Department of Parking and Traffic_Section 1.1
|
Based on our analysis, we found that the Enforcement Division is unable to provide an adequate level of enforcement services throughout the City primarily because of high absenteeism among PCOs. If absenteeism were reduced, significantly more PCOs would be available for work, thereby increasing the level of enforcement services that could be provided.
In order to more closely examine PCO absenteeism, we first attempted to quantify the level of PCO absenteeism and to identify the reasons behind it. To do so, we randomly selected 14 pay periods over the two-year period from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1998, and obtained a listing of all PCO absences, by day, employee and type of absence, for each day of those 14 pay periods. In order to determine the number of scheduled shifts during this timeframe, we obtained copies of the scheduled PCO assignments in effect during the 14 pay periods. From this data, we calculated a productivity factor for PCOs, i.e., the number of shifts actually worked divided by the number of shifts scheduled. In addition, we reviewed the Department"s and Enforcement Division"s existing policies and procedures for employee attendance.
Parking Control Officer Absenteeism
Using our database of PCO absences, we added up the number of all types of PCO absences, divided this figure by the number of scheduled shifts, and annualized the results. Based on our analysis, we found that approximately 25 percent of PCOs scheduled to work are absent from work on any given day. Even after factoring out PCOs who are on long-term disability and sick leave, we found that approximately 20 percent of PCOs with regular assignments are absent on any given day. In addition, we found that the highest level of absenteeism takes place on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, indicating that PCOs scheduled to work on weekend days are more likely to be absent. Table 1.1-1 below shows the number and percentage of absences by type of absence and day of week. Table 1.1-1 PCOs Absences by Day of Week and Reason, Annualized (1996 - 98)
Table 1.1-1 illustrates that workers compensation is the number one cause of absenteeism among PCOs, resulting in an estimated 5,955 lost days per year (the equivalent of 23 full-time PCOs). Additionally, authorized vacation and compensatory time off represents the second largest type of absence, followed by paid sick leave. Overall, the 17,069 absences per year represents the equivalent of 65 PCOs who are unavailable to work over the course of an entire year. However, it should be noted, that, given the nature of PCO work (e.g., outdoor work, the psychological and physical stresses of the job), a higher than normal absentee rate should be expected.
As shown in Table 1.1-1, if vacations, compensatory time off, holidays, and family leave are excluded, there are 12,157 absences annually (the equivalent of 47 PCOs), which represent 71 percent of total absences or 17 percent of scheduled shifts. Since each PCO generates an estimated $194,502 per year in revenue, these 12,157 absences result in a loss of potential revenue of up to $9,141,594 per year to the City ($194,502 x 47 PCOs). In addition, of the 12,157 absences, 3,207 absences (12 FTEs) represent paid sick leave. Thus, at an annual salary (including fringe benefits) for PCOs of $48,907, this corresponds to $586,884 in costs that the City is absorbing on an annual basis for paid sick leave. As such, the total cost to the City for these types of absences is $9,728,478 annually ($9,141,594 plus $586,884).
PCO Attendance in Comparison to Departmental Attendance Standards
Each division within DPT has its own policies and procedures manual. The Enforcement Division"s Policies and Procedures Manual, which was first issued in December of 1997, establishes attendance standards specifically for sick leave use, describes procedures for obtaining approval for anticipated absences, and specifies disciplinary actions that may be taken against employees who fail to follow policies and procedures.For example, employees with excessive sick leave use may be subject to counseling, sick leave restrictions (in which employees must provide a doctor"s report certifying all periods of illness), suspension, and even dismissal, depending on the severity of the abuse. In addition, employees with excessive sick leave are ineligible to work overtime for a period of 90 days. While the manual also specifies penalties against employees with unexcused absences (AWOL), it does not establish overall attendance standards or penalties.
Based on our discussions with Enforcement Division managers, we found that these policies and procedures are inconsistently enforced. According to DPT, the Enforcement Division Administration prints out a list of all sick leave absences on a semiannual basis, which is examined in order to identify potential abusers of sick leave. However, the last time any penalties were imposed as a result of such a review was in January of 1998. DPT reports that, although a list of all sick leave absences was generated in July of 1998 and warning letters were sent out to offenders, no penalties were imposed against any of the sick leave abusers identified.
In addition, as of the writing of this report, there was no Department-wide policies and procedures manual. However, we obtained a draft copy of a Policy and Procedures Manual which is currently being developed by DPT Administration. This manual contains a section on attendance, which includes attendance standards for evaluating overall employee attendance. Although the manual states that employees who fail to comply with attendance standards may be subject to disciplinary action, it does not mention any specific penalties, such as sick leave restrictions, suspension, and dismissal, which may be imposed upon such employees.
In order to evaluate PCO attendance, we compared PCO attendance data from our listing of PCO absences provided by the Enforcement Division to the proposed criteria established for attendance in the Department-wide Policies and Procedures Manual. These criteria, which are applicable to all absences except holidays, vacation, compensatory time off, and absences allowed under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California Family Rights Act (CFRA), are as follows: Table 1.1-2 Proposed Attendance Standards for DPT Employees
| Rating | No. of Absences per Year |
| Outstanding | 0 - 4 days |
| Exceeds Standards | 4.1 - 8 days |
| Competent & Effective | 8.1 - 13 days |
| Development Needed | 13.1 - 14 days |
| Unacceptable | > 14 days |
We added up the number of absences in our database for each individual PCO by type of absence. As noted earlier, excluding holidays, vacation, compensatory time off and family leave, there were 12,157 such absences (the equivalent of 47 PCOs who are unavailable for work over the course of an entire year). The mean number of such absences per PCO was 41 days per year, while the median was 19. The highest number of absences of 244 days (out of a possible 261 shifts) resulted from a PCO on workers compensation leave. A breakdown of the number of PCOs falling within each of the categories shown above is exhibited in Table 1.1-3 on the following page. Table 1.1-3 PCO Attendance as Measured Against DPT"s Proposed Attendance Standards
| No. of Absences | No. of PCOs | % of | |
| Rating | per Year | in this Category | PCOs |
| Outstanding | 0 - 4 days | 36 | 12% |
| Exceeds Standards | 4.1 - 8 days | 33 | 11% |
| Competent & Effective | 8.1 - 13 days | 48 | 17% |
| Development Needed | 13.1 - 14 days | 15 | 5% |
| Unacceptable | > 14 days | 159* | 55% |
| Total | 291 | 100% | |
| * This includes 83 PCOs on disability leave who had more than 14 absences in one year. | |||
As illustrated in Table 1.1-3, over one-half (55 percent) of PCOs have unacceptable attendance ratings, and an additional five percent of PCOs fall into the category of "Development Needed", for a total of 60 percent of PCOs who do not meet acceptable standards for attendance.
Sick Leave Abuse
The Department-wide Policies and Procedures Manual lists certain factors which may be considered by supervisors when evaluating employee attendance, including:
- Whether absenteeism is occurring in conjunction with other days off;
- Whether there appears to be patterns of sick leave usage (e.g., sick days adjacent to regularly scheduled days off, holidays, etc.); and
- Whether the employee is persistently overstaying vacations, holidays, and other excused absences.
Using our database of PCO absences, we examined the use of paid sick leave by PCOs in relation to other excused absences and regularly scheduled days off. Based on our analysis, we found that 964 paid sick days, or 56 percent of the 1,720 paid sick days taken, were taken on days adjacent to regularly scheduled days off, holidays, or vacation days. For example, paid sick days were often taken on Fridays and Mondays by PCOs who normally had Saturdays and Sundays off. In addition, PCOs often used paid sick leave to extend their vacations and holidays. The high percentage of sick leave that fell on days adjacent to regularly scheduled days off, holidays, and vacation days, strongly indicates that paid sick leave is being abused by PCOs.
Other Factors Affecting PCO Productivity
As part of this analysis, we also examined PCO performance and the measures that are in place to track it. PCOs are required to fill out a "PCO Daily Report", on which each PCO must report the number of hours spent during his/her shift performing different types of activities, e.g., patrol, tow routes, travel, breaks, etc. In addition, this form provides space for each PCO to record all the citations issued (by type of violation) during his/her shift, in one-hour intervals. PCOs hand in the forms at the end of their shifts to PCO Supervisors for their review.
This method of measuring PCO performance is inadequate, however, because PCOs are required to report their activities in only one-hour intervals. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether a PCO has been working consistently throughout his/her shift, or if, for example, a PCO has issued citations during only the first five minutes of each one-hour interval, and then was unproductive for the rest of the hour. In addition, the process of hand-writing tickets has led to a high number of contested citations resulting from PCO errors and/or illegibility.
The Department is now in the process of equipping each PCO with electronic handheld ticket writing devices, which will eventually replace the conventional method of hand-writing each citation. As of the writing of this report, approximately 120 PCOs had been trained in the use of these devices. The Department expects that all PCOs will be trained to use the handheld devices by May 1, 1999. In addition to allowing PCOs to generate tickets electronically, the new devices will enable Enforcement Division managers and supervisors to generate reports that can be used to improve the tracking of PCO performance. For example, PCO Supervisors will be able to generate reports showing the exact time at which tickets were issued by a particular PCO during his/her shift. Thus, a PCO Supervisor could confirm whether or not a particular PCO was issuing citations during only a small portion of each one-hour interval. The improved monitoring of PCO activity will act as an incentive for certain PCOs to improve their productivity, or else face disciplinary action. In addition, electronically generated citations will reduce the number of tickets that are contested due to PCO errors and/or the illegibility of a PCO"s handwriting.
Other Opportunities for Improvement
In order to reduce the level of absenteeism among PCOs, DPT Administration should finish, as expeditiously as possible, the Department-wide Policies and Procedures Manual that is currently being developed. This manual, which was only in draft form when we reviewed it, should also be revised to establish specific penalties against employees who fail to comply with attendance standards. These department-wide policies and procedures for attendance should supercede all other existing policies and procedures regarding attendance, as delineated in other procedures and policies manuals maintained by each division throughout the Department.
In addition, DPT managers and supervisors, particularly in the Enforcement Division, need to actively and regularly enforce policies and procedures regarding attendance. Employee attendance should be tracked and evaluated on a quarterly basis, and all employees exceeding the acceptable number of absences during each quarter should be notified. Employees who consistently fail to meet acceptable attendance standards should be penalized.
DPT should also consider implementing incentive programs in order to reward employees for showing up to work. For example, the Police Department has implemented a "Wellness Program", under which sworn employees with accrued sick leave of at least 300 hours, who use 30 hours or less of sick leave in a given year, are entitled to cash out 50 hours of sick leave accrued during that fiscal year. The cost of this program is partially offset by savings in the decreased use of sick days and overtime pay related to the backfilling of sick days. A similar program that combined rewards in the form of compensatory time off and/or cash payments could be implemented at DPT. The cost of such a program would depend on the extent to which DPT employees qualified and took advantage of such a program, and would be offset by reductions in sick and overtime pay.
Additionally, since workers compensation represents the number one reason for PCO absenteeism, the Department must also address the problems associated with the workers compensation system. This issue is further discussed in Section 2 of this report.
If the 299 existing PCOs were to meet the proposed attendance standard of 13 or less absences per year (excluding holidays, vacation, compensatory time off, and family leave), the current rate of absenteeism could be reduced from 12,157 lost days per year to 3,887 lost days per year, or a reduction of 8,270 absences (68 percent). This is the equivalent of 32 additional PCOs available to work over the course of an entire year. As a result, there would be better enforcement of parking and traffic regulations throughout the City, thereby resulting in increased turnover of parking spaces, reduced traffic congestion, and better response to complaints from the public. In addition, based on the average revenue per PCO of $194,502 per year, these 32 PCOs could potentially generate as much as $6,224,064 in additional revenue annually.
The Enforcement Division should establish a goal to reduce absenteeism among PCOs by at least 25 percent (3,039 absences), or from 12,157 absences to 9,118 absences annually (excluding holidays, vacation, compensatory time off, and family leave). This would provide the equivalent of 11 more PCOs available for deployment. Based on the average revenue per PCO of $194,502 per year, these 11 PCOs would generate as much as $2,139,522 in additional revenues to the City annually. Moreover, reduced PCO absenteeism would improve DPT"s ability to provide an adequate level of enforcement services throughout the City.
Conclusions
Based on our analysis, we found that DPT is unable to provide an adequate level of enforcement services throughout the City primarily because of high absenteeism among PCOs.
On average, approximately 25 percent of PCOs are not available to work their scheduled shifts on any given day. This is the equivalent of 65 PCOs who are unavailable for work over the course of an entire year. Even when vacation, compensatory time off, holidays, and family leave are excluded, PCO absenteeism results in 12,157 lost days per year, or the equivalent of 47 PCOs. The total cost to the City of PCO absenteeism is nearly $9.7 million annually.
In addition, we found that policies and procedures regarding attendance are not enforced consistently. As a result, 60 percent of PCOs do not meet acceptable standards for attendance. There is also strong evidence indicating the abuse of paid sick leave.
DPT should formally establish and consistently enforce employee attendance standards and consider implementing incentive programs to reward employees for showing up to work. By reducing absenteeism, DPT could add the equivalent of between 11 and 32 PCOs, which would improve the enforcement of parking and traffic regulations throughout the City and result in increased turnover of parking spaces, reduced traffic congestion, and better response to complaints. Also, additional revenues of between $2.1 million and $6.2 million could be generated annually.
Recommendations
DPT Administration should:
1.1-1 Complete the Department-wide Policies and Procedures Manual, which should contain specific penalties against employees who fail to comply with Departmental attendance standards.
The Enforcement Director should:
1.1-2 Consistently and regularly enforce the Department"s and/or Enforcement Division"s policies and procedures regarding attendance.
1.1-3 Consider implementing incentive programs, such as the Police Department"s Wellness Program, in order to reward employees for showing up to work.
1.1-4 Establish a goal to reduce absenteeism (excluding vacation, holidays, compensatory time off, and family leave) among PCOs by at least 25 percent.
Savings/Benefits
Reducing absenteeism would be equivalent to adding between 11 and 32 additional PCOs. This would lead to improved enforcement of parking and traffic regulations throughout the City, thereby resulting in increased turnover of parking spaces, reduced traffic congestion, and better response to complaints from the public. In addition, DPT could generate between $2,139,522 and $6,224,064 in additional revenues to the City annually.