STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF THE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STAFFING RELATIONSHIPS AND STAFFING TRENDS
FEBRUARY 1983
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 83- 3
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
February 28, 1983
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Mr. William A. Ordway, Director
Arizona Department of Transportation
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Arizona Department of Transportation, Staffing Relationships
and Staffing Trends. This report is the s i x t h of a s e r i e s of r e p o r t s t o
be issued on the Arizona Department of Transportation and is i n response
t o Senate B i l l 1001 enacted by the T h i r t y - f i f t h Legislature, Second
Special Session i n 1981.
The blue pages present a summary of the report; a response from the
Arizona Department of Transportation 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 o r c l a r i f y items i n the report.
M
Respectfully submitted,
V Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
Staff: William Thomson
Steve H. Thacker
Stephen G. Adelstein
Enclosure
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STAFFING RELATIONSHIPS AND STAFFING TRENDS
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STAXE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 83- 3
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
FINDING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Department may have been overstaffed i n the
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and support areas i n r e c e n t y e a r s ; however,
a projected expansion of c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y is expected
t o increase work load f o r some of t h e s e a r e a s .
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
Survey Definitions
APPENDIX I1
C r i t e r i a Used t o Determine S i m i l a r i t y Between
ADOT and Highway Agencies i n Other S t a t e s
Page
i
1
3
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 - Ratios of Highway- Related Administrative/ Support
t o Field Personnel f o r Arizona and 12 Surveyed
S t a t e s
TABLE 2 - Ratios of Highway- Related Personnel per Lane Mile
f o r Arizona and 12 Surveyed S t a t e s 9
TABLE 3 - Ratios of Highway- Related Personnel per $ 1,000 of
Capital Outlay f o r Arizona and 12 Surveyed S t a t e s 11
TABLE 4 - A Su~ nmary of 3 R a t i o s R e l a t i n g t o Administrative/
Support S t a f f i n g f o r Arizona and 12 Surveyed S t a t e s 13
The Cffice of the Auditor General has completed a performance a u d i t of
s t a f f i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s and s t a f f i n g trends i n the Arizona Department of
Transportation ( ADOT). This a u d i t was conducted i n response t o Senate
B i l l 1001, enacted by the T h i r t y - f i f t h L e g i s l a t u r e , Second S p e c i a l S e s s i o n
r e q u i r i n g a performance a u d i t of ACOT and i s one of a s e r i e s t o be
completed on the Department.
ADOT i s one of the l a r g e s t S t a t e agencies a s measured by the 3,871
budgeted FTEs f o r f i s c a l year 1982- 83. Over 2,900 of these budgeted FTEs
a r e e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o highway maintenance or
construction.
Although ADOT has undertaken s e v e r a l p r o j e c t s i n r e c e n t y e a r s t o improve
the e f f i c i e n c y of its work f o r c e , previous performance a u d i t s of ADOT
indicated o v e r s t a f f i n g i n s e v e r a l p a r t s of the agency. Because of t i m e
c o n s t r a i n t s and ADOT's s i z e , we could not perform a d e t a i l e d study t o
s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y a l l instances of o v e r s t a f f i n g . Therefore, t h i s
a u d i t was designed t o determine i f the Department's highway- related
operations, a s a whole, appear t o be overstaffed. Our a n a l y s i s included 2
p a r t s : 1 ) a study of 5- year s t a f f i n g t r e n d s w i t h i n ADOT and 2) a
comparison of ADOT's s t a f f i n g l e v e l s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o highway agencies
i n 12 other western s t a t e s .
The r e s u l t s of the five- year trend a n a l y s i s were inconclusive. The
comparison t o other s t a t e s r highway agencies i n d i c a t e d t h a t ADOT may have
been o v e r s t a f f e d i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and support functions i n recent
years; however, a p r o j e c t e d increase i n c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y is now
expected t o increase work load f o r some of these a r e a s . Therefore, any
s t a f f i n g c u t s should be made only a f t e r f u r t h e r s t u d y o f the impact of
t h i s increased work load on i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s within ADOT.
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance a u d i t of
s t a f f i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s and t r e n d s w i t h i n the Arizona Department of
Transportation ( ADOT) i n response t o Senate B i l l 1001 enacted by the
Thirty- f i f th L e g i s l a t u r e , Second Special Session i n 1981. This r e p o r t is
one of a s e r i e s t o be completed on t h e Department of Transportation.
ADOT is one of the l a r g e s t S t a t e agencies a s measured by budgeted FTEs f o r
f i s c a l year 1982- 83. kDOT1s f i s c a l year 1982- 83 budget shows a t o t a l of
3,871 FTEs, of which approximately 2,923 a r e d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y
r e l a t e d to t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n or maintenance of the S t a t e highway system
( t h a t is, highway- related employees*).
The need f o r a study of ADOT1s o v e r a l l s t a f f i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s and trends
became apparent when s e v e r a l of our previous performance a u d i t s of ADOT
i n d i c a t e d o v e r s t a f f i n g i n s e v e r a l p a r t s of the agency. Because of time
c o n s t r a i n t s and ADOT1s s i z e , however, we could n o t perform a d e t a i l e d
study which would i d e n t i f y a l l a r e a s of o v e r s t a f f i n g i n the agency. For
t h i s reason, a s t u d y of s t a f f i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s and trends was undertaken
t o determine the p o t e n t i a l f o r personnel reductions i n ADOT1s
highway- related operations a s a whole.
* We defined highway- related employees a s a l l personnel d i r e c t l y
involved i n highway- related f u n c t i o n s p l u s a p r o p o r t i o n a t e share of
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel a s explained sore f u l l y on page 5. ADOT
r e c e n t l y consolidated its seven d i s t r i c t s i n t o four d i s t r i c t s . This
d i s t r i c t reorganization involved personnel reductions and t r a n s f e r s .
If the net e f f e c t of these changes i s applied t o t h e f i s c a l year
1982- 83 budgeted FTEs i n d i c a t e d above, t o t a l personnel would be
reduced t o 3,826 and highway- related personnel t o 2,877. The f i s c a l
year 1982- 83 budgeted FTE l e v e l s a r e shorn only f o r comparison
purposes, a s they do not r e f l e c t a c t u a l numbers of personnel employed
by ADOT, a t any point i n time.
Objectives of Audit
Our a u d i t consisted of 2 p a r t s : 1 ) a study of s t a f f i n g t r e n d s w i t h i n ADOT
over the past 5 years and 2) a comparison of ADOT's s t a f f i n g l e v e l s t o
the s t a f f i n g l e v e l s of highway agencies i n 12 other western s t a t e s .
The t h r e e major o b j e c t i v e s of the i n t e r n a l trend a n a l y s i s were t o
determine i f t h e r e have been any meaningful upward or downward trends over
the past f i v e years i n 1) the r a t i o of s t a f f ( a l s o r e f e r r e d t o as
administrative/ support) personnel t o l i n e ( a l s o r e f e r r e d t o a s f i e l d )
personnel, 2) the number of ADOT employees per lane mile constructed, or
3) the number of maintenance personnel per maintenance lane mile. This
a n a l y s i s did not reveal a notable upward o r downward trend over the past
f i v e years f o r any of these t h r e e r a t i o s . Trend a n a l y s i s over a longer
period of time ( such as, 10 years) was not f e a s i b l e because data was not
r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n the d e t a i l needed t o do a proper study.
The t h r e e major o b j e c t i v e s of the second p a r t of our a u d i t were t o
determine how ADOT compared t o the highway agencies i n other s t a t e s with
respect to 1 ) s t a f f t o l i n e r a t i o s , 2) number of administrative/ support
employees per maintenance lane mile, and 3) number of
administrative/ support employees p e r c o n s t r u c t i o n d o l l a r expended. A
survey of 1 2 o t h e r western s t a t e s provided the data f o r t h i s comparison.
Our a n a l y s i s of t h i s survey data is the s u b j e c t of the remainder of t h i s
r e p o r t .
The Auditor General and s t a f f express a p p r e c i a t i o n t o the d i r e c t o r of the
Department of Transportation and h i s employees f o r t h e i r cooperation and
a s s i s t a n c e during the course of our a u d i t .
d
FINDING
THE DEPARTMENT MAY HAVE BEEN OVERSTAFFED I N THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT
AREAS I N RECENT YEARS; hOWEVER, A PROJECTED EXPANSION OF CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITY IS EXPECTED TO INCREASE WORK LOAD FOR SOME OF THESE AREAS.
The Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT) appears t o have a h i g h l e v e l
of administrative/ support personnel when compared t o o t h e r s t a t e s .
S p e c i f i c a l l y , ADOT h a s a high r a t i o of s t a f f ( administrative/ support)
employees t o l i n e ( f i e l d ) employees i n comparison with the highway agencies
of 1 2 o t h e r western s t a t e s . Additionally, ADOT h a s a high number of
administrative/ support personnel per lane m i l e of State- maintained roadway
and per c o n s t r u c t i o n d o l l a r expended when compared t o these 12 s t a t e s .
Taken t o g e t h e r , t h e s e i n d i c a t o r s suggest t h a t ADOT may have been o v e r s t a f f e d
i n the administrative/ support areas i n recent years. However, the l e v e l of
highway c o n s t r u c t i o n is expected t o i n c r e a s e sharply i n 1983, a f f e c t i n g the
work load of many support u n i t s within ADOT. Therefore, any s t a f f i n g c u t s
should be made only a f t e r f u r t h e r study of the impact of t h i s increased work
load on i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s .
ADOT has undertaken s e v e r a l p r o j e c t s i n r e c e n t y e a r s t o improve the
e f f i c i e n c y of its work force. For the past 10 years ADOT has operated a
highway maintenance management system c a l l e d " PeCos"* which is used t o
measure and control the p r o d u c t i v i t y of f i e l d maintenance crews. I n 1981,
ADOT created a " Venture Team" which has conducted management s t u d i e s
throughout the agency. In 1982, ADOT awarded a c o n t r a c t f o r development of
an " Equipment Management System" with the goal of improving the p r o d u c t i v i t y
of ADOT's equipment r e p a i r shops. Also i n 1982, ADOT awarded a contract
f o r development of a " Construction Engineering Manpower Management System";
the purpose of t h i s System is t o plan and monitor the manpower l e v e l s f o r
f i e l d c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . These s t u d i e s and systems should help
c o n t r o l o v e r s t a f f i n g . However, our a n a l y s i s of o v e r a l l s t a f f i n g l e v e l s
i n d i c a t e s a need f o r f u r t h e r study of the s t a f f i n g l e v e l s i n the
administrative/ support u n i t s of ADOT.
* " PeCos" is an acronym f o r Performance Controlled System and is used t o
r e f e r t o the Arizona Highway Maintenance Management System.
3
Survey Methodology
We s e l e c t e d the highway agencies from 12 other western s t a t e s f o r the
purpose of comparing t h e i r s t a f f i n g l e v e l s t o ADOT's. The s t a t e s selected
were those western s t a t e s having approximately 50 t o 200 percent of
Arizona's state- administered road m i l e s and which were most s i m i l a r t o
Arizona i n a t l e a s t two of the following four c a t e g o r i e s : 1 ) 1979 c a p i t a l
outlay, 2) 1979 maintenance expenditures, 3) 1979 vehicle miles
t r a v e l e d , and 4) 1981 estimated t o t a l vehicular r e g i s t r a t i o n s . The data
f o r t h i s preliminary a n a l y s i s was obtained from Federal Highway
Administration s t a t i s t i c a l publications.*
The highway agencies i n these 12 s t a t e s were s e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s designed
t o obtain data on organization s t r u c t u r e , number of employees per
f u n c t i o n a l area and per o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t , lane miles constructed over
the past f i v e years and expenditures f o r road maintenance and
construction.** This data was supplemented by telephone follow- ups with
responsible o f f i c i a l s i n these agencies t o ensure accuracy and
comparability t o Arizona.***
* The four western s t a t e s n o t s e l e c t e d were C a l i f o r n i a , Texas, North
Dakota and South Dakota. Cal'ifornia and Texas were not selected
because t h e i r highway systems a r e much l a r g e r than Arizona's. North
and South Dakota were not s e l e c t e d because they f e l l too f a r below
Arizona on t h r e e of the four c r i t e r i a above.
** In an e f f o r t t o be c o n s i s t e n t , a l l s t a t e s were provided w i t h t h e
d e f i n i t i o n s shown i n Appendix I.
*** Appendix I1 presents t h e f o u r most important c r i t e r i a used t o
determine i f surveyed agencies perform t h e i r highway functions i n a
manner s i m i l a r t o ADOT's. Appendix I1 a l s o i n d i c a t e s any exceptions
t o these c r i t e r i a .
Based on t h e d a t a gathered i n t h i s manner, we determined the t o t a l number of
highway- related personnel* i n each agency and segregated t h i s f i g u r e i n t o
f i e l d personnel and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l s u p p o r t personnel. Field personnel a r e
defined a s employees working a t c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e s ( f o r example, f i e l d
i n s p e c t o r s and t e s t e r s ) o r p h y s i c a l l y involved i n the maintenance of roads.
In order t o be conservative i n our comparison of ADOT t o o t h e r s t a t e s '
agencies, we c l a s s i f i e d personnel i n other s t a t e s ' agencies a s
administrative/ support i f there was any question a s t o how they should be
c l a s s i f i e d .
The administrative/ support category is made up of two s u b c a t e g o r i e s , s u p p o r t
and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Support personnel a r e defined as a l l nonfield employees
who serve only highway- related functions ( f o r example, road d e s i g n e r s ,
nonf i e l d maintenance, nonf i e l d engineering s u p e r v i s o r s and right- of- way
personnel). Administrative personnel a r e defined a s c l e r i c a l , d a t a
processing, f i n a n c i a l , and executive employees who serve t h e e n t i r e agency
( f o r example, they a r e involved i n both the highway- related and
nonhighway- related functions of t h e i r agencies). These a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
personnel were a l l o c a t e d between the highway- related and nonhighway- related
areas .**
* We defined " highway- related personnel" a s those personnel involved
d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y i n the planning, c o n s t r u c t i o n or maintenance of
highways. This excluded, f o r example, motor v e h i c l e r e g i s t r a t i o n
personnel, highway law enforcement personnel and a v i a t i o n - r e l a t e d
employees.
** The following h y p o t h e t i c a l example i l l u s t r a t e s how t h i s a l l o c a t i o n was
made. An agency with 2,500 t o t a l personnel h a s 1 , 0 0 0 f i e l d , 500 support
and 200 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e employees, plus a motor v e h i c l e d i v i s i o n
( nonhighway- related) with 800 em% loyees. To determine how many of the
200 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e employees to a l l o c a t e t o the highway- related f u n c t i o n ,
the following c a l c u l a t i o n is performed:
1,000 f i e l d + 500 support X 200 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
2,500 t o t a l - 200 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
This equals: 1,500 X 200 = 130 highway- related a d m i n i s t r a t i v e employees
2,300
Ratio of Administrative/ Support
Personnel to Field Personnel
ADOT has a high portion of its highway- related personnel in
administrative/ support positions when compared to the average for 12 other
western states. According to our analysis, Arizona has 1.06
administrative/ support employees per field employee, whereas the other 12
states average only 0.88. Table 1 shows the ratio for each of the 13
states, plus a breakdown of the highway- related employees into several
subcategories.
TABLE 1
Idaho
Nevada
Utah
ARIZONA
Washington
Wyoming
Kansas
Oregon
New Mexico
Nebraska
Montana
Oklahoma
Colorado
RATIOS OF HIGHWAY- RELATED ADMINISTRATIVEISUPPORT TO FIELD PERSONNEL
FOR ARIZONA AND 12 SURVEYED STATES
Administrative/ Support Personnel
Allocated
Hwy- related Admin-
Support istration Total
Field Personnel
Construc- Mainten-tion
ance Total
Total
Hwy- related
Personnel
Ratio:
Admin/ Support
to Field
Average of 12 surveyed states .88
( excluding Arizona)
Average of 7 surveyed
states with 2,000 or more
total hwy- related personnel .74
( excluding Arizona)
Note: States are ranked according to their ratios of administrative/ support personnel to field personnel. * Arizona's ratio of 1.06 is based on staffing data as of December 1981. If January 1983 data is used,
Arizona's ratio increases to 1.09.
As shown in Table 1, ADOT has the fourth highest ratio of
administrative/ support to field personnel. The three agencies with higher
ratios than ADOT represent three of the four smallest agencies analyzed in
that all have approximately one- half the number of highway- related
employees that AEOT has.* The small size of these agencies may account
for the higher ratios of administrative/ support to field employees because
of the need to maintain a minimum base of administrative/ support personnel
regardless of how small an agency is. The ratio of administrative/ support
to field employees by itself is not necessarily indicative of overstaffing
in the administrative/ support areas. Therefore, to extend our analysis we
compared the number of highway- related personnel-- and particularly
administrative/ support personnel-- to each agency's work load. We used two
broad indicators of work load: 1) the number of lane miles maintained
and 2) capital outlay for roads and bridges.
Ideally, before comparing the number of personnel to these work load
indicators, the personnel should be divided into two groups: 1) those
related to maintenance and 2) those related to construction. However,
the nature of the data we obtained from other states did not allow us to
clearly allocate highway- related personnel between the maintenance and
construction areas. Therefore, we compared total administrative/ support
personnel ( highway- related) to each indicator. Because of this, both
ratios must be considered together in order to be meaningful. For
example, if a state is high on one ratio but low on the other, a
conclusion cannot be drawn. However, if a state is above average on both
ratios, this suggests overstaffing in either, or possibly both, the
maintenance or construction area.
* For the 7 surveyed agencies with 2,000 or more highway- related
employees ( excluding ADOT), the average administrative/ support to
field ratio is 0.74-- substantially lower than ADOT's ratio of 1.06.
Administrative/ Support Personnel
D e r Lane Mile Plaintained
Of the 13 s t a t e s i n our a n a l y s i s , Arizona has the second highest number of
administrative/ support employees per lane mile maintained. ADOT has 0.089
administrative/ support personnel per maintenance lane mile, compared with
an average of 0.057 f o r the other 12 s t a t e s . Table 2 shows the r e s u l t s
f o r each of the 13 s t a t e s .
TABLE 2
RATIOS OF HIGHWAY- RELATED PERSONNEL
PER LANE MILE FOR ARIZONA AND 12 SURVEYED STATES
Washington
ARIZONA
Oregon
Idaho
Utah
Kansas
Nevada
Colorado
Wyoming
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Nebraska
Montana
Total Hwy- relat ed
Maintenance Personnel per
Lane Miles Lane Mile
Averages f o r 12 surveyed s t a t e s
( excluding Arizona) . I23
Hwy- related
Admin/ support
per Lane M i l e
Note: S t a t e s a r e ranked according t o t h e i r numbers of
administrative/ support personnel per lane mile. * Arizona's r a t i o of .089 is based on s t a f f i n g data as of December
1981. I f January 1983 d a t a is used, Arizona's r a t i o changes t o
.084.
As shown i n Table 2, Washington i s the only s t a t e higher than Arizona.
Washington maintains approximately the same number of lane miles a s ADOT.
However, Washington has a much higher volume of c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y than
any of the other s t a t e s ( 70 percent more c a p i t a l outlay than ADOT i n
1981). Hightvay c o n s t r u c t i o n r e q u i r e s a v a s t a r r a y of support personnel
( f o r example, planners, right- of- way agents, d e s i g n e r s , c o n t r a c t
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ) not needed f o r maintenance functions. This would a t l e a s t
p a r t i a l l y explain why Washington ranks f i r s t i n the number of
administrative/ support personnel per lane mile maintained. When the
number of administrative/ support personnel i s compared t o construction
volume-- as i s done i n the next section-- Washington f a l l s well below
Arizona.
Administrative/ Support Personnel
Per Construction Dollar
Arizona ranks t h i r d among the 13 s t a t e s i n the number of
administrative/ support employees per $ 1,000 of c a p i t a l outlay. Table 3
shows the r a t i o f o r each of t h e 1 3 s t a t e s .
TABLE 3
RATIOS OF HIGHWAY- RELATED PERSONNEL PER $ 1,000
OF CAPITAL OUTLAY FOR ARIZONA AND 12 SURVEYED STATES
Idaho
Nebraska
ARIZONA
Colorado
Kansas
Nevada
Oregon
New Mexico
Utah
Wyoming
Washing ton
Oklahoma
Montana
1981
Capital Outlay Total Hwy- related Hwy- related
f o r Roads and Personnel Adm/ Support Personnel
Bridges per $ 1,000 of per $ 1,000 of C a p i t a l
( $ 1 , 0 0 0 ~*) Capital Outlay Outlay
Averages f o r 12
surveyed s t a t e s
( excluding Arizona)
Note: S t a t e s a r e ranked according t o t h e i r numbers of
administrative/ support personnel per $ 1,000 of c a p i t a l outlay.
j, Source: " Highway S t a t i s t i c s 1981" published by the U. S. Department
of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , F e d e r a l Highway Administration. ** Arizona's r a t i o of .0081 i s based on s t a f f i n g d a t a as of December
1981. Although more recent s t a f f i n g d a t a is a v a i l a b l e , c a p i t a l
outlay f i g u r e s f o r 1982 are % ot y e t a v a i l a b l e , and a comparison of
January 1983 s t a f f i n g d a t a with 1981 c a p i t a l o u t l a y would not be
meaningful .
As shown i n Table 3, ADOT has 0.0081 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l s u p p o r t personnel per
$ 1,000 of c a p i t a l o u t l a y . This is s l i g h t l y h i g h e r t h a n t h e average of
0.0075 f o r the other 1 2 s t a t e s . "
Limitations and Uses
of the Analysis
Any survey of t l i i s nature and scope has inherent l i m i t a t i o n s . For a
example, we had t o r e l y on the accuracy of the d a t a provided by our
contacts i n each s t a t e . In a d d i t i o n , s t a f f i n g l e v e l s and measures of work
load used i n t h i s a n a l y s i s r e p r e s e n t a point i n t i m e which may not f u l l y
r e p r e s e n t a n agency's current condition. Furthermore, we cannot recommend
e x a c t l y where ADOT could eliminate p o s i t i o n s simply on t h e b a s i s of t h i s
survey.
Despite these q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , t h e a n a l y s i s cannot be disregarded. While
none of t h e t h r e e r a t i o s analyzed should be used alone a s an i n d i c a t o r of
o v e r s t a f f i n g i n the administrative/ support a r e a s , t a k e n t o g e t h e r the t h r e e
r a t i o s suggest t h a t ADOT has been o v e r s t a f f e d i n those a r e a s . Table 4
summarizes our a n a l y s i s by presenting and ranking a l l t h r e e r a t i o s f o r
each of the 13 s t a t e s .
* Idaho's unusually high r a t i o d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y skews the average
upward. I f Idaho's r a t i o i s not included, t h e average f o r the other
11 s t a t e s drops t o .0068.
TABLE 4
ARIZONA
Colorado
Idaho
Kansas
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
A SUMMARY OF 3 RATIOS RELATING TO
ADMINISTRATIVE/ SUPPORT STAFFING FOR ARIZONA
AND 12 SURVEYED STATES
( 1) ( 2) ( 3
Hwy- related
Hwy- related Hwy- related Adm/ support
Admin/ support Admin/ support per $ 1,000 of
t o Field per Lane Mile Capital Outlay
Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Ratio
Averages f o r
12 surveyed s t a t e s
( excluding Arizona) .88
As mentioned e a r l i e r , the second and t h i r d r a t i o s i n Table 4 must be
considered together i n order t o be meaningful. A high ranking i n only one
of these two r a t i o s would not be meaningful because the comparisons use
t o t a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and support s t a f f . However, i f an agency is above
average i n both r a t i o s t h i s ~ u g g e s t s ~ t h atht e agency may be o v e r s t a f f e d i n
administrative/ support personnel i n e i t h e r , or possibly both, the
maintenance area or c o n s t r u c t i o n area.
Table 4 shows t h a t Arizona ranks high i n a l l t h r e e r a t i o s ( f o u r t h , second
and t h i r d , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . In our opinion, t h i s i n d i c a t e s ADOT has been
overstaffed i n the administrative/ support areas. However, any s t a f f i n g
c u t s should be made only a f t e r f u r t h e r study of i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s within
ADOT and consideration of a n t i c i p a t e d increases i n work load.
Construction A c t i v i t v
Expected t o Increase
ADOT p r o j e c t s a sharp increase i n highway c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y during
1983. This a f f e c t s the s t a f f i n g needs of many support u n i t s within ADOT
long before a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n begins.
ADOT expects the volume of highway c o n s t r u c t i o n t o increase dramatically i n
1983. We v e r i f i e d t h i s by comparing the t o t a l value of c o n t r a c t s awarded i n
a
1982 with the projected bid schedule f o r a six- month period i n 1983. Over
the e n t i r e year 1982, ADOT awarded c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t s t o t a l i n g $ 91
m i l l i o n . In comparison, f o r the six- month period February through July
1983, ADOT estimates i t w i l l award $ 195 m i l l i o n i n c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t s .
In other words, i n a six- month period ADOT expects t o begin twice as much
c o n s t r u c t i o n a s was begun during a l l of 1982.
According t o ADOT o f f i c i a l s , t h i s projected i n c r e a s e i n construction has
a l r e a d y i n c r e a s e d t h e work loads of some support u n i t s within ADOT. These
u n i t s a r e performing work which must be done months before a c t u a l
c o n s t r u c t i o n begins-- such as, determining exact l o c a t i o n and alignment of
the roadway, i n v e s t i g a t i n g the s o i l of the proposed roadbed and designing
the highway and r e l a t e d s t r u c t u r e s .
CONCLUSION
Our a n a l y s i s suggests t h a t ADOT has been o v e r s t a f f e d i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
and support functions when compared to the highway agencies of 1 2 o t h e r
western s t a t e s . However, a projected increase i n c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y i n
Arizona f o r 1983 i s expected t o a f f e c t the work loads of some support u n i t s
within ADOT.
I
ADOT management should continue to review the administrative and support
functions within ADOT to determine where reductions in staff might be
appropriate. In addition, future decreases in construction activity
should be monitored closely so that corresponding reductions may be made
in administrative/ support units in a timely manner. Furthermore, because
ADOT nay have been overstaffed, the projected rise in construction
activity should not be viewed as automatic justification for corresponding
increases in support staff.
I) @ A111ZONA DEMRTMENT OF TRANS1' 0111' 0N
206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoen~ x, Arizona 85007
BRUCE BABBITT
Governor
WILLIAM A. ORDWAY
D ~ r e c t o r
February 24, 1983
Mr. Douglas Norton
Auditor General
Auditor General's Office
111 West Monroe, Suite 600
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Dear Doug:
.:' hank you for the opportunity to review the revised
preliminary report draft of the Performance Audit of
the Arizona Department of Transportation Staffing
Relationships and Staffing Trends. Our comment con-cerning
the finding and recommendation is attached.
Again, thanks for this opportunity to comment and for
the cooperation extended by you and your staff.
Cordial Ly
'/ 7
W. A. Ordway
Director
WAO: dl
Enclosure
HIGHWAYS AERONAUTICS ' MOTOR VEHICLE * PUBLIC TRANSIT . ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TRAmSPORTATION PLANNING
February 2 3 , 1983
ADOT'S COllMENTS ON THE AUDITOR GBNERA. LIS PERFORP. 2ANCE AUDIT
OF THE ARIZOKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
- STAFFIMG RELATIONSHIPS AND STAFFING TRENDS --
The attempt by t h e Auditor G e n e r a l ' s o f f i c e t o determine t h e
r e l a t i o n s h i p of ADOT's s t a f f i n q l e v e l s t o those of o t h e r
western s t a t e s was an a m b i t i o u s u n d e r t a k i n g . S t u d i e s of t h i s
type, expanded t o determine t h e proper r a t i o of s u p p o r t p e r -
sonnel t o f i e i d p e r s o n n e l , have been attempted s e v e r a l t i m e s
i n p a s t years by t h e Western A s s o c i a t i o n of S t a t e Highway and
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f f i c i a l s .
These i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ha. ve a l l proved t o be i n c o n c l u s i v e because
of t h e many v a r i a b l e s involved. The s i z e of t h e highway con-s
t r u c t i o n program, t h e use of c o n s u l t a r i t s , m i l e s of highway t o
be maintained and t h e number of p r o j e c t s under developnent;
t h e s e and perhaps twenty o t h e r v a r i a b l e s e f f e c t t h e s t a f f i n g
l e v e l s and r a t i o of support personnel t o f i e l d personnel f o r
each S t a t e Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n .
The f i n a l conclusion drawn by t h e WASHTO committees was t h a t
because of t h e s e v a r i a b l e s it was a p p r o p r i a t e f o r each s t a t e t o
determine t h e i r own s t a f f i n q l e v e l s . I n t i m a t e knowledge of
i n d i v i d u a l programs a r e necessary t o make t h e d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g
s t a f f i n q and comparisons t o s t a f f i n g i n o t h e r s t a t e s , without
exhaustive r e s e a r c h i n t o a l l programs, would n o t be meaninqful.
The f i n a l re~ onur~ endatiomn ade by t h e A u d i t o r General t h a t " ADOT
management should continue t o review t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and
support f u n c t i o n s w i t h i n ADOT t o determine where r e d u c t i o n s i n
s t a f f might be a p p r o p r i a t e " g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n q s of
the previous s t u d i e s .
ADOT concurs i n t h e f i n d i n g and reco~. mendakion of t h e Auditor
General. ADOT w i l l c o n t i n u e t o review not only t h e a d m i n i s t r a -
t i v e and support f u n c t i o n s b u t a l s o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n and main-tenance
f u n c t i o n s t o determine proper s t a f f i n g l e v e l s .
The following d e f i n i t i o n s were provided t o a l l surveyed s t a t e s .
Road maintenance - Crack and pothole f i l l i n g and limited flushing, sealing
and coating ( g e n e r a l l y l e s s than two inches t h i c k and l e s s than one mile
i n length) t o maintain the i n t e g r i t y and r i d a b i l i t y of the road surface
and the u s a b i l i t y of i n c i d e n t a l s t r u c t u r e s and items.
Road construction - Construction is broken i n t o the following three
c a t e g o r i e s :
a. New c o n s t r u c t i o n - A l l phases of c o n s t r u c t i o n of a new road along
a new alignment, and its r e l a t e d s t r u c t u r e s and i n c i d e n t a l items.
Major reconstruction - Grading, d r a i n i n g , b u i l d i n g of s t r u c t u r e s
and placing base and s u r f a c e m a t e r i a l s , t r a f f i c s i g n a l s , signs
and other i n c i d e n t a l items along a n e x i s t i n g alignment.
Restoration - Rejuvenating the e x i s t i n g pavement, placing
a s p h a l t i c concrete overlays, and applying s e a l coat t o e x i s t i n g
s u r f a c e s ( g e n e r a l l y more than one m i l e i n length).
Field personnel - Employees working at c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e s ( including f i e l d
engineers, t e s t e r s and i n s p e c t o r s ) or physically involved i n the
maintenance of roads.
Administrative/ support personnel - Includes c l e r i c a l , nonfield management,
nonfield t e s t i n g , planning, design and development personnel.
Lane miles - Length of road, i n m i l e s , m u l t i p l i e d by the number of lanes
. I
of roadway ( excluding breakdown lanes, access roads, e t c . ) .
APPENDIX I1
CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE SIMILARITY BETWEEN ADOT
AND HIGHWAY AGENCIES IN OTHER STATES
Except as noted below, all surveyed states met the following four criteria:
a. At least 95 percent of all maintenance work is performed by state
forces,
b. All construction work is contracted out,
c. At least 90 percent of all design work is done in- house.
d. At least 90 percent of all materials testing is done in- house.
The following exceptions to the above criteria were noted.
Idaho - Approximately 10 percent of maintenance work done by state forces
is restoration- type construction.
Kansas - Generally, approximately 35 percent of design work is contracted
out; for over one year, however, all design work has been done in- house.
Nebraska - Approximately 20 percent of design work and approximately 7
percent of maintenance is contracted out.
Nevada - Most sand and chip seal projects are done by state forces.
New Mexico - 385 maintenance employees do construction- type work such as
overlays. Approximately 40 percent of design work and 9 percent of
maintenance is contracted out.
Oklahoma - Maintenance forces do construction- type overlays, but some
routine maintenance is contracted out.
Washington - Approximately 14 percent of maintenance work is contracted
. v
out.
