Johnson County Government Kansas

Johnson County Government, Kansas

Workforce Trends & Analysis

FY 2012









March 31, 2011









Department of Human Resources

Johnson County Government

111 South Cherry Street, Suite 2600

Olathe, KS 66061-3441

913-715-1400

Fax 913-715-1419

http://hr.jocogov.org

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas









Table of Contents



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................3





INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................5





WORKFORCE TRENDS & IMPLICATIONS ..........................................6

Legal Developments ........................................................................................... 6

Employment Trends.......................................................................................... 10

Employee Engagement & Retention Trends..................................................... 13

Compensation & Benefits Trends ..................................................................... 18





SUMMARY/HIGHLIGHTS OF PROGRESS ....................................... 22

2011-2012 Staff Initiatives and Areas of Focus ................................................ 23

2011-2012 Recommendations for Future Board Action .................................... 24





APPENDICES .................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX A: 2010 DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................... 27

APPENDIX B: 2010 EMPLOYEE RETENTION ............................................... 29

APPENDIX C: 2010 TURNOVER .................................................................... 32

APPENDIX D: 2010 EXIT INTERVIEW DATA ................................................. 43

APPENDIX E: RETIREMENT .......................................................................... 44

APPENDIX F: MARKET COMPETITIVE PAY ................................................. 50

APPENDIX G: MARKET COMPETITIVE BENEFITS ...................................... 54









Page 2 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas





EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



Analyzing current and historical employee data and understanding the impact of social,

economic, legal, and political trends on the workplace enables the County to gain insight

into current and anticipated workforce needs. In today’s rapidly changing and uncertain

environment, the County continues to be challenged to implement creative workforce

planning strategies that ensure the organization employs the talent needed to deliver

excellent service to the public, now and in the future.



Similar to last year, the report summarizes progress on previous recommendations and

includes future year action plans that address total rewards strategies for 2011 and 2012,

balancing the need for short term action with the need to prepare the organization for the

future. These plans include areas of focus for staff as well as recommendations that

require future Board approval.



2011-2012 Areas of Focus

 Continue internal staffing process to migrate staff to higher-demand positions, where

possible.

 Educate leaders and staff of “partial plus” employment status (30-39 hours scheduled

per week) when filling vacancies, anticipating retirements, and providing employment

accommodations.

 Perform post-launch review process of the employee performance management

system to identify critical areas for improvement.

 Continue analysis of County positions spanning multiple departments/agencies to

align and normalize job descriptions.

 Partner with Budget & Financial Planning and the Oracle Support Center to utilize

Oracle budgeting and compensation modules for more efficient planning.

 Pursue cost-effective and open-source options for implementing an automated

applicant tracking system to further streamline recruiting and hiring processes and

enhance the experience of applicants.

 Launch a redesigned “Human Resources” external web presence that serves as a

career portal.

 Augment the Supervisor Training Institute with a comprehensive leadership

development program that addresses the needs of executives and senior leaders as

well as prepares emerging leaders to assume greater roles.

 Compile organization-wide succession plans.

 Pursue opportunities with Johnson County city to partner on employee training.

 Re-evaluate current rewards and recognition programs related to structured,

monetary and non-monetary guidelines and augment as deemed appropriate.

 Continue County investment in employee engagement by conducting bi-annual

survey in the fall of 2011.









Page 3 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas





EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



2011-2012 Recommendations Requiring Future Board Action



Total Compensation Recommendations:

 Take action to release budgeted funds for 2011 merit pay increases.

 Authorize 2012 market adjustments.

 Authorize 2012 merit pay increases consistent with budget recommendations.





Benefits Recommendations:

 Implement a Benefit Redesign and Cost Transfer:

o Flex Credit – reallocate these funds and employer tax savings to increase

competitiveness of benefit package;

o Dental – provide 70% employer-paid funding;

o Increase employer-paid life insurance to equal one times the employee’s annual

salary;

o Sick Disability Pay – provide 100% employer-paid funding and contract with third-

party provider to administer claims (a form of short term disability);

o Contract with third-party provider to administer Flexible Spending Account claims

and disbursements.

 Maintain the current contribution percentage to the County’s Supplemental

Retirement Plan.

 Implement a contribution differential program that provides a lower employee medical

plan contribution cost if certain wellness initiatives are completed.









Page 4 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas





INTRODUCTION



The Department of Human Resources (HR) presents an annual workforce planning report

to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) as part of the budget process. In

collaboration with Budget & Financial Planning and Treasury & Financial Management,

HR is presenting a 2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report that provides an overview

of relevant trends in the labor market as they impact Johnson County Government.



The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with a summary of the most notable

changes in the employment arena impacting the workplace and identify staff priorities and

Board actions to address those conditions. Specifically, this report outlines creative yet

cost-conscious approaches that support and balance the Board’s strategic goals of “being

good stewards of taxpayers’ dollars” and “advancing a positive environment that

empowers employee innovation and productivity”.



An added feature to this year’s report is a summary of legal developments that impact

organizations from an employment perspective. The report once again includes both

current and future year action plans that address and balance immediate needs with

longer term strategies. For added clarity, recommendations are further categorized by

those that are areas of focus for staff and those that require future Board action.



By creatively addressing the challenges head-on that have been caused by current and

projected economic conditions, the County continues to protect prior workforce

investments while positioning it to successfully compete for talent, both now and in the

future.









Page 5 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas





WORKFORCE TRENDS & IMPLICATIONS

While the nation’s economy is slowly emerging from the worst economic downturn since

the Great Depression, the consequences of the recession will be playing out in America’s

local communities for years to come. These consequences will present public sector

organizations with a unique set of circumstances as increased demand for services by

citizens is coupled with limited and often shrinking sources of funding.



From the private sector perspective, organizations are cautiously preparing for a brighter

future within a shorter time horizon than the public sector. The private sector’s

anticipation of better financial returns is evidenced by plans to increase staff, focus efforts

on engagement and retention, invest in current and future leaders, enhance

compensation incentives and rewards, and restore reduced or eliminated benefits.



Regardless of the sector or industry, organizations around the world continue to face

uncertainty as they stand at the crossroad between recession & recovery.



The following summary highlights the changing conditions facing employers in today’s

economy. This summary includes employment-related trends and strategies that are

emerging across key areas impacting the workplace.





Legal Developments



In recent years, the enactments of new legislation and significant amendments to existing

legislation have exerted increased pressure on employers to successfully maintain legal

compliance. Conflicting, vague, and incomplete regulatory guidelines and inconsistent

judicial application of the new laws only add to the changing complexity of the legal

environment in which employers must operate.



The following is a brief and high level summary of some of the most impactful legal

developments that have occurred in recent years, focusing on legislative changes and

legal trends.





Family & Medical Leave Act

The Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was enacted into law in 1993 to provide covered

employees with protected, unpaid leave for up to twelve weeks within twelve months for

specific, qualifying reasons. The FMLA was amended and new legislation enacted in

2009 that added protected military leave for qualifying exigencies and military caregiver

leave for families of covered military members.



In 2010, Johnson County Government processed 1,166 protected leave requests under

the FMLA. Employees used 108,513 hours of protected family & medical leave, which is

equivalent to 52.2 FTE. While many employers have expressed frustrations with the

FMLA, the Act remains one of the most popular pieces of U.S. employment legislation.









Page 6 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Legal Developments



Fair Labor Standards Act

Although the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is one of the earliest pieces of

employment-related legislation, wage and hour litigation, particularly overtime claims, has

exploded in recent years. The increased use of technology and portable communication

devices has resulted in more off-the-clock work issues.

The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (DOL) updated its procedures in

December, 2010 to provide complainants with an attorney referral and its (DOL)

investigation information to assist workers in pursuing private FLSA and Family & Medical

Leave Act (FMLA) claims. In 2010, the FLSA was also amended to require covered

employers to provide private areas in each of its facilities for nursing mothers.



Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act (ADAA)

One of the most significant changes made to the Americans with Disabilities Act when it

was amended in 2009 was the expanded definition of disability. With this broadened

definition, employers now rarely question the existence of a disability, but rather focus

their efforts on working collaboratively with employees to implement reasonable

accommodations. Case law is affirming an ongoing status of disability regardless of the

health of the employee, meaning that even in instances where a disability is no longer

manifested, accommodations are still required.



Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), effective November 2009, makes

it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of their genetic

information and restricts the acquisition and disclosure of genetic information. Therefore,

an employer may face liability under GINA if it improperly requests or uses genetic

information or fails to protect confidentiality of legally obtained genetic information.



Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 amends the Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act as

well as reverses a 2007 Supreme Court decision that limited the filing period for wage

discrimination claims to 180 days after the discriminatory pay decision was made. As a result,

employees can count each paycheck after the alleged discriminatory decision as a separate act of

discrimination, providing 180 days after each paycheck during which to file a claim.



Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 as amended by the

Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) applies to all

employers and prohibits employers from discriminating in employment and from retaliating against

any person for reasons related to past, present, or future service in a “uniformed service.”









Page 7 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Legal Developments



Immigration Reform and Control Act

Immigration Reform and Control Act, as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act, prohibits all employers from hiring individuals who are not legally eligible to work

in the Unites States. Accordingly, all employers must verify and document that employees are

either U.S. citizens or authorized to work in the United States.





Retaliation Claims

Employees are legally protected from adverse employment actions for opposing an unlawful

employment practice or policy, or otherwise engaged in protected activity under Title VII and other

anti-discrimination legislation. Actions that are considered retaliatory are those that would dissuade

a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.



The EEOC reported receiving more charges alleging retaliation in the past fiscal year than any other

basis for discrimination, supplanting race discrimination charges for the first time in its 45-year

history.





Telework Enhancement Act of 2010

The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 requires federal agencies to provide support for

telecommuting employees by establishing a telework policy, notifying eligible employees to

telecommute under the policy, and providing a telework training program and website devoted to

federal teleworking. While not currently mandated for state and local governments and private

sector employers, developments at the executive branch of the federal government often signal

future legislative activity impacting employers.





The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) and Health Care and Education Reform

Act, which amended the PPACA, constitute the federal health care reform of 2010. Various

provisions of the law take effect this year and over the next several years.



This legislation has triggered a firestorm of responses. Ongoing amendments to the Act and its

effective date, as well as delays and alterations resulting from judicial review are likely, but many

provisions of the Act are likely to remain. The federal courts in Kansas and the Tenth Circuit have

yet to review any challenges to the Act.









Page 8 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Legal Developments – On the Horizon



Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS)

The Kansas House Pensions & Benefits Committee (HB 2086) and the Senate Committee (SB 49)

are currently holding hearings to address the financial instability of the Kansas Public Employees

Retirement System. Options being considered include moving to a Defined Benefit plan, raising the

employer contribution cap, raising the employee contribution percentage and providing a slightly

higher retirement multiplier, and leaving the employee’s contribution rate alone, but slightly

decreasing the employer retirement multiplier. One or all of these options are being discussed at the

time of this report.



Employment-Related Credit Reports

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as amended, allows employers to use “consumer reporting

agencies” to perform credit or other background checks (e.g., criminal records, references, or

driving records) on applicants or employees and to make employment decisions based on that

information only if they comply with notice, consent, and disclosure obligations prior to performing

the checks and after the results are reported.

Congress and many state legislatures have considered limiting or prohibiting an employer’s ability

to access and consider credit history of job applicants and current employees. While there is no

current legislative activity on this issue in the State of Kansas, Congress is considering legislation

(H.R. 321) that would amend the FCRA to limit employer use of consumer credit reports.



Mandated Collective Bargaining

Efforts have been underway to adopt legislation mandating collective bargaining between state and

local governments and emergency responders. While this type of legislation was introduced fifteen

years ago, recent efforts have been more determined. Mandatory collective bargaining as required

by the proposed legislation would undermine the Kansas Public Employee-Employer Rights Act

(PEERA) and, absent complete revision of PEERA, would require recognition of collective

bargaining units.



The Employee Free Choice Act

Labor organizations pushed the “Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA) in 2010. This proposed

legislation would have amended the organizing rules provided by the National Labor Relations Act

by allowing unions to bypass private ballot elections in favor of the card check process, effectively

eliminating the secret ballot election during the union certification process. The proposed legislation

does not impact the County unless mandatory collective bargaining as addressed above was

enacted.



Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination

Federal and Kansas workplace anti-discrimination legislation does not prohibit employment

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The 111th Congress weighed the merits of a bill

titled the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would have established protections for

employees based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. Although ENDA never cleared a

congressional committee, there appears to be some bipartisan support for such a measure, and a

new version of ENDA may be considered by one or both chambers.







Page 9 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Employment Trends



Although the economy is showing signs of improvement, most employers remain cautious with their

recruiting plans. The level of anticipated hiring and job growth remain inadequate to substantially

lower unemployment rates at the local and national levels.



Unemployment

In a statement after its January 25-26, 2011 policy meeting, the Federal Reserve stated that “The

economic recovery is continuing, though at a rate that has been insufficient to bring about a

significant improvement in labor market conditions.” The unemployment rate fell by 0.4 percentage

point to 9.0 percent in January as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on February 4,

2011. The BLS also reported that:

 The economy added 1.1 million jobs in 2010.

 The number of unemployed persons went down from 15.3 million in December 2009 to 14.5

million in December 2010.



In a February 4, 2009 article, ”Lower Jobless Rate Points to US Payroll Gains”, Bloomberg quotes

Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, in a February 2011 speech to the National Press Club, “Until

we see a sustained period of stronger job creation, we cannot consider the recovery to be truly

established. It will be several years before the unemployment rate has returned to a more normal

level.”



The Department of Labor and the Economic Policy Institute both reported that finding a job still

remains a struggle, especially for the long-term unemployed:

 The ratio of unemployed workers to job openings was 4.4-to-1 in December, 2010. This

ratio, which is more than three times as high as in 2007, means that for more than 3 out of 4

unemployed workers, there simply are no jobs.

 The U.S. labor market started 2011 with half a million fewer jobs than it had in January

2000.

 Of the unemployed workers last month, approximately 1.8 million have been out of work for

at least 99 weeks, nearly double the figure of January, 2010.

 Long term unemployment has grown so much that the BLS is now changing how it records

those statistics. Rather than tracking long term employment for up to two years, it will now

track the number of people out of work for up to five years.



According to a Bloomberg News report, the median unemployment rate of 9.3% in 2011 is

forecasted by 65 surveyed economists. Bloomberg also reported that the Federal Reserve’s

unemployment projections range from 8.9% to 9.1% for 2011. In general, economists expect

improvement in the job market to be sporadic rather than consistent.



Locally, the Kansas unemployment rate in December 2010 was 6.4% according to the County

Economic Research Institute (CERI). This compares to unemployment rates of 6.6% in 2009, 4.9%

in 2008, and 4.3% in 2007. The Johnson County unemployment rate in December was 6.0% in

2010. As a metropolitan area, including Johnson County, the BLS reports that Kansas City’s

unemployment rate is 8.6% which ranks it 188 out of 372 metro areas nationwide. This compares

to an unemployment rate of the metro region of 8.5% in 2009.





Page 10 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Employment Trends



Downsizing

Although substantial hiring has yet to take hold, downsizing activity in 2010 in the U.S. fell to its

lowest level since 1997 according to the Society for Human Resource Management (Labor Market

Outlook Survey, Q4 2010). John A. Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray, & Christmas, a global

outplacement consultancy, echoed this perspective stating, “The downsizing phase of the recession

came to an end in 2009. The pace of downsizing slowed in 2010 to levels not seen since before

the 2001 recession.”



Challenger went on to state, “Unfortunately, the government sector is likely to see heavy job cuts

again in 2011 as the budget shortfalls that existed in 2010 continue in the new year.” According to

the National Association of Counties (NACo), county governments employ more than 2 million

professional, technical, and clerical personnel in order to fulfill their service responsibilities. Judge

B. Glen Whitely NACo President stated in a press release, “The ongoing recession has had a

devastating impact on county budgets.”



The National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the National

Association of Counties issued a joint report in July 2010 that stated the effects of the Great

Recession on local budgets will be felt most deeply from 2010-2012. Local governments are being

forced to make significant cuts that will eliminate jobs, curtail essential services, and increase the

number of people in need. This report estimates that local government job losses will approach

500,000 through 2011.



Public sector layoffs ripple through the entire economy. In a brief issued in May 2010, The

Economic Policy Institute estimates that for every 100 public sector layoffs, 30 private sector layoffs

follow, mainly due to a loss of incomes and consumer spending that reduces demands for goods

and services across the economy.



The International Public Management Association for Human Resources (IPMA-HR) released its

seventh annual Employment Outlook Survey in January, 2011. In this report, 23% of respondents

expect layoffs in fiscal year 2011, down from 32% in 2010 and 30% in 2009.



Voluntary Turnover

Indicators from various sources are signaling that a small shift is occurring in the employment arena

moving from a “buyers” market (employer) to a “sellers” market (employees). For the fourth

consecutive month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that in November, 2010, more

workers voluntarily left their jobs than were laid off. Specifically, 1.849 million workers quit,

compared to 1.657 million who were laid off. John Wohlford, an economist with the BLS stated,

“The number quitting is an indication of worker confidence.”









Page 11 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Employment Trends



Hiring Trends

CareerBuilder’s annual job forecast reveals stronger employment trends in 2011 with more

employers planning to add full-time, ongoing headcount as compared to 2010. The report goes on

to state that job creation will remain gradual with steady, moderate gains across industries.

Additional hiring trends identified include:



Full-Time Staffing:

 24% of respondents intend to increase staffing, four points higher than in 2010 and 10

points higher than 2009;

 7% plan to decrease staffing, compared to 9% in 2010 and 16% in 2009;

 58% anticipate no change;

 11% are unsure.

Part-Time Staffing:

 13% of employers expect to hire part-time employees in the next 12 months, up from 11%

in 2010 and 9% in 2009.

 Five percent plan to decrease part-time staffing levels, an improvement from eight percent

in 2010 and 14% in 2008;

 71% anticipate no change in their staff levels; while

 12% are unsure.





Other reports regarding anticipated hiring in 2011 include:



 “Hiring in the private sector is expected to once again be slow and steady but too slow to

offset losses in the government sector.” (Challenger in the SHRM “Downsizing Tide

Appears to be Receding” – January 2011).

 In its “Managing People in a Changing World” survey report, Pricewaterhouse Coopers

(PwC) data showed that 39% of surveyed CEOs hope to increase headcount in 2010.

 Talent Technology’s “2011 Recruiting Status Survey” revealed that 69.1% of its

respondents are planning to increase hiring in 2011 as compared to 55.5% in late 2009.

 CNNMoney.com reported in January, 2011 that 42% of surveyed companies expect to hire

more workers in the next six months, a 13% increase over the same period last year.

Meanwhile, 51% expect no change and only 7% expect a decrease.

 IPMA-HR and Fox Lawson & Associates released results of an online survey concerning

staffing changes in the public sector. In 2010, 77% of reporting organizations did not fill

open or vacant positions. In 2011, a high percentage (64%) is planning to take the same

action.









Page 12 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Employee Engagement & Retention Trends



Engagement & Retention

Elevated unemployment rates coupled with the improving but still struggling economy may tempt

organizations to underestimate the need to focus on employee engagement and retention.

However, as the economy continues to show signs of improvement, research indicates that

employees are beginning to consider new employment possibilities.



John A. Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas was quoted in a SHRM article, “After

2009 High, Downsizing Tide Appears to be Receding”, as stating, “…hiring is likely to be significant

enough to entice individuals who abandoned their job searches in 2009 and 2010 to re-enter the

labor pool.” He added that further job-search competition will come from people who are currently

employed and who “…will be even more tempted to test the waters in 2011. Companies that are

not quite ready to accelerate hiring will be required to focus more energy on retaining existing

employees.”



Laurie Bienstock, North America rewards practice leader at Towers Watson echoes this opinion in

her August 2010 statement, “The improving economy also means that employees, and especially

talented ones, may soon start testing the labor market, placing added pressure on employers.”



The Kansas City Star reported in June 2010 that studies have shown that worker morale fell during

the recession even though productivity rose as organizations squeezed more work out of

employees. The article referenced a survey published by the Harvard Business Review in May

2010 that reported approximately 25% of companies’ top performers said they plan to leave their

current job within a year.



Sibson Consulting, a division of Segal, conducted a “Rewards of Work” survey that reported the

average favorability of participants toward their employers at organizations that had layoffs was

lower than among all other study participants. It was also lower among participants who were

concerned about being laid-off. This study also noted that millenials as a group were less satisfied,

less engaged, and more likely to leave than any other group.



Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) noted in its “Managing People in a Changing World” trend report

that, “When engagement has flourished, it is because it has been a genuine commitment, not a

gimmick. Engagement is not something you do, it is something that results when you get various

components of HR, management, and communication right.”



Research conducted by the Corporate Leadership Council revealed that:

 Prior to the recession, 10% of the 500,000 employees surveyed were highly disengaged;

 In 2008, this figure grew to 20% and 33% at the start of 2009;

 One in four high potential employees stated their intention to leave their employer.









Page 13 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Employee Engagement & Retention Trends



Engagement & Retention (continued)

In its “The Economics of Engagement” white paper, the Human Capital Institute reports the

estimated cost to the U.S. economy of disengaged employees is as much as $350 billion dollars per

year in lost productivity, accidents, theft, and turnover.



Survey results published by the Center for Creative Leadership in July, 2010 confirm that

employers must be focused on keeping engagement high to retain those employees who are likely

to consider leaving as the economy and job market improve. The report suggests that in addition to

comparable pay structures and attractive benefit packages, organizations need to provide

employee opportunities for development, learning, and advancement.



The report also emphasizes the impact, for good or bad, of the quality of leadership on engagement

and retention: the better the leader, the greater the level of engagement can be expected.

Therefore, the report suggests, the most efficient way to keep engagement and retention of

employees high is to improve the quality of the managers at every level of the organization.



Findings from “Talent Edge 2020: Blueprint for the New Normal” survey published in December

2010 by Deloitte Consulting noted that as companies struggle to move beyond the Great Recession

of 2009, many leaders recognize that the forces shaping future talent needs require a readjustment

of strategies to meet the “new normal.” In this report, executives expressed concern over their

leadership development programs and pipelines and anticipate it will rise to be their greatest talent

concern three years from now.



Worker Fatigue

Many, if not the majority, of organizations are relying upon a “do more with less” model that requires

staff to pick up additional work of colleagues who left the organization, voluntarily or involuntarily,

and were not replaced. After time, this additional workload exacts a cost on employees and their

employers and overall mental fatigue and burnout becomes the norm.



The Center for Creative Leadership reported in its “Workplace Attitudes 2010” survey that the

majority of staff in people management roles work over 50 hours per week, while the majority of

professional level, non-managerial staff work between 41-50 hours per week. Respondents

identified role overload, asking too much, office politics, and strength of the economic position of

their organizations as issues that they felt should be addressed. Additionally, people of all levels,

generations, races, and both sexes report that they experience work-family conflict.



This report concluded with the following summary statement, “While the recession was a sprint,

organizations are now asking employees to keep up that speed during a marathon. This is

shortsighted because it results in employees at every level being less effective, less committed, and

more likely to leave when they get the chance. Organizations that want to retain their best talent

will move quickly to reduce work overload and provide a workplace where employees can have

lives as well as jobs.”









Page 14 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Employee Engagement & Retention Trends



Worker Fatigue (continued)

In a study conducted by LexisNexis of 1,700 white-collar workers, information overload is taking a

heavy toll on productivity and employee morale, leaving many professionals struggling to cope.

The study reported that:

 59% of respondents said the amount of information they have to process has significantly

increased since the economic downturn;

 62% admitted the quality of their work suffers at times because they cannot sort through the

information they need fast enough; and

 52% reported feeling demoralized when they cannot manage all the information that comes

to them at work.



CareerBuilder reports in its “2011 Annual Job Forecast” that 41% of its responding employers are

concerned that their best talent will leave once the economy improves as heftier workloads and

longer hours take their toll on worker morale.



In its whitepaper, “Employee Fatigue and the Bottom Line”, WorkForce Software asserts that

organizations would be wise to take steps to safeguard employees from work-related fatigue due to

the substantial, negative impact it can have. It cites statistics from the Journal of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine that estimates the cost of employee fatigue in the U.S. at $101 billion in

lost productivity.



In a Workforce Management Trend Survey conducted in 2010, it was reported that there is strong

agreement among its respondents (80%) that workers are more fatigued today than in previous

years. The primary factors contributing to increased fatigue were identified as:

 Headcounts are too low;

 Overwork due to fear of losing one’s job;

 It takes too long to replace staff; and

 Mobile phones and the internet bring the workplace into the home/personal life, making it

more difficult for employees to disconnect from their jobs and relax.



The Workforce Management Trend Survey also suggests that fatigue can lead to increases in

accidents, discord, and poorer decision-making. To the extent fatigue undermines employees’

ability to deal with stress, the impact may be even worse than generally believed.



According to a report issued by Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 25% of employed

consumers are afraid to take time off for illness, vacation, or leave of absence for fear of being

singled out during a layoff.









Page 15 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Employee Engagement & Retention Trends



Workplace Flexibility

Workplace flexibility continues to be at the forefront of worker satisfaction and engagement as

employees face increasing demands at work and home due to the outfall of the economy. Providing

employees with choices regarding their work schedule or place of conducting work such as in a

telecommuting arrangement, contributes to employees’ ability to manager and balance competing

needs in their lives. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) survey report entitled

“2009 Employee Job Satisfaction” found that workplace flexibility is one of the most important

contributors to job satisfaction for women.



SHRM conducted another workplace study to learn about the reasons that prompt organizations to

offer formal flexible work arrangements (FWA) as well as the impact that flexible working

arrangements have on the workplace. The top five reasons cited for offering FWAs were reported

as:

 Employee requests due to child or elder care needs;

 Employees’ difficulties with balancing work and personal life responsibilities;

 To be competitive in attracting and retaining employees;

 Changing business needs requiring more flexibility (e.g., 24/7 operations); and

 Technological advances that allow for work to be done off-site.



The top five types of FWAs offered by responding organizations were:

 Part-time/reduced-hours schedules;

 Telecommuting from other locations;

 Flextime with “core hours”;

 Compressed workweek; and

 Transition period part-time (reduced, return-to-work schedules).



In terms of concerns regarding productivity, the results showed that:

 95% of employers stated that productivity remained the same (63%) or increased (32%);

and

 95% of respondents stated that absenteeism stayed the same (53%) or decreased (42%).



The top five positive benefits of formal flexible work arrangements reported were:

 Improves quality of employees’ personal/family lives 68%;

 Improves employee morale, satisfaction, engagement 67%;

 Helps retain employees 67%;

 Increases levels of employee commitment to the organization 53%; and

 Helps attract potential employees to the organization 52%.









Page 16 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Employee Engagement & Retention Trends



Workplace Flexibility (continued)

In addition to its importance as an integral component of an organization’s Continuity of Operations

Plan (COOP), the International Public Management Association for Human Resources (IPMA-HR)

identified additional benefits of FWAs such as:

• Cost savings on real estate, infrastructure, and energy use;

• Decreased costs of commuting;

• Shortened commutes (non-tradition hours avoid “rush hours”); and

• Relieved traffic congestion and auto emissions.



IPMA-HR also noted that often the greatest barriers to FWAs include:

• Management resistance;

• Cultural and organizational barriers; and

• Technology and information security issues.









Page 17 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Compensation & Benefits Trends



During difficult economic times, employees tend to be less demanding about their compensation

expectations. Although employees place more importance on job stability and other non-monetary

aspects of their work experience during economic uncertainty, their priorities quickly shift as the

economy rebounds. Historical trends demonstrate that stability becomes less important to workers

while pay, benefits, and advancement opportunities become more important factors in retention and

recruitment.



In its “Total Rewards in the Public Sector” study, World at Work, an association of compensation

and benefits professionals, reported that the public sector must keep abreast of market survey data

from the private sector in order to be competitive because current employees often leave for the

private sector. Additionally, the public sector also recruits for talent from the private sector as there

are many fields or jobs which cross both sectors, such as administrative support, accounting,

engineering, health care, and information technology.



Recent economic conditions have sharpened workers’ focus on stability. In its “Workplace

Redefined” whitepaper, Robert Half International summarizes data from a multigenerational study of

currently employed workers in the United States. Among the findings:

 Compensation, benefits and stability are the top three factors of all generations when

evaluating an employment opportunity;

 Healthcare, paid time-off, and dental coverage are prized benefits and cited as most

important in determining job satisfaction across generations;

 More than one-third of workers believe they have yet to be fairly compensated for the extra

work performed during lean times;

 40% of respondents said they’re more inclined today to look for new opportunities while 31%

intend to stay and build tenure with their employers; and

 46% of those surveyed plan to work past the traditional retirement age of 65 with 70%

attributing this decision to the recession.



As reported in the January 2011 issue of HR Magazine, employees, especially high-potential

employees, are growing impatient for better pay and benefits and greater challenges.



In another article published by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in February,

2011, it was presented that merit pay freezes and lower-than-industry budgets for base salary

changes present a number of challenges worth noting:

 Growing concerns on how to recognize and motivate performance under a pay-for-

performance philosophy when there is little to no budget to devote to merit increases;

 Increased difficulty attracting new talent because of the understanding that their base salary

will not increase with merit; and

 Struggles to retain a qualified workforce when the budget for merit increases in other

organizations or industries is beginning to rebound.









Page 18 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Compensation & Benefits Trends



The article further suggests that while budgets remain tight, organizations should consider placing

more emphasis on variable pay components to enhance the total compensation mix.



“The Impact of Rewards Programs on Employee Engagement” survey conducted by World at Work

in 2010 confirmed that total rewards structures, programs, and policies influence employee

engagement. Key results cited in the report include:

 More than 40% of the respondents believe that base salary, base salary increases, and

benefits and perquisites have a “high” or “very high” impact on employee engagement.

 The following intangible rewards impact of the on engagement is perceived as high or very

high by employees for the following elements:

o Work/life balance at 55%

o Career Development opportunities at 59%

o Work environment/culture at 61%

o Nature of the job/work at 69%



Salary Budgets

U.S. organizations plan to adjust their remuneration practices for 2011 in response to concerns

about losing top talent after a period of pay freezes and with signs of an improving economy. A

variety of firms are projecting 2011 salary increases as follows:

 Mercer projects the average pay increase for 2011 will be 2.8%;

 The 2011 Culpepper Salary Budget & Planning Survey reports that despite a weak job

market, company respondents indicated improved confidence and are planning on average

2.91% pay increases as compared to 2.38% average increases in 2010;

 Aon Hewitt released its survey results in December 2010 and projected a 2.8% average pay

increase in 2011;

 The Conference Board projected in its “U.S. Salary Increase Budgets for 2011”, (Research

Report No. 1466) a modest increase over 2010 to 3% in 2011;

 The HayGroup’s “2010 US Salary Budget Spot Survey” projects a 2.8% average pay

increase in 2011;

 Buck Consultants projected a 2.8% increase for 2001; and

 CareerBuilder’s “2011 Job Forecast” projects the average pay increases in 2011 will

average <3%.

 Towers Watson survey data projects average pay increases will be 3.0%;









Page 19 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Compensation & Benefits Trends



Benefit Plans

The Great Recession has become the Great Balancing Act, an all-encompassing struggle to

balance business needs with employee needs. An AFLAC survey that was reported in the HR

Management magazine February 2011 edition, addresses four benefit trends that organizations will

need to contend with in 2011.

1) Benefit Education - Given the growing complexities that accompany health reform, 2011 is

the ideal time to close the communications gap. More than half (55 percent) of employees

rely on their HR departments to inform them about benefits, and that reliance will only grow

in the next year. Nearly half of workers (41 percent) said a well-communicated benefits

program would make them less likely to leave their jobs.



2) Employee Participation in Wellness Programs – The level of success will depend upon the

amount of employee participation or buy-in of programs if an organization wishes to receive

cost savings associated with an effective preventive health care and healthy employee

programs. Businesses will need to seek out creative approaches to boost worker

participation. Wellness plans are only as good as the number of workers who use them,

which means organizations should prioritize giving incentives for preventive health care

programs.



3) Benefits Needs Based on Generational Dynamics - Each generation has its own work style

and expectations. Organizations will need to develop strategies to keep the workplace

cohesive while meeting the varying needs of each generation.



4) Benefit Programs as a Differentiator - The employment market will indisputably begin to shift

back to an employee-driven environment, with top talent in short supply and high demand.

An organization's ability to demonstrate value and goodwill by offering a benefits package

unmatched by competitors will become the differentiator in retention rates. Employers

should consider options that have no direct cost to the company and offer workers additional

coverage to best suit their needs, such as voluntary insurance. These policies and ancillary

benefits offerings will be a greater weapon than ever before in the battle to attract top talent.



These trends clearly illustrate that employers who provide diverse benefits options for workers will

have a leg up on competition, with a well-protected, highly motivated workforce.









Page 20 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



Compensation & Benefits Trends



Benefit Plans (continued)

As noted earlier in this report, the Patent Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (aka

Healthcare Reform) will present considerable challenges for businesses and Johnson County in the

future. While there will likely be continued attempts to repeal all or portions of the Health Care

Reform bill, many regulations went into effect in 2011 while others loom out there for

implementation in the next couple of years. Some regulations that began or were to begin in 2011

are:

 Over-the-counter (OTC) medications need a prescription to be eligible for Flexible

Spending Account (FSA) reimbursement;

 The excise tax for nonmedical distributions in a Health Savings Accounts (HAS)

increased to 20%;

 Employers must disclose the value of each employee’s health insurance on

employees’ form W-2. This was modified in October 2010 to be optional reporting in

2011;

 Extended coverage for adult children to age 26 regardless of financial support or

marital status; and

 Removed the medical plan lifetime maximum benefit and implemented a calendar

year maximum of $1,000,000.



Johnson County benefits staff will need to continue to be aware of modifications and changes that

may happen in order to implement and communicate these changes to our employees.



According to a report by Pricewaterhouse Coopers in 2010, they state that:

 Medical costs are expected to increase 9 percent in 2011.

 Wellness programs and increased cost-sharing are among the top planned design changes

with:

o Two-thirds of employers plan to expand or improve their wellness programs;

o 42% will increase employee contributions for health insurance coverage, and 41%

will increase medical cost-sharing;

o 26% will increase prescription drug cost sharing;

o Employers are shifting away from co-pays in favor of co-insurance and increasing

deductibles; and

o More employers are implementing high-deductible plans but the prevalence of these

plans remains low (13%).









Page 21 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas





SUMMARY/HIGHLIGHTS OF PROGRESS

Among many other achievements, the County has accomplished the following since delivering the

2011 Workforce Trends and Analysis Report in April 2010:



A. Successfully implemented online employee performance management (EPM) system and

created classroom and online training that employees can access anytime.

B. Implemented conversion to focal point (common date) employee performance appraisals.

C. Strengthened the hiring review process to scrutinize every vacancy and limited hiring to only

mission-critical positions.

D. Intentionally increased the vacancy time before filling a position particularly when

seasonal/workload fluctuations would allow without hindering service.

E. Reallocated staff from an underutilized area to other, more critical areas within the County

and promoted and implemented the sharing of staff resources across departments and

agencies.

F. Standardized job descriptions throughout the County for the Administrative Support Job

Family that encompassed 563 positions or 14% of the workforce.

G. Adjusted salary ranges for 2011 to reflect changes in the marketplace that had taken place

since the ranges were last adjusted in 2009.

H. Updated Human Resources Policies and/or Procedures to reflect legislative changes and

maintain compliance.

I. Implemented a value-based prescription drug copayment structure.

J. Reduced benefits eligibility requirements to 30 hours per week.

K. Conducted 2010 Employee Benefit Survey.

L. Completed a Dependent Eligibility audit of the health plan.

M. Re-marketed the medical plan administration which reduced Blue Cross-Blue Shield’s

administration fees by over $400,000 for 2011.

N. Unbundled the pharmacy administration from medical and contracted with a new Pharmacy

Benefit Manager (MedTrak Services, LLC).

O. Expanded wellness programs to enhance the attractiveness of these programs to more

employees and spouses.

P. Conducted Open Enrollment with 100% online enrollments and using online communication

tools.

Q. Issued Flexible Spending Account quarterly balance letters.

R. Offered various Financial Education courses or events such as Consumer Credit Counseling

and Asset Allocation Workshop (National Save for Retirement week).

S. Conducted Deferred Compensation Plan audit.







Page 22 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas





TOTAL REWARDS RECOMMENDATIONS



Using the trend information contained in the body and appendices of this report, the following

initiatives and recommendations are presented to the BOCC for consideration for the FY2012

budget. These plans and recommendations are focused on ensuring a competitive position for the

County in the labor market, both now and as the economy and employment outlook improve.





2011-2012 Staff Initiatives and Areas of Focus



 Continue internal staffing process to migrate staff to higher-demand positions, where possible.

 Educate leaders and staff of “partial plus” employment status (30-39 hours scheduled per week)

when filling vacancies, anticipating retirements, and providing employment accommodations.

 Implement guidelines that encourage greater differentiation of rewards based on performance.

 Perform post-launch review process of the employee performance management system to

identify critical areas for improvement.

 Continue analysis of County positions spanning multiple departments/agencies to align and

normalize job descriptions.

 Partner with Budget & Financial Planning and the Oracle Support Center to utilize Oracle

budgeting and compensation modules for more efficient planning.

 Pursue cost-effective and open-source options for implementing an automated applicant

tracking system to further streamline recruiting and hiring processes and enhance the

experience of applicants.

 Launch a redesigned “Human Resources” external web presence that serves as a career portal.

 Augment the Supervisor Training Institute with a comprehensive leadership development

program that addresses the needs of executives and senior leaders as well as prepares

emerging leaders to assume greater roles.

 Compile organization-wide succession plans.

 Pursue opportunities with the Johnson County cities to partner on employee training.

 Re-evaluate current rewards and recognition programs related to structured, monetary and non-

monetary guidelines and augment as deemed appropriate.

 Continue County investment in employee engagement by conducting bi-annual survey in the fall

of 2011.









Page 23 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas





TOTAL REWARDS RECOMMENDATIONS



2011-2012 Recommendations for Future Board Action



Total compensation entails the financial package offered to employees and is comprised of pay and

benefits. The County’s compensation program includes both base and variable pay and reflects the

County’s compensation philosophy, informally adopted through the 2003 budget process. The

County’s compensation program is designed to:



- Be competitive within the relevant comparable labor markets for base salary;

- Recognize outstanding performance and organizational contributions through the use of

base & variable pay adjustments; and

- Establish pay practices consistent with the market.





Total Compensation Recommendations:

 Take action to release budgeted funds for 2011 merit pay increases.

 Authorize 2012 market adjustments.

 Authorize 2012 merit pay increases consistent with budget recommendations.





Benefits Recommendations:

 Implement a Benefit Redesign and Cost Transfer:

o Flex Credit – reallocate these funds and employer tax savings to increase competitiveness of

benefit package;

o Dental – provide 70% employer-paid funding;

o Increase employer-paid life insurance to one times the employee’s annual salary;

o Sick Disability Pay – provide 100% employer-paid funding and contract with third-party

provider to administer claims (a form of short-term disability);

o Contract with third-party provider to administer Flexible Spending Account claims and

disbursements.

 Maintain the current contribution percentage to the County’s Supplemental Retirement Plan.

 Implement a contribution differential program which provides a lower employee medical plan

contribution cost if certain wellness initiatives are completed.









Page 24 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas





CONCLUSION



As the entire organization continues to balance service demands and workforce needs, the County

Manager’s Office, Department of Human Resources, Department of Budget and Financial Planning,

and Treasury and Financial Management Department will continue to examine the most strategic

and effective approaches for strengthening the organization’s investment in its workforce.







“With the Great Recession in rear view and an uneven recovery ahead,

the task at hand is developing talent strategies

to meet the demands of a “new normal.”

Jeff Schwartz, Deloitte Consulting







The Board has consistently identified the importance of the County’s workforce to deliver the best

possible mandatory and discretionary services to the members of this community. With an eye to

the future, the Board has also demonstrated its ability to anticipate the increasing criticality of the

County’s staff to service delivery.



In the face of difficult decisions, the Board is asked to continue its strong leadership by supporting

the plans and recommendations in this report, which will enable Johnson County Government to

attract and retain the talent necessary to meet the needs of the community.









Page 25 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas





APPENDICES



Data in this report is based on data reported from Oracle as of 12-15-2010 unless otherwise noted.

Park and Recreation positions are excluded unless otherwise noted, as Park & Recreation positions

are not maintained in Oracle.



Demographics are generally provided for full-time regular employees. A detailed breakdown of

part-time regular, on-call, and/or seasonal employees is not provided as a general rule because the

short-term and highly mobile nature of these positions contradicts the intent of being able to

accurately project, forecast, or identify certain long-term trends. However, data is provided on part-

time regular, on-call, and/or seasonal employees when particularly relevant to the demographic

featured. When reported, part-time regular employee data includes benefits and non-benefits

eligible part-time employees.



Demographics are based on actual employee counts, not on FTE. FTE is the “full-time equivalent”

for a position.









Page 26 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX A: 2010 DEMOGRAPHICS



Demographics involve the characteristics of different types of population segments. These

characteristics can include age, race, gender and cultural background. The following tables and

graphs report the race, age, and gender demographics of Johnson County Government as of

December, 2010.









Ethnicity Distribution

1.02% - Asian 3.69% - Hispanic



7.16% - Black American Indian or Alaska

Native (Not Hispanic or Latino)

0.25% Hawaiin

0.23 %- American

Indian/Alaska Asian (Not Hispanic or Latino)

Native

0.45% - Unspecified

0.17% - 2

Black or African American (Not

or More

Hispanic or Latino)



Hispanic or Latino





Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific

Islander(Not Hispanic/Latino)



Not Specified





Two or More Races (Not

87.03% - White

Hispanic or Latino)



White (Not Hispanic or Latino)









Page 27 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX A: 2010 DEMOGRAPHICS







Age Distribution

1.72% 0.08%

10.97% 13.76%





23.27%

Less than 20 years old

20<30 years old

30<40 years old

40<50 years old

50<60 years old

60<70 years old

24.93% 70 or older







25.27%









Age Distribution Trends

30.00%



25.00%



20.00%

2008

15.00%

2009



10.00% 2010





5.00%



0.00%

20<30 years 30<40 years 40<50 years 50<60 years 60<70 years 70 or older Less than 20

old old old old old years old









Page 28 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX A: 2010 DEMOGRAPHICS







Gender Distribution



46.95%



53.05%







Female



Male









Gender Distribution Trends

52.36% 53.10% 53.05%



50.00% 47.64% 46.90% 46.95%



45.00%





40.00% 2008

2009

35.00% 2010





30.00%





25.00%





20.00%

Female Male









Page 29 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX B: 2010 EMPLOYEE RETENTION









Years of Service Distribution

7.95% 4.88%

8.32%



8.80% 15.65% Less than 1 year

1<3 years

3<5 years

5<10 years

10<15 years

15<20 years

16.78% 14.97% 20<25 years

More than 25 years



22.65%









Page 30 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX B: 2010 EMPLOYEE RETENTION









Employment Category Distribution





3.67%

8.69% 0.06%









Full-Time

Part-Time

On Call

Temporary







87.59%









Page 31 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas





APPENDIX C: 2010 TURNOVER





Due to the high cost of recruiting and developing new employees, particularly those in

highly skilled or leadership positions, it is critical that the organization monitors turnover

trends.



Terminations of employment may be due to voluntary, involuntary, or medical reasons, as

well as death or a reduction in force. Reasons for voluntary terminations of employment

include resignations from the County or transfers to the Park & Recreation District.

Reasons for involuntary terminations of employment include personal conduct issues or

unsatisfactory work performance.



Turnover is the ratio of the number of terminations of employment to the average number of

employed workers for a one year period of time. Turnover is calculated as follows:



Total # of Terminations x 100 = x% turnover

(Starting Count + Ending Count)/2 ← Average # of employees









Page 32 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX C: 2010 TURNOVER









Turnover by Employment Category

0.46%

0.46%

12.84%

15.83%



Full-Time

Part-Time

On Call

Seasonal

Temporary



70.41%









Turnover by Gender

39.22%

60.78%









Female





Male









Page 33 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX C: 2010 TURNOVER









Turnover by Voluntary and Involuntary



20.41%









Involuntary







Voluntary



79.59%









Page 34 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX C: 2010 TURNOVER







Turnover by Ethnicity

American Indian or Alaska

Native (Not Hispanic or

Latino)

1.15% Asian (Not Hispanic or

1.61% 2.06% Latino)

14.68%

Black or African American

5.05% (Not Hispanic or Latino)



0.23% Hispanic or Latino







Two or More Races (Not

Hispanic or Latino)

75.23%



White (Not Hispanic or

Latino)





Not Specified









Page 35 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX C: 2010 TURNOVER







Turnover by Age Range

2.52%

0.92%

11.01%

26.83%

16.74%

Less than 20 Years old

30<40 years old

40<50 years old

50<60 years old

60<70 years old

70 or older

15.83%



26.15%









Page 36 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX C: 2010 TURNOVER









Turnover by Years of Service

7.11%

27.06%

22.94%

1<3 years

10<15 years

15<20 years

3<5 years

9.40% 5<10 years

Less than 1 year

More than 20 years

3.90%

14.91%

14.68%









• Years of service does not include any years accumulated prior to an employee’s rehire date.









Page 37 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX C: 2010 TURNOVER









Turnover by Job Classification



JC.20.20

0.46%

JC.19.19

0.46%

JC.18.18

2.52%

JC.17.17

5.73%

JC.16.16

6.88%

9.86% JC.15.15



19.95% JC.14.14

22.94% JC.13.13

16.97% JC.12.12

6.19% JC.11.11

0.69% JC.10.10

0.23%

ES.17.18

0.23%

ES.16.17

0.92%

ES.15.16

0.23%

CS.Q.Q

0.23%

0.69% CS.O.O



0.23% CS.L.L

0.23% CS.K.K

2.06% CS.H.H

2.29% CS.G.G

CS.C.C

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%









JC – Johnson County

ES – Emergency Service

CS – Civil Service









Page 38 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX C: 2010 TURNOVER









Turnover by Grade Range

17.43% 5.96%







Civil Service





Grades 10-15





Grades 16-20









76.61%









Page 39 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX C: 2010 TURNOVER





Full-Time Terminations by EEO Category



120



100



80



60

2008

40 2009



20 2010



0









Administrative Support (e.g., Bookkeepers, Clerk-Typists, Administrative Assistants)



Officials & Administrators (e.g., Department/Agency Heads; Elected Officials, Assessors)



Paraprofessionals (e.g., Residential Providers, Library Assistants, Medical Aids)



Professionals (e.g., Accountants, Engineers, Attorneys, Nurses, Social Workers, Librarians)



Protective Service Workers (e.g., Sheriff’s Deputies, Correctional Officers, Emergency Workers)



Service-Maintenance (e.g., Custodians, Groundskeepers, Maintenance Workers, Truck Drivers)



Skilled Craft Workers (e.g., Mechanics, Heavy Equipment Operators, Treatment Plant Operators)



Technicians (e.g., Survey & Mapping Technicians, Computer Programmers, LPNs)









Page 40 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas







APPENDIX C: 2010 TURNOVER







Turnover by Strategic Program Area

180

153

160

129

140

120

100 Culture

76

80 General

56

60

Health & Welfare

40

22 Infrastructure

20

Public Safety & Judiciary

0

Culture General Health & Infrastructure Public Safety &

Welfare Judiciary









% of Total Turnover by

Strategic Program % of Overall

# of Terms Strategic Program

Area Countywide Workforce

Area



Culture & Recreation 56 12.84% 1.57%



General Government 76 17.43% 2.13%



Health & Welfare 153 35.09% 4.29%



Infrastructure 22 5.05% 0.62%



Public Safety &

129 29.59% 3.61%

Judiciary



436 12.22%





Page 41 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas





APPENDIX C: 2010 TURNOVER







2010 Medical

Average or Temporary 2010 Total Turnover

Headcount Deceased Disability Retirement Employment Involuntary Voluntary Terminations %

Culture 355 2 5 5 44 56 15.77%

Library 344.5 2 5 5 40 52 15.09%

Museum 10.5 0 4 4 38.10%

General 690.5 1 13 17 45 76 11.01%

Appraiser's Office 88 2 1 6 9 10.23%

AIMS 12 0.00%

Board of County

Commissioners 15.5 1 0 1 2 12.90%

County Manager

Office 23.5 1 1 4 6 25.53%

Elections 14 0 1 1 7.14%

Facilities 126 3 4 3 10 7.94%

Human Resources 19.5 2 0 0 2 10.26%

Human Services 146.5 4 6 18 28 19.11%

Information

Technology 60.5 1 3 4 6.61%

Legal 16 0.00%

Finance 12 0.00%

Record and Tax

Administration 37.5 1 1 2 4 10.67%

Treasury and

Financial

Management 119.5 3 7 10 8.37%

Health & Welfare 903 1 5 1 37 109 153 16.94%

Developmental

Supports 306 1 3 1 16 27 48 15.69%

Environmental 46 0 4 4 8.70%

Mental Health 426 2 15 62 79 18.54%

Public Health 125 6 16 22 17.60%

Infrastructure 338 1 3 3 5 3 7 22 6.51%

Airport 13 2 0 0 2 15.38%

Public Works 85.5 1 1 3 0 3 8 9.36%

Transit 11 1 2 3 27.27%

Planning 23.5 0.00%

Wastewater 205 3 2 2 2 9 4.39%

Public Safety &

Judiciary 1282 2 4 21 21 81 129 10.06%

Corrections 292 1 3 5 15 38 62 21.23%

Court Services 40.5 0 8 8 19.75%

District Attorney 88 2 0 7 9 10.23%

District Court

Trustee 41 1 0 0 1 2.44%

Emergency

Communications 38.5 1 0 1 2 5.19%

Emergency

Management 6 0 1 1 16.67%

JIMS 16.5 0 1 1 6.06%

Law Library 5 0.00%

Med-Act 143.5 1 3 5 9 6.27%

Sheriff 611 1 1 11 3 20 36 5.89%

County Total 3568.5 4 10 47 6 83 285 436 12.22%





Page 42 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX D: 2010 EXIT INTERVIEW DATA





2010 Exit Interview Data

Primary Reason For Change % of Responses # of Responses



1 Retirement 17.5% 27

2 Opportunity for Advancement 12.3% 19

3 Moving Out of the Area 11.7% 18

4 Personal, Family, or Health Reasons 11.0% 17

5 Other 9.1% 14



6 Poor Management 7.8% 12

6 Return to School 7.1% 11

8 Changing Career Field 6.5% 10

9 Poor Working Environment 3.9% 6

9 Pay 3.9% 6

11 Scheduling 3.2% 5

12 Not Enough Hours 1.9% 3

13 Too Many Hours 1.3% 2

14 Did Not Like Job Duties 0.6% 1

14 Benefits 0.6% 1

16 Leaving the Workforce 0.6% 1

17 Workplace Location 0.6% 1

18 Workload 0.0% 0

Total Responses 100.0% 154





Top 5 Reasons 61.7% 95

All Other 38.3% 59

Total 100.0% 154









2010: 343 Sent; 154 Received; 44.9% Response Rate

2009: 303 Sent; 127 Received; 41.9% Response Rate









Page 43 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX E: RETIREMENT



Kansas Public Employees Retirement System



Johnson County Government employees participate in either the Kansas Public Employees

Retirement System (KPERS, Tier I or Tier II) or the Kansas Police and Fire Retirement System

(KP&F), depending on the type of position held while employed with the County. Employees in

public-safety or first-responder related positions in the Emergency Communication Center, Sheriff’s

Office, and Emergency Medical Services participate in KP&F. All other qualifying positions

participate in the KPERS. A summary of the two plans are described in the table below:



KPERS

Tier I Tier II

(Employees hired prior to (Employees hired on or after

July 1, 2009) July 1, 2009)

Eligible for Membership Requires 1000 hours in Requires 1000 hours in year.

year.

Vesting 5 Years 5 Years

Defined Benefit Multiplier 1.75 % 1.75%

Full Retirement Age 62 with 10 yrs or Age 60 with 30 yrs

Age 65 with 1 yr Age 65 with 5 Years

85 Points

Early Retirement Age 55 with 10 yrs Age 55 with 10 yrs

Early Retirement Subsidy All With 30 yrs of service

Final Average Salary Average of 3 highest yrs Average of 5 highest yrs

Employee Contributions 4% 6%

Employer Contributions - 2011 7.74% 7.74%

Automatic COLA Not Automatic 2% Annually at age 65



KP&F

Eligible for Membership All employees in covered positions.

Vesting 20 years (Tier I) or 15 years (Tier II)

Defined Benefit Multiplier 2.5%

Full Retirement Age 50 + 25 years of service

Age 55 + 20 years of service

Age 60 + 15 years of service

Early Retirement Age 50 + 20 years of service

Final Average Salary Average of 3 highest years of last 5 years of service

Employee Contribution 7%

Employer Contribution - 2011 14.75% - SHR and 14.57% - Emergency



The “Retirement Eligibility” represents the earliest possible retirement date for employees.

However, due to current economic conditions, recent studies indicate that many employees eligible

for retirement are postponing their exit from the workforce due to financial concerns and/or

affordable healthcare benefits after retirement.









Page 44 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX E: RETIREMENT



Kansas Public Employees Retirement System



In the past five years, it has become more apparent that KPERS is not financially stable to meet its

long-term commitments regarding future pension for retirees. KPERS is one of the lowest ranked

state pension programs in terms of unfunded liabilities and funding ratio levels. For all KPER group

plans, KPERS has only 64% actuarial funding status. Assuming a yearly 8% return on investment,

the long-term funding shortfall remains and will continue to increase. Investment returns alone

cannot fix the funding problem. Employers are still not contributing at the required rate and

legislative action is needed to begin the process of addressing the shortfall, with additional

employer contributions as a basic element.



In the past 6 weeks, the Kansas House Pension & Benefits Committee has held multiple hearings

to discuss a number of options to address this funding short fall. The various options have ranged

from moving from a Defined Benefit plan to a Defined Contribution plan, raising the employer

contribution cap, raising the employee contribution percentage and providing a slightly higher

retirement multiplier, and finally, leaving the employee’s contribution rate alone, but slightly

decreasing the employer retirement multiplier. One or all of these options are being discussed at

the time of this report in order for the actuarial funding status to be closer to 80% in 20 - 30 years.









Page 45 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX E: RETIREMENT



Kansas Public Employees Retirement System





Historical Contribution Rates - KPERS





YEAR Employee - Tier I Employee - Tier II Employer Employer - Retiree

2011 4% 6% 7.74% 14.42%

2010 4% 6% 7.14% 12.52%

2009 4% 6% 6.54% 12.13%

2008 4% N/A 5.93% 11.94%

2007 4% N/A 5.31% 11.69%

2006 4% N/A 4.81% 10.24%

2005 4% N/A 4.21% N/A

2004 4% N/A 3.82% N/A

2003 4% N/A 3.67% N/A

2002 4% N/A 3.52% N/A

2001 4% N/A 2.77% N/A

2000 4% N/A 3.22% N/A









Historical Contribution Rates - KPF



Employee - Employer -

YEAR Employee - Police Employer - Police Emergency Emergency

2011 7% 14.75% 7% 14.57%

2010 7% 13.05% 7% 12.86%

2009 7% 13.71% 7% 13.51%

2008 7% 14.09% 7% 13.88%

2007 7% 13.54% 7% 13.32%

2006 7% 12.62% 7% 12.39%

2005 7% 11.94% 7% 11.69%

2004 7% 9.73% 7% 9.47%

2003 7% 7.14% 7% 6.86%

2002 7% 7.10% 7% 6.79%

2001 7% 7.31% 7% 6.97%

2000 7% 7.80% 7% 7.40%









Page 46 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX E: RETIREMENT





Defined Contribution Program



In addition to employees contributing to KPERS and Social Security, Johnson County encourages

employees to supplement their retirement benefits through the County’s sponsored 457(b) deferred

compensation plan and if they contribute, the employee will be awarded a County match to a

supplemental retirement (401(a) defined contribution) plan account. The County provides a match

on the first 3% of employee contributions, with a four year vesting schedule for elected officials and

a five year vesting schedule for other participating employees.



Since the creation of the KPERS Tier II plan, in which employees hired July 1, 2009 and after must

immediately become members and begin contributing 6% of their annual salary to the KPERS

system, the participation by new hires in the County’s deferred compensation plan has decreased.

If the KPERS legislation passes in 2011, it can be assumed that the County will see a drastic

decrease in the number of employees that will be contributing through the County’s deferred

compensation plan as early as 2013.



The County’s Retirement Planning Committee has been reviewing and monitoring the participation

of new hires in the KPERS program. Participation in the 457 has declined as increased

contributions to KPERS have been required for new hires. The table below reflects the number of

new hires that were eligible to contribute to the 457-plan and the number that actually enrolled by

membership type for 2010:







New Hires (FT/PTB) Total

(1/01/2010 – 12/31/2010)



KPERS Member Type Participants Enrolled in 457 % Enrolled in 457

KPERS Tier I 27 7 26%

KPERS Tier II 215 29 13%

Subtotal 242 36 15%









Page 47 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX E: RETIREMENT



Deferred Compensation Plan Participation

Pay Grade June 2010 2010 Average March 2011 2011 Average Change in

Participation % Match Participation % Match Participation

Civil Service 64% 2% 66% 3% +2%

Emergency Services 69% 3% 70% 3% +1%

10 8% 3% 8% 3% No Change

11 50% 3% 50% 3% No Change

12 30% 3% 29% 3% -1%

13 53% 3% 52% 3% -1%

14 54% 3% 56% 3% +2%

15 65% 3% 64% 3% -1%

16 71% 3% 69% 3% -2%

17 74% 3% 78% 3% +4%

18 82% 3% 82% 3% No Change

19 90% 3% 90% 3% No Change

20 93% 3% 98% 3% +5%

21 94% 3% 93% 3% -1%

22 100% 3% 100% 3% No Change

23 85% 3% 83% 3% -2%

25 0% 0% 0% 0% No Change

26 100% 3% 100% 3% No Change

28 100% 3% 100% 3% No Change

95 0% 0% 0% 0% No Change

97 67% 3% 67% 3% No Change

98 100% 3% 100% 3% No Change

99 78% 3% 75% 3% -3%

Total 60% 3% 61% 3% +1%









Page 48 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX E: RETIREMENT



Kansas Public Employees Retirement System







Eligible to Retire Immediately

70 64

60 54 Culture & Recreation

50

39 Health & Human Services

40 34

30 27 Infrastructure

30

20 Public Safety & Judicial

10 Records & Taxation

0

Support Services

Total 248









310









Page 49 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX F: MARKET COMPETITIVE PAY





Compensation and Comparable Labor Markets

The County has identified three distinct labor markets from which it primarily recruits and

hires employees and for which pay ranges are established:



Grades Relevant Labor Market Comparable Industries

10 – 15 Local Employers All Industries

16 – 20 Midwest Region All Industries

21 – 28 National Employers Public Sector/Peer Counties





Pay Table Structure

Using the data from the relevant labor markets described above, the HayGroup conducts

an annual analysis of changes in the market and provides the County with recommended

updates to ensure the County remains competitive.



 The pay structure is based on the median as determined by Hay Group market

studies & peer county comparisons

 The pay range of Grades 11-28 is the median plus or minus 25%









Page 50 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX F: MARKET COMPETITIVE PAY



2010 & 2011 Local Pay Practices

City/County 2010 Actual 2011 Projected Supplemental Retirement Plans

Merit Increase Budget Merit Increase Budget and Employer Match



DeSoto 0.00% 2.00%



Edgerton 0.00% 0.00%



Fairway 1.00% 0.00% 4% matching contribution to 401(a) in

2010; no match 2011

Gardner 0.00% $300 lump sum given in 1% matching contribution to 401(a)

January 2011



Johnson 1.50%; 1.50%; 3% matching contribution to 401(a)

County 3.00% Civil Service 0.00% Civil Service

Lake Quivira Information not available Information not available Information not available

Leawood 4.00% 4.00% 2.5% matching contribution to 401(a)



Lenexa 2.10% 1.00% 4% employer paid contribution to

401(a); up to an additional 2% match

if employee participates in the 457(b).

Merriam 4.00% 3.00%

Mission 1.50% 0.00% 4% matching contribution to 401(a)

Mission Hills 0.00% 0.00%

Mission Woods Information not available Information not available Information not available

Olathe 2% base pay for non-exempt staff; 0.00% Up to $30/pay period matching

2% lump sum for exempt staff contribution to 401(a)

Overland Park 0.00% 0.00% 4% employer paid contribution to

Municipal Employees Pension Plan

(Tier 2); up to an additional 2% match

if employee participates in the 457(b).

Prairie Village 0.00% 2.00% 6% matching contribution to 401(a)

Roeland Park 3.00% 5.60%

Shawnee 0.00% 0.00% 100% employer paid pension plan;

0% match to 401(a)

Springhill 0.00% 0.00%

Westwood 0.00% 2.00%

Westwood Hills 0.00% 0.00%

Blue Springs 0.00% 0.00% 3% matching contribution to 401(a)

Independence 0.00% 0.00% 1% matching contribution to 401(a)

Jackson County 0.00% 0.00% 100% employer paid pension plan;

0% match to 401(a)

KCMO 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%





Page 51 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX F: MARKET COMPETITIVE PAY





Pay Grade Distribution

JC.28.28 0.03%

JC.26.26 0.07%

JC.25.25 0.03%

JC.23.23 0.39%

JC.22.22 0.13%

JC.21.21 0.46%

JC.20.20 1.45%

JC.19.19 3.85%

JC.18.18 4.83%

JC.17.17 7.46%

JC.16.16 8.58%

JC.15.15 17.00%

JC.14.14 17.85%

JC.13.13 18.18%

JC.12.12 12.98%

JC.11.11 2.30%

JC.10.10 0.72%

ES.17.18 0.26%

ES.16.17 1.38%

ES.15.16 2.04%



0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00%









Grade Distribution by Comparable Market

1.12%

29.85%





Grades 10-15

69.03% Grades 16-20

Grades 21-28









Page 52 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX F: MARKET COMPETITIVE PAY









Grade Distribution by Gender





45.00%

39.42%

40.00%



35.00%



30.00%

Female

25.00%

22.70% Male

20.00%



15.00%

11.14% 11.78% 11.70%

10.00%



5.00%

0.28% 0.73% 2.26%

0.00%

Grades 10-15 Grades 16- 20 Grades 21-28 Public Safety









Page 53 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX G: MARKET COMPETITIVE BENEFITS







2011 Actual Local Benefits Comparison



City/County 2011 Actual 2011 ER/EE 2011 Wellness Incentive

Health Plan Split by Health Plan Option Smoker

Options Rates?





Johnson County HMO ER: 85% Considering EE: $10/MO

PPO EE: 15% for 2012 SP: $5/MO

QHDHP



Leawood HMO Base: No. Points to Blue only.

PPO IND: ER: 94%; EE: 6%

(50% each) FAM: ER: 75%; EE 25%



Buy-Up:

IND: ER: 86%; EE: 14%

FAM: ER: 68%; EE 32%

Johnson County









Lenexa PPO Only ER: 83% No HRA + Screening +

EE: 17% Health Clinic and

Health Coach; EE

pays 50% less



Olathe PPO Information not available Information not

QHDHP available





Overland Park PPO Only ER: 83% Smoker HRA + Screening

EE: 17% Rates are Reduce deductible

(moving to 80/20) $40/MO $50

higher





Shawnee POS Only IND: ER: 98%; EE: 2% Considering $100 Cash bonus if

FAM: ER: 85%; EE 15% for 2012 take HRA and attain

7 wellness pts.









Legend:

ER = Employer SP = Spouse

EE = Employee CH = Child(ren)

IND = Individual Coverage

FAM = Family Coverage





Page 54 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas



APPENDIX G: MARKET COMPETITIVE BENEFITS









2011 Actual Local Benefits Comparison



City/County 2011 Actual 2011 Actual 2011 Short Term Outsource FSA

Dental Plan Contribution Base Life Disability Administration

Percentages Insurance Coverage

Benefit Package



Johnson 0.00% ½ times Base 0.00% No

County EE pays full contribution cost Annual Earnings EE pays full

premium cost

Leawood ER pays 83% IND 1.5 times Base No. Yes.

ER pays 31% FAM Annual Earnings M&I







Lenexa ER pays 83% IND 1.0 times Base 100% ER pays full Yes.

ER pays 85% FAM Annual Earnings cost Employee

Benefits Corp.

Johnson County









Olathe ER pays 100% IND ER pays KPF: 1.0 times 0.00% Yes

83% FAM KPERS: 1.5 EE pays full

times premium cost





Overland ER pays 100% IND 2.5 times Base 0.00% Yes.

Park ER pays 31% FAM Annual Earnings EE pays full ASI Flex

premium cost







Shawnee ER pays 100% IND EE: $50K 0.00% Yes.

ER pays 33% FAM SP: $10K EE pays full AFLAC

CH: $6K premium cost

Costs $1.84/mo





Legend:

ER = Employer SP = Spouse

EE = Employee CH = Child(ren)

IND = Individual Coverage

FAM = Family Coverage









Page 55 of 56

2012 Workforce Trends & Analysis Report

Johnson County, Kansas









Page 56 of 56