LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT

To: Members of the Board of Supervisors

From: Adam Van de Water, Office of the Legislative Analyst

Date: February 1, 2005

RE: Provisional Employee Hiring Practices (BOS No. 041274) (OLA No. 026-04)

Summary and Scope of Request

Supervisor Ammiano, through the Board, requested that the Office of the Legislative Analyst (OLA) compare and contrast other California municipalities’ practices of hiring and promoting provisional employees.

Provisional Employment in San Francisco

The City and County of San Francisco has 25,436 employees and 1,307 job classifications ¹. Of these job classifications, 998 are subject to the City’s civil service examination process and 309 are exempt from it ². For an employee to be hired into one of the 998 civil service classifications, they must take a civil service exam and the appointing officer (typically the department head or personnel officer) must hire them from the appropriate list of eligible employees maintained by the Department of Human Resources (DHR). Eligible lists expire after six to 24 months and can be extended for a maximum of one year by the DHR Director.

If a classification list is expired or exhausted or if the available position requires a special condition that no eligible member of that list has (particular certification or language proficiency, for example), then DHR can give the appointing officer the authority to hire a provisional employee. Provisional employees (PVs) must:

• be selected as part of a competitive application process based on merit, equal opportunity, and, if promotive, consideration of performance appraisal ratings and seniority;
• meet the minimum qualifications established for the position in the last permanent civil service hiring process; and
• complete the civil service examination for that classification the next time it is offered.

The Human Resources Director makes policies and procedures for all provisional appointments³. DHR Memorandum 34-01 spells out these policies and procedures in detail and specifies that provisional appointments serve at the will of the appointing officer and, unless extended by the Director, can be made for a maximum duration of 6 months (1,040 hours). Charter Section 10.105 (added in 1996) further requires Board of Supervisors approval for any provisional appointment extended by the Director for more than three years.

For the past several years, DHR has been under direction to reduce the number of civil service classifications citywide. Table I below shows the results of this effort alongside the number of provisional employees over the past seven years.

As of September 2004 there were 995 provisional employees working in the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), or approximately four percent of the total workforce of the City. This is down from a high of 3,918 in 1998 or 15 percent of the total CCSF workforce (see Table I below). According to Marsha Stroope, Director of Recruitment and Assessment Services, this reduction can be largely explained by the passage of the 1996 Charter amendment limiting PVs to three-year time limits unless extended by the Board.

According to Ms. Stroope, the Department only has the capacity to complete 200-300 eligible lists per year and therefore has always had a backlog of civil service examinations. Currently, just 39 percent of classifications (387 of the total 998 civil service classifications) have eligible lists. A June 2004 DHR Report on Provisional Employment found 257 classifications had at least one PV acting in that class and that number is growing with an average of 50 classifications added to the list in each six-month period.

Recent reductions to examination staff (down 29 percent from 40.45 FTE in 2001-2002 to 28.83 FTE for 2004-2005) has further constrained the Department’s ability to keep up with the creation of eligible civil service lists. These layoffs correspond directly to a marginal increase in the number of PVs (again, see Table I above) and has fueled speculation that the number of PVs will only further increase, as fewer DHR employees will be available to administer new class examinations.

Practices in Other CA Jurisdictions

The use of PVs is not uncommon in other California jurisdictions although none of the cities or counties surveyed utilized them nearly to the degree that San Francisco does ⁴. All jurisdictions required appointing officers to first select from an eligible list (other than San Jose, which in 2003 completed a move to a position-based hiring system) and to ensure that all PVs met the minimum qualifications established for that classification.

However, all other surveyed jurisdictions had significantly shorter maximum periods in which PVs could serve and all jurisdictions – other than San Francisco – treated PVs as temporary employees who did not qualify for health care or retirement benefits.

Table II below compares the number of provisional employees in San Francisco to those in other large California municipalities and the State of California.

Policy Options and Conclusion

Phil Ginsburg, Director of the Department of Human Resources, is in the process of updating the Department’s policies and procedures as they relate to provisional employees and took the first step on January 11, 2005 in issuing DHR Memorandum #01-2005: Policies and Procedures for Provisional Appointments ⁵. This memo reiterates the Department’s procedures as outlined above and specifies that requests for provisional appointments will be subject to review by DHR which will first determine if a layoff holdover or eligible worker’s compensation or disability employee could fill the position.

However, the larger debate of civil service system reform appears to be gathering momentum and there are a number of short- and long-term policy options the Board and the Department could consider should they wish to reduce the number of provisional employees. These include:

1. Hire more DHR staff and increase their capacity to produce more eligible lists.
2. Extend the expiration dates of eligible lists beyond the current 6 to 24 months.
3. Shorten the length of provisional appointments to be more in-line with neighboring jurisdictions with a maximum of 120 days or less.
4. No longer provide health and retirement benefits to provisional employees as is the case in other surveyed jurisdictions.

   Long-term

5. Simplify the testing process or continue to collapse classifications such that a higher percentage of classifications have eligible lists.
6. Move to a position-based hiring system akin to that in San Jose.

Further exploration or enactment of any of these options is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors and the Department of Human Resources.

Appendix A: Provisional Appointments in comparable CA jurisdictions ⁶

Los Angeles

According to the Department of Personnel, the City of Los Angeles has between 200 and 300 "Emergency Appointments" at any given time. These appointments have a maximum time period of 120 days which can be (but in practice rarely are) extended for an additional 120 days. Emergency Appointments in Los Angeles do not receive health or retirement benefits.

Los Angeles County

Civil Service Rule 13.04 specifies the City’s policy regarding "Emergency Appointments" when there is no appropriate eligible list or no people available on that eligible list or when the appointing authority certifies that an emergency exists. Rule 13.04 limits emergency appointments to 90 days and specifies that, "an emergency exists when:

1. Life, health or property is in jeopardy;
2. The immediate employment of a currently available applicant is imperative because of extreme recruitment difficulties;
3. The work program of a county department will be impaired if the position is left vacant, and the work cannot be deferred or reassigned;
4. A vacancy will result in failure to perform legally required functions or to meet deadlines imposed by law."

According to Human Resources Manager Sandra Taylor who sees all Emergency Appointments prior to final approval, "it is rare that we have any" Emergency Appointments.

Oakland

The City of Oakland rarely makes provisional appointments and had one of the lowest rates of provisional employees of those jurisdictions surveyed. There is a 120-day maximum period for PVs (which can be but is rarely extended by the Director of Personnel) and, unless they were City employees immediately prior to and continuous to their new appointment, PVs do not receive City benefits. According to Personnel Supervisor Jacquelyn Edwards, this gives the employee, as well as the City, the incentive to move out of provisional employment and into a permanent position.

San Jose

On March 7, 2003, the City of San Jose amended its civil service rules, completing a roughly ten-year process to move from a civil service classification-based hiring system to one based on position. Applicants for most positions ⁷ are no longer required to complete a civil service exam to be considered for employment and instead submit a three-page Employment Application (or a resume and cover letter) and Job Specific Questions or Supplemental Questionnaire. For some positions this can be done directly online at http://jobs.cityofsj.org. The city creates position descriptions and minimum qualifications for every vacancy creating, according to a staff report to City Council, improved speed, flexibility, quality of hire, and integrity.

As a result, the City has not hired a PV since 1996 and has seen an increase in overall customer satisfaction due to a nearly 50 percent reduction in the time required to fill a vacancy ⁸.

San Diego County

Provisional appointments in San Diego County can be temporary or permanent and, per Civil Service Rules Section 4.27, cannot "exceed six (6) months or (30) thirty days after a list of eligibles is available for certification from a reinstatement or regular list for the class, whichever comes first. The appointing officer may terminate such an appointment earlier within the authorized period of time.

City of San Diego

According to Rule VII of the Civil Service Rules, "In no case shall a provisional appointment continue longer than 60 calendar days, nor shall there be successive provisional appointments of the same person." The rule makes one exception: retired City employees may return to a position in which they have special skills or knowledge for up to 90 working days in any one calendar year.

State of California

The California State Personnel Board administers the classification system for the state. In the absence of an eligible list, departments can hire so-called "Temporary Authorizations" for a maximum period of nine months. Temporary Authorizations (TAUs) must meet the minimum qualifications for the available position and must take the applicable civil service exam before the end of that nine-month period. As temporary employees, TAUs do not receive health and retirement benefits and are terminated at the end of the nine-month period if they do not complete and score high enough on the relevant exam to be hired on a permanent basis.

Because the state has been under a hiring freeze for much of the last three years and eligible lists can now be continued indefinitely, there are plenty of eligible employees and little need to hire TAUs. As a result, Daisy McKenzie in the Exam Services Section at the State Personnel Board estimates that the State has, at most, 100 TAUs statewide at any given time.

^{1 Department of Human Resources, Index of Active Civil Service and Exempt Classes Positions Budgeted by City and County Departments excluding MTA only, School Districts and Courts Classes. August 12, 2004.}

^{2 Exempt classifications consist largely of elected or appointed officials and their immediate staff, attorneys in the Public Defender’s, District Attorney’s and City Attorney’s Offices, and Police Department command staff.}

³ Other than service critical classes in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority which, per Civil Service Commission Rule 414, the MTA Director appoints.

⁴ Note: The OLA has not verified the extent to which other hiring methods were used that may have alleviated pressures on provisional employment (including the possible increased use of temporary or other non-permanent classifications) nor has the OLA compared personnel staffing levels in the other jurisdictions. Either of these could explain at least some of the difference shown in Table II.

5 Available on the Department’s web site at http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dhr/DHR01-05.pdf.

^{6 The OLA is in the process of further exploring the means of promoting non-civil service employees in other jurisdictions and comparing this to the current practices in San Francisco. This information is forthcoming.}

^{7 While there are still a few eligible lists for sworn police and fire classifications, according to Employment Manager Sarah Nunes, they are rarely used.}

^{8 Based on surveys given to employee representatives, hiring managers, and department hiring liaisons during an initial two-year pilot program, which found a reduction in hiring times from an average of 130 days to an average of 68 days.}