or how often the following statement
is true:
" Candidates referred t o me by the Personnel Division
meet the minimum q u a l i f i c a t i o n s needed f o r the job."
Only those supervisors/ managers who had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a hiring decision
i n the l a s t 12 months were asked to respond t o the statement." Table 10
summarizes t h e i r responses.
TABLE 10
RESULTS OF AN AUDITOR GENERAL SURVEY OF
SUPERV ISORS AND MANAGERS REGARDING THE QUALITY
OF C AND1 DATES REFERRED BY THE DIVISION
Respondents were asked how often t h i s statement is true:
" Candidates referred t o me by the Personnel Division meet
the minimum q u a l i f i c a t i o n s needed f o r the job."
Response Category
Never Seldom Sometimes Usually Alwavs
Results
Number 1 15 6 5 117 2 6
Percentage 0.4% 6.7% 2 9% 52 2% 11.6%
* Nine hundred t h i r t y - s i x supervisors and managers received the
questionnaire. Two hundred ninety- three completed and returned the
questionnaire, a 31 percent response r a t e . Of these 293, 224
responded to the statement.
A s Table 10 shows, 64 percent of the respondents indicated t h a t applicants
" usuallyn or " always" were qualified for the position. Appendix I11
summarizes the responses to s e v e r a l o t h e r recruitment- related questions
asked of supervisors and managers.
Too Few Qualified A ~ ~ l i c a n t s
for Some Classes
Although the Division generally is successful i n a t t r a c t i n g qualified
a p p l i c a n t s , our analysis i d e n t i f i e d classes of positions which apparently
are d i f f i c u l t t o f i l l . Some of these are r e l a t i v e l y high- volume classes
i n t h a t the S t a t e has several openings i n each of them every year.
Table 11 lists some of these high- volume classes and t h e i r associated
supplemental hiring list r a t e f o r the period March through December 1980.
TABLE 11
SUMMARY OF HIGH- VOLUME CLASSES AND THEIR
ASSOCIATED SUPPLEMENTAL HIRING LIST RATE*
FOR THE PERIOD MARCH THROUGH DECEMBER 1980
Class T i t l e
Total r e q u i s i t i o n s and percentage
average
Data Entry Operator I1
Data Entry Operator I11
Secretary I1
Administrative Secretary I
Word Processing Equipment Operator I1
Cashier I
Licensed P r a c t i c a l Nurse
Psychiatric Licensed P r a c t i c a l Nurse
Building Maintenance Worker I1
Nurse I1
Psychiatric Nurse
Program and Project S p e c i a l i s t I1
Teacher I n s t i t u t i o n a l Program
Number of
Requisitions
March through
December 1980
Associated
Supplemental
Hiring
L i s t Rate
( percentage)
* Only those classes with ten or more r e q u i s i t i o n s and a supplemental
r a t e of 20 percent or higher are l i s t e d i n t h i s table.
Table 11 is based on an analysis of r e q u i s i t i o n s received between March 1
and December 31, 1980. The supplemental hiring list r a t e for each class
l i s t e d i n Table 11 is well above the average r a t e of eleven percent for
a l l requisitions. According t o Division o f f i c i a l s , the supplemental
hiring list r a t e is probably the most r e l i a b l e indicator of a
d i f f i c u l t - t o - f i l l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . *
Unable to Compete with Other
Employers f o r Short- supply Groups
P r i v a t e s e c t o r employers and non- State governmental j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n
Arizona have more agressive recruitment programs than does DOA- Personnel,
p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r prospective employees i n short- supply occupational groups.
Audit s t a f f contacted the s i x l a r g e s t Arizona c i t i e s , Maricopa County and
several large Phoenix business firms t o determine t h e i r normal recruitment
p r a c t i c e s , as well a s t h e i r s p e c i a l r e c r u i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s f o r short- supply
occupational areas. Table 12 compares t h e a d v e r t i s i n g budget f o r job
vacancies of the Division with those of Phoenix, Tucson, Mesa, Tempe,
Glendale, Scottsdale and Maricopa County.
* Analyses of the second and t h i r d indicators revealed additional
classes which may have recruitment problems. The analysis r e s u l t s are
presented i n Appendix V I I . The general o f f i c e group and
nursing/ therapy s e r i e s appeared most frequently a s h a r d - t o - f i l l i n the
three kinds of analysis. Other classes may have recruitment problems
but f a i l to appear i n Table 11 or Appendix V I I because they did not
have enough openings to qualify for analysis.
0
Cn
d
d
iff
a, a, FIkS - .* m o i .
a ) U Q a, rl
+' U'
LR. 4 ", Xo 2
2 8 ~
a m 0 , k 5 ka; .:* o
Q 4 2 % G i .
E: Q E: 2 2
.; $ E 4 ' E
r'
+ E i m a , m k
5. z 2m 0k % 4
a'$ $,=$
2* : " 8 2 *- A = 0
g :' Lgg, m E c r
33 a, r-'? O A E m a
a) m
m. r. h - 0 :
"' 2 a:$
a > : +' a,:
m a :>. A
$+: a
22.4 E Z '
00; , a m ;
& m m a ,, 2 g 0
k E g m $ a
$ > G
O ~ , 0. d m a 0;'"
%, am : ti: a, a, o;
LA.-+' A = + 4 ? o s $ s k $ '"" 2 ';: 8 .
4 m a, m . 4
a,.$ ~ $ m 2 ~
. G 0s ha? g.:
+' G'a, 0 >
a, > m a , k
E: M c a A = m " a,
t. t Q H 0 H d . d *
A s revealed i n Table 12, the Division has the smallest advertising budget
of t h e e i g h t governmental j u r i s d i c t i o n s shown, based on the number of job
openings f i l l e d through outside recruitment. The next smallest
recruitment budget per job opening ( phoenix) is more than twice the
Division' s.
The c i t i e s of Mesa and Scottsdale c o n t r a c t with a professional advertising
agency to: I) research occupational markets, 2) determine where the best
recruitment opportunities are f o r p a r t i c u l a r kinds of short- supply s k i l l s ,
and 3) design and place advertising which w i l l reach prospective
employees. O f f i c i a l s i n both c i t i e s t o l d a u d i t s t a f f t h a t they are
s a t i s f i e d with the r e s u l t s of t h e i r contracts.
Nongovernmental employers also have more aggressive advertising programs
than does the State. For example, the following page contains a photocopy
of several advertisments from the same page of an Arizona newspaper dated
March 15, 1981. The difference between the Division's small advertisement
a t the l e f t of those of various hospitals is s i g n i f i c a n t , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n
t h a t each advertisement is designed t o r e c r u i t nurses.
( Reprinted with permiss ion from the Arizona Kepubl i c )
iaing in the core of the odult
FAMILY PRACTICE
Are you interested in
;; Ophthalmology . - aflnedx i1b2le h ;. stsahfifftisn agv? a il1a0-
ble on most units.
' . today with our Nurse Recruiter , 0 Telemetry Unit - 2nd 8 3rd Shiftr
ON CALL, ER, FAMILY '\, - # IKI O'KEEFFE, R. 1. ;.
PRACTICE & MED/ SURG " 258- 7373 EX^. 606 - - 0 SICU - 1st 8 2nd hik -
7 p m.. 7 0. m. - tends. 0 Med- Surg Unit- Limited number on
.. IstShift , :
0. Medicol- Primory Nursing Unh- 2,, d .
B 3rd Shifts ..
Part ond full time positions available
PT 7.3 8 3- 1 1 On- Call. on obove shifts. Prefer recent hospital
Contact Our nurse Recruiter Sandy
A1 st. w Pnynn* 01" Laaonte, 994- 9616 11 2620. For additional information
~ UwI J I - r W pn. 0x07 contact:
HELEN MECHALSKE, RN, MSN
NURSING OFFICE
( 602) 977- 7211, Ext 302
7400 E. OSBORN ROAD
XOTTSDALE. ARIZONA 85251
TELEPHONE: 994- 9616
HIGHER PAY RATES caUSurgical/ Trauma ICU, Cardiovascu-
' CHOICE OF SHIFTS, LOCATION,
FULL OR PART- TIME WORK
INSURANCE - COMPLETE COVERAGE
VACATION PAY
OVERTIME PAY, DIFFERENTIAL PAY
REFERRAL BONUSES ,
MUCH MORE
CALL US TODAY NURSE, Good Samaritan Hospital s:
AN0 WORK SMARTER! 1010 E. XlcDoweil Rd., Phoenir - fs.
5251 N. 16th Street, Suite 707
Phoenix. Arizona 86016
I
45
In addition t o using l a r g e r advertisements, competing p r i v a t e s e c t o r
employers and other s t a t e s also use o t h e r recruitment methods f a r more
extensively than the Division. Audit s t a f f asked s e v e r a l l a r g e companies
i n the Phoenix area and the personnel departments of adjacent s t a t e
governments how they r e c r u i t employees i n the electronic data processing
( EDP), engineering, nursing and s e c r e t a r i a l fields." Some practices
i d e n t i f i e d are :
1. Companies . with numerous EDP and engineering positions send
r e c r u i t e r s to dozens of c o l l e g e s a c r o s s the country twice a
year. One firm sends a r e c r u i t e r to c i t i e s having recent layoffs
i n these occupations, a f t e r preparing for interviews by placing
advance advertising i n c i t y newspapers.
2. Companies pay interview t r a v e l and relocation costs to r e c r u i t
out- of- State persons.
3. An Arizona hospital employs a full- time r e c r u i t e r and two
a s s i s t a n t s t o h i r e nursing personnel only. The r e c r u i t e r s v i s i t
Arizona nursing colleges and job f a i r s i n other s t a t e s , where
they may h i r e nurses on the spot. The hospital also sends
brochures t o nursing colleges throughout the country.
4. A large Arizona bank has a full- time r e c r u i t e r who v i s i t s high
schools and vocational schools to r e c r u i t s e c r e t a r i a l / c l e r i c a l
students.
5. New Mexico and Nevada have used professional advertising agencies
extensively, reporting excellent r e s u l t s .
6. California r e c r u i t s actively on college campuses and provides a
24- hour telephone recording of job openings.
* Generally considered to be short- supply occupational f i e l d s throughout
industry and government.
7. Colorado and Wyoming have established higher s a l a r i e s for
hard- to- fill classes than t h e i r salary survey medians would
i n d i c a t e , and several s t a t e s are using f l e x i b l e h i r i n g s t e p s for
some job classes.
8. Nevada's s t a t e agency o f f i c i a l s have the authority t o t r a v e l t o
r e c r u i t and to h i r e applicants on the spot.
D r . 0. Glenn Stahl, i n h i s textbook on public personnel administration,
lists the following as t y p i c a l of e n t e r p r i s i n g r e c r u i t i n g methods used by
public agencies:
" 1. Intensive c u l t i v a t i o n of newspaper, radio, and
t e l e v i s i o n o u t l e t s f o r news about public job
opportunities, usually on a ' p u b l i c s e r v i c e ' b a s i s
but often supplemented by imaginative paid
advertising. College and trade journals are also
useful media.
" 2. Maintenance and use of extensive mailing lists of
schools, labor unions, vocational counseling
o f f i c e s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y of organized
occupztional g r o u p s - - p r ~ f e s s i ~ n a l , technical, c r
trade-- including t h e i r membership lists, where
appropriate. Depending on the occupation, the
relevant organizations or t h e i r memberships are
c i r c u l a r i z e d with a t t r a c t i v e and informative data
about job and career opportunities.
" 3. Inviting. individuals t o s ~ e c i f v t h e i r vocational
i n t e r e s t s for future reference. When positions
open up, such expressions ( coded and recorded on
electronic equipment) yield automatic mailing
lists f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n , d i r e c t t o potential
applicants, of information about examination and
hiring procedure.
" 4. Careful development of long- term i n s t i t u t i o n a l
relationships with teachers, e d i t o r s , i n f l u e n t i a l
professional men and women, and labor leaders.
" 5. Preparation and s t r a t e g i c d i s t r i b u t i o n of
w e l l - i l l u s t r a t e d pamphlets, each on a separate
occupation or profession i n the service and the
career p o s i b i l i t i e s it offers.
" 6. For college- level positions, p a r t i c u l a r l y at
junior entrance l e v e l , - a c areer directory l i k e
t h a t produced by the U. S. Civil Service
Commission. It indexes and i l l u s t r a t e s
opportunities by college major as well a s by
occupational f i e l d and emphasizes the kind of work
programs i n which the positions e x i s t . This is a
valuable tool to have available i n l i b e r a l numbers
i n university placement offices.
" 7. Periodic v i s i t s , displays, and programs directed
to college campuses t c i n t e r e s t students i n
g- overnment work.
" 8. Maintaining dramatic and informative exhibits of
government careers a t conventions, s t a t e f a i r s ,
and similar assemblages where large numbers of
persons a r e i n attendance.
" 9. Holding ' open house' periodically i n those
agencies which have functions t h a t lend themselves
to public display-- whether it be the l o c a l
waterworks or a space science laboratory.
" 10. Personal l e t t e r s t o c o l l e g e s e n i o r s or- high school
seniors i n relevant i n s t i t u t i o n s .
" 11. Use of t o u r i s t bureau materials-- colorful,
descriptive booklets and maps-- especially - f o r
out- of- area prospects." (~ mphasisa dded)
-
Reasons for Lack of Aggressive
Recruitment Program
According to our audit review, several reasons explain the lack of an
aggressive recruitment program by DOA- Personnel: 1) workload increasing
f a s t e r than s t a f f i n g and funding l e v e l s , 2) inadequate analysis of
recruitment problems, and 3) r e s t r i c t i o n s i n S t a t e law.
Comoarison of Workload Increases.
Staffing and Funding Levels
Workload for t h e D i v i s i o n ' s recruitment s t a f f increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y from
1978- 79 to 1979- 80, a s indicated by the numbers of r e q u i s i t i o n s received
and applicants processed. Table 13 shows workload data f o r f i s c a l year
1977- 78 through 1980- 81.
TABLE 13
RECRUI T E N T WORKL OAD INDICATORS ,
FISCAL YEARS 19 77- 78 THROUGH 1980- 81
Workload
Indicator
1979- 80
Percentage
Increase
1977- 78 1978- 79 1979- 80 over 1978- 79 1980- 81
Number of
r e q u i s i t i o n s
from agencies . 6,937 7,500 8,151 9% 7,345
Number of
applications
processed 60,659 61,000 80,636 3 2% 77,642
Table 13 reveals t h a t 32 percent more applications were processed i n
1979- 80 than i n the prior f i s c a l year. This increase was handled without
enlarging the permanent recruitment s t a f f , although several Federally
funded CETA positions were added. In 1980- 81, while the number of
r e q u i s i t i o n s declined, the number of job applications remained near the
previous y e a r ' s level. Apprvxiruateiy i ~ a i f iiie 12 ZETA positiorls assigned
to recruitment were vacant during the f i r s t nine months of 1980- 81, and
a l l CETA positions were eliminated i n April 1981. No new permanent
positions were added t o the recruitment s t a f f i n f i s c a l 1980- 81.
Division o f f i c i a l s claim these conditions have precluded s t a f f and funds
a v a i l a b i l i t y f o r some of the more aggressive methods of a t t r a c t i n g
prospective employees. In f a c t , the vacancies i n and eventual elimination
of CETA positions caused Division o f f i c i a l s to g r e a t l y reduce telephone
a v a i l a b i l i t y checks i n f i s c a l 1980- 81, d i r e c t l y affecting the q u a l i t y of
hiring lists.
It should be noted t h a t Division requests f o r increased advertising
budgets f o r f i s c a l years 1980- 81 and 1981- 82 were denied by the
Legislature. For f i s c a l year 1981- 82, the Division requested an
advertising budget increase of $ 20,550, but the Legislature approved only
an i n f l a t i o n a r y allowance increase of $ 3,920, or ten percent of the f i s c a l
1980- 81 budget.
Inadequate Analysis of
Recruitment Problems
DOA- Personnel's current recruitment program is based on an inadequate
management information system. The Division r e l i e s primarily on informal
means t o i d e n t i f y hard- to- fill job classes and t o evaluate the r e s u l t s of
recruitment techniques. Much documented data presently is collected by
the Division from outside sources t h a t could be used t o i d e n t i f y c l e a r l y
t h e n a t u r e and extent of recruitment problems. However, t h i s data is not
analyzed systematically to i d e n t i f y hard- to- fill job classes.
For example, the Division could r e p l i c a t e our analysis of the recruitment
indicators shown i n Tables 9, 10 and 11 and i n Appendix 111. In addition,
the Division could devise a means t o determine the number of applicants
generated by each recruitment method.
I n our opinion, the Division could a l l o c a t e its existing recruitment
resources more e f f e c t i v e l y i f it had a management information system that
c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d hard- to- fill job classes and allowed f o r monitoring and
evaluating overall effectiveness of specific recruitment t a c t i c s .
Restrictions i n S t a t e Law
Arizona law prohibits a State agency from paying t r a v e l and related
expenses t o persons who interview f o r State jobs. A. R. S. $ 35- 196.01 reads:
" After July 1, 1978 no appropriated monies may be
expended by any budget u n i t for transportation or other
t r a v e l expenses necessary f o r bringing any person i n t o
t h i s s t a t e who is not a resident of t h i s s t a t e for an
interview f o r ~ r o s ~ e c t i v e em~ lovment nor for
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n or f o r moving expenses f o r any person
newly employed or retained unless such monies are
appropriated f o r such s p e c i f i c purposes." ( ~ m ~ h a s i s
added)
Division o f f i c i a l s claim out- of- State r e c r u i t i n g would be much more
effective i f advertising could include an inducement t h a t interview costs
would be paid by the State. Such is a frequent practice among large
employers i n the private sector. In addition, some companies also pay
relocation costs for selected new employees.
Recruitment Program Affects
Quality of State Government
Documentation is not available regarding the number of well- qualified
prospective employees the S t a t e has l o s t t o its competitors because of
t h e i r more aggressive recruitment practices. However, a reasonable
conclusion, especially i n the competitive short- supply occupational
groups, is offered by D r . Stahl, who emphasizes t h a t the absence of an
aggressive recruitment program r e s u l t s i n l e s s - q u a l i f i e d a p p l i c a n t s f o r a
merit employment system:
" A PIERIT SYSTEM does not l i v e up to its name unless it
plans systematically t o replenish its manpower, unless
the f i e l d within which i t may seek applicants is as
broad and unfettered a s pessible, and unless it uses as
modern and a s aggressive recruitment methods as it can
find or invent. I f the manaower assessment and
recruitment program does not reach out and a t t r a c t the
best minds and s k i l l s t o apply f o r employment, then the
r e s t of the s t a f f i n g process consists merely of a
sorting out among the mediocre and the ill qualified."
( Emphasis added)
Ten thousand new employees ( 6,000 permanent full- time, 4,000 part- time or
seasonal) hired f o r State service i n f i s c a l year 1981- 82 w i l l be paid
approximately $ 100,000,000 during t h e i r f i r s t year. Assuming t h a t the
quality of new employees a f f e c t s productivity, then even a modest
improvement i n the quality of these employees could t r a n s l a t e i n t o a
s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n productivity. An additional e f f e c t of recruitment
d i f f i c u l t i e s occurs when positions remain vacant, causing disruptions and
delays i n agency programs or services.
Soecial Recruitment Practices
Have Been Tried on a Limited Basis
The Division has attempted successfully several s p e c i a l recruitment
e f f o r t s t o a t t r a c t more qualified applicants f o r some of the hard- to- fill
job classes. These special recruitment e f f o r t s include:
1. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n adjustments and hiring a t advanced steps i n the
pay grade;
2. Immediate t e s t i n g and/ or r e f e r r a l of applicants ( such as
automated records c l e r k s , d a t a e n t r y operators, nurses and EDP
programmers/ analyst s) t o requesting agencies;
3. Limited s t a f f v i s i t s t o technical schools and community colleges
to t a l k with students of selected s k i l l s ;
4. A productivity incentive plan f o r data entry operators;
5. Promotion of some h a r d - t o - f i l l jobs through radio and TV public
service announcements; and
6. Occasional use of a professional advertising firm f o r advice
regarding p a r t i c u l a r job openings.
In addition, i n June 1980, the Personnel Board gave the a s s i s t a n t
d i r e c t o r , DOA- Personnel, authority t o waive Board recruitment r u l e s f o r
hard- to- fill classes." This waiver has been applied t o various nursing
classes i n t h a t an agency now can h i r e an applicant f o r one of these
positions without interviewing every person on t h e h i r i n g list.
According t o DOA- Personnel managers, application of the s p e c i a l p r a c t i c e s
has been e f f e c t i v e , but the Division cannot apply these methods more often
because of limited s t a f f resources. Instead, they have r e l i e d on
t r a d i t i o n a l methods of seeking employees through advertisements, local
newspapers and posting job announcements a t public locations throughout
the State.
* Adopted as an emergency measure i n June 1980. I n December 1980 the
r u l e was adopted formally by the Board.
CONCLUSION
DOA- Personnel successfully r e c r u i t s s u f f i c i e n t numbers of qualified
applicants f o r most S t a t e service jobs. However, a number of job
classes - p a r t i c u l a r l y those i n short- supply occupational groups - are
d i f f i c u l t to f i l l . The Division conducts a l a r g e l y passive recruitment
program as compared to those of nongovernmental employers and other
governmental j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n Arizona. Unless more aggressive recruitment
methods are used, the S t a t e w i l l continue to compete a t a disadvantage i n
a t t r a c t i n g q u a l i f i e d a p p l i c a n t s f o r positions i n short- supply occupational
groups. A s a r e s u l t , the S t a t e may be a t t r a c t i n g less- qualified
applicants f o r hard- to- fill classes.
REC OMJD3NDATI ONS
Consideration should be given the following recommendations:
1. The Division improve its management information system regarding
recruitment a c t i v i t i e s i n order t o determine periodically:
a. Which employment classes need special recruitment methods, and
b. How e f f e c t i v e s p e c i f i c recruitment t a c t i c s are i n a t t r a c t i n g
qualified applicants.
2. The Division f u l l y u t i l i z e opportunities f o r f r e e public service
announcements on radio and t e l e v i s i o n to promote
d i f f i c u l t - t o - f ill job openings.
The Division, i n conjunction with appropriate S t a t e agencies,
take the following steps to r e c r u i t f o r openings i n short- supply
occupational groups:
a. Increase the r e c r u i t i n g of individuals a t technical schools
and colleges and develop S t a t e agency employees a s part- time
r e c r u i t e r s .
b. Publish recruitment brochures describing career/ promotional
opportunities available i n State service.
c. Establish internship programs which w i l l be a t t r a c t i v e t o
students of short- supply occupations.
d. U t i l i z e immediate t e s t i n g and r e f e r r a l procedures more often
f o r h a r d - t o - f i l l c l a s s e s .
4. The Division use the expertise of professional advertising
agencies more often f o r hard- to- fill job classes.
5. The Legislature consider:
a. Increasing DOA- Personnel funding f o r advertising job
openings, and
b. Revising A. R. S. $ 35- 196.01 to allow the S t a t e t o pay
interview expenses of out- of- State candidates f o r selected
hard- to- f ill classes.
FINDING I11
REDUCING REQUISITION CANCELATIONS WILL ELIMINATE UNPRODUCTIVE WORK FOR THE
PERSONNEL DIVISION.
Many personnel r e q u i s i t i o n s received by the Division are canceled by
requesting agencies a f t e r the recruitment process has begun, In 1980, the
percentage of r e q u i s i t i o n cancelations was v i r t u a l l y the same as the
percentage i n 1972, when r e q u i s i t i o n cancelations were similarly
i d e n t i f i e d as a problem. Canceled r e q u i s i t i o n s generate: 1) a
s u b s t a n t i a l amount of nonproductive work, and 2) s i g n i f i c a n t public
r e l a t i o n s problems for the Division. Although the Division has addressed
some of the causes f o r r e q u i s i t i o n cancelations, a f u r t h e r reduction i n
the percentage of cancelations is unlikely unless the Division c o l l e c t s
and analyzes data regarding the sources of and reasons f o r cancelations.
Reauisition Cancelations
Remain a P e r s i s t e n t Problem
When a S t a t e agency wants t o f i l l positions through outside recruitment,
it sends a r e q u i s i t i o n t o the Division indicating t h e c l a s s and number of
positions to be f i l l e d . The r e q u i s i t i o n form s t a r t s the recruitment
process.
Between March 1 and December 31, 1980, approximately 16 percent ( 744 of
4,732) of the r e q u i s i t i o n s received by the Division ultimately were
canceled." This 16 percent cancelation r a t e is s l i g h t l y lower than the
r a t e of 19 percent f o r the period July through November 1977, as
determined by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee ( JLBC) s t a f f , and is
within the range of a 15 t o 20 percent r a t e estimated by Arthur Young and
Company** i n a 1973 study covering f i s c a l year 1971- 72. Clearly,
cancelations have been a p e r s i s t e n t problem for the Division, and l i t t l e
improvement has been made since the problem f i r s t was i d e n t i f i e d .
Generates Nonproductive Work
A 16 percent cancelation r a t e represents a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of
unutilized work. Most of the canceled r e q u i s i t i o n s a r e not canceled u n t i l
a f t e r the Personnel Division has prepared hiring lists ( containing names
of c e r t i f i e d applicants) and has sent them t o the requesting agencies.
Of 4,732 r e q u i s i t i o n s received by the Division between March 1 and
December 31, 1980, 15.7 percent ( 744) were canceled. Table 14 shows what
portion of these cancelations occurred a f t e r hiring lists had been
compiled f o r the requesting agencies.
* Many r e q u i s i t i o n s i n s t r u c t the Division t o r e c r u i t for two or more
positions i n the same class. In our analysis a r e q u i s i t i o n was
counted as a cancelation only i f - a l l positions requested were
canceled.
** Arthur Young and Company is an i n t e r n a t i o n a l c e r t i f i e d public
accounting firm. Its 1973 study was commissioned by the J L E .
TABLE 14
CANCELATI ON OF REQUISITIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN
MARCH 1 AND DECEMBER 31, 1980
Reauisitions Canceled - 744
Involving new outside recruitment
Involving existing r e g i s t e r s
Unknown
Totals
Before Hiring After Hiring
L i s t Sent L i s t Sent
9 1 145
Percentage of t o t a l cancelations a %
A s shown i n Table 14, 507 ( or 68 percent of the 744) cancelations were
made a f t e r the Division prepared hiring lists and sent them t o the
requesting agencies. In the cases involving outside recruitment, the
Division had performed the following tasks: 1) prepared and d i s t r i b u t e d
a d v e r t i s i n g m a t e r i a l s , 2) received and evaluated applications,
3) administered and scored t e s t s , as appropriate, 4) notified applicants
of scores, and 5) compiled and sent to the agencies lists of c e r t i f i e d
applicants ( generally known as hiring l i s t s ) . We estimate t h a t during
1980 the equivalent of approximately f o u r f u l l - t i m e p o s i t i o n s was devoted
to canceled requisitions.
Canceled Requisitions Cause
Public Relations Problems
According t o Division o f f i c i a l s , canceled r e q u i s i t i o n s c r e a t e a public
r e l a t i o n s problem f o r the State. Canceled r e q u i s i t i o n s i n 1980 needlessly
generated an estimated 3,700 applications.* This not only represents a
waste of time for those persons who applied, but unduly raised t h e i r hopes
for employment.
* In the period July- December 1980 the Division received 3,323
r e q u i s i t i o n s and 43,928 applications, an average of 13 applications
for each requisition. Canceled r e q u i s i t i o n s from March through
December 1980 involving outside recruitment totaled 236. Applied on a
12- month basis, the canceled r e q u i s i t i o n s could represent a s many a s
3,682 needless applications.
Various Reasons for Cancelations
Division o f f i c i a l s i d e n t i f i e d the following reasons f o r r e q u i s i t i o n
cancelations:
1. An agency ultimately may f i l l a position with a s t a f f member
through i n t e r n a l promotion, even though the Division was asked to
perform outside recruitment a t the same time. The agency then
cancels the requisition.
2. A State employee may learn about a vacancy through a Division job
announcement, discuss the job with the hiring supervisor and
negotiate a t r a n s f e r to the position. The supervisor then
cancels t h e r e q u i s i t i o n .
3. Outside recruitment may not locate a candidate superior t o one of
an agency's own employees, and it may decide t o promote a current
s t a f f member.
4. An employee who has announced h i s retirement or resignation may
change h i s mind, thereby negating the need to find a replacement.
5. Agency management may withdraw a r e q u i s i t i o n pending the r e s u l t s
of a r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n review concerning the vacant position.
6 . Unexpected budget cuts ( s t a t e or ~ e d e r a l ) may force withdrawal of
a requisition.
Other possible reasons are not documented i n the d a t a c o l l e c t e d by the
Division.
In a December 1977 memorandum, the Division informed State agency
directors of policy r e s t r i c t i o n s intended t o curb the number of
cancelations caused by t r a n s f e r s and i n t e r n a l promotions. Division
analysts assigned t o the agencies were charged with implementing these
r e s t r i c t i o n s . Although these actions may have contributed t o the three
percent reduction i n the cancelation r a t e between 1977 and 1980 ( from 19
percent to 16 percent), there is no documentation t o confirm t h a t theory,
nor has the Division compiled data t o a s s e s s t h e impact of other actions
it has taken to reduce the cancelation rate.
Further Reduction i n Cancelation
Rate May Be Possible
Further reduction of the cancelation r a t e would reduce the Division's
workload, but such reductions are u n l i k e l y u n l e s s the Division c o l l e c t s
and analyzes data regarding the sources and reasons for cancelations. By
gathering such information, the Division could: 1) i d e n t i f y t h e numbers
of and reasons for cancelations by each State agency, 2 ) take steps t o
resolve s p e c i f i c problems, and 3) monitor the impact of those actions.
A minor revision i n an existing information system i n the Division may
s a t i s f y t h i s need. The r e q u i s i t i o n or hiring list forms could be modified
s l i g h t l y t o request agencies t o note reasons f o r cancelations. The
reasons could be entered i n t o the ~ i v i s i o n ' s word processor along with
other data now recorded about requisitions. With such automated means of
recording and processing the cancelation data, minimal additional s t a f f
time would be required t o i d e n t i f y and analyze specific problem areas.
C ONCLUSI ON
High numbers of canceled r e q u i s i t i o n s continue t o waste Personnel Division
recruitment s t a f f resources. Canceled r e q u i s i t i o n s account f o r a
s u b s t a n t i a l portion of the recruitment workload and create public
r e l a t i o n s problems. Since 1972, t h e o v e r a l l cancelation r a t e has remained
v i r t u a l l y the same. The Division's a b i l i t y to reduce the cancelation r a t e
is hampered by inadequate data regarding the sources of and reasons for
canceled requisitions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Consideration should be given t o the following recommendations:
1. The Division develop an information system which w i l l allow
collection and analysis of data on a continuous basis regarding
the sources of and reasons f o r cancelations. An adequate system
can be developed by using existing equipment and modifying
current forms.
2. Based on such analysis, the Division i d e n t i f y those agencies with
excessive cancelation r a t e s , determine the causes f o r such
cancelations and i n i t i a t e corrective action.
3. The Division monitor the impact of corrective actions by
continuing to c o l l e c t and anaylze cancelation data.
FINDING I V
ILL- DEFINED TRAINING ROLES IMPAIR THE PERSONNEL DIVISION ' S ABILITY TO
IMPROVE STATE EMPLOYEES ' PRODUCTIVITY.
According to Personnel Board rules, the a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r of
DOA- Personnel must a s s i s t and cooperate with agencies t o improve t h e i r
training programs. However, Division e f f o r t s t o coordinate and promote
training have fluctuated widely over the past s i x years.
The Division's training program received s u b s t a n t i a l emphasis i n f i s c a l
years 1975- 76 and 1980- 81; however, i n intervening years the Division
undertook only a few, isolated coordinative a c t i v i t i e s and provided
r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e technical assistance t o other agencies. I n the absence
of consistent Division d i r e c t i o n , S t a t e agencies continued t o develop and
conduct independently t h e i r own t r a i n i n g programs or developed no programs
a t a l l . A s a r e s u l t , there is 1) a wide d i s p a r i t y among agencies i n
training opportunities available to employees, and 2) a p o t e n t i a l for
duplicate training programs. This s i t u a t i o n appears t o be because of
1 ) t h e lack of c l e a r l y defined t r a i n i n g r o l e s , i n s t a t u t e s o r Board rules,
e i t h e r f o r the Division o r S t a t e agencies and 2) an inconsistent
commitment of funds by the Division f o r t r a i n i n g programs.
Ill- defined Statutes and Board Rules
Regarding t h e D i v i s i o n ' s Training Responsibilities
Statutes provide l i t t l e direction concerning in- service training f o r S t a t e
employees. A. R. S. $ 41- 783 s t a t e s that Personnel Board rules s h a l l include:
" 18. Development and operation of programs to
improve the work effectiveness and morale of employees
i n the s t a t e service, including the development of
in- service training programs. "
While current laws do not mention e x p l i c i t training r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for
DOA- Personnel, Board rules do define some r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . R2- 5- 02. E
s t a t e s t h a t a duty of the a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r of the Division is t o develop
s t a f f t r a i n i n g programs :
" 6. To develop, i n cooperation with appointing
a u t h o r i t i e s and others, t r a i n i n g , educational, and
s t a f f development programs on an equal opportunity
basis f o r employees i n agencies covered by these Rules."
R2- 5- 02. G provides the a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r with more s p e c i f i c duties:
" G. Programs f o r employee development:
" 1. The Assistant Director s h a l l cooperate with
agency heads i n developing and promoting programs f o r
employee t r a i n i n g , s a f e t y , morale, work motivation,
health, retirement counseling, and welfare.
" 2. The Assistant Director s h a l l a s s i s t agencies -
i n determining needs f o r employee development.
" 3. The Assistant Director s h a l l develop and
conduct i n t e r d e ~ a r t m e n t a l Drograms: s h a l l a s s i s t with
planning and conducting employee development programs
for individual departments; and s h a l l a s s i s t agencies
i n evaluating training.
" 4. he ~ s s i s t a n t Director s h a l l provide advice
and counsel on employee development as requested by the
agencies.
" 5. The Assistant Director s h a l l e s t a b l i s h
working r e l a t i o n s with educational i n s t i t u t i o n s
regarding employee development and continuing education
- p rograms for both present and p o t e n t i a l S t a t e employees. -
" 6. The ~ s s i s t a n t~ i r e c t o rs h a l l keep records on
training equipment, f a c i l i t i e s , budgets, and training
~ e r s o n n e li n S t a t e Service." ( ~ m ~ h a saidsd ed)
The Board rules appear to define the role of the Division as a coordinator
and provider of technical assistance and interdepartmental training
programs.
Training Efforts Have Been
Unstable and Minimal i n Recent Years
The Division has a uneven history of training a c t i v i t i e s within the scope
of possible a c t i v i t i e s outlined i n Personnel Board rules. Table 15
summarizes t h e D i v i s i o n ' s training and employee development a c t i v i t i e s for
the six- year period 1975- 76 through 1980- 81.
TABLE 15
DOA- PERSONNEL TRAINING AND EPPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES,
FISCAL YEARS 1975- 76 THROUGH 1980- 81
Division Duties Listed i n Board Rules 971- 87919- 7- 75 1979- 80 1980- 81
Conduct interagency programs: - New- employee orientation ( monthly) X X X X X X - Preretirement seminars X X X X X X - Performance planning and evaluation workshops
for supervisors X X X * X X - ~ u ~ e r v i s o r ~ / m a n a ~ e mdevnetl opment X X+**
- Others X** x***
Assist i n developing and/ or conducting programs for
individual agencies ( other than shown above)
Assist agencies i n determining needs for employee
development X X*
Assist agencies i n evaluating training X
Provide advice and counsel on employee development as
requested by agencies X unknown-------------------------------------------
Establish/ maintain working relationships with educational
i n s t i t u t i o n s regarding continuing education programs*"*** X X X X X X
Inventory training resources and programs i n agencies X . X
cn
W Staffing and Funding Levels
Full- time equivalent positions involved i n training
a c t i v i t i e s 7 0 1 1 3 8
Division funds dedicated to training a c t i v i t i e s :
- S t a t e ( estimated) $ 0 $ 20,000 $ 22,000 $ 60,000 $ 127,100 - Federal 0 $ 0 $ o $ 0 $ 7,152 $ 73,500
* Given to one agency only.
** According to the Division's 1975- 76 Annual Report, additional courses were
provided regularly: c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of productive groups ; equal employment and
human r e l a t i o n s ; insurance seminars; interviewing procedures; c l e r i c a l lab; work
simplification; effective communications; and management by objectives.
*** Workshop for hearing offices.
**** Several modules of t h i s program also are offered independently of the program as
a whole.
**** The Division's only involvement i n t h i s program is t o publicize the schedule of
classes offered i n the Capitol complex by t h e u n i v e r s i t y and colleges.
Table 15 demonstrates the wide fluctuation of Division resources ( s t a f f
and funds) devoted t o t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s during the six- year period ended
June 30, 1981. It should be noted that the Division largely has neglected
its coordinative and technical assistance r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , which include
inventorying agency training resources and programs, a s s i s t i n g agencies i n
assessing training needs and developing and evaluating agency- specific
programs. Further, the only areas i n which the Division has demonstrated
a consistency is i n conducting interdepartmental programs and publicizing
the continuing education programs of t h e u n i v e r s i t y and colleges.
Interdepartmental programs, too, were limited between f i s c a l years 1975- 76
and 1980- 81.
The emphasis of the Division's training e f f o r t s i n f i s c a l year 1980- 81 was
on the implementation of the Management Development Program ( MDP),
patterned a f t e r the c e r t i f i e d public manager program i n the s t a t e of
Georgia. Those who have received t h i s t r a i n i n g generally r a t e it
favorably and, as of April 13, 1981, there was a waiting list of employees
who wish t o p a r t i c i p a t e . In order to reach more employees, the Division
has begun identifying and approving agency i n s t r u c t o r s who can d e l i v e r the
training t o employees within t h e i r own agencies.
In f i s c a l year 1980- 81 the Division also designed a training- needs
assessment survey questionnaire, which has been u t i l i z e d by one large
agency. The Division has offered t o provide the questionnaire t o any
State agency and help plan a t r a i n i n g program based on the survey r e s u l t s .
Agencies Develop Training
Programs without Division Guidance
In the absence of assistance or guidance from DOA- Personnel, each S t a t e
agency e i t h e r has continued t o develop its own t r a i n i n g and employee
development programs or has developed no programs a t all. A s a r e s u l t ,
there is 1) a wide d i s p a r i t y among agencies as t o t r a i n i n g and
development opportunities available t o employees, and 2) a p o t e n t i a l for
costly duplication of t r a i n i n g programs.
Wide Disparity i n Opportunities
For S t a t e Em~ loyees
A review of the training programs i n the eight l a r g e s t S t a t e service
agencies revealed s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the range and amount of
training opportunities available t o agencies' employees. S t a t e
Compensation Fund employees, and those of the Department of Corrections
( DOC), Department of Economic Security ( DES) and Department of
Transportation ( ADOT), f o r example, appear to have greater opportunities
through training to expand t h e i r s k i l l s and prepare f o r career advancement
than do employees i n other large sgencies. Table 16 summarizes the
training programs i n t h e e i g h t l a r g e s t S t a t e service agencies.
SilX'ARY OF TRA1l'iI: IC PtiOZRAKS I N
TrlE EIGHT LAE( GEST STATE- SERVICE AGEiICIEG*
Agency P r o e r c ~ : , ~ ~
: iuZ. Lcr uf Forntll E: nployee Generic
Fdil- t1r. e 2,1ui-.~ tile~. t U r i t ten Developaent Supcrvir; ory/ l~ ar~ ai~ cmerit ~ k i l l ! j / G e n e r a l T u i t i o n R e i ~ ! b u r s e ~ i . ~ ~ t
E::;> laycc~) ? 9:, 3- el** Trairiinx P o l i c y P r o ~ : r t l n / C o u n o e l i ~ ~ ~ Development*** I n t e r e s t Courses Policy
ii u l O v ~ t i . i t i o : i ar.: t i s r : s
rcia! ursccent f o r
job- rultltcd cuilrzc;
x 0
Yes
lu' o 1io p o l i c y
:: t a t e Cornpensation Fund Yes ( c o u n s e l i n g
i d e n t i f i e s Yes ( 3- day c o u r s e )
s p e c i f i c c o u r s e s )
Yes 100% t u i t i o n paid i n
advance f o r j o b - r e l a t e d
c o u r s e s
Department of Revenue N 0 No p o l i c y
:, epartment of Health
Services No ( program
b e i n g d e s i g n e d )
N o 100% t u i t i o n
reimbursement ( maxinum
$ 125) and up t o $ 20
i'or books; j o b - r e l a t e d
c o u r s e s only
Yes Yes ( l i m i t e d ) Yes ( a l s o uses
D i v i s i o n progra