Human resource management in American counties, 2002.
Human resource management (HRM) in public organizations is changing as there are numerous policy, procedural and structural reforms underway. Human resource management studies have focused primarily at the state and federal levels, with relatively fewer comprehensive views of county governments.
The field public human resource management (HRM) is undergoing significant reforms because of legislative, policy, and technological changes. (1) These changes are affecting governments of all levels--federal, state, and local. While considerable attention has focused on activities at the federal and state levels, relatively little research has focused on human resource management reforms and trends in counties. (2) County governments are particularly important because of the increased devolution of responsibilities from federal and state authorities and their changing role in the intergovernmental systems. (3) Berman and Salant suggest that "of all the units of government in the United States, few have experienced as much change as county governments." (4) At the same time that counties are experiencing massive changes in the demands and services they provide, they must also grapple with the implications of these changes on their management capacity. (5)
The purpose of this article is to systematically examine human resource management in county governments using data from the Government Performance Project (GPP). First, the article identifies and classifies recent reforms. Second, the article discusses the structure and role of the central HRM department in counties. Finally, it discusses trends and innovations in the following areas: strategic human resource management, selection process, training and development, and classification and compensation.
Study Design and Data
In March 2001, the GPP administered a survey that included a section about human resources management practices to 40 counties that were selected based on revenue and region (see Table 1).
Thirty-six counties, or 90 percent, submitted a complete survey response and are included in the analysis. (7) An initial survey instrument was pre-tested in four states, four local governments, and four federal agencies in 1997. Based on this pilot study, the instrument was revised and streamlined. After completing a survey of 50 states in 1998 and 2000 and a survey of the 35 largest cities by revenue, the survey was again revised. The HRM survey instrument contained 82 multi-part closed- and open-ended questions designed to yield information about a given county's capacity with respect to its human resource management system. In addition to the survey, numerous supporting documents were collected and reviewed.
Human Resource Management Reform
An examination of counties provides both reform experiences and opportunities for comparison to other levels of government and learning. (8) Many of the HRM reforms in public organizations have been structural, while other have been process or policy-oriented. (9) The degree of reform varies from incremental to substantial, system-wide changes. (10) This study found that 25 percent of the counties experienced significant reform(s) of its human resource management system, while 33 percent did not report implementing any HRM-related reforms. The nature of the reforms in county governments are classified as follows:
* Structural: changes in the organization of county human resource management functions;
* Policy: changes in human resource management policies or courses of action, such as hiring rules (Rule of 3) and personnel authority;
* Process: changes in human resource management processes or activities to improve the operational efficiency of HRM.
As shown in Table 2, of those counties implementing reforms, 70 percent of the changes related to HRM policies. For example, Maricopa County changed its merit system rules to increase flexibility in the recruitment and certification processes. Milwaukee County granted its HRM director more authority in personnel-related matters and ongoing application acceptance. In other counties, changes are structural in that they fundamentally alter the organization of the county's human resource management functions. For example, Broward County, like the state of Georgia, eliminated its classified civil service. Allegheny County restructured its system, replacing the Civil Service Commission with the Personnel Board. Franklin County created a human resource management department to provide centralized services to eleven agencies. Some of the other reforms, particularly policy and process changes, adopted by counties will be discussed throughout the article.
Structure and Role of Human Resource Management
The role of human resource management has changed considerably over the past several decades. The structure of the HRM department is an important indicator of the role the department assumes in county governance. First, this section discusses the structure of the central HRM department. Second, it describes the role of the HRM department using a typology cited in most HRM textbooks. Finally, it examines the bivariate relationships between structure, role, and centralization of authority of HRM functions.
This section addresses issues related to structure: reporting relationship of the HRM director, HRM department structure, and the size of the HRM department.
Reporting Relationships: The study finds three models of reporting relationship between the HRM director and county management. This relationship suggests the degree to which the HRM director has direct access to the county management, as well as influence over county governance, planning, and management. The models are summarized below:
* Model 1: HRM director reports directly to County Manager/Executive and is a separate department within the county.
* Model 2: HRM director reports directly to Department Head of Administration/ Management/or Operation. HRM is a division within a larger administrative department.
* Model 3: HRM director reports directly to a Personnel Board or Civil Service Commission.
The HRM director's access to and influence over county management is expected to be greatest in Model 1 and least in Model 3.
HRM Department Structures: The labels used to describe the HRM departmental subcomponents vary from county to county, including areas, divisions, functions, programs, sections, and service units. A few counties, such as Orange and Franklin, indicate that their HRM systems are decentralized and therefore structurally compact. The average number of subcomponents for the sample is 5.6, with a range of 3 (Anne Arundel County) to 10 (Hennepin County and Oakland County). On one extreme, Anne Arundel County's department consists of three areas: 1) Employee Development & Employment Services; 2) Employee & Labor Relations; 3) Benefits & Support Services (including payroll). On the other end of the spectrum, Hennepin County organizes its department based on the following ten functions: Administration, Generalists Services, Benefits, Compensation & Classification, Environmental Health & Safety, Diversity & ADA, Organization Development, Employee Development, Human Resource Information Technology, & Staffing.
San Diego County's departmental structure is innovative. Like many other counties, its department consists of six divisions that report directly to the Director of HRM. However, the county is unique because of its focus on functional threading with its management system. Each county department has one or more personnel officers that "work closely with the Director Human Resources in addressing challenges that are common throughout the County and streamlining work processes to maximize the effectiveness of human resource services throughout the organization." This approach allows "the county to leverage human resource knowledge and talent throughout the organization."
Size of Central HRM Department: The number of individuals working the central HRM department ranges from 17 (Hamilton County) to 241 staff (Los Angeles County), with a mean of 71 staff. Examining these numbers on their face may be misleading because larger counties, as measured by employees, are likely to employee a larger HRM staff to support its workforce. Therefore, this study examines the ratio of county employees to central HRM staff to determine the average number of county employees per central HRM employee. The study finds that on average there are 220 county employees per central HRM employee. As shown in Table 3, Riverside County has the smallest ratio with one HRM staff per 82 employees and Santa Clara County reports the largest ratio with one HRM staff per 408 employees.
Role of HRM Department
Initially, HRM departments performed primarily administrative functions, such as record keeping, payroll, transactions, and compliance. (11) The general focus was on the day-to-day operations and this consumed the majority of the HRM department's time. Over time, departments began to respond and to initiate requests for developing programs, providing services, and addressing problems from its customers. Departments began assuming an operational role; they offered a full array of personnel services and were focused on short-term tactical goals. Most recently, the emphasis has shifted toward HRM strategic leadership. This approach focuses on creating and implementing long-term goals, creating partnerships, and aligning human capital to meet the needs of the county government.
The roles flow along a continuum as shown below:
Administrative Operational Strategic
The continuum indicates as a department becomes more involved in the operational and strategic dimensions of governance, it does not abandon its administrative responsibilities. HRM departments are still involved with administrative work, responding to problems and requests, and initiating new programs. The departments may, however, rethink how they manage those responsibilities, such as decentralizing or contracting responsibilities to other internal or external entities.
Using this framework, the study classifies the sample as follows:
* 33.3 percent classified as administrative;
* 44.4 percent classified as operational;
* 22.2 percent classified as strategic.
Although the shift along the continuum in county governments is slower than observed in states, the data suggests that changes are underway in county HRM departments. (12) Maricopa County notes that it has consciously shifted its role to be strategic by moving away from "merely providing services to departments to one of taking an active partnership in the department's business. The objective of this effort is to help clients meet their business needs by approaching and resolving issues from a more strategic perspective." Similarly, Dallas County is concerned about providing leadership and adding value to the county's management team. It states that its role is: To act as the leader in the area of human resources management by
1. Providing professional expertise that reflects "best practices" in the human resources field,
2. Delivering excellent customer service that adds overall value to the county, and
3. Establishing internal and external partnerships to assist county departments in their efforts to hire the best workforce possible to provide services to the citizens of Dallas as well as the county,
As demonstrated by these examples, the core administrative functions of HRM are still important but how these functions are implemented are being examined and a new future charted for the field of public HRM.
Relationships Between Structure, Role, and Centralization
To obtain an understanding of the relationships between structure, role, and centralization, the study examines the bivariate correlation coefficients between the number of divisions, the number of employees working for the central HRM department, the ratio of employees to central HRM staff, and the extent of centralization of 35 HRM functions. The study includes the centralization indicator because of the recent move to decentralize or share responsibilities between central HRM departments and operating departments. (13) Two relationships are statistically significant at the .05 level.
The study finds a negative correlation between the role of the HRM department and the number of divisions within it (-.43). This finding suggests that departments assuming a more strategic role structure their departments with fewer divisions or units. For example, Maricopa County (classified as strategic) organizes it department along three program areas: Workforce Planning, Business Performance and Total Compensation. Counties with more centralized HRM functional authority have smaller ratios of county employees to central HRM staff (-.54). It may be that centralized departments have lower ratios so they can better support operating departments and managers, particularly for labor-intensive services, such as processing and screening applicants.
Trends and Innovations Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM)
More than a decade ago, scholars and practitioners identified that human resource management should be a strategic partner to management because HRM would help organizations achieve their strategic and organizational goals. (14) The diffusion of strategic human resource management (SHRM) has been slower in the public sector, but it is on the rise as research suggests that selected public organizations are shifting their focus from short-term to long-term workforce needs that are integrated with the strategic planning process. 915) This section defines three key processes associated with SHRM and describes the extent to which counties engage in these processes. Strategic human resource management is comprised of many factors, including tools necessary to plan, decisions about how to implement and distribute HRM functions and responsibilities, and actions taken because of monitoring progress towards a government's goals and objectives. (16) In the context of this article, strategic human resource management focuses on three key processes:
* Strategic planning in the human resource management department,
* Formal workforce planning, and
* Performance measurement.
Human resource management departments that articulate a clear mission and goals that are linked to the county government's strategic plan, that plan for their immediate and longer-term workforce needs in light of those priorities and goals, and that collect the necessary data to assess whether or not they are achieving what they are seeking to are much more likely to be strategic, regardless of who is formulating and implementing HRM policies and practices. In 2000, 78 percent of state human resource management agencies had a strategic plan; 24 percent had a formal, workforce plan, and 76 percent indicated that they collected performance metrics about human resource management. (17) As shown below, the percentages are lower among counties:
* 58 percent have a strategic plan
* 19 percent have a centralized formal, workforce plan
* 64 percent collect HRM performance measures
With respect to workforce planning, the study shows that:
* 38.9 percent conduct no workforce planning
* 13.9 percent of counties decentralize responsibility for workforce planning to the departments
* 27.8 percent conduct informal centralized workforce planning
* 19.4 percent conduct formal centralized workforce planning
Although formal workforce planning is deemed more effective, a number of counties, such as Franklin County, operate informal workforce planning processes that support planning needs. In Franklin County, each department is required to complete a strategic business plan of which workforce planning is a component. Departments provide information related to retention, recruitment, staffing needs, and training. Sacramento County's formal workforce plan serves as a benchmark to other governments. It carefully analyzes internal and external trends in the labor market and develops staffing needs and strategies based upon the analysis.
As shown in Table 4, the following seven counties engage in all three processes: Fairfax County, Hamilton County, Los Angeles County, Riverside County, Sacramento County, San Diego County, and Shelby County. Of those, workforce plans in four counties--Hamilton, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Sacramento--contain long-term staffing needs (more than one year). Three of the counties--Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Diego--include succession planning in their workforce plans.
To determine the extent to which the purported role of the HRM department fits with its practice of engaging in strategic activities, this study examines whether counties engaging in all three processes are more likely to have a HRM department assuming a strategic role. As expected, the relationship is statistically significant and positive (.47). Although the relationship is moderate, there is some evidence that departments are operationalizing their strategic missions.
The study also examines whether any of the previously introduced indicators of structure and size are associated with SHRM (size of central HRM staff, ratio of employees to central HRM staff, number of divisions, centralization of HRM functions). Only one relationship is statistically significant--size of central HRM staff (.48). This finding suggests that departments with more internal resources are more likely to engage in comprehensive strategic practices. It is difficult to know whether counties take part in SHRM processes because they have additional resources or whether they hire additional employees to assume those responsibilities.
Selection Process
Because human capital represents the largest asset of public organizations, the selection process continues to be a critical human resource function. The selection pipeline supplies counties persons with specific talents, knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform public services. Because of its significance, the selection process should be linked to strategic workforce needs in order to ensure that the county is allocating its human capital resource effectively and efficiently. (18) The selection process starts with recruitment and is officially over when a new employee successfully completes his or her probationary period.
This section is divided into four parts. First, the section discusses the barriers to recruiting and hiring that counties encounter. Second, it examines personnel authorities related to different stages of the selection process. Third, the section describes different approaches counties have taken to recruit new talent. Finally, it examines the effectiveness of county selection processes.
Obstacles to Recruiting and Hiring County Employees: Counties note that they encounter multiple challenges when recruiting and hiring employees. The most common barriers:
* Tight labor market,
* Uncompetitive county salaries,
* Budget constraints,
* Procedures constraints (testing, certification, and advertising regulations),
* Residency requirements,
* Slow hiring processes,
* Background checks, and
* Collective bargaining agreements.
For example, Franklin County's statement reflects the sentiments of many of the surveyed counties:
A highly competitive labor market and low unemployment rates in this area dramatically affect the recruitment of new employees, especially social workers ... Candidates with in-demand skills, such as IT professionals, usually have many high-paying private sector jobs from which to choose. This makes it harder for Franklin County to become the Employer of Choice, as wages in the public sector are generally lower than in the private sector.
In Montgomery County, the problems are more procedural: "Current personnel regulations require all positions to be advertised for a minimum of two weeks, require an examination for all positions, and prohibit direct hiring." In Santa Clara County, its "merit system rules require applicants who fail to show for an interview, waive an interview or participate in three interviews within a six month period (with the same department) in order for the department to access other names beyond the first seven for a vacancy."
Most counties (94.4 percent) utilize testing to evaluate job candidates, but only 33.3 percent of counties allow walk-in testing. Both Sacramento and Oakland counties require formal testing for all of their jobs. However, these formal tests do not necessarily have to be written. Testing does not always slow the process. As shown in Table 5, almost 16 percent of counties respond that the testing process always or often delayed the testing process; 61 percent perceive that it does sometimes.
Recruiting, Testing, and Selecting Authority: An important policy and management issue is who has primary responsibility or authority for selection. As shown in Table 6, there are many steps in the selection process from the point of advertising a position to making an offer to a candidate. The study finds that primary responsibility varies, depending upon the stage of the selection process. However, the study found no evidence to suggest that the personnel authority of the overall process is moving toward decentralization. Broadly speaking, the data indicate three trends:
* While responsibility for recruiting is the most shared component of the selection process, it is just as likely to have responsibility centralized with HRM staff.
* Testing, application maintenance, and certification are typically centralized functions in county government.
* Interviewing and employee selection are typically responsibilities decentralized to the hiring department.
Approaches to Recruitment: As shown above, the central HRM staff is almost always involved in the recruitment process, either by having sole responsibility or sharing it with the hiring department. The survey asked whether counties use 26 different recruiting tools or activities. The study shows that extent of recruiting ranges from six to 25 tools or activities. The results are summarized below.
Technological Recruitment Tools
* 80.6 percent utilize 24-hour telephone job line
* 100 percent post positions on the county Web page
* 63.9 percent utilize commercial Internet sites
* 13.9 percent utilize virtual job fair
* 36.1 percent utilize online resume banks
External Recruiting Passive
* 94.4 percent publish a job bulletin
* 100 percent advertise in newspapers
* 55.6 percent advertise on television
* 66.7 percent advertise on radio
* 77.8 percent post advertisements in community centers
* 97.2 percent advertise with professional associations
Active
* 27.8 percent operate satellite offices
* 47.2 percent employee a full-time recruiter
* 61.1 percent use professional recruitment firms
* 22.2 percent attend national job fairs
* 75.0 percent recruit on campus
* 38.9 percent give open houses
* 55.6 percent utilize letter campaigns
Internal Recruiting
* 58.3 percent hold internal job fairs
Other Recruiting Tools
* 36.1 percent have direct hire authority
* 50.0 percent off walk-in job counseling
* 50.0 percent pay travel for interviews
* 50.9 percent provide reimburse some relocation expenses
The study examines whether the locus of responsibility for the selection process, for developing recruitment plans, or for implementing recruitment plans is related to the diversity of recruitment tools or to specific recruitment tools used by the county. The data suggests that the extent of centralization or decentralization of the selection process is not significantly related to the diversity of recruiting tools. When examining individual recruitment tools, the following relationships are statistically significant:
* Counties with centralized responsibility for developing and implementing recruitment plans are more likely to advertise in trade magazines (r = .36 and r = .33, respectively).
* Counties with centralized responsibility for developing recruitment plans are more likely to use direct hire authority (r = .25).
* Counties with centralized responsibility for developing and implementing recruitment plans are more likely to advertise with professional associations (r = .32 and r = .30, respectively).
* Counties with centralized responsibility for developing recruitment plans are more likely to offer walk-in job counseling (r = .26).
* Counties with centralized responsibility for developing and implementing recruitment plans are more likely to advertise on TV (r = .30 and r = .36, respectively).
The analysis may be limited because the survey was administered to the central HRM office and some activities conducted at the operating department may not be reflected in the survey response.
The goal of the recruiting process is not only to generate a large number of applicants, but also to attract qualified applicants who are likely to accept the position if offered. The study reveals that counties have adopted a number of innovations in the recruiting and hiring processes to attract new candidates. The innovations below are grouped into five categories:
Structure and Authority
* Adopting a centralized merit hiring system (Allegheny County)
* Hiring recruitment staff (Dallas County, Santa Clara County)
* Hiring halls--expedited hiring (San Diego County)
* Flexibility in starting salaries (Anne Arundel County)
* Hiring bonus (Riverside County)
Internal Processes and Technologies
Automated applicant and candidate tracking (Anne Arundel County, San Diego County, Santa Clara County)
External Processes and Technologies
* Continuous recruiting for hard to fill positions (Anne Arundel County)
* Community-based job and career fairs (Dallas County, Franklin County; Hamilton County, Harris County, Maricopa County, San Diego County, Santa Clara County)
* Use of online recruitment firms or sites (Cuyahoga County, Franklin County, Hamilton County, Mecklenburg County, Wayne County)
* Virtual job fair (Wayne County)
* Collaborations with search firms and other local employers (Los Angeles County)
* Marketing of benefits of county employment (Harris County, Milwaukee County, Hennepin County, Westchester County)
* Marketing CD (San Diego County)
* Creation of publication materials (Dallas County, Milwaukee County) Pipeline Programs
* Public Management Intern program (Prince Georges County)
* Military Outreach program (San Diego County)
* Floater program (job rotation) (Riverside County)
Feedback and Referral Mechanisms
* Referral bonus (Hennepin County)
* Survey of new employees seeking referrals (Dallas County)
* Survey of hiring managers regarding quality of new hires (Dallas County)
Milwaukee County has exerted considerable effort to promote county employment and to encourage the public to see Milwaukee County as an employer of choice. The county streamlined its testing process, including allowing for walk-in testing, it hosted a career fair to promote county employment, and it advertised on city buses to get its message out to the public. Milwaukee County made a conscious effort to update the image of the county by redesigning its materials and branding the logo "Milwaukee County Means Careers" on all communications. The county distributed brightly colored buttons and t-shirts to employees that read "My Career is at Milwaukee County" and "Milwaukee County Means Careers." Westchester also adopted a unifying theme for its marketing campaign--"Why Government? Why Not!"
Effectiveness of Recruitment and Hiring Process: To determine the effectiveness of the recruiting and hiring processes, this study inquired about two measures: process effectiveness--the number of days it takes to fill an open position--and outcome effectiveness--the quality of new hires. On average, counties take between 30 to 90 days to fill positions. It takes Broward County less than 30 days to fill a vacant position. On average, counties rate the quality of their 2000 hires a 7.6 on a 10-point scale. Santa Clara County rated its 2000 hires a 10. Next, the study examines the relationships between the indicators of effectiveness, the centralization of personnel authority in the selection process, and recruitment tools used by the county.
The data shows that conducting college recruiting visits (.24) and providing onsite interviews (.21) significantly decreases the time it takes a county to fill a position. The results show that the quality of hires is significantly higher in counties using television advertisements (.40), letter campaigns (.30), and job announcements in community centers (.33). The findings suggests that the sources from which a county recruits is important because it influences the process, how long it takes to fill a position, and the outcome. The type of person who responds to a job advertised on the Internet may be different from the type of person who responds to an ad posted in a community center. The data suggests that counties that recruit from the three aforementioned sources yield higher quality candidates.
Training
Training is an important function that contributes to a public organization's ability to achieve its goals by ensuring its workforce has the knowledge and skills it needs currently and in the future. A decade ago, the Winter Commission was concerned about the "knowledge gap" in public organizations due to limited investments in training human capital and urged state and local governments to allocate 3 percent of their budgets for training and development. (19)
The scope of training programs varies and may include management, leadership, technical, policy, and regulatory training. HRM employees are often involved in needs assessment, program development, program delivery, program tracking, and program evaluation. This section is particularly important because of the paucity of comprehensive studies of training in local governments and the Winter Commission's call to prioritize training and development. (20) All counties in the GPP study provide training to at least some of their employees. Many counties note in their responses that they lack adequate financial resources, space, and training staff to provide comprehensive training to all employees, however.
First, this section examines the loci of responsibility for training and needs assessment. Second, it looks at the types and providers of training programs in the county. Finally, it discusses county expenditures on training.
Training Program Authority and Needs Assessment: Responsibility for different training functions is most often shared between the central HRM department and operating departments. At least one-third of the counties centralize responsibility for training, while only a few have completely decentralized aspects of training--Clark County, Contra Costa County, Erie County, and Harris County (see Table 7).
It is important to have a good sense of what training is needed (needs assessment), to know what training employees have taken, and to be able to access that information for planning purposes. The GPP study shows that:
* 23.5 percent of counties conduct training needs assessments for the entire county government annually;
* 25.8 percent of counties conduct training needs assessments for county departments annually;
* 9.4 percent of counties conduct training needs assessments for specific job classifications annually;
* 86.1 percent of counties track employee participation in training and development courses at the central level, with only 69.4 percent of those records being automated;
* 69.4 percent of counties track employee participation in training and development courses at the department level.
The results suggest that while training needs assessments are conducted by about 92 percent of counties, substantially fewer are doing it on an annual basis. Baltimore considers the following materials when planning its training programs annually: departmental needs assessment surveys collected by central HRM, focus groups results, recommendations from departmental training liaisons, and training course evaluations. Santa Clara County used its countywide training needs assessment reorganize its Employee Development Division.
Because needs assessments are critical to strategically managing training resources, the study examines the relationship between conducting annual needs assessments, counties engaging in SHRM, and loci of personnel authority for training functions. As expected, the results show that counties engaging in SHRM are more likely to conduct annual needs assessments (r = .24). The data indicate that counties centralizing responsibility for training development, delivery, tracking, and evaluation are significantly more likely to conduct an annual needs assessment of the central county government (r = .24, r = .26, r = .34, and r = .27, respectively). These findings suggest that counties that centralize training functions are more likely to evaluate systematically their training needs annually.
The survey shows that training records are automated in 69.4 percent of counties, but when asking about whether training data is available from the county's Human Resources Information System (HRIS), the study finds that only 44 percent of counties have this type of information. While counties have automated records, they are not necessarily part of the county's HRIS. Technology not only increases management's understanding of its workforce, it can also enhance employees understanding of and access to training that is available. Two innovations in this area are worth highlighting:
* Westchester County developed the Westchester Employees' Service Training and Redevelopment program (WESTAR) that offers a menu of training options that are available and accessible by each department.
* Maricopa County operates an online learning center that provides 24-hour access to registration, training transcripts, and course catalogues.
Types and Providers of Training Courses: Training courses offered by the counties vary. Table 8 includes the percentage of counties providing training by the central HRM department, operating departments, or contractors. As suggested by Table 8, training is provided frequently by the central HRM staff, departments, and contractors. Looking across the training programs, the data suggests that training is most frequently provided centrally. An employee's first training experience usually begins with an orientation and a review of county benefits; 94.4 percent of counties provide such training centrally. Departments are much more likely to take the lead on technical training (80.6 percent) and contractors are used more often to provide computer, management, and leadership training (80.6 percent, 61.1 percent, 61.1 percent, respectively). Not only are counties likely to use contractors to provide management and leadership training, both the central HRM staff (83.3 percent, 77.8 percent, respectively) and departments (41.7 percent, 38.9 percent, respectively) deliver these programs.
Hennepin County created an employee competency model and designed its training programs to support this model, including supervisor, management, and labor management training. To increase training opportunities of county employees, Shelby County hired two positions dedicated to training and opened a separate facility, The Training and Conference Center. Currently, the county has convened a multidisciplinary team as the Training Advisory Council to create a strategic plan for the Training Office. Several counties, such as Hamilton, Maricopa, Montgomery, and San Diego, have initiated leadership institutes. For example, Hamilton County implemented a new program, Leadership For Results, that consists of 29 four-hour modules to develop managers' and employees' leadership and interpersonal skills.
Training Expenditures: County training budgets ranges from approximately $6,000 (Santa Clara County) to $24 million (Los Angeles County), with a median of 1.5 million. Because a county's training budget is impacted by the size of its workforce, the study also examines training expenditures by employee and by manager. On average, counties spend $336 per employee and $826 per manager. Monroe County spent the least per employee ($77) and Anne Arundel County spent the least per manager ($36), while Sacramento County spent the most per employee ($943) and Orange County spent the least per manager ($3,200). Approximately 86 percent of the counties in this study offer a tuition reimbursement plan to their employees.
Classification & Compensation
Pay is an important tool for recruiting, motivating, and retaining employees and it garners a lot of attention in the literature. (21) An important component of allocating pay is the underlying classification structure. Counties mention numerous obstacles that prevent their classifications system from working at optimal levels. The most-often mentioned challenges include:
* Changes in labor market environment & classification system out of sync with the market;
* Changes to system require legislative approval;
* Union contracts limit flexibility;
* Limited flexibility in setting salaries;
* System not modernized;
* Procedures too time intensive because of multiple approval layers;
* Too many classification titles;
* Managers misuse the classification system to reward employees.
As evident by the above list, the pressures on the classification system are driven by issues within and outside of county government. The degree to which these barriers can be addressed by counties differ because the degree of control varies. Counties may have control over some issues (such as misuse of system), influence over other developments (such as union contracts), and no control or influence over some things (such as the labor market).
In an effort to create simplified and more flexible systems, federal and state governments have decentralized aspects of their classification systems, reduced classification titles, and experimented with broad banding. (22) Several patterns emerge when analyzing county responses. Largely, classification systems are centralized in counties, but a few places are experimenting with more flexible classification systems. Counties are utilizing different remuneration approaches and some are taking a more expansive view of compensation.
This section is divided into several parts. First, the section examines personnel authorities related to classification and compensation. Second, it discusses county classification systems by examining the number of titles and use of broad banding. Third, the section describes different approaches counties have taken to compensate employees.
Classification and Compensation Authority: As shown in Table 9, the central HRM department is typically responsible for developing and maintaining the classification and compensation systems. Compared to activities at the state level, county systems are more controlled by central HRM administration. (23) Because counties are smaller entities, maintaining a centralized system may be more manageable but many counties complain about the lack of flexibility of their systems. The following three counties have decentralized responsibilities related to classification and compensation:
* Clark County: decentralized responsibility for conducting job classification and reclassficiation.
* Maricopa County: decentralized responsibility for conducting job classification, conducting job reclassficiation, and determining compensation.
* Orange County: decentralized responsibility for conducting job analysis.
Maricopa County notes that its
classification and compensation system is more akin to that of a private sector organization than that of other governments... Unlike governmental classification systems design to emphasize cross-departmental parity. Maricopa County's system gives departments a comparatively high degree of discretion in setting pay rates within the market ranges established by the Human Resources Department. As a result, the most significant challenge facing Maricopa County is a atypical one: controlling "internal" rather than "external" turnover; i.e. finding appropriate means to limit a department's ability to entice qualified employees from another department.
Classification: Title and Bands: Classification systems are typically based on grades or bands. (24) Regardless of whether the system is graded or banded, it is comprised of a series of classification or job titles. Each title occupies a place within the overall classification structure. In banded systems, classification titles are broader and pay ranges associated with bands are broader. (25) Table 10 presents the number of classification titles by county, as well as a list of the average number of employees per title. Cuyahoga County has the fewest titles (30) and approximately one title per 366 employees. Maricopa County has the second fewest titles (190) and approximately one title per 84 employees. On the other hand, Hillsborough reports 4,300 titles and approximately one title per employee.
To create flexibility within the system, some counties have adopted broad banding systems. As shown in Table 11, two governments (Fulton County and Harris County) indicate that they use broad banding for all county employees. Counties are most apt to use broad banding for specific classes or occupations. For example, Hennepin County uses broad banding for its Information Technology classes and San Diego County for counselors. In Prince Georges County, legislative reform passed to overhaul its system of 570 classes to a broad banded system and a team commissioned by the Personnel Officer recommended seven occupational bands: skill trades and craft workers, protective services, administrative support, technical, management analysis, professional, and executive (proposal was under review at the time of the survey). Maricopa County replaced its structured and rigid classification system with eight bands. Within each broad band, specific market ranges are developed by the HRM department based on average salary ranges within the relevant market that the county competes for applicants.
Some governments have focused on creating career opportunities within existing classification systems to generate flexibility. For example, Anne Arundel County created proficiency advancement for non-competitive promotion within designated class series and career ladders within other occupational groups. Some counties have used technological innovations to improve their systems. For example, Maricopa County partnered with a group to create a web-based job description and compensation system entitled HR WebSuite. Orange County integrated classification planning into its business planning and budgeting, as well as its workforce planning system. This allows the county to set priorities on a more strategic basis and restructure major clusters of existing classes and series into broad families or occupations.
Compensation: A common theme in county responses regarding compensation is the need to bring wages up to market rates and to provide managers more flexibility in rewarding employees. Dallas County Commissioners adopted a compensation philosophy that is communicated annually to departments and introduces a workforce investment package each budget cycle. Maricopa County is moving toward a total compensation model that includes base salary, incentives, insurance benefits, skill pay, and paid time-off.
The study asked counties the extent to which they used seven forms of remuneration. The most utilized approach is an annual step increase followed by a cost of living payment (see Table 12). Although most governments utilize pay-for-performance at least sometimes, significantly fewer use individual and group bonuses. Maricopa County's "Share the Savings" incentive plan allows departments to define their criteria for developing a departmental incentive strategy. Many departments in the county have utilized a group performance incentive to reward achievement of specific departmental goals that require teamwork.
Conclusion
As the descriptive and bivariate analyses reveal, county central HRM departments are changing, although more slowly than in state government. Some HRM departments have shifted their roles to be more strategic, while others continue to follow a more traditional personnel administrative model. Personnel authorities continue to be largely centralized in most counties. While the diffusion of flexibilities in county systems appears to be slower than in state governments as well, (26) there are a number of counties adopting innovative practices that establish benchmarks and learning resources for other governments. Although some advances have been documented in this study, many opportunities remain for HRM-reforms in county governments. Core administrative functions of HRM are still important but how these functions are implemented are changing and a new strategic future is on the horizon the field of public human resource management.
Notes
(1) Lavigna, Robert. 2003. Reforming Public Sector Human Resource Management: Best Practices From the Practitioner's View." In Steven W. Hays and Richard Kearney, eds., Public Personnel Administration: Problems and Prospects, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. West, Jonathan P. & Evan M. Berman. 2001. From Traditional to Virtual HR. Review of Public Personnel Administration vol. 21(1).
(2) Jacobson, Willow, Ellen Rubin, Sally Coleman Selden. In press. Evaluating Training in Large Municipalities: Linking Individual and Organizational Training Needs. Public Personnel Management, in press. Selden, Sally Coleman, Patricia Ingraham, Willow Jacobson. 2001. Human Resource Practices: Findings from a National Survey. Public Administration Review, Vol. 61 (5). Steel, Brent S. & Nicholas P. Lovrich. 1996. Public Personnel Management in County Governments. Review of Public Personnel Management vol. 15 (1).
(3) Berman, David R. & Tanis J. Salant. 1996. The Changing Role of Counties in the Intergovernmental System. In Donald C. Menzel, editor, The American County: Frontiers of Knowledge. Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama.
(4) Berman, David R. & Tanis J. Salant. 1996. The Changing Role of Counties in the Intergovernmental System. In Donald C. Menzel, editor, The American County: Frontiers of Knowledge. Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama, Pg 19.
(5) Streib, Gregory. 1996. Strengthening County Management. In Donald C. Menzel, editor, The American County: Frontiers of Knowledge. Birmingham, AL: University of Alabama.
(6) Source: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/gpp/history.htm
(7) Four counties (Alameda, CA; Nassau, NY; San Bernardino, CA; Suffolk, NY) did not submit complete survey responses.
(8) Ingraham, Patricia & Sally Coleman Selden. 2002. Human Resource Management and Capacity in the States. In Carolyn Ban & Norma M. Riccucci, editors, Public Personnel Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges, 3fd edition. New York: Longman.
(9) Ingraham, Patricia & Sally Coleman Selden. 2002. Human Resource Management and Capacity in the States. In Carolyn Ban & Norma M. Riccucci, editors, Public Personnel Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges, 3rd edition. New York: Longman. Selden, Sally Coleman, Patricia Ingraham, Willow Jacobson. 2001. Human Resource Practices: Findings from a National Survey. Public Administration Review, Vol. 61 (5).
(10) Rainey, Hal G. 2003. Facing Fundamental Challenges in Reforming Public Personnel Administration." In Steven W. Hays and Richard Kearney, eds., Public Personnel Administration: Problems and Prospects, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Selden, Sally Coleman, Patricia Ingraham, Willow Jacobson. 2001. Human Resource Practices: Findings from a National Survey. Public Administration Review, Vol. 61 (5).
(11) Mathis, Robert L. & John H. Jackson. 2003. Human Resource Management, 10th edition. Mason, OH: Thomson, South-Western.
(12) Ingraham, Patricia & Sally Coleman Selden. 2002. Human Resource Management and Capacity in the States. In Carolyn Ban & Norma M. Riccucci, editors, Public Personnel Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges, 3rd edition. New York: Longman.
(13) Selden, Sally Coleman, Patricia Ingraham, Willow Jacobson. 2001. Human Resource Practices: Findings from a National Survey. Public Administration Review, Vol. 61 (5).
(14) Down, James W, Walter Mardis, Thomas R. Connolly, & Sarah Johnson. 1997. A Strategic Model Emerges. HR Focus 74: 2.
(15) Roberts, Gary E. 2003. Issues, Challenges, and Changes in Recruitment and Selection. In Steven W. Hays and Richard Kearney, eds., Public Personnel Administration: Problems and Prospects, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
(16) Pynes, Joan E. 2003. Strategic Human Resource Management. In Steven W Hays and Richard Kearney, eds., Public Personnel Administration: Problems and Prospects, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
(17) Ingraham, Patricia & Sally Coleman Selden. 2002. Human Resource Management and Capacity in the States. In Carolyn Ban & Norma M. Riccucci, editors, Public Personnel Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges, 3rd edition. New York: Longman.
(18) Roberts, Gary E. 2003. Issues, Challenges, and Changes in Recruitment and Selection. In Steven W. Hays and Richard Kearney, eds., Public Personnel Administration: Problems and Prospects, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
(19) Thompson, Frank J. & Beryl A. Radin. 1997. Reinventing Public Personnel Management: The Winter and Gore Initiatives. In Carolyn Ban & Norma M. Riccucci, editors, Public Personnel Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges, 2nd edition. New York: Longman.
(20) Jacobson, Willow, Ellen Rubin, Sally Coleman Selden. In press. Evaluating Training in Large Municipalities: Linking Individual and Organizational Training Needs. Public Personnel Management, in press.
Thompson, Frank J. & Beryl A. Radin. 1997. Reinventing Public Personnel Management: The Winter and Gore Initiatives. In Carolyn Ban & Norma M. Riccucci, editors, Public Personnel Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges, 2nd edition. New York: Longman.
(21) Cayer Joseph. 1997. Issues in Compensation and Benefits. In Carolyn Ban & Norma M. Riccucci, editors, Public Personnel Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges, 2nd edition. New York: Longman.
Perry, James. 2003. Compensation, Merit Pay, and Motivation. In Steven W Hays and Richard Kearney, eds., Public Personnel Administration: Problems and Prospects, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
(22) Selden, Sally Coleman, Patricia Ingraham, Willow Jacobson. 2001. Human Resource Practices: Findings from a National Survey. Public Administration Review, Vol. 61 (5).
(23) Selden, Sally Coleman, Patricia Ingraham, Willow Jacobson. 2001. Human Resource Practices: Findings from a National Survey. Public Administration Review, Vol. 61 (5).
(24) Naff, Katherine C. 2003. Why Public Managers Hate Position Classification. In Steven W. Hays and Richard Kearney, eds., Public Personnel Administration: Problems and Prospects, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
(25) Naff, Katherine C. 2003. Why Public Managers Hate Position Classification. In Steven W. Hays and Richard Kearney, eds., Public Personnel Administration: Problems and Prospects, 4th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
(26) Ingraham, Patricia & Sally Coleman Selden. 2002. Human Resource Management and Capacity in the States. In Carolyn Ban & Norma M. Riccucci, editors, Public Personnel Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges, 3rd edition. New York: Longman.
Author
Sally Coleman Selden
Associate Professor Lynchburg College 1501 Lakeside Drive Lynchburg, Va. 24501
Sally Coleman Selden is an associate professor of management at Lynchburg College. Her previous articles have appeared in American Journal of Political Science, Administration and Society, American Review of Public Administration, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Journal of Public Administration Education, Public Administration Review, and Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
Table 1. Counties by Region (6)
West Region Midwest Region South Region
Alameda, CA Cook, Il Broward, FL
Clark, NV Cuyahoga, OH Dallas, TX
Contra Costa, CA Franklin, OH Fairfax, VA
King, WA Hamilton, OH Fulton, GA
Los Angeles, CA Hennepin, MN Harris, TX
Maricopa, AZ Milwaukee, WI Hillsborough, FL
Orange, Ca Oakland, MI Mecklenburg, NC
Riverside, CA Wayne, MI Miami-Dade, FL
Sacrament, CA Palm Beach, FL
San Bernardino, Ca Shelby, TN
San Diego, CA
Santa Clara, Ca
West Region Northeast Region
Alameda, CA Allegheny, PA
Clark, NV Anne Arundel, MD
Contra Costa, CA Baltimore, MD
King, WA Erie, NY
Los Angeles, CA Monroe, NY
Maricopa, AZ Montgomery, MD
Orange, Ca Nassau, NY
Riverside, CA Prince Georges, MD
Sacrament, CA Suffolk, NY
San Bernardino, Ca Westchester, NY
San Diego, CA
Santa Clara, Ca
Table 2. Type of Human Resource Management Reforms
County Nature of Reforms
Allegheny * Structural
Anne Arundel Process, Policy
Baltimore Process
Broward * Structural
Clark Policy
Contra Costa None
Cook Policy
Cuyahoga Policy
Dallas Policy
Erie None
Fairfax Process, Policy
Franklin * Structural
Fulton Policy
Hamilton Policy
Harris None
Hennepin Structural
Hillsborough None
King * Policy
Los Angeles Process
Maricopa* Policy
Mecklenburg Policy
Miami-Dade Policy
Milwaukee Process, Policy
Monroe None
Montgomery Policy
Oakland Policy
Orange None
Palm Beach None
Prince Georges * Policy
Riverside None
Sacramento None
San Diego Policy
Santa Clara None
Shelby None
Wayne None
Westchester Process
* Significant reform
Table 3. Ratio of County Employees to Central HRM Staff
County Number of County Employees Per Central HRM Staff
Allegheny 390
Anne Arundel Data not provided
Baltimore 211
Broward 125
Clark Data not provided
Contra Costa Data not provided
Cook 403
Cuyahoga 115
Dallas 307
Erie 389
Fairfax 227
Franklin Data not provided
Fulton 129
Hamilton 371
Harris 370
Hennepin Data not provided
Hillsborough 135
King 120
Los Angeles 386
Maricopa 197
Mecklenburg 187
Miami-Dade 202
Milwaukee 134
Monroe Data not provided
Montgomery 130
Oakland 99
Orange 347
Palm Beach 153
Prince George's Data not provided
Riverside 82
Sacramento 93
San Diego 155
Santa Clara 408
Shelby 187
Wayne Data not provided
Westchester 103
Table 4. Strategic Human Resource Management
County Strategic Plan
Allegheny No
Anne Arundel No
Baltimore Yes
Broward No
Clark Yes
Contra Costa No
Cook No but under review
Cuyahoga No
Dallas Yes
Erie No
Fairfax Yes
Franklin Yes
Fulton No
Hamilton Yes
Harris Yes
Hennepin Yes
Hillsborough No
King Yes
Los Angeles Yes
Maricopa Yes
Mecklenburg Yes
Miami-Dade No
Milwaukee No
Monroe Yes
Montgomery Yes
Oakland Yes
Orange Yes
Palm Beach No
Prince Georges Yes
Riverside Yes
Sacramento Yes
San Diego Yes
Santa Clara No
Shelby Yes
Wayne No
Westchester No
County Workforce Plan
Allegheny No workforce plan
Anne Arundel No workforce plan
Baltimore No workforce plan
Broward County departments responsible
Clark No workforce plan
Contra Costa Informal workforce plan
Cook County departments responsible
Cuyahoga No workforce plan
Dallas Informal workforce plan
Erie County departments responsible
Fairfax Formal workforce plan
Franklin Informal workforce plan
Fulton No workforce plan
Hamilton Formal workforce plan
Harris No workforce plan
Hennepin Informal workforce plan
Hillsborough No workforce plan
King No workforce plan
Los Angeles County departments responsible
Maricopa Informal workforce plan
Mecklenburg No workforce plan
Miami-Dade No workforce plan
Milwaukee No workforce plan
Monroe Informal workforce plan
Montgomery Informal workforce plan
Oakland Formal workforce plan
Orange No workforce plan
Palm Beach No workforce plan
Prince Georges Informal workforce plan
Riverside Formal workforce plan
Sacramento Formal workforce plan
San Diego Formal workforce plan
Santa Clara County departments responsible
Shelby Formal workforce plan
Wayne Informal workforce plan
Westchester Informal workforce plan
County Performance Measures
Allegheny No
Anne Arundel No
Baltimore Yes
Broward Yes
Clark Yes
Contra Costa Yes
Cook No
Cuyahoga Yes
Dallas Yes
Erie No
Fairfax Yes
Franklin Yes
Fulton Under development
Hamilton Yes
Harris Yes
Hennepin Yes
Hillsborough No
King Under development
Los Angeles Yes
Maricopa Yes
Mecklenburg Yes
Miami-Dade Yes
Milwaukee Yes
Monroe Yes
Montgomery Under development
Oakland Under development
Orange Yes
Palm Beach Yes
Prince Georges Yes
Riverside Yes
Sacramento Yes
San Diego Yes
Santa Clara Under development
Shelby Yes
Wayne Yes
Westchester No
Table 5. Testing Process Delays the Hiring Process in County Government
Percent of Counties
Always 2.8%
Often 13.9%
Sometimes 61.1%
Rarely 19.4%
Never 2.8%
Table 6. Managerial Responsibility for Components of Selection Process
Function Centralized
Advertising open positions 58.3%
Developing recruitment plans 41.7
Implementing recruitment plans 44.4
Developing tests 55.6
Administering tests 61.1
Scoring tests 58.3
Processing applications 80.6
Screening applications 63.9
Ranking applicants 52.8
Establishing list of qualified candidates 69.4
Certifying qualified candidates 75.0
Interviewing 0.0
Conducting reference checks 16.7
Recommending appointments 2.8
Making appointment decisions 8.3
Obtaining internal approvals to make offers 11.1
Function Shared
Advertising open positions 33.3%
Developing recruitment plans 50.0
Implementing recruitment plans 44.4
Developing tests 36.1
Administering tests 30.6
Scoring tests 36.1
Processing applications 16.7
Screening applications 30.6
Ranking applicants 36.1
Establishing list of qualified candidates 25.0
Certifying qualified candidates 16.7
Interviewing 38.9
Conducting reference checks 16.7
Recommending appointments 16.7
Making appointment decisions 22.2
Obtaining internal approvals to make offers 13.9
Function Decentralized
Advertising open positions 8.3%
Developing recruitment plans 8.3
Implementing recruitment plans 11.1
Developing tests 8.3
Administering tests 8.3
Scoring tests 5.6
Processing applications 2.8
Screening applications 5.6
Ranking applicants 11.1
Establishing list of qualified candidates 5.6
Certifying qualified candidates 8.3
Interviewing 61.1
Conducting reference checks 66.7
Recommending appointments 80.6
Making appointment decisions 69.4
Obtaining internal approvals to make offers 75.0
Table 7. Managerial Responsibility for Training
Function Centralized
Developing training and courses 41.7%
Delivering training 33.3%
Tracking training 33.3%
Evaluating training 38.9%
Function Shared
Developing training and courses 52.8%
Delivering training 55.6%
Tracking training 55.6%
Evaluating training 55.6%
Function Decentralized
Developing training and courses 5.6%
Delivering training 11.1%
Tracking training 11.1%
Evaluating training 5.6%
Table 8. Providers of County Training
Provided
Type of Training centrally
Performance management 77.8%
Certified public manager program 11.1%
Computer 75.0%
Management 83.3%
Supervisory 91.7%
Diversity/EEO 88.9%
Sexual harassment 97.2%
Communication 75.0%
Conflict resolution 75.0%
Teamwork 69.4%
Total Quality Management (TQM) 38.9%
Leadership 77.8%
New employee orientation 94.4%
Technical (including apprenticeships) 22.2%
Customer service 86.1%
Basic skills (language, math, literacy, etc.) 27.8%
First aid and CPR 33.3%
Recruiting process 66.7%
Testing process 55.6%
Compensation administration 75.0%
Performance appraisals process 97.2%
Discipline process 97.2%
Grievance process 94.4%
Termination process 91.7%
Reward policies and procedures 61.1%
General personnel policies 94.4%
Labor relationships 86.1%
Employee benefits 94.4%
Provided by
Type of Training departments
Performance management 44.4%
Certified public manager program 5.6%
Computer 58.3%
Management 41.7%
Supervisory 41.7%
Diversity/EEO 25.0%
Sexual harassment 27.8%
Communication 38.9%
Conflict resolution 30.6%
Teamwork 41.7%
Total Quality Management (TQM) 30.6%
Leadership 38.9%
New employee orientation 58.3%
Technical (including apprenticeships) 80.6%
Customer service 47.2%
Basic skills (language, math, literacy, etc.) 13.9%
First aid and CPR 63.9%
Recruiting process 22.2%
Testing process 13.9%
Compensation administration 11.1%
Performance appraisals process 30.6%
Discipline process 25.0%
Grievance process 27.8%
Termination process 22.2%
Reward policies and procedures 36.1%
General personnel policies 25.0%
Labor relationships 16.7%
Employee benefits 19.4%
Provided by
Type of Training contractor
Performance management 36.1%
Certified public manager program 30.6%
Computer 80.6%
Management 61.1%
Supervisory 44.4%
Diversity/EEO 52.8%
Sexual harassment 33.3%
Communication 50.0%
Conflict resolution 55.6%
Teamwork 47.2%
Total Quality Management (TQM) 25.0%
Leadership 61.1%
New employee orientation 0%
Technical (including apprenticeships) 47.2%
Customer service 44.4%
Basic skills (language, math, literacy, etc.) 44.4%
First aid and CPR 38.9%
Recruiting process 5.6%
Testing process 13.9%
Compensation administration 16.7%
Performance appraisals process 16.7%
Discipline process 8.3%
Grievance process 8.3%
Termination process 8.3%
Reward policies and procedures 5.6%
General personnel policies 5.6%
Labor relationships 13.9%
Employee benefits 19.4%
Table 9. Managerial Responsibility for Components of Classification and
Compensation System
Function Centralized
Developing classification system 91.7%
Conducting job analysis 83.3%
Conducting job classification 83.3%
Conducting job reclassification 80.6%
Determining compensation 75.0%
Function Shared
Developing classification system 8.3%
Conducting job analysis 13.9%
Conducting job classification 11.1%
Conducting job reclassification 13.9%
Determining compensation 22.2%
Function Decentralized
Developing classification system 0.0%
Conducting job analysis 2.8%
Conducting job classification 5.6%
Conducting job reclassification 5.6%
Determining compensation 2.8%
Table 10. Classification by County
Classification Average Number of
County Titles Employees Per Title
Allegheny 1301 5
Anne Arundel 416 15
Baltimore 424 17
Broward 1000 7
Clark 892 7
Contra Costa 1439 9
Cook 1700 16
Cuyahoga 30 366
Dallas 600 11
Erie 1100 10
Fairfax 682 23
Franklin 1044 6
Fulton 820 8
Hamilton 848 7
Harris 1385 10
Hennepin 480 28
Hillsborough 4300 1
King 2611 6
Los Angeles 2700 34
Maricopa 190 84
Mecklenburg 618 8
Miami-Dade 2500 12
Milwaukee 822 9
Monroe 1060 5
Montgomery 534 19
Oakland 839 6
Orange 1004 19
Palm Beach 500 11
Prince Georges 570 11
Riverside 2056 7
Sacramento 856 16
San Diego 1555 11
Santa Clara 1317 14
Shelby 309 22
Wayne 616 10
Westchester 2132 3
Table 11. Use of Broadbanding by County Government
Yes No
All employees 5.6% 94.4%
All classified employees 5.6% 94.4%
All non-classified employees 0.0% 100%
Executives 13.9% 86.1%
Managers 8.3% 91.7%
Specific departments 11.1% 88.9%
Specific classifications/occupations 22.2% 77.8%
Table 12. Forms of Remuneration Used in County Government
Forms of Remuneration Never Rarely Sometimes
Annual step increases 11.1% 2.8% 16.7%
Cost of living payments 36.1% 0.0% 13.9%
Pay-for-performance 25.0% 11.1% 16.7%
Individual performance bonuses 41.7% 16.7% 16.7%
Group performance bonuses 58.3% 16.7% 13.9%
Gain sharing 80.6% 8.3% 5.6%
Skill pay 47.2% 13.9% 27.8%
Competency pay 72.0% 5.6% 13.9%
Forms of Remuneration Often Very Often
Annual step increases 16.7% 52.8%
Cost of living payments 11.1% 38.9%
Pay-for-performance 11.1% 36.1%
Individual performance bonuses 16.7% 8.3%
Group performance bonuses 8.3% 2.8%
Gain sharing 2.8% 2.8%
Skill pay 8.3% 2.8%
Competency pay 0.0% 8.3%
In addition, make sure to read these articles:
- Forms of Local Government: A Handbook on City, County and Regional Options.
- Rethinking city and county government.
- Where Waupaca County is going
- The turbulent environment of public personnel administration: responding to the challenge...
- Are strong unions compatible with the new model of human resource management?
- Violence in the workplace: the role of human resource management.
- Human resource survey shows adjustments in staffing
- A framework for individual management development in the public sector.
- Strategic Planning for Human Resource Management.
- Lawson Positioned as a Leader in Independent Research Firm's Human Resource Management...
- Human resource information systems: a review and model development.
- Strategic human resource management: an Australian case study.
- Alternative Insights into Human Resource Management: Video Leadership Seminar with Stephen...
- Repositioning the human resource function at Hoffmann-LaRoche.
Email
Digg It
del.icio.us
Related Resources
Press Releases
- Saul Ewing Attorney Sworn in as New Jersey Association of Counties President.
- Penn National Gaming Wins Endorsement of Sumner County Commissioners for Proposed Hollywood Casino in Wellington, Kansas.
- The Minnesota Association of County Auditors, Treasurers and Finance Officers and Official Payments Corp. Launch Online Payment Portal; Easy, Cost Effective Payment Processing Service Now Available to All...
