102909 Nr Report-final Incl P17[1]

Ideas to Improve Management of Washington’s Natural Resources Submitted by:

The Natural Resources Policy Committee of the Washington Federation of State Employees

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28 • AFL-CIO 1212 Jefferson Street SE #300, Olympia WA 98501

www.wfse.org

Table of Contents Summary

...................................................................................................................................................................................................3

Section 1

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................................5

Section 2

Guiding Principles............................................................................................................................................................6

Section 3

Critique of Ideas by Workgroup.............................................................................................................................7



Work Group 1: Determining Effective Ways to Organize................................................................ 7



Work Group 2: Sharing Services and Resources................................................................................ 10



Work Group 3: Improving Evironmental Protection, Permitting & Compliance............... 13



Work Group 4: Streamling Quasi-Judicial Boards............................................................................... 15



Work Group 5: Union Task Force Ideas................................................................................................... 17



Union Survey Questions and Member Comments....................................... 18

Section 4

Process................................................................................................................................................................................ 21

Section 5

Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix 1 Participating Team Members.................................................................................................................................. 30 Appendix 2 Assessment Outline for Proposed Shared Services................................................................................. 31 Appendix 3 Essential Enablers for Shared Services.............................................................................................................. 33 Appendix 4 Washington Management Service Information........................................................................................... 34

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report (10/2008)..................................................... 45



Statewide Rollup Human Resources Managemetn Report (11/2008)................................... 71

Appendix 5 Financial Considerations for Shared Services............................................................................................... 96 Appendix 6 Potential Revenue Funding Source: Water Right Fee...........................................................................104

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 2

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Summary When the Washington Federation of State Employees reviewed the most recent legislative session, governor’s directive regarding reform of state government and the dialogue from the session concerning shared services, economy of public services, and potential consolidation of agencies, WFSE was interested, as a stakeholder, in the processes the state agencies would utilize in assess their functions, missions, and regulatory functions. Natural Resources touches many agencies and does encompass a wide range of functions. WFSE has a significant number of bargaining units in those agencies and immediately put together a team of employee members and staff to review the potential work product from groups exploring shared services or consolidation of services utilizing the governor’s criteria of:

Using the approaches outlined in the report: • Major reorganization of agencies, • Innovative approaches to agencies working together, • Sharing technology and resources, • Improving or making processes more efficient, • Enhancing program or agency authority to improve customer service. The draft report subgroups compiled twenty-six (26) distinct ideas, which they do not call recommendations, for public comment and stakeholder input. The Federation Task Force reviewed the report generated by the subgroups and agency heads and has some concerns.

• Improvement of customer service, • Increased efficiencies, • And reduced costs.

• There are a number of “ideas” that clearly will be cost prohibitive in the current economic times.

It has been demonstrated time and again that consolidation is typically a cost prohibitive venture. As demonstrated nationwide, states that have undertaken this task have experienced significant failures, i.e. Florida, Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin, and others. It is apparent that any efforts to consolidate need to be assessed, methodically prepared, statutory and regulatory language reviewed and changed as needed, policies in place, capital to effect the change is appropriated, staff aligned, and the mission critical components functional during any transitional phases. That task can be formidable. Needless to say, change for the sake of change is not a rational approach to a revenue shortfall. Early cost saving for duplicative management, the typical first tier savings, is offset by the financial cost associated with lease buyouts, moving expenses, personnel issues, operational issues, and often result in less efficient operations and reduced customer service.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

• There are a number of “ideas” that will require legislative action, revision of regulatory or statutory language. • There are a number of “ideas” that will likely achieve substantive savings over an unknown period of time but will require a capital investment. • There are a number of “ideas” that can be considered low-hanging fruit that can be either implemented in the next biennium or could be incrementally phased in as a strategic long term goal for the agencies that will bring about economy of scale and efficiencies. In severe economic times, some options that look attractive may not be the most viable in the long term. The Task Force is concerned that consolidation and major reorganization will ultimately eliminate some, if not all,

PAGE 3

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

checks and balances that have been created by the agencies and will have a detrimental effect on the natural resources of the state and a potentially negative impact on the future economy of the state. The well-managed and sustainable natural resources available to the citizens of this state are a significant draw for business relocation, recreation, education and retirement opportunities that increase the amount of revenue brought into the economy. There are a number of significant pieces missing from the draft proposal: First: A process by which the agencies will, with a specific criteria, assess the feasibility of a potential shared service with all the stakeholders. Second: A method to determine startup costs, sunk costs; reimbursable costs, analysis of cost recovery by agencies associated with federal partners or grants, maintenance costs, upgrade and replacement costs associated with the identified shared service.

Natural resource members of this committee did participate in the senate and house hearings held in early October. Those individuals note that the hearing participants in both chambers commented that the natural resource agencies are efficient and despite significant budget cuts over the past couple of years delivered quality services to the citizens. This report will address the employee view of the “ideas” presented by the draft report. It should be noted that this committee does not dismiss the potential benefits of doing the work of the agencies in a different or more collaborative way. The employees have over the years suggested collaboration. The barriers have not been at the employee level. The individual agencies have not chosen to do so and continue to be entrenched in silos or protection of their “turf ”. The committee can offer concurrence to some items. The mission of the employees is to deliver the best services to the citizens of the state of Washington, which is consistent with the mission of the agencies.

Third: A process to govern the potential shared service from initial concept to implementation and a method for review or change as needed when implemented. No apparent oversight authority with participation from stakeholders at any level of process. Finally: The most significant missing piece in the draft proposal is input from the people who do the “boots on the ground” work for the natural resource agencies and their partners. The draft report reflects the high view of agency management and resources compiled in a vacuum. The employees view the day-to-day operations of the agency and have opinions regarding collaborative efforts that have or have not furthered the mission of the agencies and the delivery of customer service to the citizens of Washington.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 4

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Introduction Following the 2009 legislative session the Federation conducted a review of the legislative mandates approved during the session. The Legislature, in its 2009-11 operating budget, directed representatives from the natural resources agencies to identify consolidation opportunities to improve service delivery and reduce costs. The budget proviso also tasked agencies to consider the experiences of other states and their organizational structures, and to submit a comprehensive written report by September 1, 2009, to the Governor and the Office of Financial Management (OFM).

A meeting of all the effected unions was held on August 24, 2009 with members of OFM/LRO and the governor’s representatives. At that time, a request for information was made to review the work done by the committee and sub-committees to be able to respond to the report and/or provide input. The Federation did not receive the requested information until September in concert with the posting of the report on the Governor’s website for public comment and did not receive the subgroup work product as requested.

In addition, on February 10, 2009 Governor Gregoire issued Governor’s Directive 09-02, directing state agencies to provide full assistance and support in the development and implementation of a shared services model. The Governor stated that, “Sharing administrative functions between agencies will allow you to focus on your core missions of providing essential services to Washingtonians. I expect that our new shared services approach and governance structure will capture the benefits of economies of scale in a way that ensures good customer service to the client agencies.”

The Federation did meet again with representatives of OFM/LRO and the governor’s office to seek some clarification of the material that had been incorporated into the report.

In response to the Governor’s Directive, the state prepared a report as directed concerning shared services for the state’s natural resource agencies. That report contains a plethora of ideas and various models for the legislature to consider during the next session.

Following that interaction, the Task Force met and discussed the approach they wanted to utilize to address the draft report. After agreement on guiding principals, they met several times, developed a survey consistent with the survey being conducted for public input, reviewed the results and have formulated a position regarding the proposed consolidation.

As one of the many stakeholders in this process, the employees represented by the Washington Federation of State Employees were immediately concerned that their input had not been solicited. The Federation consulted with employees in the various agencies impacted by the potential shared services and created a Task Force at the policy meeting in June 2009. The Federation and the employees they represent were not consulted or engaged by the agencies (with the exception of Ecology) until mid-August when the report had been essentially completed by various cabinet agency heads and commissions and was due for distribution to the public for comments.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 5

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Guiding Principles The Task Force had a general discussion on the Natural Resources Government Reform Report and some of the preliminary responses to our survey of the membership. Opinions were expressed and from that discussion, they developed the following values to compare the report and whether or not it was felt that the “ideas” were feasible. • Ensure (during each phase) staffing levels can provide public and customer service with manageable workloads • Avoid Contracting Out • Protect Positions and Union Rights • Reduce Management Levels • Preserve Institutional Information and Relationships Partners in all Sectors • Rational Consolidation if needed to ensure skills and seniority are maintained • Create, Restore, Maintain Stable Funding • Environmental and Natural Resources Focus be maintained to Preserve, Protect, Manage Wisely the States Natural Resources for Future Citizens • Grow Partnerships with Citizen Groups

From the Task Force’s collective values and the input from the members we tend to support: Collaborative approach rather than consolidation • Agencies have not taken the initiative or opportunity to look at duplicative services • No true analysis of statutory and regulatory language for the natural resource agencies has been undertaken with all the connective partners and this current report is a first blush view with many unanswered questions • There are opportunities for collaboration but no process model, costing model, or oversight authority for making decisions • A strategic plan with a phased in approach that is funded and sustainable is not present

If the committee’s values are honored, the end result will be: • Improved Customer Service • Increased Efficiencies by improving productivity or reducing cost • Advance the State’s commitment to: 1. Protecting and restoring natural resources and the environment 2. Working collaboratively on natural resources issues with state’s tribal governments 3. Promoting sustainable commercial and recreational use of natural resources 4. Protecting Public Health Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 6

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Critique of Ideas by Work Group WFSE’s Natural Resources Task Force posted a duplicate copy of the Government Reform Survey that was linked on LRO’s website to collect feedback from our members. We added a fifth Work Group - Union Ideas and Survey. Our survey included 133 participants. NOTE: Column 1 lists the question numbers; column 2 provides the results; column 3 provides the conclusions of WFSE’s Natural Resources Task Force and sample comments received from members taking the survey.

Work Group 1: Determining Effective Ways to Organize 1.1

Two Agency Model Yes - 7.8%

No - 45.6%

Maybe - 13.3%

1.2

Three Agency Model Yes - 13.5%

No - 38.2%

Maybe - 16.9% 1.3

NMI* - 31.5%

Four Agency Model Yes - 5.6%

No - 36%

Maybe - 25.8% 1.4

NMI* - 33.3%

NMI* - 35.6%

Five Agency Model Yes - 3.3% Maybe - 3.3%

No - 38.9% NMI* - 35.6%

Untenable: Cost prohibitive during this economic crisis; has failed in other states; does not recognize statutory and regulatory oversight; inherent conflict of interest; large agencies inflexible; not innovative or nimble; substandard customer service; Comments: • Way too big for any organization. Likely result is divisions, along same lines as original departments. May give the appearance of a fix without a fix. Too easy. • There is no way you can combine two agencies Untenable: Cost prohibitive during this economic crisis; has failed in other states; does not recognize statutory and regulatory oversight; inherent conflict of interest; large agencies inflexible; not innovative or nimble; substandard customer service; Comments: • Better to fix existing agency structure Untenable: Cost prohibitive during this economic crisis; has failed in other states; does not recognize statutory and regulatory oversight; inherent conflict of interest; large agencies inflexible; not innovative or nimble; substandard customer service; Comments: • Cost? No consultants. Untenable: Cost prohibitive during this economic crisis; has failed in other states; does not recognize statutory and regulatory oversight; inherent conflict of interest; large agencies inflexible; not innovative or nimble; substandard customer service; Comments: • I see one small box where state parks are mentioned. I don’t think the subcabinet has a full understanding of what we do and how important parks are to the public

*NMI - Need more information Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 7

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

1.5

Unified State Vision

Viable option: Can be accomplished with existing resources; is a best practice; has been requested by employees; possible enhancement of service delivery;

Yes - 25.6%

Comments: • Insufficient to solve the problem. • There is a notable value to each agency having it’s own mission and vision. Any vision that would encompass all the agencies would be either too vague or too complex to be useful in guiding day-today decisions.

Maybe - 20.9%

1.6

Concerns: Regional re-alignment and co-location should be analyzed separately; analysis of costs; personnel issues; long term goal as leases expire; functional issues beyond geography should be considered to coincide with service delivery;

Yes - 31.2%

Comments: • Been there, done that within my own agency. It was difficult, more difficult than management realized when they started down that path. Trying to do this across agencies would be disastrous for the environment, citizens, employees, and managers. • Don’t fix it if it isn’t broken.

No - 24.7% NMI* - 9.7%

Collaborate Ecosystem Based Management

Viable Option: Can be accomplished with existing resources; possible enhancement of service delivery; an analysis of regulatory function should be a part of any collaborative analysis to avoid potential conflict of interest;

Yes - 49.5%

Comments: • Too pie in the sky. • But it needs to be some real, effective solution, not smoke and mirrors nonsense.

Maybe - 22% 1.8

NMI* - 33.7%

Re-align Regional Boundaries & Co-locate Regional Offices

Maybe - 34.4%

1.7

No - 19.8%

No - 14.3% NMI* - 14.3%

Formalize Multi-agency Collaboration Viable Option: Can be accomplished with existing resources; possible enhancement of service delivery; analysis of existing resources needed; governance structure to ensure process compliance and accountYes - 49.5% No - 8.8% ability; develop cost model for share services as noted in earlier section and later in this report; Maybe - 27.5%

NMI* - 14.3%

Comments: • Identify the issues, work through the list, hold folks accountable.

*NMI - Need more information Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 8

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Sample of comments from “Especially promising”: • I think that several of the ideas listed on page 66 have potential, espescially in the technical groups. • Unified vision would be helpful, particularly for getting cabinet and noncabinet agencies working on related environmental issues. For the past 15+ years I’ve seen too much political posturing between various Commissioners of Public Lands, Wildlife Commissions, and Governors. We need to work together. We can have differences of opinions, but the leaders need to set examples of respecting alternate opinions and not put the environment and citizens at risk for the sake of ego or for political posturing. • Officiers under the WSP, Combine outreach, hunter education, DFW licensing with parks and other recreational/hobby entities together. Sample of comments from “Won’t work”: • 2-5 Agency Models. • “Realign regional boundaries and make staff move.” Not acceptable to make entire blocks of workers and their families move for no good reason. And at what a cost? • Blindly throwing agencies together will be a monumental failure and will cost taxpayers more in the long run. We need to cautiously plan a merge, if in fact that decision is made by the Governor.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 9

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Work Group 2: Sharing Services & Resources 2.1

2.2

GIS Data Consolidation & Governance

Viable Option: Formalize data; lead to standardization and efficiencies; potential cost sharing; a federated approach among agencies; possible partners with counties, cities, local governments; reimbursable possible with partners; governance, costing model and analysis of resources needed;

Good - 73.7% Bad - 8.5% Neutral - 17.9%

Comments: • Once again, why have umpteen different sets of GIS data and people collecting the same information?

Citizen Science: agencies & citizens collaborate better to gather data

Significant Concerns: Regarding maintenance of professional standards; concerns regarding integrity of data; data reliability over time; potential bias of special interests; potential liability on reliance of data;

Good - 44.5% Bad - 19.5% Neutral - 35.9%

2.3

Reclassify Natural Resources Law Enforcement Good - 53.4% Bad - 21.6% Neutral - 25%

Value citizen partners and collaboration; use data as enhancement and desire growth of partnerships with citizen groups; shared data benefits agencies; Comments: • Potentially biased data from special interest groups. Displaces members. • Provide citizen efforts to supplement the professional work of state employees as long as it is not used to displace state employees and the expertise we provide. • People that are not trained can not collect valid data! If we want to collect high quality data, we have to have highly trained people to do it. Diverse Views Expressed: General authority is consistent with public policy; Concerns regarding costs associated with training, maintenance, citable authority between county and cities; General authority parks; explore collaboration of current depleted staff; clean up legal issues surrounding extent of authority; crossover of jurisdictions; Comments: • We desperately need more natural resources law enforcement and outreach and education; we lost hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in my region alone to theft, vandalism, etc. and the damage that is done to road and trail systems is substantial, with no budget to control or enforce even existing rules and regulations. • You can’t combine natural resource law enforcement without losing efficiency. Specific training and backgrounds go into every officer, whether they are a park ranger or a fish and wildlife officer. Each position already carries a tremendous amount of job specific duties and responsibilities. Officers were hired for the jobs they are in for a reason. It is not feasible to tell a Park Ranger to be a Fish and Wildlife Officer, and vice-versa.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 10

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

2.4

Combine Natural Resources Law Enforcement Programs as an Independent Agency Good - 23.4% Bad - 53.2% Neutral - 23.4%

2.5

Create a Natural Resource Law Enforcement Bureau Under Washington State Patrol

• Different missions and clientele. • There is more than meets the eye in the NR Law Enforcement area. Comparing NR Law Enforcement to WSP is like comparing apples to oranges, they are not the same and no matter what you do, they will not be the same. • Give the general authority they need. Diverse Views Expressed: Cost considerations; different mandates; general authority for DNR, Parks and DFW would create consistent practices; explore collaboration of current depleted staff; creation of additional bureaucracy; Comments: • An independent agency wouldn’t respond to the needs and emphasis desired by the administrative agency. • Lose connection with the agency and agency values. Untenable: Loss of identity in WSP; resource protection would suffer; WSP and resource protection diametrically opposed mandates; focus of WSP different; experience in other jurisdictions using this model is that during reduced budget times the original mandate or authority of the host agency is considered for funding and the “superfluous functions” diminish leading to loss of resource protection (Oregon);

Good - 23.4% Bad - 53.4% Neutral - 23.2% 2.6

2.7

Comments: • This makes more sense and it will increase overall support for our enforcement officers. • Polar opposites in focus. Eventually NR officers will be chasing tail lights and not protecting resources. • How does this save money or provide additional service/protection? Create a Single Grant & Loan Agency Untenable: Cost prohibitive to create a new agency; potential splitting of services and loss of revenue from grants and federal dollars; loss of agency specific focus; Good - 35.9% Comments: Bad - 33.7% • Grants and loans should be used to implement program priorities. If they become a separate agency, Neutral - 30.3% the tail will be wagging the dog. • This is horrible! It basically says that everything is broken everywhere and that is simply NOT the case. Look at fixing existing problems-don’t try to do something if it isn’t broken Create a Grants & Loans Coordinating Viable: Potential for coordination, efficiencies, and enhanced customer service with the creation of coordinated delivery; shared information and resources; eliminate confusion for agencies and customers; Council (Inter-Agency Coordination) Good - 37.4% Bad - 19.8% Neutral - 42.9%

Comments: • This would add to the bureaucracy we have now. • If it is a one-stop center to get to the other agencies for grants and loans.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 11

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Sample of comments from “Especially Promising”: • Collaborating to gather data. Figuring out how to share data and pool resources (each agency chips in a few bucks) to gain basic data would be more efficient and effective. • What about sharing boats, camp grounds, etc. Sample of comments from “Won’t work”: • Leaving agencies as they are and just reorganizing from within. Fish and Wildlife merged in 1995 and it’s been a disaster for the public services as well as the morale of the employees • Combining NR enforcement agencies will not work due to numerous and varied responsibilities.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 12

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Work Group 3: Improving Environmental Protection, Permitting & Compliance 3.1

Review & Update Growth Management Act Good - 65.9% Bad - 7.1% Neutral - 27.1%

3.2

Comments: • Broken, outdated, needs revision and strengthening. • The act works well now. • We have 20 years experience with this act. It’s time to take a good look at what works, what doesn’t work, and re-shape this act so it moves us in the direction that best serves the citizens, environment, and state.

Consolidate & Coordinate Permitting Untenable: Cost for pilot projects and dual systems are prohibitive in the current economic crisis; potenPilot tial confusion and interruption in customer service; Good - 51.7% Bad - 11.7% Neutral - 50.6%

3.3

Concerns regarding outcomes: The act is 20 years old and a review should be conducted with input from all stakeholders; concerns regarding reductions in resource protection by special interest groups, industry, builders, local governments unless a process is defined and monitored by independent body; incorporate a subsequent review of final product to ensure no loss of current natural resource protections;

Comments: • This sort of effort has been made in the past and not worked. It is difficult for agencies to coordinate timing and information needs or expertise. • The IPERMIT project has been a disaster. Why put good money after bad. MAP is pretty much dead. There is a group - ORA - that tries to coordinate permits. They do a good job in the regions. If any regions are left that is........... • There are too many issues in permitting that are dissimilar between agencies.

Granting Authority to Permit by Rule Untenable: Ripe for abuse and manipulation; lack of oversight leads to deterioration of natural resources; & Expand Programmatic Permits loss of protection of resources; no authority to require compliance; no authority to cite or recover costs from misuse; Good - 32.5% Comments: Bad - 20.9% • I like the idea of streamlining permits, but I don’t know that we’re ever going to get to one single Neutral - 50.6% form. • Permit by rule very bad - no real chance for public input. Programmatic good if limited - I.e. 5 pages or less. Otherwise too cumbersome to be of any real value to anyone. Agencies spend way too much time on some of these that never work out - like ECY’s storm water general permits.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 13

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

3.4

Consolidate Regulation of Manure Waste

Viable: Source agency split; Would provide better customer service, ensure that the agency administering the program had the authority to do so.

Comments: • One-stop shopping. • Ecology should be the lead on this. • All management of animal waste for protection of water quality should be within one agency tasked to protect water quality not the industry. • Depends on where it’s consolidated. I wouldn’t trust this to the existing Department of Agriculture, which is captive to the industry. Targeted Delivery of Incentive-Based Untenable: No oversight; would need to be managed but staff is already severely depleted; presents no efficiencies; delivery is a stakeholder issue; Programs for Landowners

Good - 50.6% Bad - 7.4% Neutral - 42%

3.5

Good - 49.4% Bad - 7.4% Neutral - 43.2% 3.6

Improving Outcome Based Environmental Management (This topic not surveyed)

Comments: • Incentives are a good approach if not abused. Incentives will be an easier approach to address violations than enforcement and could reward illegal behavior. Properly administered, it could work. Viable: The impediment to date has been political battles and turf wars in management; measurable outcomes and benchmarks are needed; governance and controls to manage; will require resources to accomplish it is unlikely that this can be accomplished within existing resources; could lead to collaboration efforts; one point of contact; Comments: • I like the idea of reducing the number of forms and different reviews that it currently takes to permit projects • Incentive based programs empower the helper and we are to few to do it all.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 14

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Work Group 4: Streamlining Quasi-Judicial Boards 4.1

Move Select Environmental Cases to Viable: Would require review of regulatory and statutory authority; potential conflicts of interest; assess Boards with Expertise liability; review by stakeholders; Good - 53.1% Bad - 13.6% Neutral - 33.3%

4.2

4.3

Redesign Boards into Single Environmental & Land Use Adjudicatory Agency

Viable: Would require review of regulatory and statutory authority; potential conflicts of interest; assess liability; review by stakeholders; potential for less efficient service based on volume of cases and experience of members; levels of expertise required and breath of experience a factor in the composition of such a board; rules review for consistency;

Good - 31.6% Bad - 26.6% Neutral - 41.8%

Comments: • The two issues are completely different. • To much expertise needed to make this effective. • A single board would be even more overloaded with appeals than the individual ones are now. Viable: May address some current inefficiencies; monitored, managed and reviewed by oversight committee for potential basis and loss of resource protection;

Efficiency & Structure Changes for Growth Management Hearings Board Good - 38.4% Bad - 7.4% Neutral - 54.3%

4.4

Comments: • Resolution at lowest level possible.

Comments: • Let’s use our 20 years experience with the GMA to improve this.

Eliminate Duplicative Administrative Viable: May address current inefficiencies; monitored, managed and reviewed by oversight committee Review for Certain Agency Decisions for potential basis and loss of resource protection; audit ability; Good - 65.4% Bad - 1.3% Neutral - 33.3%

Comments: • Sometimes it may not be duplicative and errors may get caught with a different perspective. • Need more info. It tends to be the politically charged decisions that ignore staff & made scientifically poor decisions.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 15

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

4.5

4.6

Standardize Administrative Appeal Procedures & Statutes

Viable: May address current inefficiencies and confusion; process reviewed and tested by oversight committee; statutory and regulatory reviews;

Good - 76.9% Bad - 1.3% Neutral - 21.8%

Comments: • Take away the mystery so that the average person can maneuver through the process. • Yes, yes, yes - it is impossible to sort out appeals. Appeal language should be provided as part of any decisions - to any and all interested parties with decisions.

Address Separate Appeals of Shoreline Master Programs

Viable: May address current inefficiencies; monitored, managed and reviewed by oversight committee for potential basis and loss of resource protection; audit ability.

Good - 35.5% Bad - 6.5% Neutral - 57.9%

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 16

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Work Group 5: Task Force Ideas Task Force Topics Reduce Washington Management Services and Executive Management Services Reduce Washington Management Service and Executive Management Layers and Retain the Previous WMS and EMS as Classified Line Staff

Taks Force Comments See Attachment Appendix 4 – Growth of WMS & Percentages per Natural Resources Agencies & Others This will reduce the state employee’s workload, provide more public and customer service, and more efficiency.

5.3

Owning buildings, not leasing

As a strategic long term solution, will reduce operational costs.

5.4

Managing/Marketing State Parks Resources

5.1 5.2

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

May address current inefficiencies; monitored, managed and reviewed by oversight committee for potential basis and loss of resource protection; audit ability. For example, a salvagable downed tree is more valuable in a timber sale than as cut firewood. Expanding on this idea, selective thinning may also provide a good revenue source. More Collaborative Approach with State Employ- This will maintain staffing to ensure that services are provided and improve public and customer ees, Agencies, Stakeholders, and the Public and a services; natural resources will be preserved for future generations of Washington citizens; Stable Funding Source State Owned & Buildings Use State Employees for Explore: Contracted services escalate costs each contract renewal; service agreements constraining; additional costs for service outside of contracts; unanticipated costs; hourly rates for Custodial and Maintenance electricians and technicians escalating – state employees salaries more static and predictable; state self sufficient; consistent with values; Explore: More collaboration of recreational facilities; Historical Preservation, Parks, DNR, DFW, Collaboration of Recreational Facilities etc to maintain the integrity of state owned facilities following loss of staff due to budget reductions; potential loss of natural resources; eliminate jurisdictional issues and authority; Explore: Loss of revenue stream; Reevaluate DFW Cost Model Associated with Fish Removal All Agencies Statewide: Alter Current Supervisor Explore: County, municipal governments and industry leaders have reduced costs associated with employee supervision and increased efficiencies by altering the reporting structure to a Ratio 10:1 scale; example – King Co.; Microsoft and other technical industrialists; Create a dedicated funding source for Water See App. 6 for a great slide show on a draft fee proposal for Water Rights.. Resources Water Right Processing This could be a revenue stream that has been untapped that would generate $1.00 per 0.01 cent of investment which is a 100 fold economic development. Currently, there is no cost for water use. Paper reduction for all agencies. Restructure the laws/requirements so agencies can send customers and partners electronic files containing letters, reports, permits, in pdf form and store electronic files instead of paper documents. There would be efficiency, economy, increased speed of service, and a green sustainable business solution for state government.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 17

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Work Group 5: Survey of Union Members and Comments 1

Questions asked:

Sample of comments received:

Do you think some Natural Resources agencies should merge?

• Maybe. Only if it makes sense and is cost effective. • There are ways to improve the quality of agencies without merging. Merging will only muddy the missions of the agencies. • Maybe. I’m concerned about the different cultures and their merging. • Perhaps, but not as a blind first step • I thing the regulatory elements of some of the natural resource agencies should come under one agency. I think the Dept. of Ecology does a good job of getting political clout and maintaining a good reputation with the legislature and the public to strengthen and successfully enforce environmental regulations. • I think there are some overlapping functions that could be consolidated or merged.

Yes - 55.6%

No - 45.2%

2

Do you think NR agencies should do one of the following: 1. Re-align Regional Boundaries and Co-locate Regional Offices (40%); 2. Collaborate ecosystem Based Management (35%) 3. Neither (25%)

• With Internet much can be done on line so stakeholders receive prompt service. • Boundaries exist for reasons - different watersheds, different # of regions etc. • Only if the realignment and regional office relocations will make sense in terms of coverage and service to our clients.

3

Do you think NR agencies should formalize multi-agency collaboration?

• Could be good for boating, GIS, IT.

Yes - 71.3% 4

No - 28.7%

Do you think it is a good idea to combine NR Law enforcement agencies? Yes - 52.1%

No - 47.9%

• Each agency has specific law enforcement duties, responsibilities, and TRAINING! It is not a “one size fits all” job. It would be an astronomical amount of money and time to provide the training necessary to bring officers up to speed on different issues. Also most officers are in the specific agency they are in for a reason. They chose to be a Park Ranger, or a Fish and Wildlife Officer for a reason. • The law enforcement officers need to be controlled by the agency they work for to best represent that agency’s mission and goals.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 18

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

5

What agency do you belong to?

6

Do you think we need to address management issues of each agency before looking any further reform/merge? Yes - 77.4%

No - 22.6%

• • • • • • • • • • •

7

• Do you think agencies should • streamline themselves first before • any further reform/merge occurs? • Yes - 62.9%

No - 37.1%

• • • • • •

Agriculture (.8%) Ecology (39.7%) Fish & Wildlife (20.6%) Natural Resources (7.1%) Parks & Recreation (31%) Recreation & Conservation Office (.8%) Too many managers. Need to reform WMS Collaborative efforts can be pursued in parallel with internal restructuring. Management issues within the agencies should be addressed so that these issues are not spread during mergers. Best management practices of people and agency resources should be brought forward along with other forms of “best management practices”. A collaborative approach would be best. It appears that every agency in the state is “top-heavy” in management numbers. I also feel that management at every level should be more heavily scrutinized and forced to accept culpability/responsibility for their actions and results of (or lack of results) for their actions. I think Management is way to top heavy and has not reduced in size as demanded by the governor years ago. Positions have been shifted around and titles changed, but we have more management than ever. I think each agency, including WDFW enforcement needs to have its expenses audited by the governor’s office. There are management issues in all state agencies...they are very prevalent at WDFW. We are already pushed to do more with less. All that management will do is cut line staff, that’s their ideal of streamlining On the fence here. If we could find a way to streamline the environmental regulations/ the time it takes to get permits, then lets do it now Unfortunately, Natural Resources is already below bare bones in several areas, and other agencies are reluctant to take a hard look at where they can improve efficiencies, yet Natural Resources is taking the bulk of the cutbacks and is endangering their ability to continue generating revenue in the future Give me a break - at the DNR we’ve been RIF’ing people to no end. I don’t think we can streamline any further. I don’t know about the other agencies. Streamline MANAGEMENT - not the employees we’ve gone through enough. Neither, they already have. except WMS. We need boots on the ground and not more bureaucracy. We are doing less because there are less employees. Every agency can run more efficient if they are willing to take a real look at what their mission is.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 19

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

8

Do you believe that first option to • Combine and collaborate are very different and should be treated separately. If I were to rank prefersolving any problems in NR areas ence, first would be collaboration, second other solutions, third combining. is to combine or collaborate or • Both should be considered. However, combining for the sake of reform without the proper approach are other solutions explored as can actually result in costing rather than saving resources. well? • As indicated above, the various NR agencies should be required to address management expenditures and management span of control. Yes - 47.9% No - 52.1% • First define the problems.

9

Would it make sense to implement some of these ideas even if the cost is high? Yes - 46.2%

10

Do you favor instead a phasedin approach after all efforts to streamline or collaborate across existing agency lines? Yes - 62.7%

11

No - 53.8%

• Money is not available now. Forcing the issue will further impact ability of employees to do their jobs or create a mess. • Not right now. Maybe when the economic situation is better. • If long term improvements can be realized it would make sense, however this may be the wrong time for any high cost program. • I really feel that the cost is a lot higher than one thinks when we are talking the possibility of merging. I think that each agency has spend years on trying to run efficient and by merging we will actually take 1 big step backwards. Over along time it may work but then it may not work. I don’t think this state can afford the chance that it won’t work. • Don’t know. • I believe that approach will allow every agency to slowly become familiar with agency missions and goals/management styles. I also believe that this will allow a more organized and rational implementation and combination of agencies. • Relatively little effort has been given to streamline.

No - 37.3%

Should we work for a long-term • Absolutely. solution that works rather than a • I didn’t realize so many diverse agencies were considered to be Natural Resources. One big combinaquick “fix” that may cost too much tion would be unmanageable. and may not work? • Question is leading and biased. Yes - 93.5%

No - 6.5%

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 20

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Process Rather than creating conflicting definitions, the Task Force chose to utilize a definition used by another shared services group with minor modifications and utilize similar categories.

Definition of Shared Services

• Partner participation in governance: A governance structure, that includes partner input, guides decision making on service levels, scope, pricing, service delivery, performance management, operations, and continuous improvement.

For the purpose of this report, a shared service is defined as: The concentration of state and other related resources performing likeactivities currently spread across multiple organizations, to service multiple partners at lower cost, economy of scale and to provide optimal customer service. The purpose is to optimize the value of the services provided by natural resource agencies and their partners, use best practices, partner as needed, and assess and eliminate duplicative efforts that impede service to the people of Washington.

• Focus on continuous service improvement: There are ongoing efforts to improve service, reduce cost, or both. The benefits should accrue not only to the agencies but to citizens as well. • Location of the service provider: Service providers can be concentrated into a single location, centers of excellence, or embedded into each business unit in a physical sense, although they all report to the shared service provider’s management, rather than to an individual agency’s management. The service provider’s organizational placement and physical location are driven by the optimization of the cost and the service level. The provider must possess the capacity, readiness, and executive support to serve.

Notice that the word concentration was used rather than centralization or consolidation of resources. There are a number of areas that distinguish shared services: Categories of Shared services • Multi-Agency Shared Services: services required by more than one partner, and managed by one entity to improve service and efficiency. • Collaborative service development: Agency business units are seen as partners with the shared service provider. As the partners concentrate their like-activities with the provider, they play a major role in defining shared service levels and expectations, prices, quality standards, performance measures, and the roles and responsibilities of the provider and consumers. These are included in the business case and service level agreement for each shared service. There is joint accountability for costs and quality through service level agreements.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

There was a concept in the draft report that was not articulated well. We believe there is an opportunity for maintaining distinct identities with differing core missions, regulatory, and statutory authority to maintain the checks and balances in their functions by streamlining organizational structures to maximize efficiency by collaboration. That concept will be addressed later in the report.

PAGE 21

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Definition of Shared Services

scope, pricing, service delivery, performance management, operations, and continuous improvement.

For the purpose of this report, a shared service is defined as:

• Focus on continuous service improvement: There are ongoing efforts to improve service, reduce cost, or both. The benefits should accrue not only to the agencies but to citizens as well.

The concentration of state and other related resources performing likeactivities currently spread across multiple organizations, to service multiple partners at lower cost, economy of scale and to provide optimal customer service. The purpose is to optimize the value of the services provided by natural resource agencies and their partners, use best practices, partner as needed, and assess and eliminate duplicative efforts that impede service to the people of Washington.

• Location of the service provider: Service providers can be concentrated into a single location, centers of excellence, or embedded into each business unit in a physical sense, although they all report to the shared service provider’s management, rather than to an individual agency’s management. The service provider’s organizational placement and physical location are driven by the optimization of the cost and the service level. The provider must possess the capacity, readiness, and executive support to serve.

Notice that the word concentration was used rather than centralization or consolidation of resources. There are a number of areas that distinguish shared services: Categories of Shared services • Multi-Agency Shared Services: services required by more than one partner, and managed by one entity to improve service and efficiency. • Collaborative service development: Agency business units are seen as partners with the shared service provider. As the partners concentrate their like-activities with the provider, they play a major role in defining shared service levels and expectations, prices, quality standards, performance measures, and the roles and responsibilities of the provider and consumers. These are included in the business case and service level agreement for each shared service. There is joint accountability for costs and quality through service level agreements. • Partner participation in governance: A governance structure, that includes partner input, guides decision making on service levels,

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

There was a concept in the draft report that was not articulated well. We believe there is an opportunity for maintaining distinct identities with differing core missions, regulatory, and statutory authority to maintain the checks and balances in their functions by streamlining organizational structures to maximize efficiency by collaboration. That concept will be addressed later in the report.

Key Design Principles for Shared Services The following principles will shape the design of each shared service: 1. Shared services will concentrate like activities that are viewed as “support” and secondary to core processes, and treat them in the provider organization as core processes themselves. This frees up scarce resources in agencies to focus on their core mission. In turn, the shared service activities and staff receive high levels of support and management attention in the provider organization.

PAGE 22

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

2. The business case for each shared service must show how the intended benefits accrue to each consumer, the provider, and to the state as a whole. 3. The primary purpose of shared services is to improve service to citizens and line staff in core business functions at a lower cost, helping the state to satisfy unmet needs with current staff levels and lower budgets. 4. Each shared services assessment should proactively provide job enrichment and career opportunities for staff. 5. Incentives for providers and consumers will be negotiated and built into each shared service. Providers need essential start-up funding, resources, and support. For consumers, the shared service must cost less, provide better service, or both. There must be a clear statewide benefit with no harm done to specific agencies. Non-financial incentives can be created as well. 6. Shared service assessments and designs will provide transparent service levels, benefits, processes and rates. Tiered services and pricing should be negotiated, starting with the base level and price all consumers need. Additional tiers and prices should build up from there.

8. Benchmarking and performance measurement are essential ingredients to each shared service. Benchmarks help to establish the business case for each shared service and set initial targets for performance, benefits and service improvement. Ongoing performance measurement enables fact based discussions to acknowledge how benefits are being achieved and how additional cost savings and service improvements can be made. 9. Each shared services implementation must proactively manage the numerous changes from the As-Is condition to the new service, and incorporate staff input on the approach. 10. Regular communications must keep staff and stakeholders informed at each step on the way. 11. Agencies will depend on shared services and providers to accomplish their mission. Providers will be supported accordingly and services will be appropriately resilient.

7. An assessment team will identify the agency adoption level needed to produce targeted service improvements and benefits. Agencies are invited to opt in. The Natural Resources Shared Services Governing Board will make the final decision, if needed, on the timing and rate of agency adoption. For smaller multi-agency shared services, the participating agencies will opt in and operate the service through interagency agreements or service level agreements.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 23

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

The success of shared services hinges on additional comHow to Recognize an Opportunity for a Shared Service ponents such as effective governance, care for personnel, • Standardization is possible financial considerations, and others discussed in subsequent • Resources are underutilized sections of this paper. • Economies of scale are possible • If an agency has data, a facility, or a process that other agencies need or currently duplicate, it could be a candidate for a shared service.

Examples of existing state services that are very similar to shared services include: • • • • •

Enterprise Business Portal Master Licensing Service at the Department of Licensing Enterprise Active Director Ortho Image Portal Collaboration of Department of Fish and Wildlife to provide needed services to Department of Parks and Recreation • HRMS

Governance A strong and effective governance structure is essential to the success of shared services implementation and operations. The governance structure ensures that: • Critical business decisions are made in a timely manner,

In each of these cases, a service provider was identified, and the provider and partners agreed on the service, features, and prices. These were documented in an agreement. In most cases, a governance model was established to design and operate the service.

Expected Business Outcomes of Shared Services Shared services should produce one or more of the following business outcomes: • Drive costs down • Add value to existing programs and services • Staff will have improved resources to perform their job • Leverage existing agency resources. Avoid duplication. • Reduce risk • Reduce time for service execution • Reduce time for problem resolution Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

• Services are deployed in ways that produce planned results, • The needs of consumer, provider agencies, and other stakeholders are satisfied by each service. The governance structure recommended for Washington is similar to those found in most public and private sector organizations. It consists of three tiers: one overall Governing Board, and an Advisory Committee and a User committee for each shared service. Governing Board The Natural Resources Governing Board provides the strategy, funding, and leadership to approve shared services and ensure they are implemented in ways that achieve targeted benefits. Key responsibilities of the Governing Board include: • Provide the necessary leadership to ensure implementation of shared services • Approve a recommended shared services strategy

PAGE 24

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

• Exercise authority to make decisions, resolve issues and remove barriers • Approve requests for start-up funding from a pool, if appropriated • Decide on levels of adoption for shared services • Prioritize future Shared Services • Commission and approve assessments for shared services Membership for the Governing Board consists of the Governor’s representative, OFM, an elected official, two consumer agency directors, and the Commissioner of Public Lands. A designee of the Governing Board will seek input from the bargaining representatives of the affected state employees before key Governing Board decisions are made. The input should include whether the bargaining units support or oppose the recommended decision, and the rationale for that position. The designee will inform the bargaining unit representatives of decisions reached by the Board in a timely fashion. Advisory Committees

• • • •

The membership of this committee will consist of managers from both provider and consumer organizations, and the exclusive bargaining representatives for affected state employees. The Advisory Committee should be supported by an individual experienced in the design and implementation of major shared services, preferably in the public sector. User Committee The User Committee provides consumer input to guide the operation and continuous improvement of a given shared service. This committee ensures that the collaborative nature of shared service delivery is maintained during all aspects of the shared service life cycle. Members of this committee:

There will be an Advisory Committee for each Shared Service. This committee is created when the Governing Board approves an assessment. It contains representatives from the provider and consumer agencies. It oversees the collaborative process to design, implement and operate a given shared service. Key responsibilities of this committee are to: • Preserve an optimal balance between service level and cost • Approve Service Level Agreements, tiers of service and pricing, quality standards, performance measures, and the roles and responsibilities of the provider and consumers • Improve service while holding costs constant, or lower cost without diminishing the level of service • Ensure that the business case is satisfied in the shared service’s design • Resolve issues or escalate them to the Governing Board • Approve measures for continuous improvement in service delivery, Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

cost, or both based on performance measures Provide guidance on processes, policies, standards and procedures Provide oversight of implementation and go-live Work with the User Committee to improve and expand the service Report on annual savings and service improvements achieved

• Provide feedback on the operation of the service • Serve as process champions in the consumer organizations. • Collect first hand feedback from their peers and channel it back to the provider • Make suggestions for continuous improvement • Oversee performance measurement and reporting • Develop a plan for branding and promotion of the service Membership in this committee includes unit managers and employees from the provider and consumer agencies, and the exclusive bargaining representative for affected state employees. The committee should consider members from potential consumers to help ensure as broad a view of the service as possible. Updates to the governance structure and the overall shared services model in this paper will be approved by the Governing Board.

PAGE 25

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Personnel Considerations

Financial Considerations

Many of the agencies have taken staff reductions due to budget constraints and elimination of programs that affect the natural resource delivery of solutions and services to citizens. Shared services can be a key strategy to gain greater efficiencies, providing more solutions and services with the limited resources available and enabling technology staff to focus on providing the highest-value work possible to the State of Washington.

The following financial considerations will be addressed in the assessment and design of shared services. As our state enters the next stage of its shared services initiative, details in these considerations will be added to shape development. Cost Model

Employees are our most valuable resource in providing solutions. Shared services should reduce the duplication and cost of non-staff components and allow reinvestment in other areas.

• A consistent, transparent cost model is needed to evaluate costs of a proposed service at agency and statewide levels. Include startup, transition and operations costs

Delivering services in a new way will mean changes for employees. As we consider ideas for service changes we must consider what employees will need to be successful in those changes and commit to supplying what they will need to achieve that success.

• Sunk costs such as maintenance and equipment must be considered, but are not always barriers to shared services adoption.

• Provide employees a good explanation of the problem the state is trying to address or the opportunity it wants to achieve. • Give employees an opportunity to have a role in the change to new service delivery approaches. • Communicate thoroughly and constantly with employees and their exclusive bargaining representatives. • Understand that any change, even good change, means that staff will experience a loss of the old ways along with the benefits of the new. Work with employees to acknowledge, commemorate and compensate for those losses. • Provide training and other career development services necessary to enable employees to be successful in new roles. • Consider carefully the design and definition of new roles to maintain job richness and viable career paths.

• The return on investment must be considered over the appropriate term. If this is too short, prices will be too high for early adopters.

Pricing • A consistent, transparent pricing model, related to the cost model, is needed. • Tiered pricing should be based on service levels and features consumers need and are cost effective to provide. Funding sources (for both providers and consumers) will be identified for each shared service. The source and amount will vary based on the scope and nature of the service. Appendix 6 gives careful treatment of these financial considerations. They are grouped under three questions:

While the above discussion refers to natural resource agencies staff and services, the same can be said for our front line services to citizens and businesses. Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 26

• Does the proposed shared service make financial sense? • What do shared service providers need to finance a shared service offering? • What do shared service consumers need to purchase a shared service offering? Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Phases of Shared Service Development

• Functional characteristics • Resource requirements

Each Shared Service will undergo a series of phases leading to deployment and operation. Some of these will be performed sequentially and others will be performed interactively. Change management and communication will guide each phase.

• Validation of scope and funding requirements • Staff impacts and accommodations • Schedule

Identification • An agency, the Customer Advisory Board, a consortium of managers, or staff may suggest a Shared Service • The Governing Board receives and prioritizes these suggestions

• Go No-Go decision (by Governing Board for enterprise services) Parties involved: Governing Board, Sponsor, Advisory Committee (provider and consumers) Design Team, Central support organizations as needed, union representatives.

Parties involved: Governing Board, Sponsor.

Build

Assessment

• Develop/enhance necessary functions

Each proposed shared service is assessed to develop: • Its strategic direction and vision

• Integrate support functions such as billing, customer support and service level tracking

• Business case

• Manage budget and schedule Governing Board,

• Operating model

Parties involved: Advisory Committee, Sponsor, provider and consumer organization representatives, build team.

• Breadth of deployment

Operate

• Costs of implementation • Organizational and staff impacts

• Create User Committee

• Risk

• Monitor performance against service level agreements

• Go No-Go decision (by Governing Board for enterprise services)

• Review and adjust progress against budget

Parties involved: Governing Board, Sponsor, Assessment Team (prospective provider, consumers of the service, union representative(s)).

• Review and adjust staff support observing contractual obligations, statutory or collective bargaining obligations • Develop service upgrade path

Design The design of the shared service includes:

• Add additional consumers

• Creation of Advisory Committee

Parties involved: Governing Board, Advisory Committee, User Committee, Sponsor, provider and consumer organization representatives.

• Organizational placement • Pricing and chargeback methods Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 27

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Shared services of all sizes and types should follow this process to accrue potential advantages of funding opportunities, broader organizational support and visibility. The provider and consumers will use the outline in Appendix 2 to assess proposed shared services. The assessment outline identifies the issues to address to develop a complete service, facilitate approval, implement it effectively, and attain the expected benefits.

Next Steps Recommended next steps to begin implementing the shared services initiative include: • Confirm the proposed definition of shared services for Washington • Agree to or update the business outcomes, principles, and statements of this paper • Retain an experienced statewide shared services leader

The assessment outline will foster consistent and complete designs and evaluations of proposed shared services prior to approval for implementation.

• Form the committees in the governance structure • Begin the assessment of potential shared services.

Critical Success Factors

• Complete the shared services assessment outline and the financial consideration portion.

The following factors must be in place to successfully implement shared services in Washington:

• Finalize and execute the overall communication plan. This includes descriptive materials on shared services, and could include a shared services summit that includes business and technology leaders and staff from across the state.

1. The governance structure is formally adopted and implemented. 2. The Shared Services Governing Board is formed, and is: a. Reviewing and approving recommended strategies and priorities for enterprise shared services. b. Making business decisions on enterprise shared service assessments, business cases, and adoption rates. c. Fostering state level commitment to implement shared services. d. Removing barriers and providing support to providers and consumers.

Related Initiatives 1. Shared services initiative on IT shared services 2. Shared services initiatives in the Department of Personnel and General Administration

3. An experienced shared services leader is retained. This expertise is essential to design and implement shared services in ways that achieve targeted benefits and facilitate successful transition. 4. A sufficient level of experienced support is available to managers and staff who lack fundamental awareness and skills to manage the change to shared services. Effective change management is essential to care for our staff and guide the intended changes. 5. Startup funding is available as approved in each shared service assessment. This enables development by the provider and transition to the new service for consumers. Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 28

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Conclusion Adopting a true shared services operating model requires a dramatic transformation and culture change that addresses business processes, policies, organizational structure, personnel management, and technology. Many organizations address a few of these components when trying to achieve high performance, but unless all of these components are addressed holistically as part of a shared services strategy, the benefits of shared services will not be attained. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input for consideration.

Washington Federation of State Employees • AFSCME Council 28

PAGE 29

Natural Resources Policy Committee Government Reform Report 10/23/09

Appendix 1:

Participating Team Members

Scott Mallery Bruce Ault Andy Bommersbach Kerry Graber Steve Gilstrom Don Hall Guy Hoyle-Dodson Mark James Weikko Jaross Karen Klocke Sandra Lang Tim Young

Department of Ecology, Chair Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Agriculture Department of Ecology Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Department of Ecology Department of Fish and Wildlife LEO Department of Natural Resources Department of Health Department of Ecology Department of Fish and Wildlife

Alternates: Doreen Merrill Jim Wavada Mischa Cowles

Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Ecology Parks and Recreation

WFSE Staff: Alia Griffing Debbie Brookman Kurt Spiegel Sherri-Ann Burke Tim Welch Laura Reisdorph

Legislative & Political Action Labor Advocate Labor Advocate Labor Advocate Public Affairs Director Public Affairs Assistant

Appendix 1: Participating Team Members - page 30

Appendix 2:

Assessment Outline for Proposed Shared Services

NOTE: We have incorporated the Assessment Outline from the IT Shared Services work group because the Natural Resources Reform Draft does not include a process for assessing proposed shared services. We believe there should be consistency among the agencies on how the analysis takes place. One model should be used for all shared services rather than having conflicting processes.

The purpose of this assessment is to foster consistent and complete evaluations of proposed shared services prior to approval for implementation. By properly addressing the subjects below a proposed shared service is much more likely to be implemented successfully and produce the intended results. Depending on the scope and scale of the service being considered a subset of these subjects could be addressed or the depth of treatment could vary based on direction from the Shared Services Steering Committee. 1. Purpose and support for the proposed shared service a. Executive sponsor 2. Current Process or Service – As-Is baseline analysis a. Description of like-services currently performed, including organization(s) and location(s) b. Problem to be solved or opportunities to gain in current situation

b. c. d. e.

Targeted savings, service quality improvement, other impacts Business opportunities provided Incentives for the provider and consumers Description of how benefits will be realized by consumers and the provider

5. Overview of the Implementation Plan a. Transition approach, teams, costs, technology, facilities, other re sources, schedule, risks and mitigations b. Barriers and plans to overcome Note: For larger shared services, a complete implementation plan should be developed and approved once the assessment is approved. 6. Change Management Plan a. Describe the changes to make and how they will be successfully managed i. Organizational, personnel, technical, financial, process, etc. b. Describe the change control process and changes to address

3. Proposed Shared Service – To-Be Description a. Description and location(s) of shared service including feature set(s), or options b. Proposed provider and consumers (partners) c. Point of demarcation between the provider and consumers d. Alternatives considered

7. Communications Plan a. Determine who must receive what information, and when

4. Business Case a. Cost/Benefit analysis i. Statewide level ii. Agency level

9. Governance a. Ties to statewide governance models b. Governance specific to the shared service

8. Organization a. Identify the provider and all consumers b. Roles and Responsibilities of all parties c. Organizational placement and structure for the service

Appendix 2: Assessment Outline for Proposed Shared Services - page 31

10. Related initiatives 11. Human resource considerations a. Change to current job classifications and assignments i. Current staff levels supporting service 1. Full time/Part time 2. Organizational alignment ii. Expected staff level supporting operation 1. Full time/Part time 2. Organization alignment iii. Staff transition to new shared service b. Support for staff i. Training/Retraining plan and budget ii. Job enrichment iii. Incentives c. Potential positions or similar opportunities with the shared service provider d. Other job classifications staff are eligible to fill e. Required skill sets i. Implementation 1. Skills 2. Workload ii. Operation 1. Skills 2. Workload

13. Technology a. Current technology and architecture, including where it is deployed b. Proposed technology and architecture c. Need for re-engineering d. Availability requirements – are there maintenance windows or other outages planned by the provider agency that will impact con sumer agencies. e. Disaster plan and continuity of operations requirements The system may have different levels of criticality and therefore different DR and COOP requirements for different agencies. 14. Facilities 15. Culture a. Cross-organization teams b. Current and future span of control c. Staff transition perceptions on the shared service 16. Controls a. Service Levels b. Regulatory requirements c. Management structure 17. Performance Measurement

12. Financing a. Cost model b. Pricing model(s) c. Funding sources i. Implementation ii. Operations d. Total Return on Investment

Appendix 2: Assessment Outline for Proposed Shared Services - page 32

Appendix 3:

Essential Enablers for Shared Services

Preliminary Enablers for Shared Services • Common budget and pricing mechanism • Charge back system for shared services • Reiterate “do no harm” • Seed money for new shared services • Dedicated capital budget • Access to a revolving fund • Provide common support for multiple shared services • Liability protections • Sufficient capacity to provide the service • Standards for shared services • Develop or obtain expertise to design, implement and operate shared services • Centers of excellence • Catalog of operating shared services: Pricing and options • Strategy to incent staff (what’s in it for them??). • A shared service must be institutionalized in the host agency so that the service is reliable and available to the degree needed. • Ownership by leaders in the provider and consumer organizations • Sponsorship – divisions must see value in a proposed shared service • Build acceptance and trust • Management and staff need the skills and a process to create and operate shared services. • Recognize costs of implementation – agency support necessary • Governance • Flexibility • Negotiated Services (by the provider and consumers) • Need to overcome the “emotional importance” of the status quo for some staff • One agency cannot do it all. • Identify the drivers behind each possible shared service

Appendix 3: Essential Enablers for Shared Services - page 33

Appendix 4:

Washington Management Services Information

WFSE and its members propose a reduction in the density of management. • In October 2008, DOP reported that there were 62,947 Total General Government Employees. • Out of the total general government workforce, there were 4,703 WMS (7.5% of the total work force).

The first charts in this appendix show how each Agencies’ Span and Control and percentage of WMS and Managers where in 2008. • 23 out of the total 36 agencies reporting agencies have a higher percentage of total managers of the work force then the state average of 8.8% and a very low span of control. For example, Ecology percentage of managers is almost 15.5% of its workforce. This is almost 7% higher than the average. Ecology span of control is at 6.5 while the State average is 11.4.

• Total managers were 5,513 (8.8% of the total work force). • Managers include WMS, EMS, and classified supervisors. • From these numbers, it was determined that the average Span of Control is 1 manager per 11.4 employees. • This information was obtained from DOP’s HR Strategic Website and from Human Resource Management Reports (HRMR). • Attached are two report samples: HRMR from Ecology (page 45) and DOP (page 71).

WFSE and its members propose Agencies with percentage of managers higher than the State average (8.8%) be reduced to 10%. • We believe these changes will help agencies become more efficient, reduce workload for line staff, and provide better public and customer service. For example, if Ecology reduced their managers percent from 15.5% to 10%, that would reduce 258 managers to 166. (we propose cuts in WMS rather than classified supervisors). The cut would free up 92 employees to move to line staff and put more boots on the ground. This would provide almost 10 additional employees to each of the 9 programs. The charts show this reduction and how many extra employees would be available to go to line staff in each of the agencies above 10% .

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 34

NR Agencies % of workforce that is WMS

12.0%

9.8%

10.0%

8.0%

Percentages from Statewide Rollup and Agencies' Human Resource Management Reports October 2008

7.5%

7.1%

6.7%

6.0%

4.6%

4.5%

Agriculture

Parks and Rec

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%

Statewide

Ecology

Fish & Wildlife

Natural Resouces

% of workforce that is WMS

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 35

% of NR Agencies workforce that are Mgrs* (EMS/WMS/Classified)

18.0%

Percentages from Statewide Rollup and Agencies' Human Resource Management Reports - October 2008

15.5%

16.0% 14.0%

11.6%

12.0% 10.0%

9.0%

8.8%

8.0%

6.8%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Statewide

Ecology

Parks and Rec

Natural Resouces

Fish & Wildlife

% of workforce that is Mgrs*

Graphs generated by WFSE Natural Resources Task Force Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 36

Agriculture

25.0

Agencies Span NRNRAgencies Span of Control Numbers based off Statewide Rollup and Agencies' Human Resource Management Reports - October 2008

19.8

20.0

14.7

15.0

11.4

11.1

10.0

8.6 6.5

5.0

0.0

Statewide

Ecology

Parks and Rec

Natural Resouces

Fish & Wildlife

span of control

Graphs generated by WFSE Natural Resources Task Force Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 37

Agriculture

18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0%

Statewide % of Agencies workforce that are Mgrs Percentages from

Statewide Rollup and Agencies' Human Resource Management Reports October 2008

16.8% 16.4% 15.5% 14.7% 14.6% 14.5% 14.0% 13.0% 12.2% 11.7% 11.6% 11.6% 11.6% 10.9% 10.7% 10.6% 10.5% 10.4% 10.0% 9.9% 9.4% 9.3% 9.0% 8.8% 8.5% 8.4% 8.2% 7.9% 7.5% 7.3% 6.8% 6.4% 5.7% 5.4% 5.0% 5.0% 3.5%

2.0% 0.0%

Statewide

Ecology

Revenue Lottery Personnel*

Health

Printing

Licensing

Agriculture Corrections Fish & Wildlife Early Learning* Veterans Affairs Attorney General Natural ResoucesState Auditors's* Labor & Industries Retirement System Financial Institutions School for the Blind Information ServicesMilitary Department Gambling Commission Liquor Control B Employment security Financial management Health care authority* general Adminsitration Parks and Rec

State Patrol

Social and Health Services Washington School of Deaf Utilities and Transportation Industrial Insureance Appeals Community, Trade, and Economic Transportation Merit 1 Employees % of workforce that is Mgrs*

Graphs generated by WFSE Natural Resources Task Force Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 38

Office of Administrative Hearings

Statewide % of workforce that are WMS Percentages from Statewide Rollup and Agencies' Human Resource Management Reports - October 2008

20.0% 18.0% 16.0%

17.6% 16.6%

14.0% 11.4% 11.1% 10.6% 10.5% 10.4% 9.8%9.7%9.3% 9.0%8.8% 8.2%7.9%7.7% 7.2%7.1%7.0%6.7% 5.8%5.5%5.3% 5.2%5.2%5.0% 4.6%4.5%4.5%4.4% 3.2% 1.9%

12.0% 10.0% 8.0%

7.5%

6.0% 4.0% 2.0%

0.006% 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%

0.0%

Statewide

Health Revenue Ecology

Licensing

LotteryPrinting Personnel*

Agriculture Fish & Wildlife Parks and Rec Early Learning* Veterans Affairs Attorney General Natural Resouces Labor & Industries State Auditors's* Retirement System School for the Blind Military Department Financial Institutions Information Services Liquor Control Board Gambling Commission Employment security Financial management Health care authority* general Adminsitration Corrections State Patrol

Social and Health Services Industrial Insureance Appeals

Utilities and Transportation

Washington School of Deaf

Office of Administ

Community, Trade,Merit and Economic Transportation 1 Employees % of workforce that is WMS

Graphs generated by WFSE Natural Resources Task Force Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 39

Statewide of Agencies' Span and Control 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0

28.6

Numbers based off Statewide Rollup and Agencies' Human Resource Management Reports October 2008

20.0 19.8 18.5 17.5 15.6 14.7 13.7 13.3 12.7 12.2 11.9 11.8 11.4 11.1 10.8 10.6 10.1 10.0 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.29.3 8.28.58.68.68.6 7.7 6.86.86.97.1 6.06.16.5

0.0

span and control Ecology Revenue Lottery Statewide Personnel*

Health

Printing

Licensing

Agriculture Corrections Parks and Rec Fish & Wildlife Early Learning* Veterans Affairs Attorney General Natural Resouces State Auditors's* Labor & Industries Retirement System School for the Blind Military Department Financial Institutions Information Services Gambling CommissionLiquor Control Board Employment security Financial management Health care authority* general Adminsitration State Patrol

Socialofand Health Services Washington School Deaf Industrial Insureance Appeals Community, Trade, and Economic Transportation Merit 1 Employees Utilities and Transportation commission*

Graphs generated by WFSE Natural Resources Task Force Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 40

Office of Administrative Hearings

1,600 1,400

Total Number of WMS in 1,436

Total WMS Headcount: 4,703 from Statewide Rollup and Agencies' Human Resource Management Reports October 2008

1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

702 470 164 149 148 143 132 128 115 9763625149 46444341373734332423222218148 6 1 0 0 0 0 Health Ecology Corrections

Revenue Licensing State Patrol Fish & Wildlife Parks and Rec

Personnel* Agriculture

Lottery Printing

Early Learning* Veterans Affairs Attorney General State Auditors's* System School for the Blind MilitaryRetirement Department Financial Institutions Services Liquor ControlInformation Board Gambling CommissionFinancial manageme care authority* generalHealth Adminsitration

Natural Resouces Labor & Industries Employment security Social and Health Services

Washington School of Deaf Industrial Insureance Appeals

Transportation Merit 1 Employees

Community, Trade, and Economic Utilities and Transportation commission*

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 41

Office of Adminis

Total Managers Numbers by Agencies 1,800

(Managers = EMS/WMS/Classified Supervisor)

1,703

Total Manager Headcount: 5,513from Statewide Rollup and Agencies' Human Resource Management Reports October 2008

1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

685 480 258 180 178 159 156 152 129 125 122 122 116 112 555148413737333333302929212018171615141210

Ecology

Health

Corrections

Revenue

Licensing State Patrol Parks Fish and & Rec Wildlife

Agriculture

Personnel*

Lottery

Printing

Early Learning* State Auditors's* Retirement System School for the Blind Department Financial Institutions Information Services Liquor ControlMilitary Board Gambling Commission Employment securitygeneral Adminsitration Health careFinancial management authority*

Attorney NaturalGeneral Resouces Labor & Industries

Veterans Affairs

Social and Health Services

Washington School of Deaf Industrial Insureance Appeals

Transportation Merit 1 Employees

Community, Trade, and Economic

Office of Adminis Utilities and Transportation commission*

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 42

Current Manager vs Future Managers in Agencies

300

258

250 200

180 159 153

150 100 of Mangers Number 50 0

3331 2

4845 1715 2

1815 3

3

1512 3

2925

6

4

6

2014 6

33 33 23 20 13 10

106 55 38

17

17

Health

Lottery

State Patrol

Health care authority*

129

125 108

122 116

Personnel* commission*

Retirement School for the BlindSystem Information Services

Industrial Insureance Appeals

Reduction in Managers with 10 to 1 ratio

67 45

51

23

Parks andDevelopment Rec

Financial Institutions

129 92

Revenue

Ecology

Attorney General general Adminsitration

Utilities and Transportation Community, Trade, and Economic

Agencies 2008 Managers Headcount

112

166

Future Managers Headcout with 10 to 1 ratio

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 43

Transportation Merit 1 Employees Transportation Merit 1 Employees

685 628

57

2008 Managers Headcount

Future Managers Headcout with 10 to 1 ratio

Reduction in Managers with 10 to 1 ratio

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 44

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

October 2008

State of Washington Department of Ecology

Human Resource Management Report

Plan & Align Workforce Hire Workforce

Deploy Workforce Develop Workforce

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 45

Reinforce Performance

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Managers’ Logic Model for Workforce Management Outputs

Initial Outcomes

Intermediate Outcomes

Articulation of managers HRM accountabilities. HR policies. Workforce planning. Job classes & salaries assigned.

Managers understand HRM accountabilities. Jobs, staffing levels, & competencies aligned with agency priorities.

Foundation is in place

Best candidate hired & reviewed during appointment period. Successful performers retained.

The right people are in

Hire Workforce

Qualified candidate pools, interviews & reference checks. Job offers. Appts & performance monitoring.

Workplace is safe, gives capacity to perform, & fosters productive relations. Staff know job rqmts, how they’re doing,  & are supported.

Time & talent is used

Deploy Workforce

Work assignments& requirements defined. Positive workplace environment created. Coaching, feedback, corrections.

Individual development plans. Time/ resources for training. Continuous learning environment created.

Learning environment created. Employees are engaged in development opportunities & seek to learn.

Employees have

Clear performance expectations linked to orgn’al goals & measures.  Regular performance appraisals. Recognition. Discipline.

Employees know how performance contributes to success of orgn. Strong performance rewarded; poor performance eliminated

Successful perf is differentiated & strengthened. Employees are held accountable.

Plan & Align Workforce

Develop Workforce

Reinforce Performance

to build and sustain a productive, high performing workforce.

the right job at the right time.

effectively. Employees

are motivated & productive.

competencies for present job & career advancement

Ultimate Outcomes

Employees are committed to the work they do & the goals of the organization Productive, successful employees are retained State has workforce depth & breadth needed for present and future success

Agencies are better enabled to successfully carry out their mission. The citizens receive efficient government services.

2

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 46

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Standard Performance Measures

• • •

Percent supervisors with current performance expectations for workforce management Management profile Workforce planning measure (TBD) Percent employees with current position/competencies descriptions

• • • •

Time-to-fill funded vacancies Candidate quality Hiring Balance (Proportion of appointment types) Separation during review period

•

Plan & Align Workforce

Hire Workforce

Deploy Workforce

• • • • • •

Percent employees with current performance expectations Employee survey ratings on “productive workplace” questions Overtime usage Sick leave usage Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes) Worker safety

Ultimate Outcomes

 Employee survey ratings on “commitment” questions  Turnover rates and types  Turnover rate: key occupational categories  Workforce diversity profile  Retention measure (TBD)

Develop Workforce

Reinforce Performance

• • •

Percent employees with current individual development plans Employee survey ratings on “learning & development” questions Competency gap analysis (TBD)

• • •

Percent employees with current performance evaluations Employee survey ratings on “performance & accountability” questions  Disciplinary actions and reasons, disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes) Reward and recognition practices (TBD)

•

3

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 47

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Workforce Management Expectations

Plan & Align Workforce

Agency Priority: Low

Outcomes:

Percent supervisors with current performance expectations for workforce management = 100%*

Managers understand

*Based on 244 of 244 reported number of supervisors

workforce management accountabilities. Jobs and competencies are defined

Ecology maintains six Leadership Competencies for all managers and supervisors.

and aligned with business

 Knowledge and Creativity:

priorities. Overall

 Strategic Thinking:

foundation is in place to

build & sustain a high performing workforce.

Performance Measures: Percent supervisors with current performance expectations for workforce management

 Decision Making:  Trust and Integrity: 

Performance and Accountability: Create and nurture a performance-based culture that supports efforts to accomplish the organizational mission and goals. Influence others within the organization to be motivated and committed to furthering the organization’s objectives.

 Advocacy and Relationships: All leadership competencies are noted in the PDF’s and as needed in the PDPs.

Management profile

Analysis:  We developed and delivered training and guidance materials for improving PDP/PDF content, including connecting performance expectations to accountability and effective workforce management practices. We distributed guidance materials to all agency managers and supervisors.

 We developed and deployed “mini-PDP training” for  all agency program management teams.  In April, 2008, an all-supervisor/manager meeting was held regarding Ecology’s 2009-11 Strategic Plan. Presentations included strategic and programmatic accomplishments, upcoming agency strategic priorities, including recruitment, hiring and retention, and effective labor relations.  Since 2000, Ecology has maintained and tracked leadership training requirements for all managers and supervisors.  Our “Performance Management”  leadership course was redesigned and delivered in spring 2008.  We also continued to sponsor new senior level managers in the U of W Cascade “Executive  Management Program” to develop advanced  leadership skills. Action Steps:  In January, 2009, we will review and audit supervisor PDP’s for clearly articulated links to  Ecology’s mission and its workforce management  goals.

Workforce Planning measure (TBD) Percent employees with current position/ competency descriptions

 We will develop a new agency model for workforce development and management, including succession planning, through our “Workplace Action  Team” (WPAT).   Data as of  the completion of Ecology’s Evaluation Cycle ­ 12/2007 Source:  Department of Ecology Tracking

 Train all supervisors and managers on the new workforce management model.

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 48

4

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Plan & Align Workforce Outcomes: Managers understand

workforce management accountabilities. Jobs and competencies are defined

Management Profile

Agency Priority: High

Control Point – 06/2007 WMS Baseline Headcount = 161 Percent of agency workforce that was WMS = 9.8%

Analysis:

Current - 08/2008 WMS Employees Headcount = 164 Percent of agency workforce that is WMS = 9.8% Managers* Headcount = 258 Percent of agency workforce that is Managers* = 15.5% * In positions coded as “Manager” (includes EMS, WMS, and GS)

and aligned with business Washington Management Service Option 1 - Agency Workforce % Trend

priorities. Overall foundation is in place to

10.0

9.9

9.9

Percent employees with current position/ competency descriptions

Jul-08

Action Steps:  Ecology will manage its WMS positions to maintain the WMS baseline set by the Department of Personnel. However, since the baseline is based on headcount, there will continue to be a slight fluctuation over time as vacancies occur and then are filled, which may be further affected by the hiring freeze enacted in August, 2008.  All requests for WMS positions will be carefully reviewed by Ecology’s Deputy Director and HR  Director prior to approval.

146 16 2

 Ecology will review the agency’s organizational  structure and work assignments and align resources as needed to focus on strategic priorities and budget demands. Consultant 10%

Data as of 8/2008 Source:  DOP HRMS Business Intelligence

Aug-08

Managemen t 89%

WMS Management Type Management Consultant Policy

Jun-08

May-08

Apr-08

Mar-08

Jan-08

Feb-08

Dec-07

Oct-07

Nov-07

9.8

Management profile Workforce Planning measure (TBD)

9.9

9.8

Aug-07

9.8

9.9

Sep-07

Percent supervisors with current performance expectations for workforce management

9.9

10.0 10.0

 Ecology has been only slightly over its WMS baseline and is within acceptable range, given that it had eight (8) WMS vacancies at the time the baseline was established and that the percentage of WMS in the agency workforce remains at 9.8%.  In some programs, the increasing span of supervision (number of staff reporting to one supervisor), due to the reduction in management, has created some workload challenges.

10.1 10.0 10.0

Jul-07

Performance Measures:

10.1

Jun-07

performing workforce.

# WMS Employees (Headcount)

build & sustain a high

Data Time Period: 07/07 through 08/08 10.2 10.1 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.9 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.7

 After meeting its goal of reducing the number of managers in the agency by 45.5 positions, Ecology established a “WMS Baseline” in July,  2007, of 161 WMS employees, which at that time made up 9.8% of Ecology’s workforce.

Policy 1%

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 49

5

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Plan & Align Workforce

Current Position/Competency Descriptions Agency Priority: Low

Analysis: Outcomes: Managers understand

workforce management accountabilities. Jobs and competencies are defined and aligned with business

Percent employees with current position/competency descriptions = 100%* *Based on 1348 of 1348 reported employee count Applies permanent positions, both WMS & GS

Ecology Core Competencies

 Adaptability and Flexibility  Communication  Accountability  Trust and integrity All Core Competencies are noted in the PDF’s and as  needed in the PDPs; including managers and supervisors.

foundation is in place to

build & sustain a high

Service Focus

performing workforce.

 As an added resource our PDF’s  links to the DOP  competencies to build comprehensive descriptions. Adaptability and Flexibility

Relationships

Performance Measures:

Management profile

 Service Focus

 Relationships

priorities. Overall

Percent supervisors with current performance expectations for workforce management

 Ecology maintains six Core Competencies for all agency staff as follows:

 Agency guidance encourages managers to design competencies specific to the work for each position, not cut and paste.  PDP training during this period included content relationship and revision expectations for the PDF.

Ecology Core Competencies

Action Steps: Trust and Integrity

Communication

Workforce Planning measure (TBD) Accountability

Percent employees with current position/ competency descriptions

 As part of an agency wide position file audit, review all PDF’s for relevant, quality content and clearly articulated  position relationship to Ecology’s mission. Continue to  provide agency consulting and guidance as needed.  Continue to update position descriptions as duties or competencies change and during each annual evaluation.  Provide new agency guidance for incorporating competencies into the recruitment and selection process.

Data as of  the completion of Ecology’s Evaluation Cycle ­ 12/2007 Source:  Department of Ecology Tracking

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 50

6

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Hire Workforce

Time-to-Hire Analysis: Agency Priority: Medium

Time-to-Hire Funded Vacancies Outcomes: Best candidates are hired

Average number of days to hire:

87

Number of vacancies hired:          

189

and reviewed during appointment period. The right people are in the right job at the right time.

 For this reporting period, the time-to-hire measure period was calculated as the number of days from the date the requisition was created to the date the selected candidate started on the job.  The certification process took longer to accomplish because application materials were first sent to the hiring manager to review and certify. In June, 2008, HR started a new process of certifying the candidates before sending their application materials to the hiring manager, which is expected to reduce the time-to-hire average.  HR found that hiring managers needed more assistance in processing applicants and conducting selection processes.

Performance Measures

Action Steps:  As stated in its 2009-11 Strategic Plan, Ecology will accelerate its selection and hiring processes, with a competitive time-to-hire rate by using the ERecruiting questionnaire to more accurately assess minimum qualifications and certifying candidates before sending them to the hiring manager.

Time-to-fill vacancies Candidate quality Hiring Balance (proportion of appointment types) Separation during review period

 Effective July 1, 2008, fields were added to the ERecruiting system to manually enter the start and end dates for a recruitment. For the next HRMR, Ecology’s time-to-hire measure will reflect the new parameters set in 2008.  Develop a process to capture and enter accurate appointment information in a timely manner.  Develop and conduct a “Hiring Clinic” training class  to assist hiring managers in the recruitment process.

Data Time Period: 7/2006 through 6/2008 Source:  E­Recruiting and Department of Ecology

 As stated in its 2009-11 Strategic Plan, Ecology will develop and implement a recruitment strategy to identify and develop relationships with talent sources to ensure a consistent pool of highly-qualified and diverse candidates. 7

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 51

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Hire Workforce

Candidate Quality Agency Priority: High

Analysis:

Candidate Quality Outcomes:

and reviewed during

Of the candidates interviewed for vacancies, how many had the competencies (knowledge, skills & abilities) needed to perform the job?

appointment period. The

Out of 629 candidates interviewed for vacancies:

Best candidates are hired

right people are in the right

Number = 495

Percentage = 79%

job at the right time.

Of the candidates interviewed, were hiring managers able to hire the best candidate for the job? Performance Measures

Out of 133 hiring managers: Hiring managers indicating “yes”:

Time-to-fill vacancies Candidate quality Hiring Balance (proportion of appointment types)

Number = 125

Percentage = 95%

Hiring managers indicating “no”: Number = 6

Percentage = 5%

Separation during review period

Reasons best candidate not hired: • Could not meet terms and conditions requested: Moving expenses (1) • Higher Salary offered elsewhere: (1) • Salary too low/did not wish to relocate (1) • Other (3): o Candidate was not authorized to work in the US and could not start the position in a reasonable time period o Accepted other position o Program budget problems prevented the hiring of an external candidate.

 The Human Resources Office implemented a new and improved screening process mid-cycle to ensure that applicants meet the minimum qualifications of the job before being referred to the hiring manager. This process assists managers in improving their efficiency and ability to hire the right person for the job.  Between July and December, 2007, the percentage of the candidates interviewed who had the competencies needed to perform the job was reported at 71.5%. This number has gone up to 79% a 7.5% increase. We believe this increase is directly connected to the new screening processes implemented by HR. Action Steps:  In accordance with its 2009-11 Strategic Plan, Ecology will broaden its recruitment efforts through the development and implementation of an agency marketing program with intra- and inter-agency collaboration  The HR Office will implement a process to work with, and remind, applicants to submit the required supplemental questionnaires when applying for a job to secure a complete application packet for the hiring manager.  The HR Office will monitor comments from the E-Recruiting feedback form to further improve and target Ecology’s recruitment and applicant  screening process to produce a higher percentage of qualified candidates, both in the pool and for referral.

Data Time Period: 7/2006 through 6/2008 Source:  E­Recruiting and Department of Ecology

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 52

8

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Hire Workforce

Hiring Balance / Separations During Review Period

and reviewed during

 Total 57% (134) of Ecology appointments are internal employees.  This data supports Ecology’s goal to  provide opportunities for career development for our employees.

Types of Permanent Appointments

Outcomes: Best candidates are hired

Analysis:

Agency Priority: Medium

New Hires 42%  (100)

Promotions 31%  (73)

appointment period. The

 New Hires - 14% (33) are internal appointments, hired from non-perm, project, or exempt positions to permanent positions. 28% (67) are new hires/rehires to state service.

right people are in the right job at the right time.

 Transfers - 19% (44) are transfers within Ecology to other Ecology programs or opportunities. 3% (6) are transfers to Ecology from other state agencies.

Performance Measures Time-to-fill vacancies Candidate quality Hiring Balance (proportion of appointment types) Separation during review period

 Promotions - 24% (57) are promotions from within Ecology’s workforce.  7% (16) are promotion to  Ecology from other state agencies

Exempt Other 2%  (4) 3%  (8)

 Employees leaving the agency during probationary and trial periods was much lower than in 2007, nearly 40%, indicating an improvement in Ecology’s recruitment,  selection and hiring processes.

Transfers 22%  (50)

Action Steps:

Total number of appointments = 235* Includes appointments to permanent vacant positions only; excludes reassignments, project, non­perm NOTE:  Due to HRMS coding & BI query limitations, interns had to be deducted from the total  manually “Other” = Demotions, re­employment, reversion & RIF appointments, elevation

Separation During Review Period Probationary separations – Voluntary Probationary separations – Involuntary Total Probationary Separations

 Continue to execute Ecology’s long-term recruitment network strategy, especially its targeted outreach to colleges, universities and organizations to build diverse, quality candidate pools.

 Leaving To Other State Service Agencies 4 1 1 0  5 1

Trial Service separations – Voluntary Trial Service separations – Involuntary Total Trial Service Separations

3 0 3

2 0 2

Total Separations During Review Period

8

3

Expand special partnerships with DOP, other agencies and Washington universities and colleges, such as the University of Washington, to target diverse, quality candidates in key environmentally-related fields. Provide opportunities for Ecology employees to advance their career development process through advertising & promoting vacancies in E-Recruiting, Ecology Today newsletter; & Ecology web site. Data Time Period: 7/2007 through 6/2008 Source:  DOP HRMS Business Intelligence & Department of Ecology

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 53

9

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Deploy Workforce Outcomes: Staff know job

expectations, how they’re 

Current Performance Expectations Agency Priority: Low

Percent employees with current performance expectations = 100%* *Based on 1348 of 1348 reported employee count Applies to employees in permanent positions, both WMS & GS

doing, & are supported. Workplace is safe, gives capacity to perform, & fosters productive

Ecology Commitment:

relations. Employee time

and talent is used effectively. Employees are motivated.

Performance Measures

Supervisors will focus more on directing work through positive reinforcement throughout the year, providing feedback year-round rather than waiting until annual review time, and make sure issues are addressed promptly and not left until the end of the evaluation period.

Percent employees with current performance expectations

Analysis:  Director expectations for completion of performance evaluations have been articulated since 1989.  Ecology’s completion rates have been  over 90% Since 1999. This year we achieved 100%.  “Mini-PDP training” for senior management set  agency expectations for  producing PDP’s with an  emphasis on quality, relevance to agency results and overall performance management.  Employee survey results indicated that employees did not always feel they are receiving meaningful feedback from their supervisors; annually and ongoing. (Q10, 3.43 out of 5)  After the Employee Survey results were received from DOP, Ecology developed a process which included program managers conducting discussions with their staff to solicit comments and suggestions about how to improve the performance evaluation process. This activity generated agency best practices and commitments as noted in the April 2008 Interim HRMR and in this report. Action Steps:

Employee survey ratings on “productive workplace”  questions

 Periodic audit of a random sample of  PDP’s to  identify and recommend areas for improvement.

Sick leave usage

 Refresh managers with best practices and commitment to improve the performance evaluation process as well as on-going feedback.

Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes)

 Provide annual PDP training consistent with performance management confirmation requirements.

Overtime usage

Worker safety Data as of  the completion of Ecology’s Evaluation Cycle ­ 12/2007 Source:  Department of Ecology Tracking

 Maintain 100% PDP completion goal for the 2008 annual evaluation cycle. 10

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 54

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Deploy Workforce

Employee Survey:  “Productive Workplace” Ratings Agency Priority: Medium

Analysis: Outcomes:

 Ecology had a 81.9% response rate on the 2007 Employee Survey.

Staff know job

 The highest ratings were for Q.7, “My supervisor  treats me with dignity and respect” and for Q.4, “I  know what is expected of me at work.”

expectations, how they’re  doing, & are supported. Workplace is safe, gives

 Recognition for work well-done (Q.9) and ongoing feedback (Q.8) were identified as two of the four priority areas for agency-wide improvement.

capacity to perform, & fosters productive

 Suggestions and comments from staff generated into agency best practices and commitments for implementation in 2008 - 2009. Our commitment for recognition is:

relations. Employee time

and talent is used effectively. Employees are motivated.

‘”Supervisors will develop processes to improve how  staff are recognized for their efforts and how performance feedback is given.”  Further:

Performance Measures

Each supervisor will communicate recognition that is:      

Percent employees with current performance expectations Employee survey ratings on “productive  workplace” questions

Timely Specific Sincere Individual Personal Proportional

Action Steps:

Overtime usage

 Executive management will conduct agency-wide meetings with employees in the fall of 2008, including meetings in each of our regional locations. Sessions include discussions about our current status in regard to agency, legislative and budget priorities; how success is measured, and staff recognition.

Sick leave usage Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes) Worker safety Data as of 12/2007 Source:  2007 Employee Survey

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 55

11

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Mar-08 Feb-08 Jan-08

Avg OT Hrs ­ Agency

and talent is used effectively. Employees are motivated.

Jun­08

May­08

Apr­08

Mar­08

Feb­08

Jan­08

fosters productive

Dec­07

capacity to perform, & relations. Employee time

$15,878 $17,117 $11,182 $16,198 $16,007 $15,012

$25,505

Dec-07

Jul­07

Workplace is safe, gives

Apr-08

Nov­07

doing, & are supported.

Jun-08 May-08

Oct­07

expectations, how they’re 

Overtime Cost - Agency

5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Sep­07

Staff know job

Average Overtime (per capita) *

Aug­07

Outcomes:

Overtime Usage Agency Priority: Low

Average OT Hours

Deploy Workforce

Nov-07

$15,293

Oct-07 Sep-07

Avg OT Hrs ­ Statewide

Overall agency avg overtime usage – per capita, per month:  .33**

Aug-07

$24,660 $23,117 $22,668

Jul-07

$32,148

*Statewide overtime values do not include DNR **Overall agency avg overtime usage – per capita, per month =  sum of monthly OT averages / # months

Analysis:

% Employees Receiving Overtime * Performance Measures

Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes) Worker safety

 Average monthly overtime costs are $19,565.

10.0%

 Ecology’s overtime hours are significantly below the  statewide average.

5.0%

Pct EE's w/OT ­ Agency

Jun­08

May­08

Apr­08

Mar­08

Feb­08

Jan­08

Dec­07

Nov­07

Oct­07

0.0%

Sep­07

Sick leave usage

15.0%

Aug­07

Overtime usage

 Ecology employees work on average 20 minutes of overtime per month.

20.0%

Jul­07

Employee survey ratings on “productive workplace”  questions

25.0%

Percent Employees

Percent employees with current performance expectations

 FY 2008 total overtime costs are 17% less than FY 2007.

Pct EE's w/OT ­ Statewide

Overall agency avg employees receiving overtime per month:  3.3%** *Statewide overtime values do not include DNR **Overall agency avg employees receiving overtime per month = sum of monthly OT  percentages / # months

 Spill response accounted for 76% of Ecology’s overtime  cost for FY 2008. Overtime is expected due to emergency response to hazardous spills and marine vessels that impact public health and the environment. 15% was in the Fiscal Office due to closing the biennium (Summer 2007). Action Steps:  No action needed at this time.

Data Time Period:  7/2007 through  6/2008 Source:  DOP HRMS Business Intelligence

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 56

12

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Deploy Workforce

Sick Leave Usage

Agency Priority: Low

Analysis

Outcomes:



Ecology’s sick leave usage remains below  statewide averages.



Ecology Employees who use sick leave use an average .6 hours of sick leave less every month then the typical state employee who uses sick leave.



Ecology employees used an average of 1.2 sick leave hours less than the typical state employee when compared to the total number of employees.

Staff know job

expectations, how they’re  doing, & are supported. Workplace is safe, gives

Action Steps

capacity to perform, & fosters productive



Supervisors understand the laws, rules and collective bargaining agreement regarding sick leave, and will continue to appropriately attend to situations as needed to minimize negative impact on business needs.



Ecology’s Wellness Program is very robust and  it  will continue to provide employees with opportunities to participate in wide variety of wellness activities sponsored by the agency. The program sends positive messages to employees that we care about their health and well-being. We advertise the Wellness Program on our weekly Inside Ecology newsletter and agency website.

relations. Employee time

and talent is used effectively. Employees are motivated.

Performance Measures Percent employees with current performance expectations Employee survey ratings on “productive workplace”  questions Overtime usage Sick leave usage Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes) Worker safety

Sick Leave Hrs Used / Earned (per capita) Avg Hrs SL Used (per capita) - Agency

% of SL Hrs Earned (per capita) - Agency

5.7 Hrs

Avg Hrs SL Used (per capita) – Statewide*

% of SL Hrs Earned (per capita) – Statewide*

6.3 Hrs

74.1%

81.3%

Sick Leave Hrs Used / Earned (those who took SL) Avg Hrs SL Used (those who took SL) - Agency

% SL Hrs Earned (those who took SL) - Agency

10.6 Hrs

132.5%

Avg Hrs SL Used (those who took SL) – Statewide*

% SL Hrs Earned (those who took SL) – Statewide*

11.8 Hrs

147.3%

*% of sick leave hours earned is calculated by dividing sick leave hours taken by sick leave hours earned multiplied by 100 Data Time Period:  7/2007 through 6/2008 Source:  Department of Personnel

* Statewide data does not include DOL, DOR, L&I, and LCB

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 57

13

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Deploy Workforce

Non-Disciplinary Grievances (represented employees) Agency Priority: Low

Top 5 Non-Disciplinary Grievance Types (i.e., Compensation, Overtime, Leave, etc)

Outcomes: Staff know job expectations, 

4 Total Non­Disciplinary Grievances

how they’re doing, & are  supported. Workplace is safe,  gives capacity to perform, &  fosters productive relations.  Employee time and talent is 

Grievance Type

# Grievances

1. Article 11 Vacation Leave

1

2. Article 42 Compensation

1

3. Article 2 Non-Discrimination

1

4. Article 6 Hours of Work

1

used effectively. Employees 

are motivated. Total Non‐Disciplinary Grievances = 4 Performance Measures Percent employees with  current performance  expectations Employee survey ratings on  “productive workplace”  questions

* There may not be a one­to­one correlation between the number of grievances filed  (shown top of page) and the outcomes determined during this time period. The time  lag between filing date and when a decision is rendered can cross the time periods  indicated.

Non-Disciplinary Grievance Disposition* (Outcomes determined during time period listed below)

Overtime usage

 2 Settlements

Sick leave usage

 2 Management denied grievance – Union did not advance grievance

Non‐disciplinary  grievances/appeals filed and  disposition (outcomes)

Analysis: 

The number of grievances filed for the number of employees in the agency remains low.

Action Steps:  Ecology managers and supervisors will continue their collaborative efforts to work with Union representatives and employees to resolve issues at the lowest possible level.  Ecology will continue to train all supervisors and managers on the fundamentals of labor relations, as well as changes to collective bargaining agreements as they are negotiated and implemented.

Worker safety

Data Time Period: 7/2007 through 6/2008 Source:  Department of Ecology

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 58

14

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Deploy Workforce

Non-Disciplinary Appeals (mostly non-represented employees) Agency Priority: Low

Filings for DOP Director’s Review

Filings with Personnel Resources Board (Non­Disciplinary appeals only)

Outcomes:

Job classification/Allocation: 1

Staff know job

expectations, how they’re 

Total filings: 1

Total filings:

0

doing, & are supported. Workplace is safe, gives capacity to perform, & fosters productive relations. Employee time

and talent is used

There is no one-to-one correlation between the filings shown above and the outcomes displayed in the charts below. The time lag between the filing date and when a decision is rendered can cross the HRMR reporting periods.

effectively. Employees are

Director's Review Outcomes

motivated.

Performance Measures

Personnel Resources Board Outcomes

Withdrawn 100%

Withdrawn 33.3%

Percent employees with current performance expectations

No jurisdiction 33.3%

Employee survey ratings on “productive workplace”  questions Overtime usage Sick leave usage Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes) Worker safety

Affirmed  Agency  Decision 33.3%

Total outcomes = 3 allocation appeals

Total outcomes = 1 demotion appeal settled through mediation - withdrawn on 8/1/07

Data Time Period: 7/2007 through 6/2008 Source:  Department of Personnel 

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 59

15

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Worker Safety

Deploy Workforce Outcomes Staff know job expectations, how they’re  doing, & are supported. Workplace is safe, gives capacity to perform, & fosters productive relations.

Agency Priority: Low

Analysis: • Ecology’s accident and claims rate reflects minor variations, including seasonal ones, especially for summer field work, when injury and accident rates typically peak at this time. However, during August 2008 there was a downturn in accidents. • 2008 marks the 17th consecutive year in which Ecology’s “Experience Factor” is the lowest of all state agencies, boards & commissions. LNI information for 2009 confirms that Ecology will maintain this position. Annual Claims Rate:

8.0 7.0

Annual claims rate is the number of accepted claims for every 200,000 hours of payroll

6.0

Employee time and talent is

used effectively. Employees are motivated.

claims rate

2.0

co mpensable claims rate

1.0

pro jected claims rate

0.0

2007Q4

2007Q3

2007Q2

2007Q1

2006Q4

Worker Safety

2006Q3

Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition outcomes

2006Q2

C alend ar Injur y Quar t er

Bodily React ion And Exert ion

Cumulat ive Trauma

Cumulative Trauma Claims Oiics Code

Transport at ion

Oiics Description

Count

Accident s

Misc.

Sick leave usage (categories under 3%, or not adequately coded, are grouped into 'Misc.')

2006Q1

2005Q4

2005Q3

2005Q2

2005Q1

2004Q4

calendar year-quarter 2003Q1 through 2007Q4

2004Q3

Accepted Claims by Occupational Injury and Illness Classification System (OIICS) Event:

2004Q2

All rates as of 06-30-2008

2004Q1

pro jected co mpensable claims rate

2003Q4

Overtime usage

3.0

2003Q3

Employee survey ratings on 'productive workplace' questions

4.0

2003Q2

Percent employees with current performance expectations

5.0

200,000 hours is roughly equivalent to the numbers of yearly payroll hours for 100 FTE

2003Q1

Performance Measures

Action Plan: • An agency-wide assessment of work-related hazards was conducted in 2008. Four key areas of emphasis were selected for hazard mitigation and tracking: motor vehicle accidents, ergonomic injuries, slips, trips and falls, and hazard reporting. • Continue to review motor vehicle accidents quarterly to identify contributing causes and disseminate information to drivers. • Highlight hazard reporting in new employee safety orientations and discuss in work groups. Implement on-line ergonomic resources. • Continue to investigate accidents involving slips, trips and falls and develop recommendations for prevention procedures.

Exposure To Harmf ul

2

Bodily Reaction And Exertion

118

9

Other Events Or Exposures

9

0

Contact With Objects And Equipment

1

Subst ances Or_

Falls Cont act Wit h Object s And Equipment

Source: Labor & Industries, Research and Data Services (data as of 6/30/2008 ) and Department of Ecology

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 60

16

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Develop Workforce

Individual Development Plans Agency Priority: Low

Analysis: Outcomes:

Percent employees with current individual development plans = 100%*

A learning environment is

created. Employees are engaged in professional

*Based on 1348of 1348 reported employee count Applies to employees in permanent positions, both WMS & GS

development and seek to learn. Employees have competencies needed for

Data as of 2007 Annual Evaluation Completion Source:  Department of Ecology

present job and future

advancement.

Employee Survey “Learning & Development”  Ratings Performance Measures

Agency Priority: [Low]

Percent employees with current individual development plans

 Ecology has a long established practice of completing Individual Development Plans annually with performance evaluations. This year we achieved 100% completion.  HR provides comprehensive training and development support to the agency to ensure that Individual Development Plans are completed and that effective training is available for achievement of expectations and growth.  Ecology’s Competitive Fellowship program provides  tuition above and beyond other program tuition reimbursement. In 2007, 26 separate applications were awarded for full or partial tuition reimbursement.  Our commitment for recognition is: ‘”Supervisors will develop processes to improve how  staff are recognized for their efforts and how performance feedback is given.” Action Steps:

 If available, we will seek saving incentive funds to provide tuition reimbursement for the 2009-2010 academic year through competitive fellowships.

Employee survey ratings on “learning &  development” questions

 Continue to consult with managers to reinforce best practices and commitment (developed from the 2007 employee survey in 2008) to improve the performance evaluation process as well as on-going feedback.

Competency gap analysis (TBD)

 Provide annual PDP training consistent with performance management confirmation requirements and agency best practices and commitments.  Maintain 100% PDP completion goal for the 2008 annual evaluation cycle. Data as of 12/2007 Source:   2007 Employee Survey

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 61

17

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Reinforce Performance

Current Performance Evaluations Agency Priority: Low

Analysis: Outcomes: Employees know how their

performance contributes to the goals of the organization. Strong performance is rewarded; poor performance is eliminated. Successful

performance is differentiated and strengthened. Employees are held

Percent employees with current performance evaluations = 100%* *Based on 1348 of 1348 reported employee count Applies to employees in permanent positions, both GGS and WMS. Supervisors will use the following Best Practices to strengthen and improve the performance evaluation process, making it more meaningful and productive by:

 

accountable.  Performance Measures Percent employees with current performance evaluations Employee survey ratings on “performance and  accountability” questions

Disciplinary actions and reasons, disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes)

  

Treating the evaluation process as an ongoing dialogue Ensuring that the whole year is reviewed as part of the evaluation process. Providing motivation to staff by specifically illustrating how their individual key competencies and results contribute to the program/agency goals. Soliciting PDP input from staff prior to drafting and presenting copy to employee. Ensuring that every supervisor has had Performance Evaluation training. Re-emphasizing the central role of Individual Development Plans to strategically identify training opportunities related to job effectiveness and personal growth.

 Director expectations for completion of performance evaluations have been articulated since 1989. Ecology’s completion rates have been over 90%  Since 1999. This year we achieved 100%.  Fall 2007: delivered mini PDP training to agency executives and management teams; revised for emphasis on quality, relevance to agency results and overall performance management.  Employee survey results indicated that employees do not always feel they are receiving meaningful feedback from their supervisors; annually and ongoing. (Q10, 3.4 out of 5)  February and March 2008: After the survey results were received, program managers held discussions with staff for their comments and suggestions. This activity generated agency best practices noted here and a commitment as noted on slide 10, “Current  Performance Expectations”. Action Steps:  Continue to audit a random sample of  PDP’s to  identify and recommend areas for improvement.  Refresh managers with best practices and commitment to improve the performance evaluation process as well as on-going feedback.  Provide annual PDP training consistent with performance management confirmation requirements.  Maintain 100% PDP completion goal for the 2008 annual evaluation cycle.

Reward and recognition practices (TBD) Data as of  the completion of Ecology’s Evaluation Cycle ­ 12/2007 Source:  Department of Ecology Tracking

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 62

18

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Reinforce Performance

Employee Survey:  “Performance & Accountability” Ratings Agency Priority: High

Analysis:

Outcomes: Avg

Employees know how their

performance contributes to the goals of the organization. Strong

Q3. I know how my work contributes to the goals of my agency. 3% 4%

8%

41%

44%

performance is rewarded;

4%

poor performance is

Q9. I receive recognition for a job well done.

eliminated. Successful

performance is differentiated

0%

8%

6%

14%

12%

38%

24%

Never/Almost Never Usually

37%

33%

Seldom Always/Almost Always

23%

1%

4.0

1%

3.5

Occasionally No Response

and strengthened. Employees are held

4.2

Q10. My performance evaluation provides me with meaningful information about my performance. 9% 13% 20% 35% 19% 4% 3.4 Q11. My supervisor holds me and my co­workers accountable for performance.

Overall average score for "Performance & Accountability" ratings:

3.8

 The revised performance evaluation plan, PDP, and position description form, PDF, establishes better linkage between the position’s duties and  responsibilities and the individual employee’s  contributions to the achievement of Ecology’s mission,  goals and objectives.  During October and November, 2007, “Agency  Forums” were held in each of the larger Ecology  locations. All employees were invited and the forums were very successful.  Performance and Development Plan training is offered to all employees through the agency Core Training Program. Performance Management training is required for managers and supervisors.  All Ecology annual evaluations are conducted concurrently. The evaluation period begins October 1st and ends September 30th. Two months are allowed for completion.

accountable.

Performance Measures

 In addition to program-level recognition programs, the agency has a formal annual program recognizing; Environmental Education, Environmental Stewardship, Workplace Spirit, Creative Solutions, and Exceptional Results.

Percent employees with current performance evaluations Employee survey ratings on “performance and  accountability” questions

Action Steps:  During fall, 2008, agency forums will be held state-wide by executive management to continue to communicate and discuss Ecology’s current state, its goals, how  success is measured, and how each employee contributes to achieving Ecology’s Strategic Plan.

Disciplinary actions and reasons, disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes) Reward and recognition practices (TBD) Data as of 12/2007 Source:   2007 Employee Survey

 Continue consulting with supervisors about recognition, coaching, regular feedback, and other best practices in managing performance. 19

Q13. My agency consistently demonstrates support for a diverse workforce. Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 63

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Reinforce Performance

Formal Disciplinary Actions Agency Priority: Low

Outcomes:

Action Impacting Salary

Employees know how their 

Dismissals

2

performance contributes to 

Demotions

0

the goals of the organization.  

Suspensions

1

Reduction in Pay*

1

Total Action Impacting Salary

4

Strong performance is 

# of Actions

rewarded; poor performance is  eliminated. Successful  performance is differentiated 

Non-Salary Actions

and strengthened. Employees 

Letters of Reprimand

8

Oral Reprimand

4

are held accountable.

Total Non-Salary Actions

13

Total Disciplinary Actions*

16

Performance Measures Percent employees with  current performance  evaluations Employee survey ratings on  “performance and  accountability” questions Disciplinary actions and  reasons, disciplinary  grievances/appeals filed and  disposition (outcomes) Reward and recognition  practices (TBD)

•“Reduction in pay” is not currently available as an action  code in HRMS/BI

Issues Leading to Disciplinary Action  6 Misuse of State Resources

Analysis:  Disciplinary actions more than doubled for this reporting period, reflecting Ecology’s renewed  emphasis on accountability.

 Misuse of state resources remains the most prevalent issue, amounting to 38% of the causes for disciplinary actions.  Of all disciplinary actions, four of the seventeen actions (23%) were grieved, and all four grievances were settled.

Action Steps:  Agency will continue to emphasis accountability for employee actions and effective supervisory and management oversight.  Agency will continue to train all supervisors and managers on changes in Ecology’s policies and  procedures, collective bargaining agreements, RCW laws, and WAC regulations.  Design and conduct a new, effective ethics training workshop that includes a strong emphasis on the appropriate use of state resources.

 4 Neglect of duty

 4 Behavioral issues  2 Attendance issues

Data Time Period: 7/2007 through 6/2008 Source: Department  of Ecology

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 64

20

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Reinforce Performance

Disciplinary Grievances and Appeals Agency Priority: Low

Disciplinary Grievances (Represented Employees) Outcomes:

Disciplinary Appeals (Non-Represented Employees filed with Personnel Resources Board)

Employees know how their  5 Total Disciplinary Grievances

performance contributes to  the goals of the organization.  

0 Total Disciplinary Appeals Filed with PRB

Strong performance is  rewarded; poor performance is  eliminated. Successful  performance is differentiated 

and strengthened. Employees 

Total # Disciplinary Grievances Filed:  5

are held accountable. There is no one‐to‐one correlation between the filings shown above and the outcomes displayed in the charts below. The time lag  between filing date and when a decision is rendered can cross the time periods indicated. Performance Measures Percent employees with  current performance  evaluations Employee survey ratings on  “performance and  accountability” questions Disciplinary actions and  reasons, disciplinary  grievances/appeals filed and  disposition (outcomes) Reward and recognition  practices (TBD)

Disposition (Outcomes) of Disciplinary Grievances

Disposition (Outcomes) of Disciplinary Appeals*

 All 5 disciplinary grievances were settled. Analysis:  The number of disciplinary grievances remains low and all five grievances were settled.

Withdrawn 100%

 There were no disciplinary appeals filed by nonrepresented employees for this reporting period.

 One non-represented appeal from a previous period was withdrawn. Action Steps:  Ecology will continue its collaborative efforts to work with Union representatives and employees to resolve disciplinary grievances.

*Outcomes issued by Personnel Resources Board

Data Time Period: 7/2007 through 6/2008 Source:  Department of Personnel and Department of Ecology Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 65

21

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

ULTIMATE OUTCOMES

Employee Survey:  “Employee Commitment” Ratings Agency Priority:

Medium

Analysis:  During October and November, 2007, “Agency Forums”  were held in each of the larger Ecology locations. The focus:  “What we can do to maintain and build upon our  successes and how day-to-day work has far reaching agency, policy and legislative impact.”

Employees are committed to the work they do and the goals of the organization

 “Inside Ecology,” a new Ecology web-based newsletter, was launched in September, 2007. Weekly leadership messages rotate between agency-wide managers and a monthly message from the Director.

Successful, productive employees are retained

The state has the workforce breadth and depth needed for present and future success

Performance Measures Employee survey ratings on “commitment”  questions Turnover rates and types Turnover rate: key occupational categories

 More line staff are being involved in the development and presentation of agency GMAP exercises. This helps to expand the understanding of how data is used to detect issues and measure success and how individual work ties into the agency priorities.  Easy intranet access to performance measures and reports is provided to staff.

Agency Commitment: To continue the conversation… “How we do things affects what we can accomplish for the environment.”    Each of us should  understand how we influence results and the agency’s overall capacity to protect  the environment.

 For Ecology’s 2007 Agency Awards, 89 individual and  team nominations were received (a total of 248 people) in 5 categories: Environmental Education, Environmental Stewardship, Workplace Spirit, Creative Solutions, and Exceptional Results.  Awards were given at an all-staff meeting on December 12, 2007. Action Steps:  The Deputy Director is committed to visiting each of our larger agency locations twice per year to discuss status of agency priorities; how we can work more effectively with our stakeholders; and what staff need from management to be successful in interacting with citizens.

Workforce diversity profile Retention measure (TBD)

Data as of 12/2007 Source:   2007 Employee Survey

 Continue to find ways to better articulate the connection between each person, agency goals and how success is measured. 22

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 66

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

ULTIMATE OUTCOMES

Turnover Rates Agency Priority: High

Analysis:

Total % Turnover Employees are committed to the work they do and the goals of the organization

3.8%

4.0% 3.5%

3.0% 3.0%

 “Resignation” also includes two (2) resignations in lieu  of termination.

56

2.5%

Successful, productive employees are retained

2.0%

1.6%

44

1.5% 1.0%

The state has the workforce breadth and depth needed for present and future success

0.5%

24

 Although national trends indicate impending staffing and succession issues as baby boomers retire and leave the workforce, Department of Ecology is not yet Retirement Resignation Dismissal Other  Other Agency experiencing this at the level expected, with a relatively low 1.6% rate. Nevertheless, at 19% of the Total Turnover percentages is based on a workforce population of 1463 employees. total turnover, this remains a significant concern “Other” category includes  layoff, probationary separation, disability separation,  requiring planning and action. 0.0%

0.0%

4

abandonment of position, and other actions that do not fit the other categories.

Employee survey ratings on “commitment” questions

Turnover Actions: Leaving state service To other agency TOTAL

Turnover rate: key occupational categories

Workforce diversity profile Retention measure (TBD)

 Since HRMS does not track movement of employees to other state agencies, Ecology tracks these employees internally. Interagency movement is at 3.0% and constitutes 34% of agency turnover, which is a significant factor in recruitment and retention.

0.3%

Performance Measures

Turnover rates and types

 Total turnover figures do not include non-permanent appointments. Interns, which are non-permanent but are coded as “exempt” in HRMS, were also removed  from the data for a more accurate picture of turnover in Ecology.

Action Steps: 84 44 128

Turnover %: Leaving state service To other agency TOTAL

5.7% 3.0% 8.7%

 Develop a new agency model for workforce development and management, including succession planning, through our “Workplace Action Team”  (WPAT).  Train all supervisors and managers on the new workforce management model.  Provide more opportunities for employee crosstraining to promote transfer and distribution of knowledge and to encourage lateral and upward mobility.

Note:  Movement to another agency is currently not available in HRMS/BI Data Time Period: 7/2007 through 6/2008 Source: DOP HRMS Business Intelligence and Department of Ecology

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 67

23

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

ULTIMATE OUTCOMES Employees are committed to the work they do and the goals of the organization

Turnover Rates Agency Priority: High

Agency­wide Turnover (Employees Leaving the Agency)

15%

10% 7.9%

Successful, productive employees are retained

The state has the workforce breadth and depth needed for present and future success

Other Agency

6.0%

5.7%

FY07

FY 08

Leaving State Service

5%

0%

15.0%

NWRO Turnover (Employees Leaving the Agency) Total Turnover percentages derived from population of 195 employees. 9.8%

10.0%

Turnover rates and types

8.2% 2.1% 0.5%

Turnover rate: key occupational categories

Workforce diversity profile

 The Northwest Regional Office (NWRO), which is located in Bellevue, continued to experienced a high turnover rate in FY08, although the exodus to other state agencies dropped from FY07. Nevertheless, qualitatively, NWRO continued to lose key, experienced personnel, primarily to local government, especially the City of Seattle and King County. Action Steps:

Performance Measures Employee survey ratings on “commitment” questions

1.9%

 Ecology’s data has been revised to include  permanent employee turnover only.  Permanent employee turnover rate increased by over 10% from FY07, with an increased exodus of employees to other agencies.

8.7%

3.0%

Analysis:

NWRO‐Other Agency NWRO‐Leaving State Svc

 Continue outreach to local colleges, universities and professional organizations to build candidate pools.  Assess the current exit interview data from employees voluntarily leaving Ecology to identify trends and develop solutions targeting issues raised.  Revise Ecology’s exit survey process to improve  the return rate.

5.0%

Retention measure (TBD)

 Continue to monitor and evaluate trends in historically high turnover areas.

7.7%

7.7%

FY07

FY08

0.0%

Data from 7/2006 through 6/2008 Source:  DOP HRMS Business Intelligence and Department of Ecology Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 68

24

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

ULTIMATE OUTCOMES

Employee Survey:  “Support for a Diverse Workforce” Ratings Agency Priority: High

Analysis: Employees are committed to the work they do and the goals of the organization

 90% of survey respondents feel a level of support from the agency in areas of diversity.

Successful, productive employees are retained

Action Steps:

 Only 8% of survey respondents may have concerns regarding workforce diversity in the agency.

 Use the Ecology Diversity Committee to identify, expand, implement and evaluate programs that promote and celebrate diversity in the agency.

The state has the workforce breadth and depth needed for present and future success

 Continue to provide diversity training available through the Core Training Program.  Continue and expand existing programs such as presenting special diversity events, special diversity speakers and brown bag lunches and conducting advanced diversity training in the agency.

Performance Measures Employee survey ratings on “commitment” questions

 Continue Ecology’s extensive outreach and  recruitment efforts designed to identify and recruit qualified, diverse candidates for employment with Ecology.

Turnover rates and types Turnover rate: key occupational categories

 Evaluate existing agency practices and develop and implement new practices that are effective for ensuring fair and equal treatment of employees.

Workforce diversity profile Retention measure (TBD)

Data as of 12/2007 Source:   2007 Employee Survey

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 69

25

Ecology’s Human Resources Management Report - October 2008

Goal 43% 6% 8% 1% 14%

Diversity Profile by Ethnicity

89%

 Ecology continues to lead the natural resource agencies in the percentage of people of color and women and to seek new recruitment and retention methods and programs to increase diversity levels. Action Steps:

82%

7%

0%

Agency

0%

% Two or More

6%

2%

1%

% Hispanic/Latino

Performance Measures

Statewide

All Employees (including WMS)

WMS Employees Only

24 % Employees

21

22 17

14

Retention measure (TBD)

15

11

10

9

8 8

5 3

2

% 50-54

% 45-49

%40-44

% 35-39

% 30-34

% 25-29

% 20-24

% 15-19

% < 15

1

1

% 65 +

3

 Develop and implement an updated diversity-based employment marketing plan, including new agency branding material specifically targeting diversity candidates and employees.

 Share Ecology's Diversity Program with other natural resource agencies as an example of "best practices" that work to promote diversity.

27

Turnover rates and types

 In accordance with the agency’s Strategic Plan and  Affirmative Action Plan, Ecology is developing a new long-term diversity recruitment strategy to identify and cultivate a sourcing network of contacts for creating and maintaining a reliable pool of qualified diversity candidates.

 Pool resources and partner with other state agencies, the Natural Resources Agencies Recruiters team, and the statewide team sponsored by the Department of Personnel.

Percent Age Distribution

Employee survey ratings on “commitment” questions

Workforce diversity profile

 Historically, natural resource agencies have a much lower availability and level of diversity than other professional fields in state government.

% White

5%

2%

% Asian

5%

% Black or African  American

1%

% American Indian  /  Alaskan Native

The state has the workforce breadth and depth needed for present and future success

Turnover rate: key occupational categories

Analysis:

% Employees

Successful, productive employees are retained

State 53% 4% 6% 2% 18% 75%

% 60-64

Employees are committed to the work they do and the goals of the organization

Ecology 50% 3% 5% 1% 11% 75%

Female Persons w/Disabilities Vietnam Era Veterans Veterans w/Disabilities People of color Persons over 40

% 55-59

ULTIMATE OUTCOMES

Workforce Diversity Profile

Agency Priority: High

 As described in Ecology’s Strategic Plan, expand internal  programs and activities that encourage the long-term retention of diverse employees and expand the cultural awareness and competency of the agency's workforce, through an increase in the number and type of special diversity events, educational workshops and advanced training. Data as of 6/2008 Source:  DOP HRMS Business Intelligence

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 70

26



    

 

 

 

 

Prepared by:

Department of Personnel Eva Santos, Director Published: November 7, 2008

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 71

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report





 

 

 

 

   

 

   

    

    



   

  

 





  

   

   

 

   

  



 

         

    

   

     

        



      



         

    

   



Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 72

2

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008)

October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Statewide Executive Summary 







































 

 



 











































































































 





Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 73 3

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) Agency Priority: High=9, Med=7, Low=14, N/A=6

 

 

workforce management

0

0

1

1



Percent supervisors with current performance expectations for workforce management Management profile Workforce Planning measure (TBD) Percent employees with current position/ competency descriptions

  

96.0%

99.0%





 Examples of action steps described in agencies HRM Reports include:  Development of Performance Management Leadership Training.  Establishing core leadership competencies for agency managers.  Ensuring all agency leaders are evaluated on their workforce management skills.  Agency Director’s workforce management expectations incorporated in all supervisory and management training.



 

 This measure is about supervisors’ accountability for effectively managing their staff. This includes a wide range of responsibilities, such as effective hiring practices, workforce deployment, day-to-day employee management, coaching & feedback, developing staff, corrective activities, setting expectations, evaluations, and more.

Action:

1



0

 33 of 36 agencies reporting data for this measure said they have “workforce management” expectations in place for over 90% of their supervisors.

 It is important that executives inform managers/supervisors of what these workforce management expectations are and hold them accountable for fulfilling those responsibilities.**



0



0



0



performing workforce.

0



build & sustain a high



foundation is in place to



priorities. Overall

30 agencies at 100%



and aligned with business



competencies are defined

33

 

accountabilities. Jobs and



Managers understand

Analysis: Percent supervisors with current performance expectations for workforce management = 99%*





Workforce Management Expectations

     

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 74

4

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) Agency Priority: High=5, Med=5, Low=21, N/A=5

   Managers understand workforce management accountabilities. Jobs and competencies are defined and aligned with business

Management Profile Washington Management Service

4,642

4,703

% of state workforce that is WMS

9.5%

7.6%

7.5%

Managers* Headcount

N/A

5,413

5,513

% of state workforce that is Mgrs*

N/A

8.9%

8.8%

51,457

60,578

62,947

Total number of Employees**

Percent supervisors with current performance expectations for workforce management

Washington Management Service Headcount Trend



Since July 2007, the WMS headcount increased by 1.3% (4,642 to 4,703); however, the general government workforce grew by 3.9% (60,578 to 62,947). This resulted in an overall 0.1% decrease in WMS employees to 7.5% in FY08; below the 7.6% control point set in July 2007.



Agencies monitor WMS usage against control points set in July 2007 and report twice yearly in agency HR Management Reports.



As of July 2008, 21 agencies are currently below their WMS control point, 6 are at their control point, and 6 agencies are over their control point. 3 reporting agencies do not have WMS positions.



Additional agency monitoring activities include:



4,900 4,850 4,800 4,750



4,700



Yearly review of WMS positions to ensure positions are appropriately included in WMS.



WMS position vacancies are reviewed by agency Director and HR Director prior to recruitment.



4,650 4,600 4,550 4,500 FY06

FY07

Action:

FY08

WMS Management Type

Management profile

FY08







Workforce Planning measure (TBD)

FY07







FY06





Percent employees with current position/ competency descriptions

Analysis:

* In positions coded as “Manager” (includes Exempts, WMS, and General Service) ** Includes all general government, executive branch employees, regardless of status

# WMS Employees (Headcount)

 

FY08

4,869

foundation is in place to performing workforce.

FY07

WMS Headcount

priorities. Overall build & sustain a high

FY06

0% Management

20% Consultant

40% Policy

60%

80%

Not Assigned

   

 DOP continues to monitor statewide management profile data on a quarterly basis and work with individual agencies that are over the established control point. No additional action is needed at this time.



•  

100%

•  



Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 75

5

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) Agency Priority: High=9, Med=11, Low=10, N/A=6

 

Current Position/Competency Descriptions Analysis:

 Managers understand workforce management

Percent employees with current position/competency descriptions = 89.7%*  

accountabilities. Jobs and Employees with Current Position/Competency Descriptions

competencies are defined

0

0

0

0

0









 

 Health Care Authority – up 33%  Department of Health - up 14.6%

   92.6% 

Management profile

Percent employees with current position/ competency descriptions

 Two agencies have shown significant improvement in the percentage of employees with current position/competency descriptions.



Percent supervisors with current performance expectations for workforce management

Workforce Planning measure (TBD)

5

3

 Since October 2006, the number of agencies having 90% and higher current job descriptions has more than doubled (from 13 to 28 agencies).  Of the 8 agencies with less than 90% current job descriptions, 4 have improved their percentage since October 2007.



0



0



0



performing workforce.



build & sustain a high

12 agencies at 100%



foundation is in place to

28



priorities. Overall



and aligned with business

 89.7% of employees have current position and competency descriptions – a decrease from 92.6% in FY07. Agencies cite movement of employees and supervisors as a cause for the decrease. In addition, some agencies are using improved tracking systems to provide a more accurate count of completed position descriptions.

89.7%

67.0%



 DOP updated the Performance and Development Plan (PDP) Supervisory training materials to clarify that accurate, up-to-date position descriptions are required in order to properly complete the PDP. Action:  The updated PDP form clarifies that accurate, up-todate position descriptions are required in order to properly complete the PDP. The PDP form will be posted on the new DOP web site in December 2008.





  

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 76

6

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) Agency Priority: High=9, Med=14, Low=7, N/A=6

Time to Hire / Candidate Quality

 

Time to Hire Funded Vacancies

90

and reviewed during appointment period. The right people are in the right job at the right time.

Average Days

80

Best candidates are hired

70 60

Average = 58.3 days

50 40 30 20 10

Each Reporting Agency

  Time to hire vacancies Candidate quality Hiring Balance (proportion of appointment types) Separation during review period

Time to Hire  Most agencies are using the clarified time to hire definition. In April 2008, a group of agency representatives clarified the definition of time to hire performance measure to equal the # of days from the hiring supervisor notifying the HR office to start the recruitment process to job offer acceptance.

100



Analysis:

Candidate Quality Of the candidates interviewed for vacancies, how many had the competencies (knowledge, skills & abilities) needed to perform the job? Number = 8,578.5 Percentage = 60.9%* Of the candidates interviewed, were hiring managers able to hire the best candidate for the job? Hiring managers indicating “yes”: Number = 1,970 Percentage = 97.0% Hiring managers indicating “no”: Number = 62 Percentage = 3.1% *Percentage based on manager assessments of 14,096 candidates interviewed

  

 35 agencies reported data, 3 from E-Recruiting and 32 from their own agency tracking system. Averages ranged from 21 to 87 days. 13 agencies reported average times of less than 45 days, up from 8 agencies in October 2007.  Five agencies reported significant improvement in their average number of days to hire since the October 2007 report due to process improvements and staff dedicated to recruitment activities. These are:  DOC – down 10.5 days  ESD – down 20 days  DFW - down 18 days  Military – down 14 days  Revenue – down 23 days Candidate Quality  97.0% of managers reported they were able to hire the best candidate for the job (preliminary, un-weighted); however, most agencies reported difficulty in receiving candidate quality information from hiring managers.  11 of the 35 reporting agencies did not submit data for this measure. Action: Examples of action steps described in agencies HRM reports include:  Additional applicant screening processes prior to submission to hiring manager to help increase candidate quality percentages.  The addition of recruitment goals to agency strategic plans.

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 77

7

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=3, Med=4, Low=22, N/A=7

Hiring Balance

 

Types of Appointments - FY08

Best candidates are hired and reviewed during

  

  



Analysis:  Appointment data in this report is for the time period 7/2007 – 6/2008 - prior to the hiring freeze.  The number of appointments in FY08 was 11,928; compared to 7,247 in FY07 and 11,884 in FY06.

  

 The total number of New Hires in FY08 was 4,850. The total # leaving state service was 4,538 for an actual net increase in permanent appointments of 312. This number includes permanent appointments to permanent positions only.

  

appointment period. The right people are in the right job at the right time.

 Classes showing the largest increase in hires in FY08 were:  Social Workers; Nursing Assistants, LPN’s, RN’s; Liquor Store Clerks; Corrections and Custody Officers.  These classifications are priority areas for the state and also tend to have the highest amount of turnover.

  

 

FY06

 Conduct hiring activities in accordance with the Governor’s directive on the hiring freeze.

FY08

 Expand partnerships with DOP, colleges and universities to target quality candidates for hard to fill positions.

      

3,113

 Provide development and promotional opportunities for employees.

417

588

299

995

1,000

788

1,082

2,000

1,000

 Increase workforce/succession planning activities. 1,576

3,000

3,446

4,000

FY07

4,090

5,000

2,949

Separation during review period

6,000

Action: Examples of action steps described in agencies HRM reports include:

Types of Appointments - Comparison 4,850

Hiring Balance (proportion of appointment types)

 

3,737

Candidate quality

Total number of appointments =11,928*

2,129

Time to hire vacancies

0 New Hires

Promotions

Transfers

Exempt

Other

 

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 78

8

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=3, Med=4, Low=22, N/A=7

   Best candidates are hired and reviewed during appointment period. The

Separations During Review Period Separations During Review Period

FY06

FY07

FY08

Analysis:

449

440

572

Voluntary

295

287

378

 The 781 separations during the review period is roughly 7% of the new hire and promotional appointments.

Involuntary

154

153

194

Action:

251

187

209

231

172

197

20

15

12

700

627

781

Total Probationary Separations

Total Trial Service Separations

right people are in the right

Voluntary

job at the right time.

Involuntary Total Separations

 

% Separations During Review Period*

Examples of action steps described in agencies HRM reports include:  Work with managers to ensure that employee performance is being properly evaluated during probationary and trial service periods.  Review employee orientation processes to ensure new employees receive mentoring , guidance and support needed upon hire to help them succeed within the agency.

Time to hire vacancies Candidate quality Hiring Balance (proportion of appointment types) Separation during review period

12% 10%

10%

8%

7%

6% 4% 2% 0% FY07

FY08

* As compared to New Hire and Promotional Appointments for same time period

 

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 79

9

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=10, Med=12, Low=8, N/A=6

   Staff know job

Current Performance Expectations Analysis:

Percent employees with current performance expectations = 77.1%*

 The percent of employees with current performance expectations is down 3.1% from FY07.

 

 While the overall % employees with current performance expectations has gone down from 80.2%, the number of agencies at 90% or greater has increased from 19 to 23 since FY07.

expectations, how they’re Employees with Current Performance Expectations

  Percent employees with current performance expectations

Overtime usage Sick leave usage Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes)



1

80.2%

77.1%

64.0%



1

0

 



Employee survey ratings on “productive workplace” questions

0



0

3



0



motivated.

0



effectively. Employees are

 A number of agencies held managers accountable to establish performance expectations for employees within 30 days of appointment into a position.  A few agencies use the percent completed performance evaluations as a proxy measure since the setting of future performance expectations usually coincides with completing the evaluation for the previous year.

8



and talent is used



relations. Employee time



fosters productive

23

10 agencies at 100%



capacity to perform, &



Workplace is safe, gives



doing, & are supported.

 Other agencies have moved to a precise accounting of how many employees actually have performance expectations in place. Consequently, the percent of employees with current expectations does not equal the percent of employees with completed performance evaluations.  Many agencies provided training for supervisors on tying strategic plan goals to individual employee performance expectations.  While the numbers of employees with current performance expectations rose in FY07, the response to Question 4 “I know what is expected of me at work” did not change in the 2007 employee survey Action:  DOP will monitor this for trend and report in the April 2009 Government Efficiency GMAP forum.







Worker safety   

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 80

10

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=8, Med=11, Low=10, N/A=7

   Staff know job expectations, how they’re

Employee Survey “Productive Workplace” Ratings  

 

















Workplace is safe, gives



fosters productive relations. Employee time and talent is used effectively. Employees are motivated.





Percent employees with current performance expectations Employee survey ratings on “productive workplace” questions



























































  







 









 









 

 





doing, & are supported. capacity to perform, &



 

 





 





 



  

  

 

Analysis:  82% indicate that their supervisor treats them with dignity and respect.  Approximately two-thirds indicate they have the tools and resources to do their job effectively.  85% indicated they know what is expected of them at work. 80.2% of them had current performance expectations at the time of the survey; up from 64% at the time of the 2006 survey.  67% of employees agree that their agency consistently demonstrates support for a diverse workforce. The 2007 employee survey was the first time this question was asked.  Only 64% receive regular feedback and 47% indicate they never to occasionally receive recognition for a job well done. Action:  Agencies reported action plans related to their employee survey ratings in the April 2008 HRM Report. These action plans were reported in the Government Efficiency GMAP in June 2008.  DOP will be conducting the next State Employee Survey in fall 2009.

Overtime usage Sick leave usage Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes) Worker safety  

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 81

11

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=3, Med=4, Low=26, N/A=3

 

expectations, how they’re doing, & are supported. Workplace is safe, gives capacity to perform, &











Staff know job

   

and talent is used effectively. Employees are

   



           

           

fosters productive relations. Employee time

% Employees Receiving Overtime *

Average Overtime (per capita) *





Overtime Usage









Overall Average OT per cap:

Overall Average % Employees Receiving OT:

FY08

3.1 hrs/mo

FY08

17.6% per mo

FY07

3.3 hrs/mo

FY07

17.7% per mo

motivated. Analysis: Statewide Overtime Cost*

  Percent employees with current performance expectations

$68,925,067

 While overall average OT has remained steady, statewide OT costs continue to rise. This may be due to an increased employee population in conjunction with pay increases.

$62,898,125 $48,910,137

$52,991,479

 Common reasons cited for OT are vacancy rates and seasonal needs. OT is tied to holidays and is a mandatory requirement in 24 hr facilities.

Employee survey ratings on “productive workplace” questions Overtime usage Sick leave usage Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes)

 Average OT per capita and % Employees Receiving OT remained steady in FY07 and FY08.

FY05

FY06

FY07



FY08

 Agencies instituted a requirement that all overtime eligible employees must complete time sheets, after a DOL audit found this information was not always properly captured. This requirement may result in increased overtime costs. Action:  Examples of action steps described in agencies HRM reports include:  Monitor staffing models/scheduling to ensure proper staffing.

Worker safety

 Audit positions to ensure proper OT eligible/exempt coding.  

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 82

12

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=2, Med=11, Low=16, N/A=7

 

Sick Leave Usage  

Analysis:

  

Staff know job

  Percent employees with current performance expectations Employee survey ratings on “productive workplace” questions





Avg Hrs SL Used (per capita) – Statewide*







% of SL Hrs Earned (per capita) – Statewide*

FY08

6.3 Hrs

81.3%

FY07

6.4 Hrs

82.5%

Sick Leave Hrs Used / Earned (those who took SL) Avg Hrs SL Used (those who took SL) – Statewide*

Sick leave usage

Worker safety



Sick Leave Hrs Used / Earned (per capita)

Overtime usage

Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes)



 

motivated.

 HCA and WSP identified Sick Leave as a high priority for their agency.





effectively. Employees are





and talent is used





relations. Employee time

 Overall, sick leave usage per capita and for those who took sick leave remains cyclical and has remained steady between FY07 and FY08.





fosters productive





capacity to perform, &





Workplace is safe, gives

 For only those who took sick leave, the average sick leave hours used fell by 0.1 while the percent of sick leave hours earned fell by 1.1%.





doing, & are supported.

 

expectations, how they’re

 Per capita, the average sick leave hours used fell by 0.1 while the percent of sick leave hours used versus earned fell by 1.2%.





% SL Hrs Earned (those who took SL) – Statewide*

FY08

11.8 Hrs

147.3%

FY07

11.9 Hrs

148.4%

Action:  Actions identified by agencies to address Sick Leave usage include:  Implement wellness programs and encourage participation in wellness activities.  Offer flu shots.  Develop Crucial Conversations training to assist supervisors in dealing with chronic abusers.  Stock on-site vending machines with “Fit Picks” as a healthy alternative choice.  Sponsor Dietician led brown bag lunch.  Monitor effects of 4/10 schedule on Sick Leave usage.

  

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 83

13

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=2, Med=2, Low=21, N/A=11

 

Non-Disciplinary Grievances (represented employees) Number of Non-Disciplinary Grievances Filed

Analysis:



 Staff know job

 The number of non-disciplinary grievances filed in FY08 increased by 12.8% from FY07.

   

expectations, how they’re doing, & are supported.



  

  

















Num ber of Non-Disciplinary Grievances Filed Com parison

  

1,000



800

Workplace is safe, gives

600

and talent is used

  Percent employees with current performance expectations Employee survey ratings on “productive workplace” questions Overtime usage Sick leave usage Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes)

          

           

           

























  





















effectively. Employees are motivated.



200



fosters productive



400



capacity to perform, & relations. Employee time

769

              

Worker safety

            

            

444

501

0 FY06

FY07

FY08

 While the 12.8% increase since FY07 may seem high, FY07 saw a 42.6% decrease from FY06 (769 non-disciplinary grievances). Compared to FY06, FY08 non-disciplinary grievances was substantially lower.  Some agencies attributed the increase in non-disciplinary grievances filed to:  Changes in representation of employee bargaining units.  Grievances filed regarding performance appraisals due to the increase in number of performance appraisals completed.  Changes in overtime language in bargaining agreements.  Agencies reported the majority of nondisciplinary grievances were settled at the agency level. The second highest disposition were withdrawn.

 

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 84

14

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=0, Med=3, Low=25, N/A=8

relations. Employee time effectively. Employees are motivated.   Percent employees with current performance expectations Employee survey ratings on “productive workplace” questions Overtime usage Sick leave usage Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes) Worker safety



 









  















 

FY06 Filings = 104 FY07 Filings = 63 FY08 Filings = 95

 

 

Total outcomes = 82 There is no one-to-one correlation between the number of filings and the outcomes displayed in these charts. The time lag between filing date and when a decision is rendered can cross the time periods indicated.

Personnel Resources Board Outcomes - FY08

Filings with Personnel Resources Board           

FY06

FY07

FY08

 

 









  





     





 

and talent is used

 



fosters productive

FY08



 

capacity to perform, &

FY07



 

Workplace is safe, gives

FY06





doing, & are supported.





expectations, how they’re

          



Staff know job

Director's Review Outcomes - FY08

Filings for Director’s Review

 



Non-Disciplinary Appeals

  

 

FY06 Filings = 27 FY07 Filings = 9 FY08 Filings = 19

 

Total outcomes = 20

 

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 85

15

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) Agency Priority: High=1, Med=5, Low=1, N/A=29

   Staff know job expectations, how they’re

October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Worker Safety: Statewide  Employees have up to 2 years to file a claim so the information is expected to be amended as additional information becomes available.

Analysis and Action:  This measure supports the Governor’s GMAP focus on Safety. It reflects information reported to the Department of Labor and Industries.

 Agencies describe conducting regular ergonomics assessments; hiring a Risk/Safety Manager to focus on implementing the safety action plan; and a focus on return-towork programs in their agency HR Management reports.

 Over the last three years, injuries averaged 7.7 claims per quarter for every 100 full-time employees. FY 07 averaged 7.3 (data received to date).

 Specific enterprise action plans related to workers safety are described in the September 19, 2008 Worker Safety GMAP report prepared by the Department of Labor and Industries.

doing, & are supported. Workplace is safe, gives capacity to perform, & fosters productive relations.

Annual Claims Rate: Annual claims rate is the number of accepted claims for every 200,000 hours of payroll

Employee time and talent is used effectively. Employees are motivated.

200,000 hours is roughly equivalent to the numbers of yearly payroll hours for 100 FTE claims rate

compensable claims rate

2007Q4

2007Q3

2007Q2

2007Q1

2006Q4

2006Q3

2006Q2

2006Q1

2005Q4

2005Q3

2005Q2

2005Q1

(categories under 3%, or not adequately coded, are grouped into 'Misc.')

2004Q4

calendar year-quarter 2003Q1 through 2007Q4

2004Q3

Accepted Claims by Occupational Injury and Illness Classification System (OIICS) Event:

2004Q2

Worker Safety

2004Q1

All rates as of 06-30-2008

Sick leave usage Non-disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition outcomes

2003Q4

Overtime usage

2003Q3

Employee survey ratings on 'productive workplace' questions

projected compensable claims rate

2003Q2

Percent employees with current performance expectations

projected claims rate

2003Q1

 

10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

Calendar Injury Quarter Other Events Or Exposures

Cumulative Trauma

Assaults And Violent Ac ts

Cumulative Trauma Claims

Oiics Code 2

Bodily Reaction And Exertion

9

Other Events Or Exposures

0

Contact With Objects And Equipment

Misc . Exposure To Harmful Substanc es Or_ Transportation Ac c idents Contac t With Objec ts And Equipment

Bodily Reac tion And Exertion

Oiics Description

Count 6,196 631 46

Falls

 Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 86

16

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=13, Med=13, Low=7, N/A=3

 

Percent employees with current individual development plans = 76.9%*

created. Employees are

 

Competency gap analysis (TBD)

% Emp lo yees wit h C ur r ent ID Ps C o mp ar iso n

64.0%



Action:

85.3%

76.9%





 Examples of action steps described in agency HRM reports include:  Focus on tying IDPs to agency mission and vision.



1

 Update agency tracking systems to include monthly reminders of IDP due dates.



 Provide supervisor training to focus on the importance of employee IDPs.

 

Percent employees with current individual development plans Employee survey ratings on “learning & development” questions

1



1

0







advancement.

0



0

21

7

5 0



present job and future

10 agencies at 100%



competencies needed for



learn. Employees have



Percent Employees with Current Individual Development Plans

engaged in professional development and seek to

 Percent of employees with current IDPs decreased by 8.4% since October 2007. Agencies cite tracking process improvements and staff movement as main issues related to the decrease in current IDPs.

 



A learning environment is

Analysis





Individual Development Plans

Employee Survey “Learning & Development” Ratings  











 

 









 







 

 





 

Overall average score = 3.7       

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 87

Analysis and Action:  Statewide scoring for Q5 on having opportunities at work to learn and grow improved significantly, moving from 3.59 in 2006 to 3.66 in 2007; an increase of +.07.  Q10, “My supervisor gives me ongoing feedback that helps me improve my performance”, increased from 3.73 to 3.76, +.04. This likely correlates with the increase in the number of completed performance evaluations, from 63% in 2006 to 84% in 2007.

17

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=15, Med=7, Low=8, N/A=6

   Employees know how their

Current Performance Evaluations Analysis: Percent employees with current performance evaluations = 78.6%*

 78.6% of employees have current evaluations – down 5.7% since FY07 (84.3%).

 

 100% completion of performance evaluations is the universal target for all agencies.  23 agencies have current performance evaluations for 90%-100% of their workforce - an increase of 4 agencies from FY07 reports.

performance contributes to the goals of the

0

0





and strengthened. Employees are held accountable.

2

3





  

Percent employees with current performance evaluations

Disciplinary actions and reasons, disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes) Reward and recognition practices (TBD)

Dept. of Printing (38.4% improvement - from 60.1% to 98.5%) Dept. of Agriculture (35.2% improvement – from 62.0% to 97.2%) Dept. of Early Learning (42.0% improvement – from 58.0% to 100%) Office of Admin. Hearings (38.0% improvement – from 40.0% to 78.0%) Office of Financial Management (31.0% improvement – from 68% to 99.0%)

 In the 2007 State Employee Survey, the statewide score for Q10 on receiving meaningful performance evaluations improved significantly, moving from 3.39 in 2006 to 3.45 in 2007, an increase of +.06. This may be related to the increased percentage of employees with completed performance evaluations from FY06 to FY07. Action:

84.3%



Employee survey ratings on “performance and accountability” questions

  

0



0



0



0



performance is differentiated

 Of the 13 agencies with less than 90% current performance evaluations, 5 improved their percentage and 8 lost further ground. Agencies with the most improved percentage:    

8



eliminated. Successful



poor performance is

23

9 agencies at 100%



performance is rewarded;

  

organization. Strong

Percent Employees with Current Performance Evaluations

78.6%

63.0%

 Examples of action steps described in agencies HRM Reports include:  Implement automated tracking and notification system.  Send out written expectations that evaluations are a priority for the agency.







  

 Ensure supervisors and managers are trained on the importance of on-time and quality performance evaluations.  Change to an annual performance expectation cycle.  Implement a Performance Management team to review each evaluation with a focus on quality.

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 88

18

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=10, Med=10, Low=9, N/A=7

  

Employee Survey “Performance & Accountability” Ratings

performance contributes to the goals of the organization. Strong performance is rewarded;

 







  

Employees know how their

 







 













  



















 









poor performance is eliminated. Successful performance is differentiated and strengthened.



 

 

 





Employees are held accountable.  Percent employees with current performance evaluations

  

 

 Statewide score for Q10 on receiving meaningful performance evaluations improved significantly, moving from 3.39 in 2006 to 3.45 in 2007, an increase of +.06  In their HR Management Reports, many agencies described efforts to improve performance management, including executive direction, supervisory training, and renewed emphasis on timely completion of evaluations. These efforts are clearly starting to make a difference.  The most improved score from the 2007 employee survey was for Q9 “I receive recognition for a job well done, which moved from 3.34 in 2006 to 3.43 in 2007, an increase of +.09.  Although Q9 was the most improved score, it continues to be the lowest scoring question of the survey. Approximately 25% indicate that they never or seldom receive recognition for a job well done. Action:

Employee survey ratings on “performance and accountability” questions

 Agencies reported action plans related to their employee survey ratings in the April 2008 HRM Report. These action plans were reported in the Government Efficiency GMAP in June 2008.

Disciplinary actions and reasons, disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes) Reward and recognition practices (TBD)

Analysis:

 DOP will be conducting the next State Employee Survey in fall 2009.

 

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 89

19

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=2, Med=4, Low=25, N/A=5

 

Formal Disciplinary Actions Formal Disciplinary Action Taken

700



600

Employees know how their

500

performance contributes to

performance is rewarded; poor performance is

149

137

149

141

400

the goals of the organization. Strong

Reduction in Pay Suspension

300 54

Action:

108

 DOP to determine means of reporting reduction in pay as result of disciplinary action by October 2009 HRM report.

37 64 227

232

198

eliminated. Successful performance is differentiated and strengthened. Employees are held

46

80 30

100

64

0 FY04

FY05

FY06

*FY07

*FY08

 

accountable. Top Issues Leading to Disciplinary Action  Percent employees with current performance evaluations Employee survey ratings on “performance and accountability” questions

       

 Inadequate / poor performance and misuse of state resources / ethics violations have consistently been top issues leading to disciplinary action.

108

54

200 100

Demotion Dismissal

Analysis:

Misuse of state resources / ethics violations Inadequate / poor performance Neglect of Duty Attendance Misconduct / inappropriate comments & behavior Insubordination / unprofessional conduct Confrontational / disruptive behavior Not following agency policies or procedures

 Below are some steps being taken by agencies who have identified disciplinary actions taken as a high priority:  Train supervisors on the expectation of addressing performance management issues in a timely and equitable manner.  Implement a better tracking system, resulting in a decrease of “unspecified” disciplinary matters.  Fully staff HRCs to provide guidance and professional HR advice to managers/supervisor.  Using performance improvement plans and training to address performance issues early and correct issues when they occur.

Disciplinary actions and reasons, disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes) Reward and recognition practices (TBD)

 

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 90

20

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=1, Med=2, Low=25, N/A=8

   

performance contributes to

 

the goals of the

 





 



 





 



Reward and recognition practices (TBD)



 

Disciplinary Appeals

FY06











  



 

0

 2

4

6

8

10

 

          

          

 

 





  







FY08

FY07



  



Disciplinary actions and reasons, disciplinary grievances/appeals filed and disposition (outcomes)





Primarily Non-Represented Employees Filed with Personnel Resources Board (PRB)

Employee survey ratings on “performance and accountability” questions

































accountable.

Percent employees with current performance evaluations





and strengthened. Employees are held

 



 

  



performance is differentiated







eliminated. Successful





poor performance is

          







performance is rewarded;







organization. Strong

 





Employees know how their

Disciplinary Grievances (Represented Employees)





Disciplinary Grievances and Appeals

12

14

 

   

21

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 91

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=11, Med=9, Low=10, N/A=6

Turnover Rates

 

Statewide Turnover - Overall (leaving state service) 10.0%

9.1%

9.4%

9.1%

9.4% 8.3%

   

8.0%

7.9%

6.0%

4.0%

  

2.0%

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY08

Statewide Turnover – By Type FY05

FY06

FY07

FY08

Resignation

4.5%

4.9%

5.6%

5.0%

4.8%

Retirement

1.9%

1.9%

1.7%

1.7%

1.9%

Dismissal

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.1%

RIF/Other

2.3%

2.2%

1.8%

1.2%

1.1%

Note: Turnover due to movement to another agency averages 1.9%

Turnover rates and types

(leaving state service)



FY08

FY07

 

 

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 92































































 

Retention measure (TBD)

Statewide Turnover – By Agency





Workforce diversity profile





Turnover rate: key occupational categories



Employee survey ratings on “commitment” questions

FY04





(leaving state service)



    

Analysis:  The difference between FY06 and FY07/08 data is due to query revisions after conversion to HRMS. Prior to FY07, some nonpermanent employees were included in the turnover results.  Movement to another agency is not currently tracked in HRMS BI. Turnover due to movement to another agency averages 1.9%.  Job classes with the largest amount of turnover in FY08 were Custody and Correctional Officers, Social Workers, and Liquor Store Clerks. This correlates with the increased number of appointments in FY08 for these classifications.  Three agencies show the highest turnover:  The Department of Agriculture percentage of turnover is higher due to the agency coding their Seasonal Commodity Inspectors as exempt rather than non-permanent.  High turnover for Lottery has been attributed to retirements and losing employees to private industry.  High turnover for School for the Deaf may be due to the small number of employees in the agency.  Common reasons for Turnover reported by agencies in their October 2008 HRM report:  Promotional opportunities.  Inability to compete with higher salaries, flexible work weeks and compressed work schedules available in private sector. Action:  DOP to determine means of reporting movement to another agency turnover by October 2009 HRM report.

23

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=11, Med=9, Low=10, N/A=6

Turnover Rates

 

Statewide Turnover - Overall (leaving state service) 10.0%

9.1%

9.4%

9.1%

9.4% 8.3%

   

8.0%

7.9%

6.0%

4.0%

  

2.0%

FY03

FY04

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY08

Statewide Turnover – By Type FY05

FY06

FY07

FY08

Resignation

4.5%

4.9%

5.6%

5.0%

4.8%

Retirement

1.9%

1.9%

1.7%

1.7%

1.9%

Dismissal

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.1%

RIF/Other

2.3%

2.2%

1.8%

1.2%

1.1%

Note: Turnover due to movement to another agency averages 1.9%

Turnover rates and types

(leaving state service)



FY08

FY07

 

 

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 93































































 

Retention measure (TBD)

Statewide Turnover – By Agency





Workforce diversity profile





Turnover rate: key occupational categories



Employee survey ratings on “commitment” questions

FY04





(leaving state service)



    

Analysis:  The difference between FY06 and FY07/08 data is due to query revisions after conversion to HRMS. Prior to FY07, some nonpermanent employees were included in the turnover results.  Movement to another agency is not currently tracked in HRMS BI. Turnover due to movement to another agency averages 1.9%.  Job classes with the largest amount of turnover in FY08 were Custody and Correctional Officers, Social Workers, and Liquor Store Clerks. This correlates with the increased number of appointments in FY08 for these classifications.  Three agencies show the highest turnover:  The Department of Agriculture percentage of turnover is higher due to the agency coding their Seasonal Commodity Inspectors as exempt rather than non-permanent.  High turnover for Lottery has been attributed to retirements and losing employees to private industry.  High turnover for School for the Deaf may be due to the small number of employees in the agency.  Common reasons for Turnover reported by agencies in their October 2008 HRM report:  Promotional opportunities.  Inability to compete with higher salaries, flexible work weeks and compressed work schedules available in private sector. Action:  DOP to determine means of reporting movement to another agency turnover by October 2009 HRM report.

23

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=8, Med=19, Low=4, N/A=5

     

Workforce Diversity Profile  

 

 

 

52%

53%

53%

46.3%

Persons w/Disabilities

5%

5%

4%

7.2%

Vietnam Era Veterans

7%

7%

6%

Not available

Veterans w/Disabilities

2%

2%

2%

Not available

17.5%

18%

18%

18.9%

76%

75%

75%

Not Available

Female

People of Color

       

Persons Over 40

   

 

   

 Employee survey ratings on “commitment” questions Turnover rates and types



Turnover rate: key occupational categories Workforce diversity profile Retention measure (TBD)

     

 

Analysis:  8 agencies identified Workforce Diversity as a High priority for their agency. 19 agencies identified it as a Medium priority.  Washington State exceeds the overall Washington Labor Force in the percent of female employees by 6.7%.  Washington State is slightly below the overall Washington Labor Force in the percent of people of color by 0.9%.  Washington State trails the overall Washington Labor Force in the percent of Persons with Disabilities by 3.2% and has declined by 1% over the last year. There has been a trend of decline over the last 3 years. Action:  In August, GAAPCom, DOP, and representatives from the disability services community established an action plan to provide focused strategies for addressing the overall decrease in representation of persons with disabilities in the state workforce. Formal recommendations to GAAPCom by December 31, 2008.

   

      

   



Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 94

24

Statewide Rollup Human Resources Management Report (11/2008) October 2008 State of Washington HR Management Report

Agency Priority: High=8, Med=15, Low=6, N/A=7

 

Workforce Diversity Profile Employee Survey “Support for a Diverse Workforce” Rating

 Employee Survey "Diversity" rating      

  







     

 



 

 







 

 



 



    



Analysis:  The 2007 Employee Survey is the first time Q13, regarding agency support for a diverse work force, was included in the survey.  67% of employees indicate their agency always/usually demonstrates support for a diverse workforce.  Some agencies are putting more focus on diversity awareness not just diversity recruitment activities.  DOP’s workforce diversity committee is made up of representatives from each division. Each month the committee sponsors activities for all staff with a particular focus.  For the month of October the focus was on Disability Awareness.



Action

Employee survey ratings on “commitment” questions

 Examples of action steps described in agencies HRM Reports include:

Turnover rates and types

 Developing training for supervisors related to multi-generational differences.

Turnover rate: key occupational categories

 Increase “Respect in the Workplace” training.

Workforce diversity profile

 Increase the numbers of diversity events.

Retention measure (TBD)

 

Appendix 4: Washington Management Services Information - page 95

25

Appendix 5:

Financial Considerations for Shared Services

We are including the costing model developed by the IT Shared Services Group because the draft Natural Resource Reform Document did not include a mechanism to determine cost of doing business in a shared environment. Rather than having conflicting processes, a consistent process that ensures all costs are incorporated into the analysis of the proposed shared services is recommended.

1.1

1.2

Introduction Financing mechanics should not stand in the way of a good idea

Government’s complicated accounting and funding structure provides important safeguards and accountability to the public. However these structures can also appear as barriers to establishing shared services. This section will discuss the financial considerations and mechanics necessary for shared services and will make recommendations on removing real or perceived barriers.

This report groups financial considerations into three areas

This report groups shared services financial considerations into three areas: • Does the proposed shared service make financial sense? • What do shared service providers need to finance a shared service offering? • What do shared service consumers need to purchase a shared service offering?

Financial considerations may depend scale of the shared service

As mentioned earlier in this report, shared services can range in nature from a common, mandated service offered by one provider to an optional service that just a few agencies share in order to reduce costs. This section will try to note when the basic financial considerations would differ depending on the scale of the shared service offering.

Does the proposed shared service make financial sense? Proposers need to understand that there are several ways of looking at costs.

In considering whether to offer a shared service, one of the first questions that must be answered is whether the offering makes financial sense. Is this the best cost alternative? The answer to this question may vary depending on the perspective of the one asking the question. State government’s complex financial structure makes it important that the organization planning to offer a shared service think about the several ways in which a shared service cost/price will be compared to alternatives. 1. The total cost to government compared to an alternative approach 2. The cost for a shared service provider to provide it versus the cost for an agency to do itself. 3. Cost for the service in the private sector marketplace

Appendix 5: Financial Consideration for Shared Services - page 96

1. What is the total cost to the state compared to an alternative?

When a shared service is proposed to be used by or mandated to all state agencies, decision-makers and agencies will want to know that this approach offers the lowest total cost to the state. While ideally this cost analysis would be one part of a full cost/benefit analysis, the shared service proposer should expect that the cost analysis will receive special scrutiny.

An apples to apples comparison Decision-makers will need fair and comparable cost estimates for the proposed shared service, the status quo and any other alternatives being considered. It can be difficult to develop a perfect apples-to-apples comparison. For example, agencies currently performing the activity will likely have sunk costs in infrastructure and staff training while a new shared service provider may have significant start-up costs. Data collection and verification from agencies may require a substantial effort. Key components Yet it is possible to produce a reasonable, fair and comparable cost analysis. Some key steps include: • The scope and character of the proposed shared service must be clearly defined. • Assumptions and caveats are clearly defined. Capturing data about current costs across state government may be difficult. Assumptions will most likely have to be made, but these should be vetted with agencies to ensure the most reasonable assumptions are made. • Selecting the appropriate time period for the cost analysis to ensure that start-up costs can be recovered over a reasonable period of time and to provide an adequate picture of the life-cycle costs of the service delivery options. • Understanding current service level volumes and clearly defining desired service level volumes for the analysis. • Defining cost components of providing the service clearly to ensure the costs are treated comparably in each alternative. For example: o Direct costs - the costs of labor, goods and services clearly and directly involved in the provision of the service. o Indirect costs- These costs must be incurred in order to provide the service but it not feasible or affordable is to track them directly. Usually cost allocation, using some logical surrogate for the cost driver, is used to assign a portion of these kinds of costs to the service. (Examples include utilities, personnel services, etc.)

Appendix 5: Financial Consideration for Shared Services - page 97

o Overhead costs- These “for the good of the order” costs of an organization do not typically vary based on the size or volume of the business. (For example, the director’s office cost). These are not always included in the calculation of a service’s total cost; if so some allocation method is required. o Fixed vs. Variable costs – Determine whether it is useful to further break down the indirect and overhead costs into fixed ad variable components. • Clearly identifying the one-time start up costs for the would-be service provider, including: o Design and planning costs o Implementation costs (e.g. infrastructure, equipment, installation, initial training) • Acknowledging the sunk costs for current providers and determining the disposition of these assets and this affect on the analysis The State Auditor’s Offices review- The State Auditor’s Office is conducting an Information Services Cost Study this fall. Included in this review ing information technology cost and is an analysis of the total costs of a selected set of IT services in five agencies. The study will also compare price models the total cost of ownership to other organizations and prepare a standard pricing structure model. The outcomes of this effort may provide helpful guidance to a standard approach for analyzing the total cost to state government of service delivery alternatives. Identify benefits and when they can The analysis of the proposed mandated shared service should also consider, and if possible quantify, the be realized benefits offered by each alternative. For example, a shared service may offer reduced risks or higher service levels. The discussion of benefits should include a timeframe in which consumers or the state should expect to reap those benefits. If cost savings are expected, the proposer should indicate how actual savings could be identified and tracked as the service is implemented. Estimate the payback period and In an up-front investment is required to implement a shared service the analysis should calculate the paythe ROI back period and the return on investment over an appropriate time horizon. (If the investment is significant, the time horizon will likely be longer than one biennium.)

Appendix 5: Financial Consideration for Shared Services - page 98

2. Can the shared service provider Proof that a shared services approach will offer a cheaper total cost to government if all agencies participrovide it for less than the cost for pate may not be convincing enough to win the day if some agencies will have to pay more than they do an agency to do it itself? currently. How can this happen? If a shared service makes financial sense for the state as a whole, why won’t it provide a better deal for each agency? There are several reasons why this might happen: • An agency might be at a very high level of maturity and cost efficiency in a certain service area. The new shared service provider may not be able to match this level of expertise. While its service price is a great deal for most agencies, it’s more than the current cost for this particular high-performing agency. • The customer agency can eliminate its direct and variable indirect costs related to providing a service that now will be purchased as a shared service. If the shared service price is more than the eliminated costs, the customer agency will face more out-of-pocket costs as a result. This could happen especially in situations where the shared service provider agency has to recover all agency costs, including overhead, in its rates. • The customer agency is still depreciating the investments it made to provide the service in house. If it makes sense for the state, why When confronted with a shared service price, agencies must consider whether this price can be accommodoes the agency impact matter? dated within the agency’s budget. If the agency’s out-of-pocket costs increase significantly, they may have a problem. Funding the shared service provider directly with a general fund appropriation can eliminate this problem. Under the current realities of the state budget, however, it is unlikely that many shared services would be funded through a general fund appropriation. (When shared service costs are billed to all fund sources, the state general fund usually pays only half of the total cost of the service.) Thus most shared services costs will be recovered through charges to service consumers. The impact of an increased out-of-pocket cost can be mitigated for agencies receiving appropriations by increasing their appropriation sufficient to cover the cost increase (and reducing the appropriation to agencies who will receive a cost savings). However, agencies paying for services with dedicated funding sources will not receive an actual appropriation. To cover the shared service cost increase, they will have to either use existing fund balance if that is available, find savings somewhere else in their budget or, as a last resort, consider raising fees or revenues assuming permission can be received to do so (unlikely).

Appendix 5: Financial Consideration for Shared Services - page 99

These kinds of anomalies can prove to be a significant barrier to the credible implementation of shared services. “I thought this was supposed to save money,” will be the cry of those worried about cuts to services in certain agencies. These concerns need not be a showstopper for implementing a shared service that makes sense for the state. But the service provider should be aware of potential financial losers and consider ways to mitigate the situation. 3. How does the price compare If the proposed shared service is one that is also available in the marketplace, its price will be compared to what the private sector charges to the market price. If the shared service cannot be offered at market price or better, the shared service for this service? should not be offered unless other non-financial benefits make the state government offering worth this price premium. Do considerations differ if the When a mandated central service is proposed, the proposer should address each of the questions above. service is mandated or an optional The statewide impact and scope of potential change raises the bar of scrutiny. multi-party service? For a smaller-scale optional service, it may only be necessary to address the second two questions. Potential customers will assess the price and value of the service offering relative to alternatives to determine whether to use the service. In cases where the proposer would need to request start-up capital for the optional service, however, they would likely need to prepare a smaller scale cost benefit analysis to make the business case for funding. Recommendations

1.3

• Develop an easy-to-use cost comparison model that would help shared services proposers and decision-makers analyze whether the proposed offering makes financial sense. • A budget approach is needed to enable the state to take advantage of alternatives that reduce the total cost to government without causing financial hardship to individual agencies.

What do providers need to finance the service? Providers need financing tools and Proving the business case for a shared service is just the first step. Next, the service provider will need dollars some financial tools and probably some start-up money to stand-up the service and make it available to others.

Appendix 5: Financial Consideration for Shared Services - page 100

Access to an internal service fund and permission to recover costs

An internal service fund is a type of account used by government entities providing services to other government entities in manner similar to those in the private sector. Rather than receiving an appropriation to cover costs for a set period, activities in an internal service fund collect revenue for their services and retain an ongoing fund balance.

A Revolving Fund might offer an A Revolving Fund as an internal service fund may be established to support a business-type financing model account mechanism for shared for shared services like IT has: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/fund/400/fund419.htm . While current users of the services fund are primarily those listed in law (DIS, OFM, DOP), the statute does allow for DIS and OFM to approve other users. OFM could manage a process to review and approve access to the fund for shared services operations. Shared service providers also need permission to recover costs for the services they provide. Whether access to an internal service fund automatically conveys that authority needs to be confirmed. A way to cover start-up and capi- When an entrepreneur has a promising new business idea, she seeks investment capital to start operations. tal costs The capital covers the costs of infrastructure, set-up, and initial operations. As the business operates successfully it repays the investors over time and provides enough revenue to be self-sustaining. Shared service operations have the same needs for start-up and infrastructure financing. If the shared service provider has to recover these initial costs as they go, early adopters of the service will pay a disproportionate share of the start-up costs. Also, it will be very difficult for the price to compare favorably to market offerings. Appropriation or investment capi- Here are several ideas for how to finance shared service start up costs. tal? Fund the start-up and infrastructure costs with an appropriation in the budget. In this case rates would not have to include these initial one-time costs. • Provide a one-time infusion of capital into a Revolving Fund to be used as seed money for shared service initiatives. OFM or new shared service governance body, could manage a process that would determine which shared service proposals would receive start-up funding. These shared services providers could make up-front investments and then depreciate these costs over time. Rates would be set to recover these depreciation costs, restoring the capital to the fund to be available for future shared service proposals. Some benefits of this approach: o Because the start-up costs are spread over a reasonable recovery period, rates would be more affordable and comparable to the private sector.

Appendix 5: Financial Consideration for Shared Services - page 101

o This approach is also consistent with the federal government’s move to disallow application development costs from administrative cost reimbursement, but to allow depreciation costs of those assets to be reimbursed. o This approach does not require waiting for budget windows to move forward with good ideas. o This approach is especially suited to small-scale, optional shared services, where a number of agencies would like to come together to minimize costs of operations. This second approach would be a relatively new approach for state government. It might make sense to pilot this approach with one or two initial services, to gain experience and confidence with such a mechanism. • A variation of this approach would be to accumulate this capital by adding a temporary minor surcharge on bills of providers currently using the fund. When the agreed-upon capital fund amount was reached, the surcharge would be removed from the billings. Use of this investment fund would operate in the same manner as described above. • Sometimes several agencies can achieve more than they could alone by pooling their existing resources. Providing some mechanism, like access to a Revolving Fund to enable agencies to pool the funds necessary to implement a cost effective shared service would be an approach that could work in some circumstances without new funding being required. Help in establishing a successful chargeback process

We assume that in most cases, shared services costs would be recovered through some kind of chargeback process to customer agencies. Providers may need guidance and assistance in how to set up a successful chargeback process. A complete cost recovery process includes the following components: • Cost recovery principles and objectives • Cost recovery structure definitions (e.g. cost classifications, cost pool definitions, cost allocation rules, service unit and customer definitions, timekeeping data elements, etc.) • Pre-implementation chargeback modeling o Customer demand and unit estimates o Cost-to-meet demand estimates o Service cost modeling o Pricing analysis

Appendix 5: Financial Consideration for Shared Services - page 102

o Customer cost impact modeling • Service and cost definition refinement with customers o Rate/cost preview o Service level agreement discussions o Budget revisions and model updates o Finalizing budget, rates, and service levels • Service delivery – cost and other data capture • Cost recovery • Data analysis and refinements o Actual vs. planned While a service agency provider may have expertise and tools to support each of these components, an agency wishing to offer a small scale shared service may need help in one or more of these areas. Things to think about when setting service prices

In setting a price for the shared service, providers need to think about a price that meets key customer criteria, provides financial stability, is manageable, provides continuous improvement, and meets federal and state audit requirements.

The provider should think about the customers’ financial priorities and how they affect the pricing ap--Customer criteria proach. Here are some fundamental issues for customers: • Simplicity – Is the billing method easy to explain and understand? • Transparency—Can the customer really know what they are paying for? • Fairness—Will customers feel they are paying for a fair share of the service? • Predictability—Is there an assurance that there will be little difference in what the customer budgeted for service and the actual charge? • Controllability—If this is a usage based rate, does the price give the customer some opportunity to actively manage their costs? • Comparability—Does the service definition and the pricing method enable the customer to compare the cost of the shared provider with other options?

Appendix 5: Financial Consideration for Shared Services - page 103

Appendix 6:

Potential Revenue Source Funding - Water Right Fee

Water Right Fee Proposal

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 104

“We will develop funding strategies to provide adequate and reliable operating and capital funding for water resource management that incorporates, as appropriate, user fees, permit fees, and capital financing.”

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 105

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 106

The Water Resources Program is primarily funded by the Washington State General Fund. 2009-2011 budget shortfalls reduced Water Resources capacity by 14 FTEs to 156, and $4.7 million from the budget. Further reductions could occur after the September forecast.

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 107

Even without budget cuts, the Water Resources Program is critically underfunded by the General Fund. In order to carry out the program’s mission, there is a need to increase funding for: -Purchasing senior water rights dedicated to instream flows. - State wide water banking development. - Additional adjudication funding. - Surface and groundwater monitoring. - Enforcement. -Climate change adaption Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 108

More needs: - State water plan. - Certified water right examiner program (CWRE). -Water right database required for administering and collecting the annual use fee. (Data Warehouse)

- Water rights & claims billing database - GIS mapping - User interfaces

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 109

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 110

Establish dedicated funding through an increase in permitting fees and a new annual use fee. Raise ~$73 million in revenues annually to support an effective and sustainable Water Resources Program (operations). Expand staffing to an estimated 290 FTEs.

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 111

•Information based water management •Improved water project development •Relinquishment and adjudication resolution •Enforcement and protection of rights •Increased frequency of instream flow achievement •Climate change management •Improved conservation and public education •Increased permitted water rights •Economic growth in Washington State

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 112

2009-2011 budget shortfalls reduced Water Resources permitting capacity 22 FTEs. This is a 39% capacity reduction in permitting water rights.

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 113

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 114

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 115

It’s estimated every acre foot of water Ecology permits, it generates $18,000 in annual revenue. A permit writer and ancillary support costs the state approximately $200,000 annually . A permit writer averages 1100 permitted acre feet of water per year. One permit writer generates about $20 million in annual goods and services for Washington.

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 116

Operating costs for these 22 FTEs cost the state $4.4 million. It’s estimated this will reduce annual goods and services in Washington State by $440 million each year. This loss in revenue compounds every year.

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 117

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 118

•Supply/Demand equilibrium not met. •Water economic value is increasing. •Free water cannot sustain supply.

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 119

Only if the resource is free!

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 120

1. Charge fees for use of the resource! 2. Make system a win for everyone!

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 121

Constraints Assumptions Methodology Recommendation Administrative Issues

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 122

•Fees must generate $73 million in revenue to support 290 FTEs and additional projects. •Funding sources must be relatively stable. •Fees must be implemented by July 2011. •System structure must benefit everyone.

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 123

•One time fees should reflect the cost of the departments action. •Fees associated with adjudication should generate the cost of the adjudication. •Annual fees should support all other functions not supported by one time fees. •All billed revenues will not be collectible.

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 124

•Calculate estimated revenues from one time fees and annual fees. •Determine remaining revenue needs. •Determine target revenue needs including uncollectables. •Identify incentives to make system work.

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 125

Fee Schedule Summary

Proposed Fees

One Time Fees Application Change or Transfer Other Annual Fees Domestic Commercial Agriculture Hydropower

What revenue would this Generate?

$1000 minimum $1000 minimum

$20 per user $10 per acre foot $5 per acre foot $0.10 per Kilowatt capacity

$500,000 $1,000,000

$52,000,000 $11,000,000 $23,000,000 $2,500,000 Total

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 126

$90 million

•Unused water goes into trust/bank •Re-permitted water gives portion of rent back to WR holder. •Available water is system reaches supply demand equilibrium. •Users needs met, system efficiency, economic recovery.

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 127

•One time and filing fees will be paid directly to Ecology. •Ecology will contract with DOR and Counties to collect annual fees. •Ecology establish statewide water banking program.

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 128

•Creates a stable revenue source for effective resource management. •Promotes conservation and efficient use. •Self adjudicates the entire state. •Provides users and developers certainty. •Promotes a healthy economy for Washington’s future.

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 129

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 130

Are we willing to ask them?

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 131

•Free water is unsustainable. •Future water management requires dedicated funding sources. •Water Resources program cannot effectively manage the waters of the state with current funding. •Projected revenues under the general fund will cripple water rights management, environmental protection and efficient allocation of water for our economy.

The time to act is now!

Appendix 6: Potential Revenue Funding Source “Water Right Fee” - page 132