Summary

Temporary Workers in Local Government: Although Some Workers Have Limited Opportunities, Most Have Reasonable Access to Permanent Employment and Earn the Same Wage Rates as Permanent Workers April 2009 Report 2008-107 C A L I F O R N I A S T A T E A U D I T O R The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free. Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check or money order. You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits at the following address: California State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814 916.445.0255 or TTY 916.445.0033 OR This report is also available on the World Wide Web http://www.bsa.ca.gov The California State Auditor is pleased to announce the availability of an on-line subscription service. For information on how to subscribe, please contact the Information Technology Unit at 916.445.0255, ext. 456, or visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov. Alternate format reports available upon request. Permission is granted to reproduce reports. For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR Elaine M. Howle State Auditor Doug Cordiner B u r e a u o f S t a t e A u d i t s Chief Deputy 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.445.0255 916.327.0019 fax www.bsa.ca.gov April 23, 2009 2008-107 The Governor of California President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders: As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits presents its audit report concerning the use of temporary workers by general law local governments. This report concludes that concerns regarding the possible improper classification of temporary workers by local governments generally were unfounded. We found that temporary employees in only 11 of 78 job classifications appeared to have limited opportunities to move to permanent jobs. Furthermore, the local governments using these 11 classifications had reasonable explanations for employing primarily temporary workers in these classifications. The remaining job classifications either constituted true temporary jobs that generally lasted for a relatively short time, were per diem (paid by the day) classifications in which most employees worked on a temporary basis by choice, or were classifications for which the temporary employees in them appeared to have good opportunities to get permanent jobs. Temporary employees of the six local governments we reviewed, with one type of temporary employee in Kern County being the exception, generally do not receive employer-sponsored benefits or receive very few of these benefits until they have worked at least 1,000 hours. In contrast, most permanent workers and at-will management employees receive employer-sponsored benefits, the most common being retirement, health, dental, vision, vacation, sick leave, and paid holidays. However, the hourly wages of temporary workers in these six local governments were frequently the same as the wages of comparable permanent workers. Five of the six local governments we reviewed had temporary workers who exceeded their government’s established maximum time limits for employees working in a temporary capacity over various periods during 2006 and 2007, although the number of instances was significant in only two local governments, Contra Costa County and Riverside County. Both counties had explanations for nearly all of the instances, including that the extra time may have been or had been authorized, or that the employees involved were not subject to the county’s limits. We surveyed 594 temporary workers from the six local governments and received 230 responses. The results of our survey indicate that respondents to our survey from the cities were more likely than respondents from the counties to be temporary employees by their own choice and less likely to have applied for permanent jobs with their local government employers. Respectfully submitted, ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA State Auditor California State Auditor Report 2008-107 vii April 2009 Contents Summary 1 Introduction 7 Chapter 1 Concerns Regarding Possible Misuse of Temporary Workers by Local Governments Generally Were Unfounded 17 Recommendations 33 Chapter 2 Local Governments Have Different Approaches for Compensating Temporary Workers and Limiting How Much They May Work 35 Recommendation 45 Appendix A An Explanation of How We Used the Data in Appendixes B Through E 47 Appendix B Summary of Select Personnel Data for the City of Escondido Job Classifications With the Most Temporary Employees Without Benefits From 2003 Through 2007 51 Appendix C Summary of Select Personnel Data for the Kern County Job Classifications With the Most Temporary Employees Without Benefits From 2003 Through 2007 55 Appendix D Summary of Select Personnel Data for the Riverside County Job Classifications With the Most Temporary Employees Without Benefits From 2003 Through 2007 57 Appendix E Summary of Select Personnel Data for the San Joaquin County Job Classifications With the Most Temporary Employees Without Benefits From 2003 Through 2007 59 Appendix F Survey Responses From Employees of the Six Local Governments We Reviewed 63 Responses to the Audit City of Escondido 67 City of Fremont 71 viii California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Contra Costa County 73 California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From Contra Costa County 75 Kern County 77 California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From Kern County 79 County of Riverside 81 County of San Joaquin 83 California State Auditor’s Comment on the Response From the County of San Joaquin 85 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 1 April 2009 Summary Results in Brief Audit Highlights . . . Concerns regarding the number of temporary employees hired by Our review of the use of temporary general law1 local governments, whether temporary employees were employees in four counties and two cities doing work that was actually long-term work and were, therefore, revealed the following: misclassified, and whether temporary employees had reasonable opportunities to become permanent employees prompted this » Of the 78 job classifications from four of audit. All six of the local governments we reviewed use permanent the six entities included in our review, and temporary workers, but they classify these workers using a temporary employees in only 11 job variety of terms, such as provisional, casual, and regular. As we classifications appeared to have limited use the terms in this report, temporary workers are defined as opportunities to move to permanent jobs. at-will employees, that is, employees who may be terminated by their employer at any time with or without cause, and permanent » Five of these local governments had workers are defined as those who are not employed on an at-will temporary workers who exceeded their basis. We reviewed the use of temporary employees in the counties government’s established limits on the of Contra Costa, Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin and the cities of amount of time temporary workers may Escondido and Fremont. work over various periods during 2006 and 2007: Using payroll data for 2003 through 2007 from four of the • In Contra Costa, 113 employees six entities included in our review, the city of Escondido appeared to exceed the applicable (Escondido), Kern County (Kern), Riverside County (Riverside), limits, while 492 appeared to and San Joaquin County2 (San Joaquin), we analyzed 78 job in Riverside. classifications to determine whether temporary employees without • Fremont, Escondido, and San Joaquin benefits (temporary employees) had reasonable opportunities had relatively few workers who to secure employment with permanent status or benefits exceeded the limits. (permanent jobs) and the extent to which they did so. These 78 job classifications contained the greatest numbers of temporary » The proportion of temporary workers in employees between 2003 and 2007 in the four local governments. the cities we reviewed was higher than We found that temporary employees in only 11 of the 78 job in the counties. classifications (14 percent) appeared to have limited opportunities to move to permanent jobs and, further, that the local governments » In contrast to permanent employees, using these 11 classifications had reasonable explanations for temporary workers in five local employing primarily temporary workers in these instances. The governments generally do not receive, remaining job classifications either constituted true temporary jobs or receive very few, employer-sponsored that generally lasted for a relatively short time, were per diem (paid benefits until they have worked at least by the day) classifications in which most employees worked on a 1,000 hours. temporary basis by choice, or were classifications for which the temporary employees in them appeared to have good opportunities » The results of our survey of to get permanent jobs. 594 temporary workers from the six local governments indicate that survey respondents from the cities were more likely than respondents from the counties to be temporary employees by their own 1 The California Constitution authorizes two types of local governments: those governed by the choice and less likely to have applied State’s general law and those with charters. Cities and counties with charters generally have more for permanent jobs with their local autonomy in managing their employees than do general law cities and counties. government employers. 2 Data for San Joaquin County were available only for pay periods ending between October 2003 and December 2007. 2 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 During our review of the 78 job classifications, we found that Escondido was not appropriately monitoring the use of a temporary job classification, department specialist, that does not have a set upper limit on its wage rate. Before February 2008 city departments were not required to have city manager approval to use the department specialist classification. In the two instances in which the city manager approved the use of this classification since February 2008, it was not clear from available documentation why regular city job classifications were not used instead of the department specialist or why the requested $60 per hour salary levels for the two employees were approved. Although the city has general written guidance applicable to all part-time job classifications, including the department specialist, it has not developed written guidance concerning when to use the department specialist classification or how to determine the hourly wage rates paid to department specialists. All six local governments we reviewed have limits on how long temporary workers may work. Five of the six had temporary workers who exceeded their government’s established time limits for temporary employees over various periods during 2006 and 2007. The city of Fremont (Fremont), Escondido, and San Joaquin had relatively few workers who exceeded applicable time limits, and Kern had none, while 113 employees in Contra Costa County (Contra Costa) and 492 employees in Riverside appeared to exceed applicable limits. For Riverside, we selected a sample of 39 temporary employees who appeared to have exceeded the county’s 1,000-hour time limit for temporary workers and found that 19 were approved to work 1,000 hours over the 1,000-hour limit, or up to 2,000 hours. However, two of the 19 employees worked more than 2,000 hours, thereby exceeding the number of hours they were authorized to work. Of the remaining 20 Riverside temporary employees, 18 were actually employees in the county’s on-call per diem medical registry who were classified in fiscal year 2006–07 as temporary assistants, according to Riverside. As per diem employees, they were not subject to the 1,000-hour limit. The remaining two temporary employees worked over the 1,000-hour limit without authorization. Similarly, for a sample of 15 temporary employees in Contra Costa who worked more than the county’s one-year time limit for temporary employees, the county asserted that 14 of the employees may have been approved to exceed the limit. However, the county was unable to provide evidence to support its statement that the employees had been approved to do so because it does not require that such authorizations be in writing. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 3 April 2009 Although we did not conduct a detailed analysis of temporary job classifications in Fremont or Contra Costa, we did note that Contra Costa formed a committee in 2006 consisting of certain county management employees and representatives of employee organizations to review issues pertaining to temporary workers. The committee submitted a report with recommendations to the county board of supervisors (board) in August 2008 suggesting that the county did not always limit its use of temporary employees to positions required to fill its short-term workload needs and that the county sometimes replaced a temporary worker who had reached the limit on the allowable number of hours in a given job classification with another temporary employee. According to the director of human resources, as of late March 2009, negotiations with a coalition of labor unions were ongoing to reach a final resolution regarding the committee’s recommendations. We also found that the proportion of temporary workers in the cities we reviewed was higher than in the counties. The two cities we reviewed, Escondido and Fremont, had the highest percentages of temporary employees in 2007—52.4 percent and 34.9 percent, respectively—while Riverside had the lowest percentage, at 16.1 percent. Temporary employees in the counties also secured permanent jobs with their government entities at a higher rate than temporary employees in the cities. Among the six local governments included in our review, Riverside had the highest percentage, 37.9 percent, of temporary employees secure permanent jobs between 2003 and 2007. Further, the temporary employees of the six local governments we reviewed, with one of the two types of temporary employees in Kern being the exception, generally do not receive employer-sponsored benefits or receive very few of these benefits until they have worked at least 1,000 hours. In contrast, most permanent workers and at-will management employees receive employer-sponsored benefits, the most common being retirement, health, dental, vision, vacation, sick leave, and paid holidays. The hourly wages of temporary workers in the six cities and counties we reviewed were frequently the same as the wages of comparable permanent workers. In Escondido, Fremont, Kern, and San Joaquin, temporary and permanent workers in the same job classification were paid the same wage rate. In Riverside and Contra Costa, temporary workers generally are paid hourly wages at the first step in the pay scale of their job classification and, except for temporary workers of Contra Costa represented by two employee organizations, they do not have the opportunity for pay increases. In addition, temporary workers in Riverside’s Temporary Assignment Program (TAP) generally earn hourly wages that are 5.5 percent less than the first step of the pay scale 4 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 of employees in comparable county classifications. However, according to county officials, TAP employees actually take home more money than their permanent counterparts because they are not covered by the federal Social Security program and therefore do not pay Social Security taxes, and they have different and less costly retirement benefits than permanent workers. We also noted that per diem workers in the counties typically earn higher wages than their permanent counterparts, although they do not receive the benefits that permanent employees receive. We surveyed 594 temporary workers from the six local governments and received 230 responses. The results of our survey indicate that respondents to our survey from the cities were more likely than respondents from the counties to be temporary employees by their own choice and less likely to have applied for permanent jobs with their local government employers. In Kern, Riverside, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin counties, 36 percent of those who responded to the survey indicated that they chose to be temporary workers rather than permanent workers, and of the 138 respondents, 37 percent stated that they had remained temporary workers from our audit period until the time they responded to our survey. In contrast, 74 percent of the temporary workers from the cities of Escondido and Fremont who responded indicated that they chose that status, and of the 92 respondents, 57 percent remain as temporary workers. Moreover, among the survey respondents, 62 percent of the county temporary workers indicated that they had taken examinations required to get a permanent position, compared to 21 percent of the temporary workers employed by the cities. In addition, 60 percent of the county workers responding indicated that they had applied for specific permanent jobs with their local governments, compared to 21 percent of the temporary workers employed by the cities. Recommendations To help ensure that its department specialist job classification is used consistently and appropriately, Escondido’s human resources department should ensure decisions to use the classification, including the salary level for each position, are approved and fully documented. To address issues identified by the joint management-labor committee created to review Contra Costa’s use of temporary employees, the county should continue negotiations with employee organizations to reach resolution regarding the committee’s recommendations. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 5 April 2009 To ensure that their temporary employees do not work beyond prescribed time limits without authorization, Contra Costa and Riverside should improve their processes for identifying workers approaching the limits and, along with San Joaquin, document requests and approvals for workers to exceed the limits. Agency Comments All six of the local governments agreed with the information in the report. The four local governments to which we addressed recommendations concurred with our recommendations and plan to implement them. 6 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 7 April 2009 Introduction Background Concerns regarding the number of temporary employees hired by general law local governments, whether temporary employees were doing work that was actually long-term work and were, therefore, misclassified, and whether temporary employees had reasonable opportunities to become permanent employees prompted this audit. This review focuses on the use of temporary employees by the following general law local governments:3 the city of Escondido (Escondido), the city of Fremont (Fremont), Contra Costa County (Contra Costa), Kern County (Kern), Riverside County (Riverside), and San Joaquin County (San Joaquin). All six of the local governments we reviewed use Definitions for Employee Categories permanent and temporary workers, but they Permanent: Not at-will. classify these workers using a variety of terms, such as provisional, casual, and regular. To provide Temporary: At-will, defined as employees, including readers with a common frame of reference for management employees, who may be terminated by their understanding how the six entities we reviewed employer at any time, with or without cause. classify their employees, we use a naming Full-time: An employee scheduled to work 2,080 hours convention in which we describe the different types per year. of employees in the cities and counties as either Part-time: An employee scheduled to work fewer than permanent or temporary, and either full-time or 2,080 hours per year. part-time. These terms are defined in the text box. The six local governments we reviewed have different limits on how long temporary workers may work, as shown in Table 1 on the following page. These limits range from 1,000 hours per assignment in a fiscal year in Riverside to a limit of 4,160 hours per assignment for temporary employees in Fremont who are represented by the Fremont Association of City Employees. Some hourly limits are the result of negotiations with employee bargaining units, and others are set forth in the local government’s personnel ordinances or rules. Counties and cities may contract with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to provide retirement benefits to their employees. Of the six local governments we reviewed, three—Escondido, Fremont, and Riverside4—contract with CalPERS for most of their employees. Contra Costa, Kern, and San Joaquin have their own retirement programs for their employees. 3 The California Constitution authorizes two types of local governments: those governed by the State’s general law and those with charters. Cities and counties with charters generally have more autonomy in managing their employees than do general law cities and counties. 4 Riverside’s contract with CalPERS excludes its per diem employees from enrolling in CalPERS. 8 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Table 1 Local Governments’ Limits on the Length of Time Temporary Workers May Work LocaL type of Government temporary Worker appLicabLe Limit time frame County Contra Costa Temporary 1 year Any consecutive 12 months Kern Extra help 9 months Any consecutive 9 months Riverside Temporary* 1,000 hours per assignment Fiscal year San Joaquin Temporary† 1,560 hours Calendar year City Escondido Temporary part-time 1,500 hours Fiscal year Fremont Temporary part-time 1,040 hours Any consecutive 12 months Temporary (Fremont Association of City Employees) 4,160 hours Per assignment Temporary (Operating Engineers Local Union Number 3) 2 years Per assignment Sources: Local ordinances, rules, regulations, and policies from the counties of Contra Costa, Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin, and the cities of Escondido and Fremont. * Includes both temporary employees in the Temporary Assignment Program who may work up to 1,000 hours per assignment and temporary workers assigned to county departments who may work up to 1,000 hours of substantially continuous service in the same capacity each fiscal year. † Includes seasonal temporary employees who have a time limit of 7 months each calendar year. All Counties Use Per Diem Workers According to human resources officials in all four counties we reviewed, the counties use a class of temporary employee referred to as per diem (paid by the day) to attract difficult-to-recruit health care workers.5 The two cities we reviewed do not use per diem classifications. Generally, per diem employees have more flexibility than permanent employees in choosing the days and times they work. These employees typically do not receive benefits, but instead earn higher wages than their permanent counterparts who do receive benefits. According to human resources officials in the four counties, per diem employees have chosen that status rather than permanent status. 5 Although counties use the term per diem for this class of employee, per diem employees are paid an hourly rate for the hours they work. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 9 April 2009 The Proportion of Temporary Workers Varied Among the Cities and Counties We Reviewed As shown in Table 2, the two cities we reviewed, Escondido and Fremont, had higher percentages of temporary employees among their workforces in 2007 than any of the counties. Escondido’s workforce had the highest percentage of temporary employees among the six local governments included in our review, 52.4 percent, while Riverside had the lowest percentage, 16.1 percent. The vast majority of temporary employees across the four entities in which we could discern full-time and part-time status were part-time workers, while among permanent employees full-time workers were predominant. Table 2 Use of Temporary Employees by Six Local Governments in 2007 number of temporary empLoyees* number of permanent empLoyees† temporary empLoyees as a LocaL totaL percentaGe of Government fuLL-time‡ part-time§ totaLs fuLL-time part-time totaLs empLoyees totaL empLoyees County Contra Costa Not Not availablell availablell 2,169 7,544 748 8,292 10,461 20.7% Kern Not Not Not Not available# available# 3,456 available# available# 8,846 12,302 28.1 Riverside 248 3,539 3,787 19,489 293 19,782 23,569 16.1 San Joaquin** 203 1,589 1,792 5,960 9 5,969 7,761 23.1 City Escondido 192 565 757 678 9 687 1,444 52.4 Fremont 44 461 505 887 53 940 1,445 34.9 Sources: Payroll data from the counties of Contra Costa, Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin, and the cities of Escondido and Fremont for all pay periods ending in 2007. * Temporary employees are at-will employees, including management employees, which we defined as employees who may be terminated at any time, with or without cause. † Permanent employees are not at-will employees. ‡ A full-time employee is one scheduled to work 2,080 hours per year. § A part-time employee is one scheduled to work fewer than 2,080 hours per year. ll We could not clearly distinguish between part-time and full-time temporary employees in the data set Contra Costa County provided. # Data concerning part-time and full-time status were not in the data set Kern County provided. ** The data we obtained from San Joaquin were of undetermined reliability for our purposes because the county uses a paperless system and, therefore, we were unable to determine the accuracy of key data fields used in our analysis by tracing the data in them to source documents. However, we performed an analysis that assured us that the San Joaquin data contained reasonable values in key data fields. We were also able to determine that the payroll data file the county provided us was complete. During our review we found that several factors influence whether local government employees are permanent or temporary. One factor is the employee’s personal preference. We were told by human resources officials in the cities and counties we reviewed 10 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 that some employees prefer temporary status, while others prefer to be permanent. This was borne out by the responses we received to our survey of a sample of temporary employees in the six cities and counties we reviewed, in which 52 percent of those responding indicated that they were temporary employees by choice. Another factor is the number of temporary and permanent job openings at any one time. When more permanent jobs are available, the opportunity is greater for a job seeker looking for permanent employment to get one. Finally, all six of the entities we reviewed use a competitive process to fill permanent jobs, without favoring temporary workers who are already working for them. Thus, a temporary employee’s ability to get a permanent job also depends on the pool of other applicants seeking the same job. Local Government Personnel Systems Are Subject to a Variety of Laws and Regulations The two primary types of local government in California are counties and cities. Both have the power to provide for the health and welfare of their citizens, with cities having broader powers of self-government than counties do. The California Constitution and other state laws provide for the organizational structure of counties and cities. The California Constitution also permits two types of local governments: those governed by the State’s general law and those governed by charters. Cities and counties with charters generally have more autonomy in managing their employees than do general law cities and counties. The six local governments we chose for our review are governed by general law. Section 19800 of the California Government Code requires the State Personnel Board (personnel board) to establish personnel standards for merit employment systems of local governments when such systems are required by statute as a condition of a state-funded program or a federal grant-in-aid program established under certain federal laws. State law also permits local governments to establish their own merit systems and personnel standards, subject to personnel board review and approval, to the extent that local government employees are administering federal- and state-supported programs under Section 19800. These programs are in areas such as health care and child support services. The personnel standards required by Section 19800 of the Government Code are in Title 2, Division 5 of the California Code of Regulations (regulations) and specify merit principles such as recruitment and career advancement, selection, classification and compensation, training, separation and layoff, and employee evaluation. These standards must be met by a local government that wants to establish its own approved local merit system to qualify California State Auditor Report 2008-107 11 April 2009 for certain federal- and state-funded programs. Local governments that do not have an approved local merit system are subject to the interagency merit system that the personnel board administers directly. To assure conformity with applicable federal requirements, the interagency merit system must meet the same personnel standards in the regulations as required of local governments with approved local merit systems. The personnel board contracts with Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS), a public agency created pursuant to a joint powers agreement, to, among other tasks, review the personnel systems of local governments for compliance with the local government personnel standards in the regulations. The goal of CPS is to review seven of the 28 counties with approved local merit systems each year. All four counties included in our review have approved local merit systems and were reviewed by CPS in 2003 or later. The contractor found that the counties met or were in general overall compliance with the relevant local government personnel standards. Temporary Workers Tend to Be in Certain Occupational Groups Local governments are required to submit biennially to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission a report that specifies, among other things, the number of local government employees by occupational group. As shown in Table 3 on the following page, the professional, paraprofessional, and administrative support occupations generally had the highest proportion of temporary workers6 among the entities we reviewed. Professionals include occupations such as doctor, lawyer, police and fire captain, librarian, and management analyst. Paraprofessionals include occupations such as medical aide, library clerk, ambulance driver, and child support worker. The administrative support group includes occupations such as bookkeeper, clerk typist, payroll clerk, computer operator, and cashier. Riverside Has a Unique Program for Meeting Its Temporary Employment Needs Riverside has a program called the Temporary Assignment Program (TAP) that serves as an in-house registry for temporary workers. According to officials of Riverside, the Riverside board of supervisors 6 From this point forward in the report, our definition of temporary employees excludes management employees to focus our analysis on the type of temporary workers that raised the concerns that led to this audit. 12 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Table 3 Percentage of Temporary Workers Without Benefits by Occupational Group for Pay Periods Ending in 2007 contra costa kern riverside city of city of occupationaL Group* county county county escondido fremont Officials and administrators 1.6% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Professionals 29.5 21.7 14.0 1.4 4.0 Technicians 8.1 10.0 1.1 3.2 0.2 Protective service workers 3.6 16.2 0.0 7.2 2.4 Paraprofessionals 24.5 14.7 6.1 36.8 73.5 Administrative support (including clerical and sales) 17.9 24.5 78.3 26.8 16.2 Skilled craft workers 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 Service—maintenance 7.7 7.9 0.5 24.4 0.4 Not specified 7.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 3.3 Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Sources: Payroll data from the counties of Contra Costa, Kern, and Riverside, and the cities of Escondido and Fremont. Note: Data for San Joaquin County is not displayed because it did not code any employees in the paraprofessional occupational group, but instead spread these workers across the other occupational groups. As a result, data for San Joaquin is not comparable with that of the other five local governments included in our review. * The occupational groups are the categories local governments must use on the biennial EEO-4 report they submit to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. in 1998 approved the creation of a temporary assistance pool in response to a growing need within the county for temporary staffing services. In 2004 the program was expanded to be more responsive to county needs for medical staffing and began recruiting per diem and on-call medical staff. According to county officials, the two branches of the program are now known as the TAP and the Medical Assignment Program, and they have become a comprehensive, flexible staffing solution that provides the county with a labor source for temporary, per diem, and on-call workers at a significant cost savings over the use of outside staffing agencies and registries. In our review of the personnel systems of the five other local governments, we did not find a program similar to Riverside’s TAP. Scope and Methodology The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee) requested that the Bureau of State Audits review the use of short-term and/ or temporary employees by six California general law counties and cities. Specifically, the audit committee asked that we select six general law counties and cities to review, and that we determine how these local governments classify positions and how many California State Auditor Report 2008-107 13 April 2009 temporary employees are misclassified. The audit committee specified that we include the counties of Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin in our review. In addition to these three counties, we selected Contra Costa County, as well as the cities of Escondido and Fremont to review. We selected these three local governments because they had the largest number of county or city employees relative to the other general law counties or cities that were not already included in the scope of our review. The audit committee requested that for each of the six general law counties and cities we compare the number of temporary workers to the number of permanent workers and compare the wages and benefits of temporary workers to those of their permanent counterparts to the extent that such counterparts exist. The audit committee also asked that for the same six general law counties and cities we determine the average length of employment for temporary workers and whether this length complies with applicable requirements, whether temporary workers are performing duties that are legitimately temporary in nature, whether temporary workers are provided reasonable opportunities to become permanent employees, and the number of temporary workers who became permanent employees. To determine how local governments classify positions, we reviewed state laws and local ordinances, personnel rules, and memoranda of understanding between the cities and counties and their respective employee organizations. We also interviewed staff with the human resources departments in the cities and counties we reviewed. To determine how many temporary employees of the counties and cities in our review were misclassified or performing duties that might not have been legitimately temporary in nature, we reviewed city and county ordinances, personnel rules and regulations, and memoranda of understanding with employee organizations. As we explain more fully later in this section, we also analyzed data for the five years from 2003 to 2007 from the counties of Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin7 and the city of Escondido concerning the number of temporary workers in different job classifications, the length of time they spent in these classifications, and whether they secured permanent jobs with their local governments during this time period. In addition, we contacted representatives of local employee organizations to get their perspective on the use of temporary workers by the six cities and counties. We also obtained and analyzed data from the cities and counties regarding the length 7 Data for San Joaquin were available only for pay periods ending between October 2003 and December 2007. 14 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 of time temporary employees worked in temporary positions compared to applicable allowable time frames for temporary employment. We followed up with city and county managers in those cases in which it was not clear whether the cities and counties had met applicable requirements. To compare the numbers of permanent and temporary workers in the counties and cities reviewed, we identified these types of employees in payroll data for the five years from 2003 through 2007 that we obtained from the counties and cities, and we produced relevant statistics about them. To compare the wages and benefits of temporary workers to those of their permanent counterparts, we reviewed pay schedules, local ordinances, personnel rules, and memoranda of understanding between the local governments and employee organizations, and interviewed local government staff. To determine whether temporary workers in the counties and cities we reviewed were provided reasonable opportunities to become permanent employees, we reviewed local ordinances, personnel rules, and memoranda of understanding with employee organizations; interviewed staff with the human resources departments in the cities and counties; conducted a survey of those who were temporary employees of the counties and cities reviewed at some point between 2003 and 2007; and considered the data we developed from city and county payroll records concerning the number of temporary workers who became permanent employees between 2003 and 2007. We also analyzed data for 2003 to 2007 from the counties of Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin and the city of Escondido concerning the number of temporary workers in different job classifications, the equivalent permanent job classifications, the length of time employees spent in these classifications, and the extent to which temporary workers got jobs in the equivalent permanent job classifications or other permanent job classifications. The counties and cities included in our review provided payroll data we used to perform analyses regarding temporary workers. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose standards we follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of computer-processed data. Based on our tests we found that the payroll data provided by the counties of Contra Costa, Riverside, and Kern, and the cities of Escondido and Fremont were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. However, data we obtained from San Joaquin were of undetermined reliability for our purposes because the county uses a paperless system and, therefore, we were unable to determine the accuracy of key data fields used in our analysis by tracing the data in them to source documents. However, California State Auditor Report 2008-107 15 April 2009 we performed an analysis that assured us that the San Joaquin data contained reasonable values in key data fields. We were also able to determine that the payroll data file the county provided us was complete. To fulfill the audit objectives, we relied extensively on payroll data from the six local governments we reviewed. One of the primary tools we used to determine whether temporary employees had reasonable opportunities to get permanent jobs and the extent to which they took advantage of those opportunities was an aggregation of relevant data into a tabular format for four of the six entities. We created tables and related appendixes for the three counties specifically identified in the audit request— Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin—and for one city, Escondido. We believe that focusing on these four entities provided us with sufficient information upon which to base our conclusions regarding the use of temporary employees by general law counties and cities. Appendix A provides a description of how to use the appendix tables. In creating each appendix table, we first identified in the local government payroll data those temporary employees who did not receive employer-sponsored benefits (temporary employees) between 2003 and 2007, as these employees were the focus of the audit request. (In our analysis, we considered employees to be receiving employer-sponsored benefits if they were receiving retirement, medical, and dental benefits, and two of the following three benefits: vision, paid vacation and/or sick leave, and paid holidays.) We then identified the job classifications in which these temporary employees worked. Next we identified, for each local government, up to the top 20 classifications that employed the most temporary employees for 12 or more two-week pay periods during our review period. We used this time frame as a benchmark because temporary employees in several of the entities we reviewed become eligible for certain benefits after working 1,000 hours, which is 40 hours more than the 960 hours in 12 two-week pay periods of 80 hours each. These job classifications are the classifications we focused on for our data analysis in appendixes B through E. The next step in our analysis was to determine whether, for the job classifications we identified, there existed equivalent job classifications with similar duties and responsibilities, or similar training, education, and experience requirements, that provided potential opportunities for temporary employees to secure employment with permanent status and/or benefits (permanent jobs). Many of the job classifications in which the most temporary employees were employed are classifications in which either a 16 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 temporary employee or permanent employee could work. In these cases, we considered the job classification a potential opportunity and an equivalent job classification in our analysis. The final step in preparing appendixes B through E for our analysis was to add data showing how long the temporary employees remained in that status, whether the equivalent job classifications represented real potential opportunities based on the number of employees in the classifications between 2003 and 2007 and the number of permanent employees the entities hired in the classifications in the same time frame, and the number of temporary employees who secured employment with the local government between 2003 and 2007 in the equivalent job classification or any classification that offered permanent jobs. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 17 April 2009 Chapter 1 ConCeRnS ReGARdInG PoSSIbLe MISuSe of TeMPoRARy WoRkeRS by LoCAL GoveRnMenTS GeneRALLy WeRe unfounded Chapter Summary Concerns regarding the number of temporary employees hired by local governments, whether temporary employees were doing work that was actually long-term work and were, therefore, misclassified, and whether temporary employees had reasonable opportunities to become permanent employees prompted this audit. Generally, we could not validate these concerns during our review of the counties of Contra Costa, Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin and the cities of Escondido and Fremont. This conclusion is based primarily on our detailed analysis of payroll data for 78 job classifications used in four of the entities we reviewed that employed thousands of temporary employees from 2003 through 2007. We found that temporary employees in only 11 of the 78 job classifications (14 percent) appeared to have limited opportunities to move to permanent jobs, and that the local governments using these 11 classifications had reasonable explanations as to why they used primarily temporary workers in these classifications. The remaining job classifications either constituted true temporary jobs that generally lasted for a relatively short time, were per diem classifications in which most employees worked on a temporary basis by choice, or were classifications for which the temporary employees in them appeared to have good opportunities to get permanent jobs. We also found that one local government, the city of Escondido (Escondido), was not appropriately monitoring the use of a temporary job classification called department specialist. Before February 2008 city departments were not required to obtain city manager approval to use the department specialist classification. Further, in the two instances in which the city manager approved the use of this classification since February 2008, it was not clear from available documentation why regular city job classifications were not used instead of the department specialist classification or why the requested salary levels for the two employees were approved. Although we did not conduct a detailed analysis of temporary job classifications in the city of Fremont (Fremont) or Contra Costa County (Contra Costa), we noted that Contra Costa formed a committee in 2006 consisting of certain county management 18 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 employees and representatives of employee organizations to review issues pertaining to temporary workers. The committee submitted a report with recommendations to the county board of supervisors (board) in August 2008, suggesting that the county did not always limit its use of temporary employees to positions needed to fill its short-term workload needs and that the county sometimes replaced a temporary worker who had reached the limit on the allowable number of hours in a job classification with another temporary employee. According to the director of human resources, as of late March 2009, negotiations with a coalition of labor unions were ongoing to reach a final resolution regarding the committee’s report recommendations. Job Classifications We Reviewed Fell Into Four Categories In analyzing job classifications to determine whether temporary employees in them had opportunities to get permanent jobs and whether they did so, we placed each classification into one of four categories: true temporary classifications, per diem classifications, classifications with good opportunities, and classifications with limited opportunities. True temporary job classifications are those categorized as temporary by the local government. Other characteristics of classifications in this category include a short duration of employment and, in most cases, limited movement to permanent jobs. Per diem job classifications are classifications categorized as per diem by the local governments. As discussed in the Introduction, counties typically use per diem classifications for hard-to-fill health care occupations. We define job classifications with good opportunities as those that have one or both of the following characteristics: (1) The number of employees hired between 2003 and 2007 in permanent jobs in the equivalent job classification was 70 percent or greater than the number of temporary employees in the job classification we were analyzing, indicating that permanent job openings existed in sufficient numbers; and (2) the percentage of temporary employees in the job classification we were analyzing who got permanent jobs in any job classification was 26 percent or greater, indicating that temporary employees had sufficient access to these permanent jobs. We categorized job classifications with limited opportunities as those for which the number of employees hired between 2003 and 2007 in permanent jobs in the equivalent job classification was 30 percent or less than the number of temporary employees in the job classification we were analyzing, or those in which fewer than 18 percent of temporary employees in the job classification we were analyzing got permanent jobs in any job classification. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 19 April 2009 As shown in Table 4, most of the 78 job classifications we reviewed fell into the first three categories. Table 4 Summary of Analysis of Job Classifications Containing the Greatest Numbers of Temporary Employees for Pay Periods Ending in 2003 Through 2007 percentaGe number of of totaL cateGory cLassifications cLassifications True temporary 29 37% Per diem 14 18 Good opportunities for permanent employment 19 24 Limited opportunities for permanent employment 16 21 Totals 78 100% Source: Bureau of State Audits’ analysis of payroll data provided by the city of Escondido, and the counties of Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin. Note: Temporary employees are at-will employees whose employer was not providing them retirement, medical, and dental benefits, and two of the following three benefits: vision, paid vacation and/or sick leave, and paid holidays. About a Third of the Job Classifications We Reviewed in One City and Three Counties Were True Temporary Classifications Of the 78 job classifications we reviewed in detail in one city and three counties, 29 (37 percent) were true temporary classifications. These are identified in Table 5 on the following page. All of these job classifications were categorized by the city and counties as temporary or seasonal classifications. The temporary employees in more than half of the true temporary job classifications remained in them for only a relatively short period of time (less than 26 two-week pay periods), while other temporary employees in a small group of true temporary classifications tended to stay longer (34 two-week pay periods or longer). As indicated in Table 5, about half of these classifications did not have permanent equivalent job classifications. Temporary Employees Tended to Remain in True Temporary Job Classifications for Only a Short Time Most temporary employees in true temporary job classifications remained in them for relatively short periods of time. In more than half of the true temporary job classifications, employees averaged less than one year in the job. Of the 29 job classifications we 20 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Table 5 Job Classifications in One City and Three Counties That Were True Temporary Classifications for Pay Periods Ending in 2003 Through 2007 temporary empLoyees* averaGe number of pay Was there a number Who periods† that permanent Worked in every empLoyees Were LocaL equivaLent number in this year betWeen paid in this Job cLassification Government cLassification? cLassification 2003 and 2007 cLassification School crossing guard Escondido Yes 35 12 62.7 Parking enforcement officer Escondido Yes 10 2 49.0 Principal recreation leader Escondido Yes 13 2 38.2 Department specialist/department aide Escondido Yes 10 1 34.0 Recreation specialist I Escondido Yes 89 5 32.2 Title V program assistant Riverside No 22 0 32.2 Probation assistant San Joaquin‡ No 41 0 32.0 Service aide I Riverside No 336 20 29.0 Maintenance aide I Escondido Yes 10 0 27.7 Recreation leader II Escondido Yes 88 2 26.6 Community services program worker San Joaquin‡ No 50 7 26.4 Park attendant I Escondido Yes 108 3 26.3 Recreation leader I Escondido Yes 202 1 25.2 Agricultural/weights and measures technician—extra help Kern Yes 88 12 24.5 Resident physician—postgraduate year 1 Kern No 184 0 22.0 Intern San Joaquin‡ No 102 0 21.9 Resident physician—postgraduate year 2 Kern No 174 0 21.6 Resident physician—postgraduate year 3 Kern No 167 0 21.5 Resident physician—first year San Joaquin‡ No 79 0 21.5 Resident physician—second year San Joaquin‡ No 71 0 20.3 Seasonal firefighter III Kern Yes 86 0 20.1 Park maintenance aide San Joaquin‡ No 45 0 17.0 Professional student intern Riverside No 163 1 16.8 Water safety instructor Escondido Yes 36 0 15.9 Seasonal firefighter II Kern Yes 104 0 15.1 Student nursing assistant II San Joaquin‡ No 79 1 14.7 Temporary assistant Riverside No 8,114 27 13.1 Seasonal firefighter I Kern Yes 132 0 12.7 Student nursing assistant III San Joaquin‡ No 93 0 12.2 Sources: Payroll data from the counties of Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin, and the city of Escondido. Payroll data for San Joaquin County is for pay periods ending between October 2003 and December 2007. * Temporary employees are at-will employees whose employer was not providing them retirement, medical, and dental benefits, and two of the following three benefits: vision, paid vacation and/or sick leave, and paid holidays. † The pay periods for the entities included in our review were two weeks in length; therefore, 26 pay periods equal one year. ‡ The data we obtained from San Joaquin were of undetermined reliability for our purposes because the county uses a paperless system and, therefore, we were unable to determine the accuracy of key data fields used in our analysis by tracing the data in them to source documents. However, we performed an analysis that assured us that the San Joaquin data contained reasonable values in key data fields. We were also able to determine that the payroll data file the county provided us was complete. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 21 April 2009 identified as true temporary, the temporary employees in 17 of them (58 percent) worked on average fewer than 26 two-week pay periods, or one year, between 2003 and 2007. Of these, temporary employees in eight of the job classifications worked on average fewer than 20 two-week pay periods during our review period. These classifications include the seasonal firefighter I in Kern County (Kern), in which temporary employees averaged 12.7 two-week pay periods; the temporary assistant in Riverside County (Riverside), in which temporary employees averaged 13.1 two-week pay periods; the student nursing assistant III in San Joaquin County (San Joaquin), in which temporary employees averaged 12.2 two-week pay periods; and the water safety instructor in Escondido, in which temporary employees averaged 15.9 two-week pay periods. A Small Number of Temporary Workers Appear to Choose to Remain in True Temporary Classifications Some temporary employees in true temporary job classifications appeared to choose to remain in them for relatively long periods of time. Among the job classifications that we identified as true temporary classifications, temporary employees remained in four classifications (14 percent) for an average of 34 two-week pay periods or longer between 2003 and 2007. The job classification in which temporary employees remained the longest was school crossing guard in Escondido, where employees stayed on average nearly 63 two-week pay periods, or about 2.4 years. In addition, 12 of the 35 temporary employees (34 percent) who worked in the school crossing guard classification did so every year from 2003 through 2007. Because of the part-time nature of the job and the length of time that temporary employees remained in the school crossing guard classification, we believe it is a good example of the fact that some temporary employees appear to prefer working in that capacity. The other three job classifications in which temporary employees stayed for 34 pay periods or longer during our five-year review period also were classifications used by Escondido and include parking enforcement officer, principal recreation leader, and department specialist/department aide. Temporary Employees in Per Diem Job Classifications Frequently Have Opportunities for Permanent Jobs But Usually Do Not Take Them Per diem employees appear to prefer per diem status to permanent status and sometimes remain in that status for relatively long periods of time. Among the 78 job classifications we reviewed were 14 classifications (18 percent) identified as per diem classifications by their respective local governments. These classifications are 22 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 listed in Table 6. (There are no job classifications for San Joaquin in Table 6 because the county places both per diem and non-per diem employees in non-per diem classifications.) Table 6 Job Classifications in Two Counties That Use Per Diem Classifications for Pay Periods Ending in 2003 Through 2007 temporary empLoyees† number of percent of empLoyees hired in temporary number Who the equivaLent Job empLoyees† Worked in every cLassification With Who moved to a LocaL year betWeen number in this permanent status permanent Job Job cLassification Government* 2003 and 2007 cLassification and/or benefits‡ cLassification‡ Licensed vocational nurse II—per diem Riverside 0 52 94 25% Nursing assistant—per diem Riverside 0 157 63 15 Psychiatrist II—per diem Riverside 24 63 17 13 Psychiatrist III—per diem Riverside 25 78 6 6 Radiologic technologist—per diem Riverside 0 14 30 29 Registered nurse III—per diem Riverside 0 214 217 12 Registered nurse ll—per diem, as needed, regularly scheduled Riverside 0 20 217 0 Registered nurse III—per diem, as needed, regularly scheduled Riverside 0 60 374 0 Respiratory care practitioner II, registered—per diem Riverside 0 29 26 28 Temporary assignment program registry nurse—per diem Riverside 14 405 NA 21 Temporary assistant—per diem Riverside 8 175 NA 28 Temporary assistant exempt—per diem Riverside 0 37 NA 27 Per diem nurse I Kern 5 117 191 17 Per diem nurse II Kern 19 140 221 15 Sources: Payroll data from the counties of Kern and Riverside. NA = Not applicable. * As indicated in the Introduction, cities generally do not use per diem employees and are, therefore, not included in this table. † Temporary employees are at-will employees whose employer was not providing them retirement, medical, and dental benefits, and two of the following three benefits: vision, paid vacation and/or sick leave, and paid holidays. ‡ Permanent job classifications are classifications in which employees have permanent status or the employer provides retirement, medical, and dental benefits, and two of the following three benefits: vision, paid vacation and/or sick leave, and paid holidays. Employees in per diem job classifications had good opportunities to compete for and secure permanent jobs in the counties we reviewed. As indicated in the Introduction, counties generally use the per diem classification to attract difficult-to-recruit health care workers. The per diem job classifications we reviewed, shown in Table 6, include nurses, psychiatrists, respiratory care practitioners, and radiological technologists. Of the 14 per diem job classifications, the temporary employees in eight of them had good opportunities for securing permanent jobs during our five-year review period as indicated by the number of individuals California State Auditor Report 2008-107 23 April 2009 hired into permanent jobs by the counties in the equivalent job classification we identified. For example, Kern hired 221 permanent employees in the equivalent job classification for the per diem nurse II classification between 2003 and 2007. During the same time period there were 140 temporary employees in the per diem nurse II classification. In another example, between 2003 and 2007, Riverside hired 217 permanent employees in the equivalent job classification for the registered nurse III per diem classification, while during the same time period there were 214 temporary employees in the registered nurse III per diem classification. In both of these instances, the large number of permanent employees hired in the equivalent job classifications relative to the number of temporary employees in the classifications we reviewed show that opportunities existed for temporary employees to seek permanent jobs. Temporary employees in per diem job classifications generally did not take advantage of good opportunities to compete for and secure permanent jobs. For example, the percentage of temporary employees who moved to permanent jobs during our review period was 25 percent or greater for employees in five of the 14 per diem classifications. These five classifications, all in Riverside, include the radiological technologist per diem (29 percent), temporary assistant per diem (28 percent), and respiratory care practitioner II per diem (28 percent). Of the remaining nine per diem job classifications, the rates of movement to permanent jobs among the temporary employees in the classifications were less than 20 percent for eight of them. For three of these eight classifications, the rate was less than 10 percent. Some temporary employees in per diem classifications remain in them a relatively long period of time. As indicated in Table 6, some temporary employees remained in the per diem nurse II classification in Kern, and in the psychiatrist II per diem and psychiatrist III per diem job classifications in Riverside for long periods of time, with 19 of the 140 employees (14 percent) in the per diem nurse II classification, 24 of the 63 employees (38 percent) in the psychiatrist II per diem classification, and 25 of the 78 employees (32 percent) in the psychiatrist III per diem classification working in the same classification in each of the five years in our review period. Temporary Employees in About a Fourth of the Job Classifications Had Good Opportunities to Get Permanent Jobs In addition to the temporary employees in the 14 per diem job classifications we reviewed having good job opportunities, the temporary employees in another 19 of the 78 job 24 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 classifications (24 percent) we reviewed also had good opportunities to get permanent jobs from 2003 through 2007. Table 7 lists these classifications. We based our evaluation of these opportunities on two criteria: (1) the number of individuals hired into permanent jobs by the city and counties in the equivalent job classifications we identified and (2) the percentage of temporary employees that the city and counties hired into permanent jobs in any job classification. As pointed out in the Introduction, several factors are involved in whether temporary workers get permanent jobs, including workers’ personal preferences and competition among workers for available jobs. Table 7 Job Classifications in One City and Three Counties That Offered Good Potential Opportunities for Permanent Jobs for Pay Periods Ending in 2003 Through 2007 number of number of temporary empLoyees* percent of totaL number empLoyees hired in hired in the equivaLent temporary of temporary the equivaLent Job permanent Job cLassification† as empLoyees* empLoyees cLassification With a percentaGe of the totaL number Who moved to a LocaL in this Job permanent status of temporary empLoyees in the permanent Job Job cLassification Government cLassification* and/or benefits† Job cLassification cLassification† Correctional senior food service worker Riverside 18 33 183% 17% Group counselor I Riverside 218 258 118 53 Group counselor II Riverside 27 208 770 15 Public safety communication officer II Riverside 12 57 475 83 Departmental aide Kern 322 111 34 27 Eligibility worker Kern 345 23 7 38 Group counselor I—probation—extra help Kern 259 185 71 43 Juvenile corrections officer I Kern 238 185 78 26 Medical support technician Kern 234 163 70 20 Mental health recovery specialist I Kern 216 79 37 46 Office services technician Kern 278 896 322 39 Social service worker I Kern 137 314 229 43 Maintenance specialist/maintenance trainee Escondido 94 17 18 37 Maintenance worker San Joaquin‡ 41 38 93 46 Office assistant San Joaquin‡ 136 315 232 38 Office worker San Joaquin‡ 331 315 95 28 Shelter counselor I San Joaquin‡ 74 30 41 26 Staff nurse II—inpatient San Joaquin‡ 51 59 116 33 Staff nurse IV—inpatient San Joaquin‡ 99 93 94 24 Sources: Payroll data from the counties of Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin, and the city of Escondido. Payroll data for San Joaquin County is for pay periods ending between October 2003 and December 2007. * Temporary employees are at-will employees whose employer was not providing them retirement, medical, and dental benefits, and two of the following three benefits: vision, paid vacation and/or sick leave, and paid holidays. † Permanent job classifications are classifications in which employees have permanent status or the employer provides retirement, medical, and dental benefits, and two of the following three benefits: vision, paid vacation and/or sick leave, and paid holidays. To see how many temporary employees got permanent jobs in the equivalent classification, see appendixes B through E. ‡ The data we obtained from San Joaquin were of undetermined reliability for our purposes because the county uses a paperless system and, therefore, we were unable to determine the accuracy of key data fields used in our analysis by tracing the data in them to source documents. However, we performed an analysis that assured us that the San Joaquin data contained reasonable values in key data fields. We were also able to determine that the payroll data file the county provided us was complete. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 25 April 2009 The number of permanent employees the city and counties hired in equivalent job classifications reflected good opportunities for temporary employees to compete for and secure permanent jobs. Of these 19 classifications, 14 met the first criterion; specifically, the number of individuals hired as permanent employees was at least 70 percent of the number of temporary employees in the classifications during the same time period. For example, Riverside hired 258 permanent employees during our review period in the equivalent job classification for group counselor I, which was 118 percent of the 218 temporary employees in the group counselor I classification between 2003 and 2007. In another example, Kern hired 185 permanent employees from 2003 to 2007 in the equivalent job classification for juvenile corrections officer I. This was 78 percent of the 238 temporary employees in the juvenile corrections officer I classification during the same time period. The number of temporary employees the city and county hired as permanent in any job classification was also an indicator of good opportunities for temporary employees to compete for and secure permanent jobs. Of the 19 classifications that we determined offered good opportunities for securing permanent employment, 15 met the second criterion, in which 26 percent or more of temporary employees were hired into permanent jobs in any classification during the review period. As shown in Table 7, these percentages ranged from 26 percent for temporary employees in Kern’s juvenile corrections officer I and San Joaquin’s shelter counselor I job classifications to 83 percent for temporary employees in Riverside’s public safety communication officer II classification. Temporary Employees in About a Fifth of Job Classifications Had Limited Opportunities to Get Permanent Jobs The temporary employees in 16 of the 78 job classifications (21 percent) we reviewed did not appear to have good opportunities to get permanent jobs. These classifications are listed in Table 8 on the following page. To determine which job classifications did not appear to offer good opportunities for permanent jobs, we relied primarily on the two criteria used in the previous section (the number of individuals hired into permanent jobs in equivalent job classifications and the percentage of temporary employees in the classifications who secured any permanent job with the local government) as well as the total number of permanent employees in equivalent job classifications and the average number of pay periods temporary employees stayed in the job classifications. 26 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 The temporary employees in five of these 16 job classifications either did not remain in them very long or were in a health care-related classification and thus most likely chose temporary status. For example, even though the building services worker I, the office services assistant, and the nursing attendant classifications in Kern did not appear to offer good opportunities, temporary employees remained in these classifications for a relatively short period of time, only about 18 two-week pay periods. In addition, the licensed vocational nurse and the staff nurse III-inpatient job classifications in San Joaquin that did not appear to be good opportunities can be filled by temporary per diem employees who tend to select that status based on personal preferences. Table 8 Job Classifications in One City and Two Counties That Offered Limited Opportunities for Permanent Jobs for Pay Periods Ending in 2003 Through 2007 number of number of temporary empLoyees* averaGe empLoyees empLoyees Who number of pay hired in the Worked in the percent of number Who periods† that equivaLent Job equivaLent Job temporary Worked in empLoyees cLassification cLassification empLoyees* every year Were paid With permanent With permanent Who moved to a LocaL number in this betWeen in this status and/or status and/or permanent Job Job cLassification Government cLassification 2003 and 2007 cLassification benefits‡ benefits‡ cLassification‡ Building services worker I Kern 171 0 17.8 27 39 14% Nursing attendant Kern 394 3 16.2 93 187 24 Office services assistant Kern 791 5 18.1 368 368 17 Department specialist/ library associate Escondido 43 7 57.5 2 12 5 Maintenance specialist/ custodian I Escondido 42 5 53.8 10 15 17 Circulation assistant Escondido 33 6 46.8 8 11 0 Library page Escondido 30 7 49.2 9 12 0 Ranger specialist Escondido 21 3 48.6 2 4 14 Park attendant II Escondido 21 2 36.0 2 3 5 Department specialist Escondido 198 10 28.3 8 8 12 Food service worker I San Joaquin§ 121 13 32.5 5 20 7 Housekeeping service worker San Joaquin§ 116 13 30.9 30 93 16 Licensed vocational nurse San Joaquin§ 75 7 25.8 21 49 15 Nursing assistant San Joaquin§ 211 45 40.6 25 57 16 Outpatient clinic assistant San Joaquin§ 131 34 51.8 17 58 15 Staff nurse III—inpatient San Joaquin§ 283 28 29.8 162 287 17 Sources: Payroll data from the counties of Kern and San Joaquin, and the city of Escondido. Payroll data for San Joaquin County is for pay periods ending between October 2003 and December 2007. * Temporary employees are at-will employees whose employer was not providing them retirement, medical, and dental benefits, and two of the following three benefits: vision, paid vacation and/or sick leave, and paid holidays. † The pay periods for the entities included in our review were two weeks in length. ‡ Permanent job classifications are classifications in which employees have permanent status or the employer provides retirement, medical, and dental benefits, and two of the following three benefits: vision, paid vacation and/or sick leave, and paid holidays. § The data we obtained from San Joaquin were of undetermined reliability for our purposes because the county uses a paperless system and, therefore, we were unable to determine the accuracy of key data fields used in our analysis by tracing the data in them to source documents. However, we performed an analysis that assured us that the San Joaquin data contained reasonable values in key data fields. We were also able to determine that the payroll data file the county provided us was complete. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 27 April 2009 For the 11 remaining job classifications (14 percent of the 78 job classifications) that did not appear to offer good opportunities, the city and counties generally hired few employees in the equivalent job classifications. The number of permanent employees hired by Escondido and San Joaquin in the equivalent job classifications was low or very low. In eight of these classifications, the city and the For the 11 job classifications that county hired only between two and 10 permanent employees in the did not appear to offer good equivalent classifications between 2003 and 2007. The exceptions opportunities, the city and county were the housekeeping service worker, the outpatient clinic generally hired few employees assistant, and the nursing assistant classifications in San Joaquin, in the equivalent permanent for which the county hired between 17 and 30 employees in the job classification. equivalent permanent classifications. Another characteristic shared by the 11 job classifications that did not offer good opportunities for permanent employment was the fact that the temporary employees in these classifications tended to remain in them for a relatively long period of time during our review period. On average, the temporary employees in these 11 classifications were in them for periods ranging from 28.3 two-week pay periods for the department specialist classification in Escondido to 57.5 two-week pay periods for the department specialist/library associate classification in Escondido. Finally, the percentage of temporary employees in the 11 job classifications who secured a job with permanent status in any classification was low. The percentages ranged from zero for the library page and circulation assistant job classifications to 17 percent for the maintenance specialist/custodian I classification, all of which are Escondido job classifications. We requested information from Escondido and San Joaquin regarding the classifications we identified as not offering good opportunities for permanent jobs. With the exception of the department specialist classification in Escondido, which we discuss in the next section, both of these local governments provided reasonable explanations for why they are following their current practices with these job classifications. The human resources manager in Escondido informed us that the city uses part-time employees8 in the six classifications we asked about to augment full-time staff and to work in assignments that require less time. As an example of an assignment that requires less time, the human resources manager referred to the cleaning of the city’s off-site buildings, which require four hours of cleaning. In addition, according to the human resources manager, for budgetary reasons 8 In Escondido, part-time levels 2, 3, and 4 employees are temporary employees. 28 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 many current vacancies in full-time positions have been frozen, and part-time staff are supplementing full-time staff to meet the city’s workload. The director of human resources for San Joaquin informed us that the primary reasons that San Joaquin has used temporary employees in the four classifications we inquired about center around a need for staffing flexibility in 24-hour facilities with fluctuating workloads, such as the county hospital. She indicated that this flexibility in staffing is especially critical to the 24-hour operations where workload fluctuations require the ability to increase or decrease staffing to meet the operation’s needs and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner. Escondido Is Not Properly Monitoring the Use of the Department Specialist Classification As shown in Table 8 on page 26, Escondido paid 198 employees in the department specialist job classification during the five-year period 2003 through 2007. This is a part-time, temporary job Escondido paid 198 employees classification for which the duties and pay for each position are in a part-time, temporary job defined by the individual city departments. As of July 29, 2008, classification—department the city reported that it had 76 department specialist positions in specialist—during a five-year various city departments, with hourly pay that ranged from a low of period. As of July 29, 2008, the city $8.50 per hour to a high of $100 per hour. The $100-per-hour rate reported that it had 76 department was for an individual providing services as the city’s chief negotiator specialist positions in various city for labor contracts. Escondido has other department specialist departments with hourly pay that job classifications, such as the department specialist/ library ranged from $8.50 to $100 per hour. associate classification shown in Table 8, but these classifications are for positions whose duties are related to existing job classifications and whose salary ranges and increases are the same as those of the related permanent classifications. According to the Escondido human resources manager, the department specialist classification has a wide range of duties that depend on the individual department’s needs. Additionally, the human resources manager indicated that Escondido has many department specialists because each city department has unique needs that cannot be met by employees in other city job classifications. The human resources manager also initially indicated that the city manager gives final approval for department specialist positions after the requesting city department makes an hourly rate recommendation based on the employee’s duties and current market data. The human resources manager stated that the city has no set upper limit on the hourly rate that a department may request for department specialists. According to the human resources manager, the human resources department provides verbal and written guidance on how to use California State Auditor Report 2008-107 29 April 2009 the department specialist classification and reviews department requests to use the classification. Although the city has general written guidance applicable to all part-time job classifications, including the department specialist, it has not developed written guidance concerning when to use the department specialist classification or how to determine the hourly wage rates paid to department specialists. We asked Escondido for the documentation submitted requesting approval for nine department specialist positions the city had in July 2008. The Escondido human resources manager informed us that city departments were not required to have city manager approval to use the department specialist classification until February 2008. Only two of the nine individuals we asked about obtained city manager approval to work as a department specialist after February 2008. For these two individuals, Escondido provided copies of e-mails showing that the city manager approved the requests to use the department specialist classification. The e-mails did not explain why the requesting department needed to use a department specialist classification instead of an existing city job classification, nor did they support the salary being requested. A separate spreadsheet provided to us by Escondido shows an hourly rate of $60 for each employee and a general description of duties—interim real property manager in the engineering department in one case, and an investigator in internal affairs in the police department in the other case. Escondido also provided us with an e-mail from July 2007 showing that the city manager approved a department specialist position for a city employee who was retiring and being rehired at $100 an hour as a labor negotiator. No explanation was offered in the e-mail or on the spreadsheet the city provided explaining why this individual needed to be rehired or why the city agreed that the hourly rate was fair. The city also provided us with memoranda from 1999 and 2001 requesting approval to hire a former city employee as a department specialist. Initials on both memoranda indicate that the requests were approved. Both of these documents offered reasons why the person was needed and why the requested hourly salary, $35 in 1999 and $50 in 2001, was appropriate. The 2001 document contains a statement indicating that approval of the city manager is required for an increase in hourly salary. Although, according to the city’s human resources manager, the human resources department provides other city departments with guidance regarding the department specialist classification, we saw no documentary evidence of this guidance. In addition, given the lack of documentation, it is not clear how the city determines appropriate salary levels for department specialist positions. 30 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Contra Costa Formed a Labor‑Management Committee to Evaluate the County’s Use of Temporary Employees We did not do an in-depth analysis of the job classifications in which temporary employees in Contra Costa were employed. However, we noted that in 2006 Contra Costa agreed to form a committee consisting of certain county management employees and representatives of four employee organizations to meet on issues pertaining to temporary workers, contract employees, student interns, and agency temporary employees.9 According to Contra Costa’s director of human resources, the employee organizations included on the committee represent a significant portion of the county’s temporary employees. The committee was charged with reviewing how the county was using temporary employees and making draft recommendations for the county board. The committee submitted its report and recommendations to the board in August 2008. The committee made the following recommendations: • Contra Costa may employ temporary employees only for certain specified reasons. • The county may use agency temporaries only for specific reasons when no permanent or temporary employees are available to perform the work. • The county shall not use contract employees to perform bargaining unit work. • Independent contractors shall not perform bargaining unit work. • The county shall ensure that student workers or interns are enrolled in a school as active students and are performing work related to their course of study. • The county shall not replace a temporary employee who has worked in excess of established hourly limits with another temporary employee, under most circumstances. The committee’s recommendations suggest some areas that the county management employees and employee organizations agreed were areas of concern regarding Contra Costa’s use of temporary employees. One area of concern appeared to be that the county did 9 Agency temporaries are workers employed by private employment agencies who work for limited periods of time for the county. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 31 April 2009 not always limit its use of temporary employees to its short-term workload needs. Another appeared to be that the county sometimes replaced a temporary worker who had reached the limit on the number of hours the employee could work in a job classification with another temporary employee. According to the director of human resources, as of late March 2009, negotiations with a coalition of labor unions were ongoing to reach a final resolution to the committee’s report recommendations. The human resources director also indicated that the number of county temporary positions has decreased from 645 in April 2005 to 65 in March 2009 and that the county has pledged to eliminate the remaining 65 positions by December 2009. The Rates of Temporary Employees Moving to Permanent Jobs Were Lower in the Cities Than in the Counties We noted that in the two cities we reviewed, Escondido and Fremont, lower percentages of temporary employees secured permanent jobs or jobs with benefits than in any of the counties. As shown in Table 9 on the following page, between 2003 and 2007, temporary employees in the Riverside workforce secured permanent jobs at the highest rate, 37.9 percent, among the six local governments included in our review, while temporary employees of Fremont secured permanent jobs at the lowest rate, 8.5 percent. This disparity between the cities and counties is not surprising, as the data in Table 2 on page 9 show that the workforces in the two cities we reviewed contained higher percentages of temporary employees than those in any of the counties, and, therefore, fewer permanent job opportunities for which temporary workers could compete. A Survey of Temporary Workers From the Six Local Governments Revealed a Range of Perspectives on Survey Response and Undeliverable Survey Rates Temporary Employment CITy/COUNTy RESPONSE RATE UNDELIVERABLE RATE We surveyed 594 temporary workers from the Escondido 45% 11% six local governments and received 230 responses, Fremont 50 2 for an overall response rate of 39 percent. Contra Costa 40 5 Response rates by local government, as well as the Kern 32 1 percentages of undeliverable surveys, are shown in Riverside 31 7 the text box. San Joaquin 35 6 Respondents to our survey from the cities were Source: Bureau of State Audits’ survey of temporary employees more likely than respondents from the counties to in six local governments. be temporary employees by their own choice and less likely to have applied for permanent jobs with 32 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Table 9 Temporary Employees Without Benefits of Six Local Governments Who Secured Permanent Jobs or Jobs With Benefits Between 2003 and 2007 number of number of temporary percentaGe of temporary temporary empLoyees* Who secured empLoyees* Who secured LocaL empLoyees* betWeen permanent Jobs or Jobs permanent Jobs or Jobs Government 2003 and 2007 With benefits With benefits County Contra Costa 4,608 929 20.2% Kern 7,823 2,297 29.4 Riverside 10,009 3,795 37.9 San Joaquin† 3,540 690 19.5 City Escondido 1,084 109 10.1 Fremont 1,077 92 8.5 Sources: Payroll data from the counties of Contra Costa, Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin, and the cities of Escondido and Fremont. Payroll data for San Joaquin County is for pay periods ending between October 2003 and December 2007. * Temporary employees are at-will employees whose employer was not providing them retirement, medical, and dental benefits, and two of the following three benefits: vision, paid vacation and/or sick leave, and paid holidays. † The data we obtained from San Joaquin were of undetermined reliability for our purposes because the county uses a paperless system and, therefore, we were unable to determine the accuracy of key data fields used in our analysis by tracing the data in them to source documents. However, we performed an analysis that assured us that the San Joaquin material contained reasonable data in key fields. We were also able to determine that the payroll data file the county provided us was complete. their local government employers. In Kern, Riverside, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin counties, 36 percent of those who responded to the survey indicated that they chose to be temporary workers rather than permanent workers, and of the 138 respondents, 37 percent stated that they had remained temporary workers from our audit period until the time they responded to our survey. In contrast, 74 percent of the temporary workers from the cities of Escondido and Fremont who responded indicated that they chose that status, and of the 92 respondents, 57 percent remained as temporary workers. Moreover, among the survey respondents, 62 percent of the county temporary workers indicated that they had taken examinations required to get a permanent position, compared to 21 percent of the temporary workers employed by the cities. In addition, 60 percent of the county workers responding indicated that they had applied for specific permanent jobs with their local governments, compared to 21 percent of the temporary workers employed by the cities. A relationship appears to exist between a temporary worker’s belief that there is sufficient opportunity to become a permanent employee and the level of contact or interviews provided by county California State Auditor Report 2008-107 33 April 2009 governments when permanent jobs become available. On average, 49 percent of the temporary employees responding from Kern and Riverside stated they have sufficient opportunities to become permanent employees and, on average, 67 percent of these workers believe that being a temporary worker improves their chances of obtaining permanent employment. Among respondents from both of these counties, 62 percent, on average, also indicated that they have been contacted or interviewed for permanent jobs with their respective local governments. In contrast, 28 percent of the respondents from San Joaquin and Contra Costa believe they have sufficient opportunities to become permanent employees, and 53 percent believe that being a temporary worker improves their chances of obtaining permanent employment. The respondents from these two local governments also indicated that, on average, 43 percent have been contacted by or interviewed for permanent jobs with their respective local governments. Because a lower percentage of the survey respondents from Escondido and Fremont indicated that they took examinations for permanent job classifications, fewer could expect to be contacted regarding permanent jobs than was the case for temporary employees in the counties. Complete results of the employee survey are in Appendix F. Recommendations To help ensure that its department specialist job classification is used consistently and appropriately, Escondido’s human resources department should ensure decisions to use the classification, including the salary level for each position, are approved and fully documented. To address issues identified by the joint management-labor committee created to review Contra Costa’s use of temporary employees, the county should continue negotiations with employee organizations to reach resolution regarding the committee’s recommendations. 34 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 35 April 2009 Chapter 2 LoCAL GoveRnMenTS HAve dIffeRenT APPRoACHeS foR CoMPenSATInG TeMPoRARy WoRkeRS And LIMITInG HoW MuCH THey MAy WoRk Chapter Summary Our review of the wages paid to temporary employees in four counties and two cities found that the wage rates for temporary employees of four of the six local governments were the same as the wage rates for permanent employees doing the same work. In the two other local governments, temporary workers generally are paid hourly wages at the first step in the pay scale of their job classification and generally do not have the opportunity for pay increases. In addition, temporary workers in Riverside County’s (Riverside) Temporary Assignment Program (TAP) generally earn hourly wages that are 5.5 percent less than the first step of the pay scale of employees who are in a comparable county classification. We also found that per diem employees typically earn higher hourly wages than their permanent counterparts. In contrast to wages paid being similar, the local governments we reviewed provide significantly fewer benefits to their temporary employees than they provide to their permanent employees and at-will management employees. Most permanent workers and at-will management employees are eligible to receive a wide range of employer-sponsored benefits, most commonly including retirement plan contributions, health insurance, dental insurance, vision care, vacation, sick leave, and paid holidays. However, none of the local governments provide temporary employees all of the common benefits previously listed and most often provide some benefits to temporary employees only after they have worked for specified periods of time. Finally, our review of whether temporary workers worked beyond the limits set by their local governments found that this occurred in five of the six local governments during our review period, although the number of instances was significant in only two local governments, Contra Costa County (Contra Costa) and Riverside. When we asked these two counties for information regarding a sample of the employees that appeared to have exceeded their limits, both offered explanations for nearly all of them, including that the extra time may have been or had been authorized, or that the employees involved were per diem employees who are not subject to the county’s limits. For the other three entities that had smaller numbers of staff who exceeded limits, most of the instances were authorized, involved the local government employing a 36 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 certain number of staff to achieve mandatory staffing requirements in a health care facility, or were temporary situations involving short-term understaffing or peak workload demand. Kern County (Kern) was the only local government we reviewed in which none of the temporary employees exceeded their established limits during our review period. The Hourly Wages of Temporary Workers in Six Cities and Counties Are Frequently at the Same Level as the Wages of Comparable Permanent Workers In the city of Fremont (Fremont), Kern, and San Joaquin County (San Joaquin), temporary workers, other than “extra-help” workers in Kern, are paid at the same wage rates as permanent workers in those job classifications in which both temporary and permanent employees may work. (Benefits for temporary workers are discussed later in this chapter.) The wages of the temporary employees are prorated based on the percentage of time they work. In addition, these temporary employees, excluding those classified as extra help in Kern, are eligible for the same merit and step pay increases as permanent employees. In Escondido, temporary part-time In the city of Escondido (Escondido), temporary part-time workers workers doing work similar who do the same jobs as permanent workers are placed at the to that done by permanent same wage rates and receive the same salary and merit increases workers, but not the same job, as permanent workers. In contrast, temporary part-time workers are not guaranteed to be placed doing work similar to that done by permanent workers, but not the at the same wage rates as the same job, are not guaranteed to be placed at the same wage rates permanent workers. as the permanent workers and are not eligible for negotiated salary increases, but they are eligible for merit pay increases. Escondido classifies temporary part-time employees into three levels: levels 2, 3, and 4. Temporary part-time employees in levels 2 and 4 may perform work similar to permanent employees and may work up to either 1,000 hours or 1,500 hours, depending on their level, in a given fiscal year. Level 3 temporary part-time employees do the same jobs as permanent employees and work less than 1,000 hours in a fiscal year. According to the city’s human resources manager, the city uses the three-level classification system to classify its temporary part-time employees based on their job duties and on how many hours the employee is expected to work during a fiscal year. The main reason the city tracks employee hours is to ensure that it enrolls in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS)10 all temporary employees who work more than 1,000 hours in a fiscal year, as required by Section 20305 of the California Government Code. 10 As discussed in the Introduction, local governments may elect to contract with CalPERS for retirement benefits for their employees. We discuss retirement benefits later in this chapter. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 37 April 2009 In Riverside and Contra Costa, temporary workers generally are paid hourly wages at the first step in the pay scale of their job classifications and, except for temporary employees of Contra Costa represented by two employee organizations, do not have the opportunity for pay increases. In addition, temporary workers in the Riverside TAP generally earn hourly wages that are 5.5 percent less than the first step of the pay scale of employees who are in a comparable county classification. However, according to officials at Riverside, TAP employees actually take home more money than their permanent counterparts because they are not covered by the federal Social Security program and therefore do not pay Social Security taxes, and they have different and less costly retirement benefits than those of permanent workers. In some instances, temporary workers in Contra Costa may earn hourly wages that are higher than the first step in the pay scale of their job classifications when the county certifies that it cannot fill a position at the minimum hourly rate. Temporary Employees Compensated on a Per Diem Basis Are Paid at Higher Rates Than Their Permanent Counterparts As described in the Introduction, all of the counties we reviewed use a class of temporary employee referred to as per diem to attract difficult-to-recruit health care workers. Generally, per diem employees have more flexibility than permanent employees in choosing the days and times they work. These employees typically do not receive benefits but instead earn higher wages than their permanent counterparts who do receive benefits. For example, in Riverside a registered nurse per diem I earns an hourly rate of $35.64, which equates to $6,177 monthly, while the monthly salary range for a permanent registered nurse I is $4,026 to $4,602. In another example, a per diem pharmacist who works for Kern is paid a flat hourly rate of $73.14, which equates to about $12,678 per month for full-time work, compared to the monthly salary range for a pharmacist in Kern of $9,112 to $11,130. Temporary Workers Are Less Likely Than Other Workers to Have Employer‑Sponsored Benefits The local governments we reviewed provide significantly fewer benefits to their temporary employees than they provide to their permanent employees and at-will management employees. Most permanent workers and at-will management employees are eligible to receive a wide range of employer-sponsored benefits, most commonly including retirement plan contributions, health insurance, dental insurance, vision care, vacation, sick leave, and paid holidays. However, none of the local governments provide 38 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 temporary employees all of the benefits and most often only provide benefits to temporary employees after they have worked for specified periods of time. Even though local governments provide relatively few benefits to temporary employees, they are eligible for certain common benefits from some local governments. For example, excluding those classified as “extra help,” Kern’s temporary workers receive all of the common benefits except for retirement. In Fremont, according to the deputy city manager, temporary employees who are represented by the Fremont Association of City Employees (Fremont employees’ association) or the Operating Engineers Local Union Number 3 (OE3) and who are expected to or do work more than 1,000 hours during their term of employment are eligible for city-sponsored health and dental benefits, general leave, and paid holidays. According to the deputy city manager, the Fremont employees’ association and OE3 represent a majority of the temporary employees. Temporary employees represented by the Fremont employees’ association and OE3 who are expected to work fewer than 1,000 hours during their term of employment receive additional pay equaling 15 percent of their base salary in lieu of receiving city-sponsored benefits. In San Joaquin, some temporary employees receive employer-sponsored health benefits in a county-specified plan after working an average of 50 hours per biweekly pay period in the previous year, with 3,120 total hours of unbroken service. Health benefits are for the employees only, not their families, and participation in the plan is mandatory for eligible employees. Some temporary workers Some temporary workers become eligible for retirement benefits become eligible for retirement through contracts the local government entities have with CalPERS. benefits through contracts the As indicated in the Introduction, Escondido, Fremont, and local government entities have Riverside11 contract with CalPERS to provide retirement benefits with CalPERS. to their employees, including temporary employees, after they work 1,000 hours in a fiscal year. Escondido’s temporary part-time levels 3 and 4 employees expected to work fewer than 1,000 hours in a fiscal year are enrolled in a different retirement system designed as an alternative to Social Security. 11 Riverside’s contract with CalPERS excludes its per diem employees from enrolling in CalPERS. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 39 April 2009 Most Local Governments Had Temporary Workers Who Worked Beyond the Established Limits, but Only Two Had Significant Numbers of Such Instances We reviewed the counties’ and cities’ use of temporary workers to determine whether temporary workers exceeded the particular limits for their local government and whether local government officials obtained appropriate approvals authorizing such work on such occasions. As shown in Table 10, all of the local entities except Kern had temporary workers whose number of hours or length of time worked exceeded applicable limits during the specified time frame. However, the number of instances was significant only for two local governments, Contra Costa and Riverside. Table 10 Number of Temporary Workers Exceeding Local Limits in Six Local Governments number of number of temporary temporary empLoyees Who empLoyees Who LocaL type of appeared to Were authorized Government temporary Worker appLicabLe Limit time frame period revieWed* exceed the Limit to exceed the Limit County Contra Costa Temporary 1 year Any consecutive 2006 113 † 12 months Kern Extra help 9 months Any consecutive 2006 0 NA 9 months Riverside Temporary‡ 1,000 hours per Fiscal year Fiscal year 2006–07 492 † assignment San Joaquin Temporary§ 1,560 hours Calendar year 2007 18 0 City Escondido Temporary part-time 1,500 hours Fiscal year Fiscal year 2006–07 17 17 Fremont Temporary part-time 1,040 hours Any consecutive 2007 18 0 12 months Temporary (Fremont 4,160 hours Per assignment 2003 through 2007 2 1 Association of City Employees) Temporary 2 years Per assignment 2003 through 2007 2 0 (Operating Engineers Local Union Number 3) Sources: Payroll data from the counties of Contra Costa, Kern, Riverside, and San Joaquin, and the cities of Escondido and Fremont. NA = Not applicable. * The period reviewed varies among entities to ensure we included sufficient employees to review. † Because of the large number of employees who appeared to exceed the limits in Contra Costa and Riverside counties, we selected samples of employees to follow up on. Our results are described in the next two subsections. ‡ Includes both temporary employees in the Temporary Assignment Program who may work up to 1,000 hours per assignment and temporary workers assigned to county departments who may work up to 1,000 hours of substantially continuous service in the same capacity each fiscal year. § Includes seasonal temporary employees who have a time limit of 7 months each calendar year. 40 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Riverside Needs to Ensure That Temporary Employees Exceed Applicable Hour Limits Only When Approved Riverside had the largest number of temporary employees, 492 in fiscal year 2006–07, who exceeded the applicable limit of 1,000 hours per fiscal year for its temporary employees. According to a county ordinance, temporary workers budgeted to departments must have approval from the county board of supervisors (board) to work more than 1,000 hours of substantially continuous service in the same capacity in a fiscal year. Similarly, temporary workers in the TAP must have approval from the director of human resources to work more than 1,000 hours per assignment in a fiscal year. We took a sample of 39 of these employees and requested information from Riverside concerning whether the departments obtained necessary authorizations for the employees to exceed the 1,000-hour limit. Our sample included 20 temporary assistants in the TAP and 19 department temporary employees in the group counselor I classification. We selected employees from these two classifications because they represented 97 percent of the 492 employees who exceeded the 1,000-hour limit. For the temporary assistants in the TAP, Riverside informed us that 18 of the 20 individuals in our sample were actually employees in the county’s on-call per diem medical registry who were classified in fiscal year 2006–07 as temporary assistants. Per diem employees are not subject to the 1,000-hour limit. According to Riverside, in about June 2008 it updated the computer software program it uses to manage its human resources so that it correctly identifies the on-call per diem employees. Riverside also informed us that the remaining two TAP employees had worked beyond the 1,000-hour limit without receiving appropriate authorization from the director of human resources. According to Riverside, these two employees worked in a hospital setting where many hours of overtime were required because of critical hospital needs, including patient safety. Two of the 19 employees worked For the 19 temporary employees in the group counselor I job more than 2,000 hours— classification, we determined that the board approved all of the one working 2,615 hours and the employees to work 1,000 hours over the 1,000-hour limit, up to other working 2,326 hours—with a maximum of 2,000 hours. However, two of the 19 employees neither employee having received worked more than 2,000 hours—one working 2,615 hours and the authorization to work more than other working 2,326 hours—with neither employee having received 2,000 hours. authorization to work more than 2,000 hours. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 41 April 2009 Contra Costa Needs to Strengthen Its Policies Regarding Temporary Employees Who Work Beyond Its One-Year Limit Contra Costa had 113 temporary employees in 2006 who exceeded the county’s one-year limit on working in a temporary capacity. Contra Costa’s personnel regulations allow the county director of human resources to authorize the reappointment of a temporary employee if certain conditions are met or for other reasons satisfactory to the director. We reviewed a sample of 15 of the 113 temporary employees in Contra Costa who exceeded the limit; the county informed us that 14 of these employees may have been approved to work beyond the one-year limit and that the remaining employee did not exceed the limit due to a one-day break in service. For 14 of the 15 employees, the county was unable to tell us definitively whether the employees had been approved to work beyond the one-year limit, in part because its personnel regulations do not require that such authorizations be in writing. As mentioned in Chapter 1, in 2006 Contra Costa agreed to form a management-labor committee to review the county’s use of temporary employees. The committee submitted a report to the board in August 2008 that stated, among other things, that many temporary employees represented by four employee organizations worked more hours than the applicable memoranda of understanding (MOUs) allow. Among other recommendations in the report, the committee recommended that Contra Costa comply with the hour limits in the applicable MOUs and not replace a temporary employee who works in excess of the MOU limits with another temporary employee except as expressly provided in the applicable MOU. According to the director of human resources, as of late March 2009, negotiations with a coalition of labor unions were ongoing to reach a final resolution to the recommendations in the committee’s report. San Joaquin Needs to Ensure That County Departments Properly Monitor Hours and Obtain Authorization for Temporary Employees Who Work Over the Limit In San Joaquin 18 temporary employees exceeded the county’s 1,560-hour limit during 2007, and none of them had the required authorization to do so. San Joaquin’s civil service rules and regulations specify a limit on the length of employment of one day less than nine months in any 12-month period for temporary employees. According to San Joaquin’s human resources director, this limit is interpreted as 1,560 hours per employee in a calendar year. 42 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 San Joaquin distributes reports to The human resources director indicated that each department each department that list the hours is responsible for monitoring the hours worked by temporary worked by their current temporary employees to ensure that they do not exceed 1,560 hours in a employees and provides trending calendar year. Each quarter the labor relations division distributes estimates. However, we found a report to each department that lists their current temporary 18 temporary employees exceeded employees along with the hours each one has worked up to that the county’s limit during 2007 point in the calendar year. The report also provides a trending without authorization. estimate so the departments are aware of when the employee will reach the limit if he or she continues to work at the same rate for the remainder of the year. The division sends a report to the departments and to applicable employee organizations every December showing those employees who are near or at the limit. If a department wants to obtain approval for an employee or a group of employees to exceed the 1,560-hour limit, the labor relations division would seek an agreement with the appropriate employee organization. However, the county prefers to enforce the 1,560-hour limit rather than having employees work over the limit. According to the human resources director, 10 of the 18 employees who exceeded the 1,560-hour limit worked at the county psychiatric care facility (facility) under the behavioral health science department (department). One of these employees is a housekeeping service worker who worked extra hours to maintain the facility, and the other nine employees were used to provide minimum staffing coverage as mandated by the California Code of Regulations. The human resources director also indicated that the facility was low on part-time12 staff and there were numerous absences due to staff turnover and other absences, which resulted in some part-time staff exceeding their hour limit for the year. She noted that the department intends to coordinate with the county administrative office to fill as many positions as possible to avoid unnecessary overtime or hours exceeding the limit. The human resources director indicated that of the eight remaining employees who exceeded the 1,560-hour limit, one worked in one county department before transferring to another department. The succeeding department was not aware of how many hours the employee had worked as a temporary worker in the previous department and thus allowed the employee to work over the limit. Two of the eight temporary employees worked for the sheriff’s department, where one of them exceeded the limit because of workload peaks due to the absence of a regular employee. San Joaquin did not provide information concerning the other sheriff’s department employee who exceeded the limit. The human 12 These part-time employees are temporary employees. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 43 April 2009 resources director said that supervisors in the sheriff’s department have been notified to closely monitor the hours of all temporary and part-time employees. According to the human resources director, four of the eight employees worked for the district attorney’s office where three of them were part of a 24-hour crisis mobile response unit. Employees of the crisis mobile response unit may be called to assist victims of crimes, and when called are often working hours in addition to their scheduled hours. The other district attorney’s office employee worked over the limit assisting attorneys with a special assignment related to a case. The human resources director indicated that the district attorney’s office is aware of the situation and will closely monitor hours worked. The one remaining employee worked for the human services agency and was unintentionally allowed to work over the limit after an incorrect exclusion of a payroll adjustment that should have been counted towards the limit. Escondido’s Approvals of Temporary Employees Working More Than 1,500 Hours Were Primarily Verbal In fiscal year 2006–07, 17 temporary employees exceeded Escondido’s limit of 1,500 hours per employee in a fiscal year. According to Escondido’s part-time hourly compensation plan, part-time employees are not allowed to work more than 1,500 hours per fiscal year without approval in advance by the city manager. The city human resources manager stated that this approval may be written or verbal. We requested information from Escondido concerning whether the 17 employees exceeding the 1,500-hour limit had received approval to do so by the city manager. Escondido provided us with a letter signed by the city manager and dated February 19, 2009, stating that all 17 temporary employees had been approved to work over the 1,500-hour limit. In addition, the city provided us with documentation showing that one of the 17 employees had been authorized in advance by the city manager to work more than the city’s 1,500-hour limit. Fremont Has Three Hourly Limits but Uses Only Two Fremont has three employment limits for temporary workers: a two-year limit per assignment for temporary workers represented by OE3, a 4,160-hour limit per assignment for temporary workers represented by the Fremont employees’ association, and a 1,040-hour limit in any 12-month period for all temporary part-time workers. Overall, we found that 22 temporary workers exceeded the applicable limits. 44 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Fremont has not enforced its In 2007, 18 temporary workers exceed the 1,040-hour limit. 1,040-hour limit for part-time According to its deputy city manager, Fremont has not enforced temporary employees since at the 1,040-hour limit for part-time temporary employees since at least 2000, even though it is least 2000, even though it is still a requirement in the city personnel required per the city personnel rules. The deputy city manager also indicated that Fremont has not rules. In 2007, 18 temporary workers enforced the 1,040-hour limit because it has instead focused on exceeded the limit. identifying temporary employees who work more than 1,000 hours in a fiscal year, as these employees must be enrolled in CalPERS. Two temporary employees represented by the Fremont employees’ association exceeded the 4,160-hour limit per assignment between 2003 and 2007. According to the city’s MOU with the Fremont employees’ association, an authorization to exceed the limit for workers represented by the Fremont employees’ association requires an agreement between the city and the Fremont employees’ association. According to the deputy city manager, only one of the two temporary employees represented by the Fremont employees’ association who exceeded the 4,160-hour limit had such an agreement. The deputy city manager also indicated that both employees who went over the limit eventually secured permanent positions with Fremont. Finally, two temporary employees represented by OE3 exceeded the two-year limit per assignment during the period 2003 through 2007, and according to the deputy city manager, neither was authorized to do so. The OE3 MOU does not specify a procedure for extending the length of employment beyond two years. Kern County Has a Good System for Preventing Temporary Employees From Exceeding Its Limit on How Long They May Work Kern followed its policy regarding the limit on the length of employment of its temporary extra-help13 workers. The data showed that Kern did not have any employees who exceeded its nine-month limit for extra-help workers during our test period of 2006. According to the assistant personnel director, Kern’s personnel system automatically tracks each extra-help worker’s length of employment and notifies the appropriate department whenever an employee nears the limit. Specifically, Kern’s computer program regularly creates a report showing the names of extra-help workers who have been in the county payroll system for 7.5 months. This report serves as an initial notice to departments that an employee 13 Kern also employs temporary employees who are not extra help, and these employees are not subject to hourly limits. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 45 April 2009 is nearing the nine-month limit. Once an employee has been in the system for exactly nine months, the system automatically removes the employee’s name from the payroll. Recommendation To ensure that their temporary employees do not work more than the prescribed time limits without authorization, Contra Costa and Riverside should improve their processes for identifying workers who are approaching the limits and, along with San Joaquin, document requests and approvals for workers to exceed the limits. We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Section 8543 et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted government auditing standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit scope section of the report. Respectfully submitted, ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA State Auditor Date: April 23, 2009 Staff: Nancy C. Woodward, CPA, Audit Principal John J. Billington Michelle Baur, CISA Dan Claypool Miguel Guardian Vern Hines, MBA Benjamin Ward, CISA For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact Margarita Fernández, Chief of Public Affairs, at 916.445.0255. 46 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 47 April 2009 Appendix A An exPLAnATIon of HoW We uSed THe dATA In APPendIxeS b THRouGH e As indicated in the Scope and Methodology, we used the tables included in appendixes B through E for four local governments as an analytical tool to help us address the audit objectives. To help readers understand our approach, we present two examples of how we used the data in the appendixes to reach our conclusions. Example One We used the data in appendixes B through E to help us determine whether temporary employees were working in that capacity for long periods of time, whether it appeared that they had opportunities to secure permanent jobs, and whether they were taking advantage of these opportunities. The data in columns 4, 5, and 6 in the appendix tables provide information about how long temporary employees were in that capacity in the indicated job classifications. For example, the data for Kern County (Kern) in the table in Appendix C, column 4, row 14 shows that zero temporary employees in the juvenile corrections officer I classification worked in that classification each year during our audit review period, from 2003 through 2007. Similarly, column 5 for this job classification shows that temporary employees worked, on average, 13.8 two-week pay periods, or slightly more than six months during our audit review period. Finally, column 6 for this classification shows that temporary employees in this classification worked, on average, in 1.4 calendar years during the same five-year period. From these data we can conclude that temporary employees in this classification were not in the classification very long during our audit review period. In determining whether temporary employees had potential opportunities for permanent jobs, we used the data in columns 7, 11, and 12. With respect to the information in the table in Appendix C, row 14, for the juvenile corrections officer I classification, column 7 indicates that we identified an equivalent job classification for this classification, which reflects potential opportunity for a temporary employee to secure a permanent job. As indicated in column 8, this classification is its own equivalent job classification, since both temporary employees and permanent employees may work in the same classification. Column 11 shows that between 2003 and 2007, Kern hired 185 people as permanent employees in this classification, while column 12 shows that during the same time frame, 209 permanent employees worked in this classification. In comparing the data from columns 11 and 12 with 48 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 the data in column 3, which shows that 238 temporary employees worked as a juvenile corrections officer I between 2003 and 2007, we can conclude potential opportunities existed for temporary employees in this classification to compete for permanent jobs in the classification. To determine whether temporary employees were taking advantage of potential opportunities for permanent jobs, either in the equivalent job classifications we identified in column 8 or in other job classifications, we used the data in columns 9, 10, and 13. For the juvenile corrections officer I classification in Kern in the table in Appendix C, row 14, column 9 shows that 52 of the 238 temporary employees shown in column 3 became permanent employees in the job classification between 2003 and 2007. Column 10 shows that during the audit review period, 61 temporary employees became permanent employees in any job classification, including the juvenile corrections officer I classification. Column 13 shows that these 61 temporary employees amounted to 25.6 percent of the 238 temporary employees in the juvenile corrections officer I classification from column 3. From these data, we can conclude that temporary employees in the juvenile corrections officer I classification did, to a certain extent, take advantage of opportunities to secure permanent jobs with Kern. Example Two As indicated in row 8 and column 3 of the table in Appendix C, Kern had 140 temporary employees between 2003 and 2007 in the per diem nurse II job classification. Column 4 indicates that 19 employees in this classification worked in the classification each year during our audit review period. Column 5 shows that workers in this classification worked, on average, 36.4 two-week pay periods, or approximately 1.4 years, during our audit review period, while column 6 shows that the employees in this classification worked, on average, in 2.3 years during the same period. From these data, we can conclude that, apart from the 19 employees reflected in column 4 who were in the classification each year between 2003 and 2007, the average length of time workers stayed in the per diem nurse II classification was moderately long. In looking at the potential opportunities for permanent jobs for employees in the per diem nurse II classification, we first determined that an equivalent permanent job classification existed, hospital staff nurse II, which is shown in column 8 of the table in Appendix C. We next looked at columns 11 and 12, which show that during the audit review period Kern hired 221 employees in the hospital staff nurse II classification and had a total of 372 employees in this classification. In comparing the data from columns 11 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 49 April 2009 and 12 with the data in column 3, we can conclude that potential opportunities existed between 2003 and 2007 for temporary employees in the per diem nurse II classification to compete for permanent jobs in the hospital staff nurse II classification. To determine whether temporary employees in the per diem nurse II classification were taking advantage of potential opportunities for permanent jobs, either in the hospital staff nurse II job classification or in other permanent job classifications, we again used the data in columns 9, 10, and 13 of the table in Appendix C. Column 9 shows that only 17 of the 140 temporary employees shown in column 3 became permanent employees in the hospital staff nurse II classification between 2003 and 2007. Column 10 shows that during the audit review period, 21 of the temporary employees in the per diem nurse II classification became permanent employees in any classification, including the hospital staff nurse II classification. Column 13 shows that these 21 employees constituted 15 percent of the 140 temporary employees from column 3. From these data, we can conclude that temporary employees in the per diem nurse II classification took advantage of opportunities to secure permanent jobs with Kern only to a limited extent, with more of the individuals employed in this classification apparently preferring to remain temporary workers. 50 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 51 April 2009 Appendix b SuMMARy of SeLeCT PeRSonneL dATA foR THe CITy of eSCondIdo Job CLASSIfICATIonS WITH THe MoST TeMPoRARy eMPLoyeeS WITHouT benefITS fRoM 2003 THRouGH 2007 Using the data in Table B on page 53, we reviewed 18 job classifications that the city of Escondido (Escondido) uses in which about 1,000 temporary employees without benefits (temporary employees) worked in pay periods ending between 2003 and 2007.14 Of the 18 job classifications, 10 appeared to be for jobs that were true temporary15 classifications (rows 1 through 10, column 2). We identified one occupation, maintenance specialist/ maintenance trainee (row 11), that appeared to offer good opportunities to the temporary employees in the classification to move to jobs with permanent status or benefits (permanent jobs). Of the 94 employees in this classification between 2003 and 2007, 35 (37.2 percent) found permanent jobs with the city during this time period. The percentage of employees in the classification who found permanent jobs meets our criteria for jobs with good opportunities of being at least 26 percent, as explained on page 18 in Chapter 1. The temporary employees in the remaining seven job classifications appeared to have limited opportunities (rows 12 through 18, column 2) to secure permanent jobs, as indicated by the relatively small numbers of employees hired as permanent in the equivalent job classifications (column 9) and the number of temporary employees from the seven job classifications hired as permanent in any job classification (column 10). Further, we identified a temporary job classification that is widely used by city departments, department specialist (row 18), the use of which the city is not appropriately monitoring. Additional information related to Escondido’s use of the department specialist classification is presented on page 28 in Chapter 1. We requested information regarding the classifications we identified as not offering good opportunities for permanent jobs, and Escondido provided reasonable explanations for why it is following its current practices with these job classifications. The human resources manager in Escondido informed us that the city uses part-time employees16 in the six classifications other than department specialist to augment full-time staff and to work in 14 This number may not represent a count of unique employees because some individuals may have worked in more than one job classification during the pay periods ending in 2003 through 2007. 15 The definition of true temporary job classifications and the other categories of job classifications we use in this report are delineated on page 18 in Chapter 1. 16 Employees that Escondido classifies as part-time levels 2, 3, and 4 are temporary employees. 52 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 assignments that require less time. As an example of an assignment that requires less time, the human resources manager referred to the cleaning of the city’s off-site buildings, which require four hours of cleaning. In addition, according to the human resources manager, for budgetary reasons many current vacancies in full-time positions have been frozen, and part-time staff are supplementing full-time staff to meet the city’s workload. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 53 April 2009 B elbaT 7002 hguorhT 3002 ni gnidnE sdoireP yaP rof seeyolpmE yraropmeT tsoM eht htiW odidnocsE fo ytiC eht ni snoitacfiissalC boJ eht fo sisylanA nA 31 21 11 01 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 †seeyoLpme yraropmet eGareva †seeyoLpme yraropmet fo tnecrep radneLac yap eGareva yraropmet sraey ‡sdoirep †seeyoLpme ohW seeyoLpme seeyoLpme yraropmet yraropmet dekroW ohW devom ohW eht ni dekroW eht ni derih devom ohW devom ohW na ereht saW †seeyoLpme †seeyoLpme yreve yna ot tneLaviuqe tneLaviuqe yna ot tneLaviuqe ot tneLaviuqe diap ereW diap ereW ni raey boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep tnenamrep tneLaviuqe boJ tnenamrep boJ siht ni boJ siht ni Weiver eht boJ siht ni §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc boJ ?§noitacifissaLc noitacifissaLc noitacifissaLc doirep noitacifissaLc *yroGetac noitacifissaLc boJ %0.1 8 3 2 0 )noitaercer( I rosivrepuS seY 8.1 2.52 1 202 1 I redael noitaerceR 1 8.2 3 3 3 1 I naicinhcet noitaerceR seY 8.1 3.62 3 801 1 I tnadnetta kraP 2 5.4 11 6 4 3 rotanidrooc noitaerceR seY 1.2 2.23 5 98 1 I tsilaiceps noitaerceR 3 1.1 9 4 1 1 )noitaercer( I rosivrepuS seY 9.1 6.62 2 88 1 II redael noitaerceR 4 0.0 2 2 0 0 I naicinhcet noitaerceR seY 8.1 9.51 0 63 1 rotcurtsni ytefas retaW 5 0.0 1 0 0 0 I recffio ecivres ytinummoC seY 2.3 7.26 21 53 1 draug gnissorc loohcS 6 lapicnirP 7 7.7 9 4 1 0 rotanidrooc noitaerceR seY 3.2 2.83 2 31 1 redael noitaercer /tsilaiceps tnemtrapeD 8 0.02 5 2 2 0 edia tnemtrapeD seY 3.2 0.43 1 01 1 edia tnemtraped 0.01 91 61 1 0 I naicinhcet ecnanetniaM seY 8.1 7.72 0 01 1 I edia ecnanetniaM 9 tnemecrofne edoC gnikraP 01 0.0 4 2 0 0 I tnatsissa seY 5.2 0.94 2 01 1 recffio tnemecrofne ecnanetniaM 11 /tsilaiceps 2.73 02 71 53 11 I naicinhcet ecnanetniaM seY 7.1 9.22 4 49 3 eeniart ecnanetniam /tsilaiceps tnemtrapeD 21 7.4 21 2 2 2 etaicossa yrarbiL seY 8.2 5.75 7 34 4 etaicossa yrarbil ecnanetniaM 31 7.61 51 01 7 7 I naidotsuC seY 6.2 8.35 5 24 4 I naidotsuc/tsilaiceps 0.0 11 8 0 0 edia evitartsinimdA seY 5.2 8.64 6 33 4 tnatsissa noitalucriC 41 0.0 21 9 0 0 edia evitartsinimdA seY 5.2 2.94 7 03 4 egap yrarbiL 51 3.41 4 2 3 2 I regnar kraP seY 4.2 6.84 3 12 4 tsilaiceps regnaR 61 8.4 3 2 1 1 I naicinhcet noitaerceR seY 1.2 0.63 2 12 4 II tnadnetta kraP 71 1.21 8 8 42 5 tsilaiceps tnemtrapeD seY 9.1 3.82 01 891 4 tsilaiceps tnemtrapeD 81 151 llrehtO 432,1 lllatoT .7002 hguorht 3002 ni gnidne sdoirep yap rof odidnocsE fo ytic eht morf atad lloryaP :ecruoS .seitinutroppo detimil—4 dna ,seitinutroppo doog—3 ,meid rep—2 ,yraropmet eurt—1 :swollof sa era snoitacfiissalc boj fo seirogetac ehT * diap dna ,evael kcis ro/dna noitacav diap ,noisiv :stfieneb eerht gniwollof eht fo owt dna ,stfieneb latned dna ,lacidem ,tnemeriter meht gnidivorp ton saw reyolpme esohw seeyolpme lliw-ta era seeyolpme yraropmeT † .syadiloh .htgnel ni skeew owt erew weiver ruo ni dedulcni seititne eht rof sdoirep yap ehT ‡ diap ,noisiv :stfieneb eerht gniwollof eht fo owt dna ,stfieneb latned dna ,lacidem ,tnemeriter sedivorp reyolpme eht ro sutats tnenamrep evah seeyolpme hcihw ni snoitacfiissalc era snoitacfiissalc boj tnenamreP § .syadiloh diap dna ,evael kcis ro/dna noitacav .7002 hguorht 3002 ni gnidne sdoirep yap eht gnirud noitacfiissalc boj eno naht erom ni dekrow evah yam slaudividni emos esuaceb seeyolpme euqinu fo tnuoc a tneserper ton yam srebmun esehT ll 54 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 55 April 2009 Appendix C SuMMARy of SeLeCT PeRSonneL dATA foR THe keRn CounTy Job CLASSIfICATIonS WITH THe MoST TeMPoRARy eMPLoyeeS WITHouT benefITS fRoM 2003 THRouGH 2007 Using the data in Table C on the following page, we reviewed 20 job classifications that Kern County uses in which more than 4,500 temporary employees without benefits (temporary employees) worked in pay periods ending between 2003 and 2007.17 Seven of the 20 job classifications appeared to be for jobs that were true temporary18 classifications (rows 1 through 7, column 2), two classifications were per diem classifications (rows 8 and 9, column 2), and eight classifications appeared to offer good opportunities (rows 10 through 17, column 2) to the temporary employees in them to move to jobs with permanent status or benefits (permanent jobs). Among the job classifications that appeared to offer good opportunities, the classification in which the highest percentage of temporary employees found permanent jobs between 2003 and 2007 was mental health recovery specialist I (row 16), with 46.3 percent of the temporary employees getting permanent jobs during this time period. Three job classifications fall into the last category, those that appeared to have limited opportunities for temporary employees to secure permanent jobs (rows 18 through 20, column 2). Relatively small numbers of employees in these classifications moved into permanent jobs in the equivalent job classifications (column 9) or small numbers of temporary employees got permanent jobs in any classification (column 10). However, we noted that the temporary employees in these three job classifications, office services assistant, nursing attendant, and building services worker I, did not remain in these classifications very long—about 16 to 18 two-week periods (column 5), or 32 to 36 weeks. 17 This number may not represent a count of unique employees because some individuals may have worked in more than one job classification during pay periods ending in 2003 through 2007. 18 The definition of true temporary job classifications and the other categories of job classifications we use in this report are delineated on page 18 in Chapter 1. 56 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 C elbaT 7002 hguorhT 3002 ni gnidnE sdoireP yaP rof seeyolpmE yraropmeT tsoM eht htiW ytnuoC nreK ni snoitacfiissalC boJ eht fo sisylanA nA 31 21 11 01 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 †seeyoLpme yraropmet eGareva †seeyoLpme yraropmet fo tnecrep radneLac yap eGareva yraropmet sraey ‡sdoirep ohW †seeyoLpme ohW seeyoLpme seeyoLpme yraropmet yraropmet dekroW devom ohW eht ni dekroW eht ni derih devom ohW ot devom ohW na ereht saW †seeyoLpme †seeyoLpme raey yreve yna ot tneLaviuqe tneLaviuqe yna ot tneLaviuqe eht tneLaviuqe diap ereW diap ereW tidua eht ni boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep tnenamrep tneLaviuqe boJ tnenamrep boJ siht ni boJ siht ni Weiver boJ siht ni §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc boJ ?§noitacifissaLc noitacifissaLc noitacifissaLc doirep noitacifissaLc *yroGetac noitacifissaLc boJ tsop—naicisyhp tnediseR 1 %0.0 - - 0 - enoN oN 7.1 0.22 0 481 1 1 raey etaudarg tsop—naicisyhp tnediseR 2 0.0 - - 0 - enoN oN 6.1 6.12 0 471 1 2 raey etaudarg tsop—naicisyhp tnediseR 3 0.0 - - 0 - enoN oN 6.1 5.12 0 761 1 3 raey etaudarg 4.11 4 4 51 0 ecitnerppa rethgfieriF seY 1.1 7.21 0 231 1 I rethgfierfi lanosaeS 4 2.02 4 4 12 0 ecitnerppa rethgfieriF seY 1.1 1.51 0 401 1 II rethgfierfi lanosaeS 5 dna sthgiew/larutlucirgA 6 4.11 - - 01 - enoN oN 0.2 5.42 21 88 1 naicinhcet serusaem 1.92 4 4 52 0 ecitnerppa rethgfieriF seY 6.1 1.02 0 68 1 III rethgfierfi lanosaeS 7 0.51 273 122 12 71 II esrun ffats latipsoH seY 3.2 4.63 91 041 2 II esrun meid reP 8 1.71 882 191 02 5 I esrun ffats latipsoH seY 9.1 2.42 5 711 2 I esrun meid reP 9 0.83 32 32 131 0 secivres namuH seY 7.1 8.61 6 543 3 rekrow ytilibigilE 01 I naicinhcet 7.62 111 111 68 96 edia latnemtrapeD seY 6.1 0.71 3 223 3 edia latnemtrapeD 11 5.83 698 698 701 88 secivres ecffiO seY 7.1 6.61 5 872 3 naicinhcet secivres ecffiO 21 naicinhcet 5.24 902 581 011 37 snoitcerroc elinevuJ seY 8.1 9.22 0 952 3 —I rolesnuoc puorG 31 I recffio pleh artxe—noitaborp 6.52 902 581 16 25 snoitcerroc elinevuJ seY 4.1 8.31 0 832 3 I recffio snoitcerroc elinevuJ 41 I recffio 1.02 361 361 74 73 troppus lacideM seY 8.1 4.91 1 432 3 naicinhcet troppus lacideM 51 naicinhcet 3.64 101 97 001 35 yrevocer htlaeh latneM seY 6.1 0.81 0 612 3 yrevocer htlaeh latneM 61 I tsilaiceps I tsilaiceps 1.34 243 413 95 93 I rekrow ecivres laicoS seY 5.1 6.51 1 731 3 I rekrow ecivres laicoS 71 3.71 863 863 731 82 tnatsissa secivres ecffiO seY 8.1 1.81 5 197 4 tnatsissa secivres ecffiO 81 6.32 781 39 39 86 tnadnetta gnisruN seY 6.1 2.61 3 493 4 tnadnetta gnisruN 91 0.41 93 72 42 6 secivres gnidliuB seY 7.1 8.71 0 171 4 I rekrow secivres gnidliuB 02 I rekrow 872,6 llrehtO 558,01 lllatoT .7002 hguorht 3002 ni gnidne sdoirep yap rof ytnuoC nreK morf atad lloryaP :ecruoS .seitinutroppo detimil—4 dna ,seitinutroppo doog—3 ,meid rep—2 ,yraropmet eurt—1 :swollof sa era snoitacfiissalc boj fo seirogetac ehT * .htgnel ni skeew owt erew weiver ruo ni dedulcni seititne eht rof sdoirep yap ehT ‡ diap dna ,evael kcis ro/dna noitacav diap ,noisiv :stfieneb eerht gniwollof eht fo owt dna ,stfieneb latned dna ,lacidem ,tnemeriter meht gnidivorp ton saw reyolpme esohw seeyolpme lliw-ta era seeyolpme yraropmeT † .syadiloh diap ,noisiv :stfieneb eerht gniwollof eht fo owt dna ,stfieneb latned dna ,lacidem ,tnemeriter sedivorp reyolpme eht ro sutats tnenamrep evah seeyolpme hcihw ni snoitacfiissalc era snoitacfiissalc boj tnenamreP § .syadiloh diap dna ,evael kcis ro/dna noitacav .7002 hguorht 3002 ni gnidne sdoirep yap gnirud noitacfiissalc boj eno naht erom ni dekrow evah yam slaudividni emos esuaceb seeyolpme euqinu fo tnuoc a tneserper ton yam srebmun esehT ll California State Auditor Report 2008-107 57 April 2009 Appendix d SuMMARy of SeLeCT PeRSonneL dATA foR THe RIveRSIde CounTy Job CLASSIfICATIonS WITH THe MoST TeMPoRARy eMPLoyeeS WITHouT benefITS fRoM 2003 THRouGH 2007 Using the data in Table D on the following page, we reviewed 20 job classifications that Riverside County (Riverside) uses in which more than 10,000 temporary employees without benefits (temporary employees) worked in pay periods ending between 2003 and 2007.19 Four of the 20 job classifications appeared to be for jobs that were true temporary20 classifications (rows 1 through 4, column 2), 12 classifications were per diem classifications (rows 5 through 16, column 2), and four classifications appeared to offer good opportunities (rows 17 through 20, column 2) to the temporary employees in them to move to jobs with permanent status or benefits (permanent jobs). The job classification in the latter category in which the highest percentage of temporary employees found permanent jobs between 2003 and 2007 was public safety communication officer II (row 20), with 83.3 percent of the 12 temporary employees getting permanent jobs during this time period. Of particular note among the job classifications we reviewed in Riverside was the temporary assistant job classification (row 1). The temporary assistant classification is used in the Temporary Assignment Program, which we describe in the Introduction. Between 2003 and 2007, 42.1 percent of the temporary employees in the temporary assistant classification found permanent jobs in Riverside. Moreover, the 8,114 temporary employees in the temporary assistant classification accounted for more than 75 percent of the 10,665 temporary employees in Riverside between 2003 and 2007. 19 This number may not represent a count of unique employees because some individuals may have worked in more than one job classification during pay periods ending in 2003 through 2007. 20 The definition of true temporary job classifications and the other categories of job classifications we use in this report are delineated on page 18 in Chapter 1. 58 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 D elbaT 7002 hguorhT 3002 ni gnidnE sdoireP yaP rof seeyolpmE yraropmeT tsoM eht htiW ytnuoC edisreviR ni snoitacfiissalC boJ eht fo sisylanA nA 31 21 11 01 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 †seeyoLpme yraropmet eGareva †seeyoLpme yraropmet fo tnecrep radneLac yap eGareva yraropmet sraey ‡sdoirep †seeyoLpme ohW seeyoLpme seeyoLpme yraropmet yraropmet dekroW ohW devom ohW eht ni dekroW eht ni derih devom ohW devom ohW na ereht saW †seeyoLpme †seeyoLpme raey yreve yna ot tneLaviuqe tneLaviuqe yna ot tneLaviuqe ot tneLaviuqe diap ereW diap ereW tidua eht ni boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep tnenamrep tneLaviuqe boJ tnenamrep boJ siht ni boJ siht ni Weiver boJ siht ni §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc boJ ?§noitacifissaLc noitacifissaLc noitacifissaLc doirep noitacifissaLc *yroGetac noitacifissaLc boJ %1.24 - - 414,3 - enoN oN 5.1 1.31 72 411,8 1 tnatsissa yraropmeT 1 6.3 - - 21 - enoN oN 9.1 0.92 02 633 1 I edia ecivreS 2 1.22 - - 63 - enoN oN 6.1 8.61 1 361 1 nretni tneduts lanoisseforP 3 5.4 - - 1 - enoN oN 9.1 2.23 0 22 1 tnatsissa margorp V eltiT 4 tnemngissa yraropmeT 5 —esrun yrtsiger margorp 2.12 - - 68 - enoN oN 9.1 2.33 41 504 2 meid rep 1.21 662 712 62 0 II esrun deretsigeR seY 9.1 4.42 0 412 2 meid rep—III esrun deretsigeR 6 0.82 - - 94 - enoN oN 8.1 2.72 8 571 2 meid rep—tnatsissa yraropmeT 7 3.51 041 36 42 61 tnatsissa gnisruN seY 1.2 3.33 0 751 2 meid rep—tnatsissa gnisruN 8 4.6 6 6 5 1 III tsirtaihcysp ffatS seY 2.3 2.36 52 87 2 meid rep—III tsirtaihcysP 9 7.21 71 71 8 7 II tsirtaihcysp ffatS seY 3.3 5.96 42 36 2 meid rep—II tsirtaihcysP 01 —III esrun deretsigeR 11 —dedeen sa—meid rep 0.0 785 473 0 0 III esrun deretsigeR seY 6.1 0.02 0 06 2 deludehcs ylraluger lanoitacov desneciL esrun lanoitacov desneciL 21 0.52 391 49 31 21 II esrun seY 7.2 9.04 0 25 2 meid rep—II —tpmexe tnatsissa yraropmeT 31 0.72 - - 01 - enoN oN 7.1 8.61 0 73 2 meid rep erac yrotaripseR ,II renoititcarp erac yrotaripseR 41 6.72 34 62 8 5 deretsiger ,II renoititcarp seY 5.2 0.34 0 92 2 meid rep—deretsiger —II esrun deretsigeR 51 —dedeen sa—meid rep 0.0 662 712 0 0 II esrun deretsigeR seY 6.1 1.12 0 02 2 deludehcs ylraluger —tsigolonhcet cigoloidaR 61 6.82 34 03 4 4 II tsigolonhcet cigoloidaR seY 9.1 1.42 0 41 2 meid rep 8.25 443 852 511 99 I rolesnuoc puorG seY 1.2 3.13 22 812 3 I rolesnuoc puorG 71 8.41 753 802 4 1 II rolesnuoc puorG seY 1.2 0.92 1 72 3 II rolesnuoc puorG 81 doof roines lanoitcerroC doof roines lanoitcerroC 91 7.61 36 33 3 2 rekrow ecivres seY 2.2 7.93 3 81 3 rekrow ecivres ytefas cilbuP noitacinummoc ytefas cilbuP 02 3.38 451 75 01 01 II recffio noitacinummoc seY 9.1 6.92 0 21 3 II recffio 154 llrehtO 566,01 lllatoT .7002 hguorht 3002 ni gnidne sdoirep yap rof ytnuoC edisreviR morf atad lloryaP :ecruoS .seitinutroppo detimil—4 dna ,seitinutroppo doog—3 ,meid rep—2 ,yraropmet eurt—1 :swollof sa era snoitacfissalc boj fo seirogetac ehT * dna ,evael kcis ro/dna noitacav diap ,noisiv :stfieneb eerht gniwollof eht fo owt dna ,stfieneb latned dna ,lacidem ,tnemeriter meht gnidivorp ton saw reyolpme esohw seeyolpme lliw-ta era seeyolpme yraropmeT † .syadiloh diap .htgnel ni skeew owt erew weiver ruo ni dedulcni seititne eht rof sdoirep yap ehT ‡ noitacav diap ,noisiv :stfieneb eerht gniwollof eht fo owt dna ,stfieneb latned dna ,lacidem ,tnemeriter sedivorp reyolpme eht ro sutats tnenamrep evah seeyolpme hcihw ni snoitacfiissalc era snoitacfiissalc boj tnenamreP § .syadiloh diap dna ,evael kcis ro/dna .7002 hguorht 3002 ni gnidne sdoirep yap gnirud noitacfiissalc boj eno naht erom ni dekrow evah yam slaudividni emos esuaceb seeyolpme euqinu fo tnuoc a tneserper ton yam srebmun esehT ll California State Auditor Report 2008-107 59 April 2009 Appendix e SuMMARy of SeLeCT PeRSonneL dATA foR THe SAn JoAquIn CounTy Job CLASSIfICATIonS WITH THe MoST TeMPoRARy eMPLoyeeS WITHouT benefITS fRoM 2003 THRouGH 2007 Using the data in Table E on page 61, we reviewed 20 job classifications that San Joaquin County (San Joaquin) uses in which more than 2,000 temporary employees without benefits (temporary employees) worked in pay periods ending between October 2003 and December 2007.21 Eight of the 20 job classifications appeared to be for jobs that were true temporary22 classifications (rows 1 through 8, column 2) and six classifications appeared to offer good opportunities (rows 9 through 14, column 2) to the temporary employees in them to move to jobs with permanent status or benefits (permanent jobs). The job classification in the latter category in which the highest percentage of temporary employees found permanent jobs between 2003 and 2007 was maintenance worker (row 14), with 46.3 percent of the 41 temporary employees getting permanent jobs during this time period. The last category, job classifications for which there appeared to be limited opportunities (rows 15 through 20, column 2) for temporary employees to secure permanent jobs, included six job classifications. Relatively small numbers of employees moved into permanent jobs in the equivalent job classifications (column 9) or small numbers of temporary employees got permanent jobs in any classification (column 10) from these temporary classifications. However, two of these six job classifications, staff nurse III— inpatient and licensed vocational nurse (rows 15 and 20) are health care-related classifications that can be filled by per diem employees23 for whom per diem status is usually their choice. We requested information from San Joaquin regarding the classifications we identified as not offering good opportunities for permanent jobs, and San Joaquin provided reasonable explanations for why it is following its current practices with these job classifications. The director of human resources for San Joaquin informed us that the primary reasons that San Joaquin has used temporary employees in the four classifications we inquired about center around a need for staffing flexibility in 24-hour facilities with 21 This number may not represent a count of unique employees because some individuals may have worked in more than one job classifcation during pay periods ending in October 2003 through December 2007. 22 The definition of true temporary job classifications and the other categories of job classifications we use in this report are delineated on page 18 in Chapter 1. 23 San Joaquin County does not categorize job classifications as per diem; instead, the county places both per diem and non-per diem employees in non-per diem classifications. 60 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 fluctuating workloads, such as the county hospital. She indicated that this flexibility in staffing is especially critical to the 24-hour operations where workload fluctuations require the ability to increase or decrease staffing to meet the operation’s needs and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 61 April 2009 E elbaT 7002 rebmeceD hguorhT 3002 rebotcO ni gnidnE sdoireP yaP rof seeyolpmE yraropmeT tsoM eht htiW ytnuoC niuqaoJ naS ni snoitacfiissalC boJ eht fo sisylanA nA 31 21 11 01 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 †seeyoLpme yraropmet eGareva †seeyoLpme yraropmet fo tnecrep radneLac yap eGareva yraropmet sraey ‡sdoirep †seeyoLpme ohW seeyoLpme seeyoLpme yraropmet yraropmet dekroW ohW devom ohW eht ni dekroW eht ni derih devom ohW devom ohW na ereht saW †seeyoLpme †seeyoLpme raey yreve yna ot tneLaviuqe tneLaviuqe yna ot tneLaviuqe ot tneLaviuqe diap ereW diap ereW tidua eht ni boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep tneLaviuqe tnenamrep boJ tnenamrep boJ siht ni boJ siht ni Weiver boJ siht ni §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc §noitacifissaLc boJ ?§noitacifissaLc noitacifissaLc noitacifissaLc doirep noitacifissaLc *yroGetac noitacifissaLc boJ %0.0 - - 0 - enoN oN 8.1 9.12 0 201 1 nretnI 1 0.34 - - 04 - enoN oN 6.1 2.21 0 39 1 III tnatsissa gnisrun tnedutS 2 0.0 - - 0 - enoN oN 8.1 5.12 0 97 1 raey ts1 naicisyhp tnediseR 3 6.62 - - 12 - enoN oN 5.1 7.41 1 97 1 II tnatsissa gnisrun tnedutS 4 0.0 - - 0 - enoN oN 6.1 3.02 0 17 1 raey dn2 naicisyhp tnediseR 5 secivres ytinummoC 6 0.6 - - 3 - enoN oN 9.1 4.62 7 05 1 rekrow margorp 3.31 - - 6 - enoN oN 5.1 0.71 0 54 1 edia ecnanetniam kraP 7 0.22 - - 9 - enoN oN 1.2 0.23 0 14 1 tnatsissa noitaborP 8 4.82 593 513 49 97 tnatsissa ecffiO seY 0.2 4.62 02 133 3 rekrow ecffiO 9 5.73 593 513 15 24 tnatsissa ecffiO seY 7.2 6.24 33 631 3 tnatsissa ecffiO 01 2.42 622 39 42 81 —VI esrun ffatS seY 7.2 7.83 31 99 3 tneitapni—VI esrun ffatS 11 tneitapni 7.52 24 03 91 21 I rolesnuoc retlehS seY 6.1 4.51 0 47 3 I rolesnuoc retlehS 21 3.33 57 95 71 41 tneitapni—II esrun ffatS seY 4.1 5.21 0 15 3 tneitapni—II esrun ffatS 31 3.64 55 83 91 71 rekrow ecnanetniaM seY 5.1 0.31 0 14 3 rekrow ecnanetniaM 41 0.71 782 261 84 53 —III esrun ffatS seY 3.2 8.92 82 382 4 tneitapni—III esrun ffatS 51 tneitapni 6.51 75 52 33 71 tnatsissa gnisruN seY 8.2 6.04 54 112 4 tnatsissa gnisruN 61 3.51 85 71 02 51 cinilc tneitaptuO seY 0.3 8.15 43 131 4 tnatsissa cinilc tneitaptuO 71 tnatsissa 6.6 02 5 8 4 I rekrow ecivres dooF seY 2.2 5.23 31 121 4 I rekrow ecivres dooF 81 4.61 39 03 91 71 ecivres gnipeekesuoH seY 2.2 9.03 31 611 4 gnipeekesuoH 91 rekrow rekrow ecivres 7.41 94 12 11 8 lanoitacov desneciL seY 3.2 8.52 7 57 4 esrun lanoitacov desneciL 02 esrun 730,2 llrehtO 662,4 lllatoT eht esuaceb sesoprup ruo rof ytilibailer denimretednu fo erew niuqaoJ naS morf deniatbo ew atad ehT .7002 rebmeceD hguorht 3002 rebotcO ni gnidne sdoirep yap rof ytnuoC niuqaoJ naS morf atad lloryaP :ecruoS taht sisylana na demrofrep ew ,revewoH .stnemucod ecruos ot meht ni atad eht gnicart yb sisylana ruo ni desu sdlefi atad yek fo ycarucca eht enimreted ot elbanu erew ew ,erofereht ,dna metsys sselrepap a sesu ytnuoc .etelpmoc saw su dedivorp ytnuoc eht elfi atad lloryap eht taht enimreted ot elba osla erew eW .sdlefi atad yek ni seulav elbanosaer deniatnoc atad niuqaoJ naS eht taht su derussa .seitinutroppo detimil—4 dna ,seitinutroppo doog—3 ,meid rep—2 ,yraropmet eurt—1 :swollof sa era snoitacfiissalc boj fo seirogetac ehT * dna ,evael kcis ro/dna noitacav diap ,noisiv :stfieneb eerht gniwollof eht fo owt dna ,stfieneb latned dna ,lacidem ,tnemeriter meht gnidivorp ton saw reyolpme esohw seeyolpme lliw-ta era seeyolpme yraropmeT † .syadiloh diap .htgnel ni skeew owt erew weiver ruo ni dedulcni seititne eht rof sdoirep yap ehT ‡ diap ,noisiv :stfieneb eerht gniwollof eht fo owt dna ,stfieneb latned dna ,lacidem ,tnemeriter sedivorp reyolpme eht ro sutats tnenamrep evah seeyolpme hcihw ni snoitacfiissalc era snoitacfiissalc boj tnenamreP § .syadiloh diap dna ,evael kcis ro/dna noitacav .7002 rebmeceD hguorht 3002 rebotcO ni gnidne sdoirep yap gnirud noitacfiissalc boj eno naht erom ni dekrow evah yam slaudividni emos esuaceb seeyolpme euqinu fo tnuoc a tneserper ton yam srebmun esehT ll 62 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 63 April 2009 Appendix f SuRvey ReSPonSeS fRoM eMPLoyeeS of THe SIx LoCAL GoveRnMenTS We RevIeWed Tables F.1 and F.2 beginning on the following page present the responses to a survey we distributed to 594 individuals who are or were temporary employees in one of six local governments we reviewed. The survey asked questions regarding each individual’s current employment status, reasons for becoming a temporary employee, any efforts made to obtain permanent employment, perceptions of why the employer was using a temporary worker to do this job, perceptions of the existence of sufficient opportunities to become a permanent employee, and if not, why. In selecting our sample of employees, we used payroll data from the six local governments that listed employees who were temporary workers between 2003 and 2007, as well as their addresses. We randomly selected 100 temporary employees from each of the six local governments, bringing our total survey sample size to 600. We mailed each employee a copy of the survey with a postage-paid return envelope. Each person in the survey was also given the opportunity to respond to the survey via the Internet. After mailing the surveys, we discovered that six of the 100 employees from Fremont were retirees who should not have been included in our sample, which resulted in adjusted sample sizes of 94 for Fremont and 594 for all six entities. Of the 594 temporary employees surveyed, we received 230 completed responses. We also received 15 surveys in which the respondent failed to answer one or more of the questions in the survey. For these surveys, we entered the data that were available. The total response rate for the survey was 39 percent of the temporary employees surveyed. 64 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Table F.1 Survey Responses From Temporary Employees, Grouped by Local Government san Joaquin contra costa kern county riverside county county county city of escondido city of fremont aLL responses number percent number percent number percent number percent number percent number percent totaL percent Number of survey respondents 32 32% 31 31% 35 35% 40 40% 45 45% 47 50% 230 39% Total number of surveys returned as undeliverable* 1 1 8 8 6 6 4 4 11 11 2 2 32 5 Total number of surveys miscoded and uncoded† 12 2 Questions and Responses Are you still working in a temporary capacity? Yes. 8 25 6 19 22 65 15 37 30 67 22 47 103 45 No. 24 75 25 81 12 35 25 63 15 33 25 53 126 55 What is your understanding of your employer’s reason for using a temporary worker to do the job you are or were doing? To fill a vacancy in a permanent position until that position is filled. 15 47 15 48 7 20 12 30 4 9 2 4 55 24 To fill a temporary vacancy created by a permanent employee who is sick, on vacation, or on family medical leave. 9 28 5 16 6 17 11 28 4 9 2 4 37 16 To meet seasonal or peak workload needs. 10 31 7 23 8 23 16 40 16 36 27 57 84 37 To meet an employment need related to a special project. 7 22 4 13 2 6 10 25 9 20 22 47 54 23 To save on wage and/or benefit costs. 16 50 12 39 14 40 17 43 29 64 11 23 99 43 Other. 3 9 5 16 13 37 7 18 8 18 6 13 42 18 Are you or were you a temporary employee by choice? Yes. 6 19 11 35 13 38 20 50 31 69 37 79 118 52 No. 26 81 20 65 21 62 20 50 14 31 10 21 111 48 For those who chose to be a temporary worker, what are or were your reasons for choosing to be a temporary employee? I can work multiple jobs and make more money. 1 17 3 27 3 23 3 15 5 16 6 16 21 18 I have more free time for non-work activities. 2 33 4 36 4 31 8 40 13 42 11 30 42 36 To protect my retirement benefits. 0 0 2 18 0 0 1 5 4 13 0 0 7 6 For the social interaction. 2 33 0 0 1 8 5 25 4 13 9 24 21 18 To keep busy. 1 17 1 9 4 31 5 25 5 16 9 24 25 21 To supplement my income. 3 50 3 27 4 31 11 55 12 39 11 30 44 37 Other. 4 67 6 55 7 54 8 40 14 45 18 49 57 48 Have you taken any employment examinations that are required to get a permanent job with your current local employer? Yes. 27 87 16 53 18 53 23 58 10 22 9 20 103 46 No. 4 13 14 47 16 47 17 42 35 78 37 80 123 54 Apart from taking any employment examinations, have you applied for any specific jobs with your current local government employer? Yes. 20 63 21 68 15 45 25 63 9 20 10 22 100 44 No. 12 37 10 32 18 55 15 37 35 80 36 78 126 56 Have you been contacted or interviewed for any permanent jobs with your current local government employer? Yes. 20 63 19 61 12 34 21 53 12 27 12 26 96 42 No. 12 37 12 39 23 66 19 47 33 73 34 74 133 58 Do you believe there are sufficient opportunities for temporary employees to get permanent jobs with your current local government employer? Yes. 14 44 17 55 8 23 13 32 9 20 17 38 78 34 No. 10 31 6 19 14 40 12 30 20 44 12 27 74 33 Don’t know. 8 25 8 26 13 37 15 38 16 36 16 35 76 33 For those who indicated that there were insufficient opportunities, why do you think that there are not sufficient opportunities to get permanent jobs with your current local government employer? There are not enough permanent jobs for everyone who wants one. 5 50 2 33 8 57 8 67 9 45 8 67 40 54 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 65 April 2009 san Joaquin contra costa kern county riverside county county county city of escondido city of fremont aLL responses number percent number percent number percent number percent number percent number percent totaL percent Permanent jobs are not adequately advertised. 0 0% 0 0% 8 57% 3 25% 4 20% 3 25% 18 24% My local government employer is trying to save money by using temporary employees. 2 20 3 50 11 79 7 58 15 75 5 42 43 58 People in permanent jobs tend to stay in them, resulting in few vacancies. 2 20 1 17 6 43 7 58 10 50 9 75 35 47 My local government employer has a need for only a certain number of permanent jobs. 3 30 1 17 2 14 4 33 4 20 4 33 18 24 Other. 5 50 2 33 0 0 2 17 5 25 1 8 15 20 Have you attempted to get a full-time job with an employer other than your current employer? Yes. 10 34 12 40 16 48 17 42 11 24 19 42 85 38 No. 19 66 18 60 17 52 23 58 34 76 26 58 137 62 Do you believe that being a temporary employee increases your chances of getting a permanent job with your employer? Yes. 23 72 19 61 17 50 22 57 25 56 25 55 131 58 No. 5 16 4 13 11 32 6 15 10 22 8 18 44 19 Don’t know. 4 12 8 26 6 18 11 28 10 22 12 27 51 23 Source: Survey of temporary employees in six local governments. * Some of the surveys we mailed were returned to us as undeliverable because the local government employees to whom they were addressed had moved. † To help ensure the integrity of our survey, we assigned each local government employee in our survey a unique code that the employee needed to use when submitting their survey. Some employees did not include their code (uncoded) and some employees used the wrong code (miscoded). Table F.2 Survey Responses from Temporary Employees, Grouped by County or City Governments county city responses of responses of responses of aLL 400 surveys sent 194 surveys sent 594 surveys sent number percent number percent number percent Number of survey respondents 138 35% 92 47% 230 39% Questions and Responses Are you still working in a temporary capacity? Yes. 51 37 52 57 103 45 No. 86 63 40 43 126 55 What is your understanding of your employer’s reason for using a temporary worker to do the job you are or were doing? To fill a vacancy in a permanent position until that position is filled. 49 36 6 7 55 24 To fill a temporary vacancy created by a permanent employee who is sick, on vacation, or on family medical leave. 31 22 6 7 37 16 To meet seasonal or peak workload needs. 41 30 43 47 84 37 To meet an employment need related to a special project. 23 17 31 34 54 23 To save on wage and/or benefit costs. 59 43 40 43 99 43 Other. 28 20 14 15 42 18 Are you or were you a temporary employee by choice? Yes. 50 36 68 74 118 52 No. 87 64 24 26 111 48 For those who chose to be a temporary worker, what are or were your reasons for choosing to be a temporary employee? I can work multiple jobs and make more money. 10 20 11 16 21 18 I have more free time for non-work activities. 18 36 24 35 42 36 To protect my retirement benefits. 3 6 4 6 7 6 For the social interaction. 8 16 13 19 21 18 To keep busy. 11 22 14 21 25 21 To supplement my income. 21 42 23 34 44 37 Other. 25 50 32 47 57 48 continued on next page . . . 66 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 county city responses of responses of responses of aLL 400 surveys sent 194 surveys sent 594 surveys sent number percent number percent number percent Have you taken any employment examinations that are required to get a permanent job with your current local employer? Yes. 84 62 19 21 103 46 No. 51 38 72 79 123 54 Apart from taking any employment examinations, have you applied for any specific jobs with your current local government employer? Yes. 81 60 19 21 100 44 No. 55 40 71 79 126 56 Have you been contacted or interviewed for any permanent jobs with your current local government employer? Yes. 72 52 24 26 96 42 No. 66 48 67 74 133 58 Do you believe there are sufficient opportunities for temporary employees to get permanent jobs with your current local government employer? Yes. 52 38 26 28 78 34 No. 42 30 32 36 74 33 Don’t know. 44 32 32 36 76 33 For those who indicated that there were insufficient opportunities, why do you think that there are not sufficient opportunities to get permanent jobs with your current local government employer? There are not enough permanent jobs for everyone who wants one. 23 55 17 53 40 54 Permanent jobs are not adequately advertised. 11 26 7 22 18 24 My local government employer is trying to save money by using temporary employees. 23 55 20 63 43 58 People in permanent jobs tend to stay in them, resulting in few vacancies. 16 38 19 59 35 47 My local government employer has a need for only a certain number of permanent jobs. 10 24 8 25 18 24 Other. 9 21 6 19 15 20 Have you attempted to get a full-time job with an employer other than your current employer? Yes. 55 42 30 33 85 38 No. 77 58 60 67 137 62 Do you believe that being a temporary employee increases your chances of getting a permanent job with your employer? Yes. 81 60 50 56 131 58 No. 26 19 18 20 44 19 Don’t know. 29 21 22 24 51 23 Source: Survey of temporary employees in six local governments. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 67 April 2009 (Agency response provided as text only.) Escondido Human Resources Department 201 North Broadway Escondido, CA 92025 April 9, 2009 Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Ms. Howle: We generally concur with the recommendation presented by the Bureau of State Audits and we will take steps to implement the proposed recommendation. The Human Resources Department will continue to assist City departments by providing guidance in the hiring of part time positions. Effective May 1, 2009 departments will be required to provide documentation of the essential duties and hourly rates of pay when hiring a Department Specialist position. Our new procedure includes the following statement, which is based on the recommendation: “Prior to the approval by the City Manager for the hiring of part time temporary Department Specialist positions, the hiring department must submit a written request to be reviewed by the Human Resources Department. The purpose of this approval procedure is to ensure that departments are appropriately and consistently classifying employees into the Department Specialist position. This request must include the duties the position will perform as well as the hourly rate of pay. The manner in which the hourly rate was determined should be included, e.g. negotiated, fair market rate, based on education and/or experience, etc. Upon review of the Department Specialist request, the Human Resources Department may suggest that the hiring department use a current part time temporary classification that more appropriately reflects the duties and hourly rate of that position. Once the appropriate classification and salary rate have been determined, the department should forward their request for approval to the City Manager.” The Recruitment Approval Procedure (attached) has been updated to reflect this change in internal procedure. Please contact me at (760) 839-4643 if you have any questions. Sincerely, (Signed by: Matilda Hlawek) Matilda Hlawek Human Resources Manager 68 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 ESCONDIDO MEMORANDUM City of Choice Recruitment Approval Procedure A. FULL-TIME REGULAR POSITIONS All departments with vacancies, regardless of funding source, must follow the procedure below: 1. The Department Head or designee must send an e-mail message to the City Manager with a copy to Jessica Perpetua and Joy Canfield, requesting approval to fill the vacant position. The approval request must be for a budgeted position and include the following:  The specific title of the position.  The justification for filling the vacancy.  If the vacancy is a priority (urgent need to fill the position and why).  Open, closed-competitive or promotional recruitment. 2. If the department would like to fill another position (e.g. frozen position) in lieu of the vacant position, the department head must also provide information that either shows a cost savings or stipulates where the additional funding is derived. Steps 1 and 2 must be completed prior to the Department’s Request for Certification is submitted to Human Resources. 3. All management recruitments must be reviewed by the Assistant City Manager or Deputy City Manager as to the type of recruitment (open or closed-competitive) prior to seeking approval from the City Manager. Also, once a final management candidate is selected by the department, and prior to a conditional job offer, the department representative must notify the Assistant City Manager or Deputy City Manager. 4. The City Manager will render a decision and reply back to the department and all other recipients. 5. If the City Manager approves filling the position, the Department shall then submit a Request for Certification to Human Resources. A completed Position Survey/FLSA Exemption Test form must accompany the request for certification. 6. After Finance has verified that the position is budgeted and once all appropriate signatures have been procured for the Request for Certification, the recruitment will then proceed. 7. Any requests to start a new employee above Step 1 of their salary schedule, or above the bottom of their salary band must also be approved by the City Manager. B. PART-TIME TEMPORARY POSITIONS All part-time temporary positions must be approved by the City Manager except for Park Attendants, Ranger Specialists and part-time Recreation positions. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 69 April 2009 Recruitment Procedures Page 2 City Manager approval also includes any current part-time employees who will exceed 1,000 hours and will be placed in PERS Retirement, as well as any temporary employees who fill-in for employees on extended leave of absence. Prior to contacting temporary services agencies, departments must first receive approval from the City Manager. APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR DEPARTMENT SPECIALIST POSITIONS Prior to the approval by the City Manager for the hiring of part time temporary Department Specialist positions, the hiring department must submit a written request to be reviewed by the Human Resources Department. The purpose of this approval procedure is to ensure that departments are appropriately and consistently classifying employees into the Department Specialist position. This request must include the duties the position will perform as well as the hourly rate of pay. The manner in which the hourly rate was determined should be included, e.g. negotiated, fair market rate, based on education and/or experience, etc. Upon review of the Department Specialist request, the Human Resources Department may suggest that the hiring department use a current part time temporary classification that more appropriately reflects the duties and hourly rate of that position. Once the appropriate classification and salary rate have been determined, the department should forward their request for approval to the City Manager. APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR ALL OTHER PART TIME TEMPORARY POSITIONS Departments should forward approval from the City Manager to Human Resources along with the applicant’s employment application and start notice. The applicant will then be contacted for a pre-employment physical examination and fingerprinting, unless they have been employed by the City within the last six months. This procedure shall remain in effect until further notice from the City Manager’s Office. If you have any questions, please contact Jessica Perpetua at 839-4016. 70 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 71 April 2009 (Agency response provided as text only.) City of Fremont Human Resources 3300 Capitol Avenue, P.O. Box 5006 Fremont, CA 94537-5006 April 7, 2009 Ms. Elaine M. Howle, CPA State Auditor 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Draft Audit Report on Temporary Workers in Local Government Dear Ms. Howle: The City of Fremont has received and reviewed the draft audit report entitled “Temporary Workers in Local Government.” On behalf of the City of Fremont, we have no suggestions for changes and no comments. Let me know if you have any questions regarding this letter, which has also been loaded onto the enclosed CD as a Microsoft Word file per your request. Thank you. Sincerely, (Signed by: Michael K. Rich) MICHAEL K. RICH Director of Human Resources 72 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 73 April 2009 (Agency response provided as text only.) Contra Costa County Human Resources Department 651 Pine Street, Third Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1292 April 9, 2009 Elaine M. Howle, CPA* California State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Ms. Howle: This is in response to your letter of April 3, 2009 requesting a response to your draft report titled, “Temporary Workers in Local Government: Although Some Workers Have Limited Opportunities, Most Have Reasonable Access to Permanent Employment and Earn the Same Wage Rates as Permanent Workers.” Our comments are as follows: Page 6: Insert the word “the” in the last sentence of the second paragraph, “According to the director of 1 2 human resources…” Page 7: The last sentence of the third paragraph, “…but they do not have the opportunity for pay 3 increases,” is not a true statement. Two MOUs mandate pay increases for temporary workers and the practice for other temporary employees is for the department to terminate and rehire the employee at a higher step. Page 36: The last sentence of the first paragraph, “…do not have the opportunity for pay increases,” is not 3 a true statement. Two MOUs mandate pay increases for temporary workers and the practice for other temporary employees is for the department to terminate and rehire the employee at a higher step. Page 38: The last sentence of the first paragraph, “…do not have the opportunity for pay increases,” is not 3 a true statement. Two MOUs mandate pay increases for temporary workers and the practice for other temporary employees is for the department to terminate and rehire the employee at a higher step. Sincerely, (Signed by: Ted J. Cwiek) Ted J. Cwiek Director of Human Resources * California State Auditor’s comments appear on page 75. 74 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Contra Costa County Human Resources Department 651 Pine Street, Third Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1292 April 10, 2009 Elaine M. Howle, CPA California State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Ms. Howle: This is a supplemental response to the initial response sent to the Bureau of State Audits on April 9, 2009. In regards to the recommendations issued by the Bureau in the draft copy of “Temporary Workers in Local Government: Although Some Workers Have Limited Opportunities, Most Have Reasonable access to Permanent Employment and Earn the Same Wage Rates as Permanent Workers,” we have the following responses: 1 Regarding the Blue Ribbon Committee recommendation on Page 7, Contra Costa County is still in the process of negotiations. The management and union parties exchanged their most recent proposals to each other on Wednesday, April 8, 2009. Contra Costa County expects to reach a conclusion to these negotiations shortly, at which point, after presentation and approval by the Board of Supervisors, we will begin implementing the recommendations reached. 1 Regarding the recommendation on Page 8, the tracking and documentation of hours worked by temporary employees, Contra Costa County is beginning to work out a process where we can more accurately track the hours employed by Contra Costa County as a temporary employee. We are also working to establish procedures to begin documenting the necessary approval to extend a temporary worker’s employment beyond the one year listed in our Personnel Management Regulations. Sincerely, (Signed by: Ted J. Cwiek) Ted J. Cwiek Director of Human Resources California State Auditor Report 2008-107 75 April 2009 Comments CALIfoRnIA STATe AudIToR’S CoMMenTS on THe ReSPonSe fRoM ConTRA CoSTA CounTy To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the response to our audit report from Contra Costa County (Contra Costa). The numbers below correspond with the numbers we have placed in the margins of Contra Costa’s response. While preparing our draft audit report for publication, page 1 numbers shifted. Therefore, the page numbers that Contra Costa cites throughout its response do not correspond to the page numbers in our final report. While preparing our draft audit report for publication, we identified 2 and corrected minor errors in the text such as the one pointed out by Contra Costa. We amended text in our report on pages 3, 35, and 37 to indicate 3 that some temporary employees of Contra Costa have opportunities for pay increases. 76 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 77 April 2009 (Agency response provided as text only.) Kern County Administrative Office County Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fifth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301-4639 April 8, 2009 Ms. Elaine M. Howle, CPA* California State Auditor Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Response to Draft Audit Report titled “Temporary Workers in Local Government: Although Some Workers Have Limited Opportunities, Most Have Reasonable Access to Permanent Employment and Earn the Same Wage Rates as Permanent Workers” Dear Ms. Howle: Following is Kern County’s response to the above reference audit, which was requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The audit addressed concerns regarding whether short-term or temporary employees of general law local governments have adequate opportunities to gain employment with permanent status and benefits, and whether local governments were using temporary employees without providing benefits. The draft report contains no audit findings regarding the hiring practices in Kern County to substantiate either of the audit concerns. We did not detect any pertinent errors or misstatements in the draft report regarding Kern County. However, we request clarification of the statement made on page 7 which reads 1 “Further, the temporary employees of five of the six local governments we reviewed, with Kern being the exception, generally do not receive employer-sponsored benefits or receive very few of these benefits until they have worked at least 1,000 hours.” References on pages 35 and 38 clearly distinguish between Kern’s temporary workers which do receive employer-sponsored benefits, and those classified as “extra help”, which do not receive employer-sponsored benefits. We would request that the statements made on page 7, 35 and 38 be clarified to indicate that temporary workers in Kern, excluding those classified as 2 “extra help” or “per diem”, receive employer-sponsored benefits. We would also note that on page 11A, the 3 reference to total temporary employees may be overstated. In Kern County, only elected officials, appointed at-will department heads, extra help, and per diem employees should be included in this count. Not all Kern County managers are at-will employees. Worthy of note is the mention that Kern County was the only local government reviewed in which none of the temporary employees exceeded their established limits, and that Kern County has a good system for preventing temporary employees from exceeding the limit on how long temporary employees may work. * California State Auditor’s comments appear on page 79. 78 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 I appreciate the professionalism shown by your staff during the audit process, and concur with the report as it pertains to Kern County. Sincerely, (Signed by: Elissa D. Ladd) Elissa D. Ladd Interim County Administrative Officer California State Auditor Report 2008-107 79 April 2009 Comments CALIfoRnIA STATe AudIToR’S CoMMenTS on THe ReSPonSe fRoM keRn CounTy To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the response to our audit report from Kern County (Kern). The numbers below correspond with the numbers we have placed in the margins of Kern’s response. While preparing our draft audit report for publication, page 1 numbers shifted. Therefore, the page numbers that Kern cites throughout its response do not correspond to the page numbers in our final report. Kern requested clarification on several pages in our report to 2 indicate that “extra help” and “per diem” employees do not receive employer-sponsored benefits. We amended text on page 3 to reflect that Kern does not provide benefits to its extra-help workers. Our report already clearly indicates that per diem employees do not receive benefits. Based on the definition of temporary employees specified in Table 2 3 on page 9, the total number of temporary employees for Kern shown in the table is correct. 80 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. California State Auditor Report 2008-107 81 April 2009 (Agency response provided as text only.) County of Riverside Human Resources County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, P.O. Box 1569 Riverside, CA 92502 April 13, 2009 Ms. Elaine M. Howle, CPA California State Auditor 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento CA 95814 Dear Ms. Howle: I an in receipt of the draft audit report titled “Temporary Workers in Local Government: Although Some Workers Have Limited Opportunities, Most Have Reasonable Access to Permanent Employment and Earn the Same Wage Rates as Permanent Workers.” This audit reviewed how temporary employees are employed in six entities including Riverside County. In response to the report, this letter is to assert our response to the one recommendation related to the County of Riverside that was contained in the report. We appreciate the comprehensive effort of the audit, and applaud the professionalism of the audit team. We enjoyed reviewing the report with its comparison of our programs to other entities, and noted that our programs have many aspects that are unique and superior to programs in place in other agencies. We feel your report captured the essence of our programs, and how we are unique and innovative in meeting Riverside County’s staffing needs. Recommendation: Riverside Needs to Take Steps to Ensure That Temporary Employees Exceed Applicable Hour Limits Only When Approved We agree with this recommendation. Based on the scope of the audit, this recommendation applies to two groups of employees in Riverside County: (1) Temporaries employed through the Human Resources Department’s Temporary Assignment Program, who may work up to 1,000 hours of service in an assignment before requiring approval by the Human Resources Director. These employees are not covered in Salary Ordinance 440; and (2) County temporaries who are employed directly by departments through allocated positions. These employees are covered in Salary Ordinance 440. 82 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 April 13, 2009 Ms. Elaine M. Howle, CPA California State Auditor Page 2 of 2 In response to this recommendation, the following actions are underway: (1) Within the Temporary Assignment Program a. A comprehensive review of all temporaries currently employed is underway. This review will examine whether any currently working temporary has exceeded the 1,000 hours per assignment limit and whether they have obtained the necessary approvals. Any employee who has exceeded 1,000 hours in an assignment without an extension will be reviewed by the HR Director. b. A comprehensive procedure was compiled to re-train staff of the Temporary Assignment Program. This procedure includes a matrix outlining when HR Director review is necessary. A new electronic tracking tool for extensions is being tested for implementation within the Temporary Assignment Program. This tool uses Microsoft SharePoint technology and centrally stores extension approvals so that they may be easily accessed, obtained timely. (2) For Departments who employ temporaries through allocated positions a. A memorandum to Department Heads outlining the existing requirements of Salary Ordinance 440 will be distributed upon finalization of the audit report. This memorandum will remind Department Heads of the obligation to request Board of Supervisors approval for temporary employees who work in the same capacity for more than 1,000 working hours in the fiscal year, and again if the temporary employee is anticipated to work in excess of the extension authorized by the Board. A copy of Salary Ordinance 440 will be provided for reference. Thank you for the opportunity to have our programs reviewed. Sincerely, (Signed by: Ronald W. Komers) Ronald W. Komers Assistant County Executive Officer Human Resources Director California State Auditor Report 2008-107 83 April 2009 (Agency response provided as text only.) County of San Joaquin Human Resources Division 24 South Hunter Street, Room 106 Stockton, California 95202 April 8, 2009 Ms. Elaine Howle, State Auditor* California State Audit Bureau of State Audits 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Ms. Howle: Thank you for providing us with a copy of your draft report titled “Temporary Workers in Local Government: Although Some Workers Have Limited Opportunities, Most Have Reasonable Access to Permanent Employment and Earn the Same Wage Rates as Permanent Workers.” Audit Recommendation: As a result of the year long audit of temporary workers in local government, the audit resulted in one recommendation for San Joaquin County. We are in agreement with the recommendation that San Joaquin County needs to ensure that County departments properly monitor hours and obtain authorization for temporary workers who work over the limit. As identified in the draft report, San Joaquin County currently has a process in place to help County departments track and manage the hours of part-time and temporary employees. The process is currently under the jurisdiction of the Labor Relations Division and includes the preparation of quarterly reports listing all part-time and temporary employees and the hours worked by the employee. This report provides trending information to the department which allows departments to manage the hours worked so that the 1,560 hour limit is not exceeded prior to the end of the calendar year. In addition to the quarterly reports sent to the departments, the Labor Relations Division sends a similar report to the various Employee Organizations representing part-time and temporary workers in San Joaquin County. This semi-annual reporting is done in accordance with MOU Section 7.2 – Compliance with Part-Time/Temporary Definition for all of the bargaining units represented by SEIU 1021, as well as units represented by the California Nurses Association. Your audit finding of 18 temporary employees exceeding the County’s 1,560 hour limit during calendar year 2007 is accurate. Although we were able to provide reasonable explanations for those occurrences, as stated in the report we did not have the required authorization to exceed those hours. The various employee organizations who receive the report identifying the total hours have not made an issue regarding employees exceeding the 1,560 hours. This could be attributed to the fact that the situation is not a common one. * California State Auditor’s comment appears on page 85. 84 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 Ms. Elaine Howle April 8, 2009 Page 2 As a result of the audit recommendation, we have reviewed our processes concerning the tracking of part-time and temporary hours. To insure that we have an approval process in place, we have split the tracking function between two divisions: Human Resources and Labor Relations. Human Resources will assume responsibility for tracking the hours and notifying County departments with the quarterly reports. In addition, there will be closer monitoring in the second half of the calendar year as employees get closer to the hours limit. Labor Relations will retain the role of seeking agreement with the employee organizations for any extension beyond the 1,560 hours. Data Reliability: In 2003, the County’s HR process transitioned into a paperless online system resulting in increased efficiencies in processing payroll related transactions. As such, there were no source documents on which the State Audit Review Team could rely to determine the accuracy of the data provided by the County. Despite the lack of hard copy source documents, the Audit Team members were able to determine that 1 County’s data was accurate using an alternative method. As more governmental entities and business begin to utilize paperless HR systems, it is our hope that the U.S. Government Accountability Office will develop a standard by which paperless systems may be deemed sufficiently reliable for purposes such as this. Conclusion: In conclusion, we appreciate the work that was involved in completing this year long audit. We are also pleased that the audit confirmed that most temporary workers have reasonable access to permanent employment and earn the same wage rates as permanent workers. Sincerely, (Signed by: Cynthia M. Clays) Cynthia M. Clays Director of Human Resources California State Auditor Report 2008-107 85 April 2009 Comment CALIfoRnIA STATe AudIToR’S CoMMenT on THe ReSPonSe fRoM THe CounTy of SAn JoAquIn To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the response to our audit report from San Joaquin County (San Joaquin). The number below corresponds with the number we have placed in the margin of San Joaquin’s response. San Joaquin misstates our conclusion. We did not conclude that the 1 county’s computer-processed data was accurate. However, we were able to determine that San Joaquin had reasonable data in certain key fields we used in our analysis. In addition, we also determined that the payroll data file San Joaquin provided us was complete. 86 California State Auditor Report 2008-107 April 2009 cc: Members of the Legislature Office of the Lieutenant Governor Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy Department of Finance Attorney General State Controller State Treasurer Legislative Analyst Senate Office of Research California Research Bureau Capitol Press