HomeMy WebLinkAboutHuman Resources - Selected Areas for New HiresHuman Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
HUMAN RESOURCES –
Selected areas for new hires
Deschutes County,
Oregon
Audit committee:
Jade Mayer, Chair
James Kerfoot
Gayle McConnell
Greg Quesnel
Michael Shadrach
Dennis Luke
Tom Anderson
Scot Langton
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
{This page left blank}
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
TABLE OF
CONTENTS:
HIGHLIGHTS
Page(s)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background on Audit …………..………………………………………..…… 1
1.2. Objectives and Scope ………………….……………………………..…… 1-2
2. BACKGROUND …………………………………………….…………...…..… 2-4
3. FOLLOW-UP on prior recommendations …………………………………... 5
4. FINDINGS
4.1. Employment law ……………………………………………………………. 6-9
4.2. Hiring ………………………………………………………………...….... 10-18
4.3. Interviewing ………………………………………………………………. 18-21
4.4. Performance evaluations ………………………….………………........ 21-23
4.5. Other …………………………………………………………………….... 23-25
5. RESPONSES
5.1. County Administrator …………………………………………….……… 26-36
5.2. County legal counsel ……...…..…………….………………………….. 36-38
5.3. Sheriff’s Office ……………………………………………………………..… 38
5.4. Road Department ………………………………………………………….… 39
6. APPENDICES
6.1. Appendix A1 – Audit methodology ……………………………..…….... 40-41
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
HIGHLIGHTS
Why this audit was
performed:
Human resources are de-
centralized and the audit
is meant to be proactive
look around new hires.
What is recommended
The County should
implement appropriate
measures in response to
federal affirmative action
obligations as well as
responsibilities under
the FCRA.
The County should
consider monitoring of
hiring in accordance
with rules and policies.
Job descriptions should
be updated.
Documentation of
recruitments requires
improvement.
Interview questions
could be improved.
Additional monitoring of
performance evaluations
is needed.
Personnel might benefit
from additional filing
techniques and use of
computerized
processes.
HUMAN RESOURCES – Selected areas for new hires
What was found - This audit focused on identifying areas for improvement in hiring, interviewing, and
evaluating new hires. It is clear the County strives to maintain an open and fair recruitment process to
bring in the best candidates. Overall, the County has significant processes in place around hiring.
These include the typical personnel rules and policies and progress through to the training of supervisor s.
Human resources responsibilities in the County are decentralized and are carried out by departments,
Personnel, Administration and Legal. The audit looked at a sample of recruitments over 2006 through
2009 to identify how specified processes were working.
Employment law: The County has additional responsibilities identified under affirmative action and the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The County does not have an affirmative action plan even though the
extent of federal contracts indicates this is required. FCRA responsibilities come from the County’s use of
information from “consumer reporting agencies.” With this use come responsibilities to inform applicants
when this information is utilized (even in part) to make an adverse employment decision.
Hiring processes: The County’s recruitment process appears to provide a well documented and open
process for applicants. The County makes good use of job descriptions in all positions. Job descriptions
are a bit dated and could be improved. Job descriptions and announcements are not always consistent
in how they address good driving history. Driving history and holding of a license are essential to many
County positions.
Observations indicated that recruitment documentation could be improved in a number of areas including:
interview panel, selection process for interviews, interview notes, best candidates, and reference checks.
There could also be better coordination between departments and Personnel during screening of
applicants for minimum qualifications.
Interviewing: Interview panels are not consistently providing needed documentation. Training and
expectations are not always established. Interview questions are varied and some could be improved.
Evaluations: Performance evaluations are an area the county has been working on. Work is still needed
to make sure initial evaluations are provided and that staff are preparing them appropriately.
Other: Personnel could benefit from more computerized processes in recruitments. Personnel files were
complete and well organized but documentation is loose in the file and maintained in chronological order.
Other filing techniques might be better suited for these files. Additional human resources performance
measures could be utilized.
Deschutes County Internal Audit
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 1 of 41
1.
Introduction
1.1 BACKGROUND ON AUDIT
Audit authority:
The Deschutes County Audit Committee authorized the review of Human resources in the Internal Audit
Program Work Plan for 08/09. This is the first audit covering selected areas within human resources.
Human resources
Human resource functions are greatly decentralized and are handled partly by Personnel, Legal,
Administration and departments. Personnel, Legal and Administration raised many of the questions and
issues that were reviewed during this audit. As such, the audit was designed partly to quantify the extent
of these issues and aid in the discussion around addressing them.
Personnel, Legal, Administration and County departments provided a significant amount of support to this
audit. They were all very responsive and professional. Many thanks for their support and input during this
audit.
1.2 OBJECTIVES and SCOPE
Objectives:
With the assistance of Personnel, Legal and Administration, internal audit identified the following areas
related to new hires to be reviewed:
1. Assess policies, procedures and practices for hiring, focusing on
a. Job description development and updating to document,
i. Essential functions
ii. Coverage of ADA requirements
iii. Driving on County business
b. Use of job testing or prescreening activities as part of the hiring process,
c. Interviewing techniques,
d. Extent of reference checking, background checks, and education/certification, as may be
applicable, and
e. Documentation through to job offer.
2. Assess initial training for new hires, focusing on applicable policy and procedure signoffs by new hires.
3. Assess performance appraisal system for timely evaluations during probationary period. Provide
information on percentage of applicants meeting probationary period.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 2 of 41
4. Provide background information such as personnel costs and turnover by department.
5. To the extent identified, review areas of employment law presenting existing or potential risk to the
county (including those identified such as equal opportunity, ADA, etc.).
6. Follow-up on any prior audit recommendations relating to human resources.
Scope:
A random sample of 14% of the new hires occurring June 2006 through May 2009 was drawn from all
departments. The sample size, further described in the methodology section, was designed to provide
90% confidence and 10% precision in the testing performed. Data was compiled on specific attributes for
the associated recruitment, screening, interview, selection, training and evaluation. All discharges for the
identified new hires were reviewed for discharge reasons. There were 397 new hires identified in this
period.
Methodology:
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based
on our audit objectives.
(2007 Revision of Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.)
For additional audit methodology, see APPENDIX A1
2. Background
Human resource / people issues usually rank among the top problems faced by businesses and are
among the top to occur. The difficulty with human resources is defining, controlling and managing these
issues.
As indicated below in Graph I, expenditures for salaries and benefits have continued to grow over the last
ten years. Salaries and benefits represent roughly 43% of expenditures in their associated funds and this
relationship has stayed consistent over time. The County has a significant investment in its personnel and
many employees stay with the County throughout their career.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 3 of 41
Graph I:
Personnel
expenditures
(inflation adjusted)
by year and
associated full time
equivalents by year
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Fiscal year (ending June 30)
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
(
s
a
l
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
)
in
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
Av
e
r
a
g
e
F
T
E
Avg. FTE Payroll & Benefits
- Data not readily available -
{Source: County financial systems and records}
Human resource experts indicate turnover is costly and estimate that hiring a replacement worker costs
from $10 thousand to half an employee’s annual salary. Quantifying some value for this cost to the
County was beyond the scope of this audit. Empty positions impact departments in terms of time and cost
dedicated to the hiring process by all those concerned, supervision, training costs and lapse in service
levels due to lack of a full workforce, to name but a few.
Turnover statistics can be somewhat misleading. A review of reasons for resignation indicates that many
County employees leave for typical life circumstances (education, family, better job, etc.). A life
circumstance comes up some 62% of the time and only 38% of the time does it appear the employee was
a poor fit for the position. Two-thirds of new hires are passing their probation. Only half of public safety
department hires are passing their probation.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 4 of 41
Graph II:
County Department
FTE levels -actual
and authorized
(10-09) and
estimated average
annual turnover
(6/06-3/09)
The County’s overall turnover rate of 4% as shown in Graph II, indicates the County has a relatively low
turnover rate compared even to other state and local governments. The Bureau of Labor publishes similar
statistics indicating the annual rate of separation for state and local governments is around 16% (for 2008).
Those statistics are markedly lower than those for the private sector at 49%.
Department
FTE
Actual
FTE
Auth.
~ Avg.
Turnover
Sheriff's Office 211.8 222.3 2%
Mental Health 96.3 97.8 6%
Road 60.5 62.5 1%
Health Department 51.9 53.7 7%
Community Development 48.0 48.0 3%
District Attorney 42.2 42.7 5%
911 General Operations 35.5 40.5 11%
Community Justice-Juv 32.4 33.9 4%
Assessor 32.0 32.3 1%
Adult Parole/Prob-Desch 32.0 32.0 6%
Juvenile Resource Center 29.0 29.0
Property and Facilities 24.0 24.0 1%
Solid Waste 23.0 25.0 1%
Information Technology 20.8 21.0 0%
Fair & Expo 12.0 13.0 3%
BOCC 12.0 12.0 0%
Clerk/Elections 9.5 10.5 3%
Other depts. < 10 46.4 47.0 6%
Grand Total 819.1 847.0 4% {Source: County financial records.
Turnover calculated using discharged employee information over period. }
Avg. turnover (approx.)= count of FTE / average terminations per year
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 5 of 41
3. Follow-up
on prior
recommenda-
tions
Audit report
#06/07-6
Grant
Management
Survey
(issued 8/2007)
Improvements needed in follow-through of Equal Employment Opportunity Plan
(EEOP).
A brief follow-up on the County’s EEOP (Equal Employment Opportunities Plan) was performed through
discussion with Debbie Legg, Personnel Services Manager. The EEOP analyses of the County workforce
indicated a need to increase female representation in certain job categories as well improving minority
representation. The EEOP identifies a number of areas to work towards the stated objectives.
Areas targeted for improvement and not clearly implemented include:
targeting recruitment,
monitoring impact from recruitment efforts,
posting the Plan on the County internet/intranet sites, and
meeting annually with department directors to reinforce the objectives of the Plan.
An EEOP is a requirement for many federal grants in excess of $25,000. An EEOP provides policy and
the implementation plan
“… to provide equal opportunities in County government for all persons;
to prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,
religion, age, marital status, family relationship, sexual orientation, physical or mental
disability, political affiliations or any other classification protected by Oregon or federal
law and with proper regard for the privacy and constitutional rights of applicants and
employees. “ (excerpt from Deschutes County EEOP)
The current EEOP developed by the County expired in September 2009. Personnel and Administration are
currently responsible for the Plan and its implementation.
It is recommended for Personnel/Administration to perform the steps necessary to update the
EEOP in a timely manner.
{The Board of County Commissioners adopted the update of the EEOP on November 2, 2009.}
It is recommended for the County to implement solutions to the areas identified for improvement in
the EEOP.
These currently include developing procedures to target recruitment, monitoring the impact from
recruitment efforts, posting the current Plan on the County internet/intranet sites, and meeting annually
with department directors to reinforce the objectives of the Plan.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 6 of 41
4. Findings These findings are intended to assist County management in evaluating the performance of human
resource activities as they relate to hiring of new employees. In particular, the audit is to assist hiring
departments improve their odds of making a good hire and doing so in compliance with good hiring
procedures. Processes have changed over the approximately 3 years for which the sample was taken.
The percent of recruitments selected by recruitment year (2006/2007/2008) were 44%, 35% and 20%,
respectively. The findings may highlight improvements if there is some evidence of improvement over
those years.
These recommendations and findings do not replace efforts to design an effective system of internal
control. Audit findings result from incidents of non-compliance with stated procedures and/or departures
from prudent operation. The findings are, by nature, subjective. The audit disclosed certain policies,
procedures and practices that could be improved. The audit was neither designed nor intended to be a
detailed study of every relevant system, procedure or transaction. Accordingly, the opportunities for
improvement presented in the report may not be all-inclusive of areas where improvement may be
needed. The focus of the review was on selected human resource areas. Personnel, Legal and
Administration were valuable resources to determine how practices could be improved.
Extent of work on Internal Controls
The audit was not focused on internal controls. The assessment performed highlighted certain areas of
human resources. These included areas not typically reviewed in financial audit procedures. As such, the
findings did not identify areas that would be considered significant deficiencies.
4.1 Employment Law
Employment law was not an identified focus for the audit. During the background work and in the course of
the audit, certain areas of employment law were identified for improvement.
County needs to regularly assess impact of contracts on compliance with
employment laws.
Some County contracts reference federal employment laws, which may raise County obligations under
affirmative action. The County currently has a number of contracts with federal agencies. County Counsel
reviewed the associated federal laws and concluded the County “…should implement a written affirmative
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 7 of 41
action plan.”
Federal contracts include significant employment law conditions including additional affirmative action
obligations. Affirmative action obligations are identified in Executive Order 11246 (Minorities and Women);
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Individuals with Disabilities); and Vietnam-Era Veterans Readjustment
Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA).
Depending on the extent of contracts, additional responsibilities might include:
Creating and maintaining a written Affirmative Action Plan (AAP),
Inviting all employees and applicants to self identify as veterans, or
Annual reporting of veterans hired and employed.
If the County fails to identify and comply with contractual provisions, it risks the monies secured for various
programs that are important to Departments, the County and citizens. Failure to comply with federal laws
may also result in potential penalties and fines.
Departments generally do not bring these specific conditions to the attention of Legal, Personnel or
Administration to assure compliance. They assume current employment practices cover such laws. A
survey by the Personnel department indicated a number of other local governments have not implemented
an affirmative action plan. It is not clear if they have similar responsibilities under contract.
It is recommended for the County to implement appropriate human resource plans, policies and
procedures under these federal affirmative action obligations, which might include
Development and annual update of a written affirmative action plan (AAP),
Invitation to candidates to self identify as veterans (this information should be maintained in
a separate file from their personnel file), and
Annual reporting of veterans hired and employed.
It is recommended for the County to investigate and identify on an ongoing basis the County’s
human resource obligations under grants and contracts executed.
{The Personnel department has identified a new Oregon law (House Bill 2510) coming into effect in
January 2010 which will require providing a veterans’ preference for civil service employment. This
will require additional procedures to be developed for recruitment/hiring.}
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 8 of 41
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) may impact County recruitment efforts.
Currently, some County departments appear to be utilizing “consumer reports” in part to screen or
eliminate prospective candidates. Investigative efforts vary by department and it is not always clear when
departments use a “consumer reporting agency.” Some County departments may have greater
responsibilities under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the Act). It is also not clear if departments are
complying fully with the Act when consumer reports are utilized as a factor in making an adverse
employment decision. The types of reports identified that might be an issue include:
Financial credit reports obtained through a credit reporting service,
Criminal and background reports prepared by an outside contractor,
Out-of-state driving history checks obtained through a private enterprise, and
Psychological evaluations conducted.
During recruitment of candidates, background information obtained is used to assure candidates have the
requisite skills and character required for the job. The County utilizes various internal and external
resources to investigate driving, employment, criminal and financial background, as well psychological
evaluations. Candidates generally provide an authorization to verify the accuracy of their statements in
the applications as well in performing financial credit checks, criminal background checks and
psychological exams.
The Act promotes accuracy, fairness and privacy of information by consumer reporting agencies.
Additional authorization, disclosure and notice may be needed when dealing with certain defined
“consumer reports” provided by “consumer reporting agencies.” Candidates have certain protections
when information contained in consumer reports is used, in whole or in part, to make an adverse
employment decision. Those rights generally include receiving a “pre-adverse action disclosure” that
includes a copy of the report and a copy of a publication entitled “A Summary of Your Rights Under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act” and receiving an “adverse action notice” after the employer makes its
determination. This allows for the dispute of inaccurate information.
The Act is commonly misinterpreted to mean only credit reports, when it applies to a much broader range
of “consumer reports.” A “consumer report” is used in whole or in part for the purpose of establishing the
consumer’s eligibility for employment purposes and can be
“any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency
bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general
reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living” (FCRA §603(d)((1))
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 9 of 41
A “consumer reporting agency” is
“any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis regularly engages
in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other
information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which
uses any means or facility of interstate commerce” for that purpose. (FCRA § 603(f))
Thus, in large measure, whether or not a reference, credit, or background check constitutes a “consumer
report” subject to the FCRA depends on the entity that performs the check or compiles the information.
Reference and background investigations conducted entirely in-house would not be subject to the act.
However, if the county uses external contractors or sources to facilitate reference or background checks,
then the information provided by those outside sources would, in most instances, constitute a “consumer
report.” A government agency that compiles criminal and driving histories as part of its statutory duties is
not a “consumer reporting agency” within the meaning of the FCRA. Thus, driving history checks via the
DMV or criminal history checks via the Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS) are not “consumer reports”
subject to the Act.
The County has a background check policy (HR-3) that indicates there will be compliance with FCRA but
does not provide the steps involved. In the absence of a process to allow candidates to challenge
information used, there might be quality candidates screened out on inaccurate information. The FCRA
allows individuals to sue employers for damages in federal court. Additionally, the Federal Trade
Commission may sue employers for noncompliance.
It is recommended for County Legal Counsel to evaluate whether the authorization/disclosure
forms currently being utilized comply with FCRA.
It is recommended the County train and work with departments to establish meaningful
procedures to comply with the FCRA. This might require some revision to the current background
policy (HR-3) or personnel rules.
It is recommended the County develop standardized “pre-adverse action disclosures” and
“adverse action notices” to provide to candidates whose applications are denied, in whole or in
part, on the basis of information contained within a “consumer report.”
{County legal counsel has reviewed and supports the above summary of FCRA and the associated
recommendations.}
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 10 of 41
4.2 Hiring
County’s recruitment process is open and fair.
In most recruitments reviewed, the County’s recruitment process appears to provide a well documented
and open process for applicants. In two 2006 recruitments, a lack of documentation did not make it clear
who was interviewed and therefore, to what extent a fair process occurred. In one situation of the fifty-four
recruitments reviewed, an internal applicant was promoted to the on-call position without any external
applicant interviews. The manager had originally sought promotion of this internal applicant without
recruitment and had been told by Administration that a recruitment was required. All three of these
observations were with the Health department in 2006 and 2007 recruitments.
The County’s personnel rules seek to “… recruit and select the most qualified individuals for employment”
with “… fair treatment of all applicants and employees.” The “… selection shall be conducted to ensure
open competition.” County policy on selection and screening of applicants for vacant positions (HR-2)
generally requires “an appropriate number of qualified applicants.” It is also important for recruitment
records to effectively document the recruitment process.
In the promotion noted above, a relatively new manager was in charge of the recruitment and rationalized
that the internal applicant would require less training and would be able to take on immediate responsibility
for the on-call position, which outweighed any possible advantages from an outside applicant. The new
on-call position was better aligned with the current employee’s education than the on-call position they
held.
Though the manager was well meaning in terms of the current applicant who met the qualifications, the
other applicants did not receive due consideration. The lack of an open process could result in the County
not getting the best candidate for the position. That this occurred with an on-call position reduces the
potential impact to operations than if it occurred with a full time position.
The underlying desire of the manager to fill the position with the internal applicant may have flagged this
recruitment for additional oversight. The County has limited opportunity for oversight of the selection.
It is recommended the County consider monitoring hiring by departments to assure rules and
policies are being followed.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 11 of 41
More consistent handling of driving duties needed in recruitment process.
A significant number of County job descriptions reviewed include essential duties related to driving. Not all
references to driving through the course of the recruitment are the same. The following inconsistencies
were noted:
Twenty two percent (12 out of 54) of job descriptions reviewed failed to identify driving as an
essential job duty, when it would appear they are.
Thirty nine percent (21 out of 54) of job descriptions and announcements reviewed indicated a
driver’s license was needed but failed to indicate a good driving history was required.
Noted one recruitment where driving was an essential duty in the job description and the applicant
hired could not drive on County business. {From discussion with department, it appears that
driving should not have been an essential job duty in this situation.}
Noted the typical authorization form for a criminal background check or application signature may
not be sufficient to check the driving history of applicants.
The County’s applications do not ask about history of other State residency for checking on driving
history.
The County has significant requirements for employees and volunteers who drive on County business.
The County continues to monitor employee/volunteer driving throughout the year (through a link with State
driving records). Deterioration in driving history can lead to discipline and possibly termination. Driving on
County business is governed by the County’s driving policy (RM-1). For many County positions, driving is
an essential job duty and requires evaluation of the applicant's driving history as well as ongoing driving
record. In job descriptions, driving as an essential duty should indicate the need for a driver’s license and
good driving history. The job announcement should mirror this part of the job description.
In the absence of consistent language on driving duties and its essential nature in some positions, the
County may not be able to properly implement policies or discipline/terminate employees who cannot
drive. Personnel indicates they have started including driving history verbiage in announcements. State
driving history is critical in evaluating where background driving histories are performed as well as in the
criminal background check.
It is recommended for Personnel, Risk Management and departments to review and update job
descriptions and announcements for consistent and appropriate language on good driving history.
Where driving on County business is critical, this language should be included in the offer letter.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 12 of 41
It is recommended for the County to implement an authorization form for a driving history record
check consistent with the spectrum of job positions. It is recommended the job application or
authorization form have candidates identify the state(s) they have lived in over the prior five years.
Job descriptions are generally good but could be improved.
The County has job descriptions for all of the recruitments reviewed. It has been a while since job
descriptions were actively updated (average age of job descriptions is 3 years). Personnel during the
planning of this audit indicated that many of the job descriptions were overdue for an update and noted
that improvements were needed for some of the ADA requirements. Observations were consistent with
this. The following observations were made:
All duties included in the job description were essential duties.
The nature of the physical requirements – amount, duration and type could be expanded.
As previously discussed, driving as an essential duty and the ability to demonstrate a good driving
record was not always consistently addressed.
Outdated terminology was noted in a few information technology and accounting job descriptions.
Separate job titles and descriptions may be needed for certain jobs (i.e. building maintenance
worker is not equivalent to a custodian).
Noted within a specific mental health program, two recruitments where applicant’s education levels
did not meet stated minimum qualifications and were at levels below the stated department job
descriptions. Applicants appeared to have relevant experience to the specific program.
Job descriptions are a fundamental piece of workforce planning as they describe the services needed, the
essential duties to be performed and the extent of experience and knowledge desired for the position.
Certain employment law areas also influence job description development such as ADA and affirmative
action.
In the absence of appropriate job descriptions, it is difficult for an organization to control performance of
employees, limit legal exposures, manage expectations, and determine the extent of reasonable
accommodation if employee is disabled. The County could face paying additional monies if the employee
does not meet the minimum qualifications for exempt status.
Departments are ultimately responsible for their job descriptions. Variations sometimes exist within
departments on use of job classifications. Personnel, Legal and Administration have been and continue to
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 13 of 41
be vital resources in developing and updating job descriptions. The County would like to keep the number
of job descriptions to a minimum to minimize the maintenance and administration and provide greater
consistency.
It is recommended for County departments go through a process of reviewing and updating of job
descriptions with the help of Personnel, Legal and Administration.
Department’s documentation during recruitments could be improved.
There were recruitments which failed to adequately document the recruitment process and efforts to select
the best candidate. Observations included:
Fifty-seven percent (31 out of 54) of the recruitments had no documentation of how the best
candidate was determined. In practice, from discussions with managers, they are generally hiring
the best available candidate, though their selection may differ from the strongest candidate
identified by scoring or interview panel.
Forty-three percent (16 out of 54) of the recruitments had no documentation of checking on
education levels. In practice, only a few departments have any mechanism for checking
educational background.
Thirty-seven percent (20 out of 54) of the recruitments used some form of point scoring
methodology. In practice, managers differ whether scoring can solely identify the best candidate.
When scoring is involved, the final decision will usually have a judgmental component.
Twenty-four percent (12 of 54) of recruitments did not have documentation for how they selected
applicants for interview. In practice, judgment plays a part in selecting those to be interviewed and
usually includes those with the strongest qualifications. Some departments interview all applicants
meeting the minimum qualifications.
There is some indication of improvement with 2008 recruitments.
Twenty-two percent (12 out of 54) of recruitments had no documentation of the reference checks.
In practice, from discussions with managers, they do perform reference checks but so not always
document them.
There is some indication of improvement with 2008 recruitments.
Seventeen percent (9 of 54) of recruitments had no documentation of interviews.
There is some indication of improvement with 2008 recruitments.
Documentation should be sufficient to identify the steps taken to assure the best candidate was selected.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 14 of 41
Articles in this area indicate there has been a “rise in the willingness of applicants to misrepresent their
credentials.” Though there is some indication that government is less likely to encounter fraudulent
resumes (though that is at a level of 45%). It is not unheard of for applicants to make false or embellished
statements about their education or job history.
Background investigations, reference checks, and license and education verification are key to securing
hiring information on potential hires from sources other than the applicant. Technology in this area has
made performing these checks much easier. There are numerous laws including the fair credit reporting
act (FCRA), Equal employment opportunity and immigrations that pertain to this.
Some departments expressed confusion over what documentation is needed. Personnel provides some
information to departments at the inception of recruitment. It has not been a practice or procedure to
evaluate the completeness of returned department recruitment information. Personnel becomes the
custodian of the recruitment documentation after it is completed. Some departments have developed
comprehensive processes for recruitments that might be of use to other departments.
Only a couple of departments perform some form of education check. The number and quality of
reference checks seems to occur sporadically depending on the recruitment and documentation of most
references is very limited.
In the absence of proper documentation, applicants may be able to challenge the recruitment. In cases
where there is insufficient documentation, the County may not be able to support its hiring decisions.
Without performing the proper due diligence, the County might make a poor hiring decision and get an
unqualified employee. Due diligence assures applicants have the requisite skills, character and education
and do not have unsatisfactory employment histories, which could result in poor productivity. In the worst
cases, it protects the County from potential litigation or embezzlement.
The County does not recall ever having litigation over their recruitment process. In some County
departments and in upper management positions a very thorough and extensive recruitment and
background check process occurs. As noted above, some documentation improvement was noted
towards 2008.
It is recommended the County provide additional training and resources to departments as
applicable, on the recruitment process, on documentation standards to be followed, on
background checks and applicable laws. A pre and post checklist by departments might be
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 15 of 41
useful.
It is recommended that returned recruitment information be reviewed on completion to make sure
they are reasonably complete and request additional information from departments in a timely
manner if anything is found to be missing.
It is recommended for the County to identify the minimum verification/background standards that
should occur with respect to each recruitment based on associated risk. This might be
accomplished through establishing guidance for general categories of hires. As appropriate to the
category, this may include a minimum number of references checked, verification of degrees and
licenses, prior employment, credit check, and the extent of criminal background testing performed.
Many County departments fail to use pre and post testing to evaluate candidates.
During review of recruitments, files were reviewed for types of tests by departments to successfully identify
the best applicants. Thirty-five percent (19 out of 54) of recruitments used some form of testing with the
interview process. Five of the fourteen departments in the sample failed to consistently use tests for
essential duties when there could be tests available (such as for typing). Only a few departments (mainly
in public safety) consistently utilized a number of tests in their hiring process. Eleven percent (6 out of 54)
of the recruitments do some form of post testing after the interview. The departments that perform some
form of testing believed it identifies better applicants.
Testing can provide a consistent and comparable basis to evaluating candidates skills in essential duties
to be performed allowing for a more direct comparison of applicants.
A number of departments do little testing and are more interested in identifying applicants who will fit in
with their team. County policy (HR-2) identifies a number of evaluation and testing options available to
departments. For those that use some form of testing, it is important that the test is truly predictive of
success in the specific job.
The use of testing is one of the opportunities the County has prior to hiring to evaluate the ability to
perform essential skills/duties. The County should be mindful for those departments testing and wanting
to test that it can be adequately performed. Inappropriate testing can raise exposure for disparate
treatment of applicants, validity and consistency, handling of accommodation or ADA concerns.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 16 of 41
Knowledge and skills in departments on applying testing varies.
It is recommended for departments to consider utilizing some form of appropriate testing for
essential duties. The County might consider some way to evaluate and monitor tests utilized for
appropriateness and validity. Departments might see if Personnel can assist in administering
some of these tests in a controlled manner.
Applicant screening could be better coordinated.
In review of screening of candidates performed by Personnel and County departments, it is clear that this
could be better coordinated. Personnel has been used inconsistently since they started screening
applications in July 2007. Departments have used them in some 70% of the screenings observed since
then. Feedback from departments indicates departments welcome Personnel doing more for them. The
process and extent of screening on selected qualifications has not always been clear leaving some
departments to request applications that had been screened out. Observations indicated the following
areas can result in screening issues:
Identification of language skills (Spanish speaking or not?),
Extent of education and in what field of study,
Completeness of application (unsigned, lack of references, etc…), and
Legibility of application.
Personnel’s screening of applications provides a service to County departments to assure that applicants
appear to have the necessary minimum qualifications and should be considered in moving forward in the
process. County policy (HR-2) requires Personnel to perform screening activities for minimum
qualifications. However, the policy is unclear to what extent they should screen and the recourse to
departments. Personnel has a second staff person review the application and confirm any screened-out
candidates.
Departments differ on the extent of screening they would like. Personnel could do more to work with
departments on the extent of the screening to be performed. Screening is primarily based on job
announcements, which may differ from job descriptions.
One recruitment was noted where Personnel screened out the applicant for not meeting the stated
minimum education qualifications and the department requested the application and ended up hiring the
applicant based on the experience of the candidate.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 17 of 41
It is recommended the County identify what Personnel’s role should be in ensuring minimum
qualifications and completeness and legibility of applications. Departments should work with
Personnel in advance to identify job screening criteria.
Offer letters may be improved.
The County utilizes offer letters in virtually all hires, which is a good practice. The County does not view
these offer letters as contracts of employment. Sometimes there are items that are emphasized in the
offer letters such as the contingent funding of a position by a grant. These are brought up to emphasize
these items. In reviewing specific hires, some items were noted that could be highlighted in the offer letter
and include:
Obtaining required levels of education (BS or Masters) within a given timeframe,
Obtaining certain certificates (such as DPSST for officers) within a given timeframe,
Maintaining residence within a stated number of miles, or
Providing own reliable transportation.
Some of these help bridge candidate qualifications or responsibilities to meet the job.
The County is doing a very good job of documenting job offers. In earlier periods reviewed, it was noted
there were some issues with offer letters being signed after work had commenced. This may make the
letters unenforceable.
Departments do not appear to consider their options to place additional information in the offer letter. One
union agreement specifically allows extension of probation in cases where the applicant has not obtained
the required certifications. County Counsel supports adding items for emphasis in offer letters when it will
help clarify expectations. The offer letter still must be grounded in and based upon existing personnel
rules and/or collective bargaining agreements, as well as job descriptions and recruitments.
Providing clarification in specific hiring situations helps to assure that applicants are well informed about
what is being offered and their responsibilities.
It is recommended for the County to consider utilizing the offer letter more often to highlight when
job offers are made to candidates and there are expectations/conditions to be fulfilled in order to
meet the minimum qualifications or meet the essential duties. Probation should be extended or
the employee terminated if they do not meet the specified conditions.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 18 of 41
Personnel’s duties in obtaining employment documentation are working well.
In reviewing various compliance hiring processes, noted that the systems in place appear to be working.
New hires are providing a Form W-4 and I-9. Noted only a couple of instances where these were
turned in beyond 3 days as required.
Applications are all signed.
Personnel rules and orientation for benefitted employees generally occurs within the first 20 days of
employment. Did not note any cases where it was missed.
Key policy distribution and sign-off is much more consistent since the department started packaging
the policies for distribution and obtaining a sign-off on the group.
Drug testing and drivers license evaluation have been occurring, as applicable.
Additionally, departments have provided some input that they appreciate new training offerings (especially
for new supervisors) and would like to see more offerings and guidance. Supervisors are appreciating the
combined Personnel/Legal/Administration meetings to work out problems. Personnel, Legal and
Administration have recently added supervisor trainings on specific topical areas and are presenting those
to all departments. Recent topical areas have included FMLA/OFLA, non-harassment & discrimination
and managing employee performance. Additional trainings can occur as requested. These extend a
number of training that have been offered to supervisors. Unfortunately, recent voluntary trainings for
supervisors in the training catalog have not been well attended and during the last cycle, many had to be
cancelled.
4.3 Interviewing
Department’s interview panel composition could be improved.
A lack of recruitment documentation in eleven percent (6 out of 54) of recruitments makes it difficult to
assess who was on the interview panel as well as why they are on the panel. Interview panels are typically
comprised of 3-4 members. Since panel composition can have an impact on the hiring process, these
decisions should be documented. In one of the open recruitments (where a recruitment was held open for
an extended period), it was noted the interview panel members changed over the course of the
recruitment and the changed interview panel did not look over all applicants within the recruitment. It is
not clear all departments provide training to interviewers on the recruitment process. This is further
evidenced by incomplete documentation prepared by interviewers.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 19 of 41
Interview panels should have some variety in composition to demonstrate an independent and fair
process. Members of the panel should be consistent over the term of the recruitment. Interviewers should
receive basic training to support efforts at documentation and a fair process. The make up of interview
panels also helps address the County’s affirmative action and equal opportunity efforts.
Interview panels do not routinely have members outside of the department on them. Some practices in
other jurisdictions have emphasized using one member from outside the department to gain a broader
perspective. Some County departments do currently utilize people outside of their department.
Maintaining the composition of the interview panel over open recruitments (held open until enough hires
are made) is difficult. Departments are using less of these open recruitments because they are
administratively difficult to deal with.
It is recommended for departments to document who is on their recruitment panels and look for
ways to assure interview teams represent a diverse set of perspectives. Departments should be
encouraged to gain representation from outside the department. The County should consider
monitoring the diversity in recruitment panels by department.
It is recommended for the County to provide basic training to interviewers on expectations during
the recruitment. Interview panel members should be consistent over the entire recruitment.
It is recommended the County consider limiting use of open-until-filled recruitments in their
current form.
It is recommended for the County to consider evaluating/monitoring the success of interview
panels in hiring good employees. Evaluating this over time could yield some information for
additional training and makeup of interview panels.
Interviewing questions in some departments could be improved.
Most departments and supervisors have a number of interview questions they like to use. In review of
numerous questions, it is clear that sometimes the questions asked could be improved. Some questions
asked telegraphed the answer (i.e. Please tell me how you handle stress). Departments did appear to be
using some behavioral questions (80% of the time). Many departments include good situational questions.
It was clear some departments were more interested in behavioral or character type questions and
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 20 of 41
focused much less on questions relating to the applicants ability to utilize their skills. Few departments
provided any expectations for values of scores based on response.
The County follows a mostly structured interview process. Employment interview research indicates
structuring the interview increases validity, reliability and usefulness. Questions asked should generally be
effective at giving the interview panel a true picture of the applicant’s performance in the work
environment. There is evidence that developing appropriate questions links the knowledge, skills and
abilities of the position to the questions. Anticipated responses should be graded within the scale. Rating
scales have been determined to reduce interviewer subjectivity, as the interviewer is required to match the
applicant’s answer to a pre-existing anchor of good, bad, and fair responses.
In the absence of proper interviewing technique, there may be too much subjectivity in the process. The
greater structure provides some protection from potential discrimination claims.
A couple of departments have structured interview questions in this manner noting possible responses and
scoring and what was being looked for in the question. Some departments did not always follow a system,
which could yield inconsistent results.
It is recommended for departments to consider improvements to the questions asked and how
they are evaluated. Departments should consider developing rating scales from anticipated
responses to more consistently evaluate candidates. Departments should direct questions at job skills
and behaviors they are looking for and which are included in their job description. Some departments ask
Personnel’s input on questions and process.
Departments with the most difficult-to-fill positions have extensive hiring processes.
Public safety departments and in particular 911 dispatchers and Sheriff Office deputies are some of the
most challenging positions to fill. Not only are the positions very dynamic but applicants can rarely have
life experiences that ready them for all of the aspects of these duties. These departments experience
some of the greatest levels of turnover with new hires.
In review of the processes these departments use, it is hard to imagine any more they could do to assess
and evaluate applicants. Other County departments could learn from some of their techniques. These
departments utilize significant amount of time to go through the process, which includes testing, screening,
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 21 of 41
interviewing, observing, and making efforts to make sure the process is quantifiable. The twelve month to
eighteen-month probationary periods give County departments the time it takes to determine candidates
are right for the position. These departments fully utilize probationary periods with consistent and
extensive supervisory interaction.
4.4 Performance Evaluations
Additional training on probationary evaluations needed
A review of performance evaluations for new hires, made the following observations:
Initial evaluations (2 month/3month) were performed on average 62% of the time. Average times
for completion was 3 months or 4 months, respectively.
Second evaluations (6 month/8month) were performed on average 68% of the time. Average times
for completion were 7 months or 10 months, respectively.
o Noted three departments where staff were not performing two month and six-month
evaluations. They thought these evaluations were optional.
The 12 month and 18 month probationary evaluation occurred 96% and 100% of the time,
respectively
o In eleven percent (6 out of 54) of the recruitments, supervisors failed to identify in their
evaluation paperwork that probation was met.
o In one instance, it was noted a certification was to be in place by the end of probation and
there was no mention of it in the probationary evaluation.
o The extension of probation was rare and noted in only three percent (1 out of 29) of
applicable hires reaching probation.
o In two instances, supervisors indicated letting employees through probation when they
should not have.
In two instances, a step increase was given without receiving promised evaluations. However,
many of the union agreements provide that step increases occur if an evaluation is not received.
The County has developed standard evaluation timelines that provide for probationary evaluations.
Evaluations are supposed to occur on a schedule of 2, 6 and 12 months for most departments (3, 8, 12
months in Road and Solid Waste and 2, 6, 12, 18 for Sheriff’s Association as well as some Federation of
Oregon Parole & Probation employees). These evaluations provide important input and feedback on new
hire performance. A number of union agreements require these performance evaluations. Government
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 22 of 41
employers rely on probationary evaluations, which occur at 12 months for most employees and 18 months
for Sheriff’s Association employees and certain Federation of Oregon Parole & Probation employees.
Beyond the probationary period, many government employees have greater due process rights.
The lack of timely and early probationary evaluations may have contributed to issues not being addressed
in a timelier manner. From the evaluations reviewed, it is apparent that some supervisors needed
additional guidance on preparation of evaluations and some did not follow procedures requiring two and
six-month evaluations.
It is recommended for the County to develop performance measures to monitor and manage
expectations for performance evaluations.
{Personnel, Legal and Administration have recently added supervisor trainings on specific topical areas
such as performance evaluations to all departments. Currently, Personnel has been reporting to
Administration on all evaluations.}
As noted in a previous recommendation, If conditions are raised in the offer letter, it is
recommended that those conditions be addressed in probationary evaluations. The County might
need to identify a process to inform supervisors when there are additional criteria to be addressed.
Additional guidance needed for performance evaluations of some positions.
The County fills a number of positions with on-call, temporary or hourly positions. It is not always clear to
departments how frequently these employees should be given performance evaluations and at what time,
if applicable, probation might be met. Personnel notifies departments of evaluations on the same basis as
for full time employees.
County personnel rules indicate that probationary, temporary, hourly, and on-call employees, as at-will
employees, may have employment terminated and may be discharged with or without notice and with or
without cause by the employee’s department head or the County Administrator. The county is looking also at
creating a new employee class called “limited duration” which might also have similar issues. This class is
anticipated to be used for employees hired under specific grants.
These types of positions provide a vital role in maintaining service levels for many departments. Schedules
and usage of these positions vary significantly.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 23 of 41
Without appropriate policies in place a number of these workers do not get formal feedback on performance
and there is a lack of process to do this on a regular basis.
It is recommended the County establish policies around when and if performance evaluations
should be performed for temporary, on-call, hourly and “limited duration” employees and criteria for
step increases.
4.5 Other
Personnel may benefit from more computerized processes in recruitment.
There are some processes within Personnel where the computerization or automation could be improved.
The recently acquired human resource module has capacity to be utilized much more for new hire
information. Recruitment and applicant information is accumulated in separate Excel applications and the
information cannot be readily analyzed. Supervisors are told of upcoming evaluations but reports are not
easily pulled on the completion rates. Manual and email interest cards are used once and information on
those people with interest are not kept beyond their initial request.
Computerized systems provide opportunities to organize, analyze and report data that are more efficient
and more easily accessed.
Without such systems, we lose access to information that could help the County make better hires and
better decisions. Over time, the systems will help staff to be more effective and efficient in their duties.
During this audit, the applicant and recruitment data was converted into databases, which could be easily
mined for more information. Personnel has recently started looking into whether a computerized applicant
tracking system might be beneficial.
It is recommended for Personnel to determine whether some of their manual processes could
benefit from some computerization in order to better fulfill their duties in a timely and cost
effective manner. Computerization might also provide opportunities to develop some monitoring
and measurement tools as well as gathering statistics relevant to human resource practices.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 24 of 41
Other filing techniques available for personnel files.
County personnel files are currently an assembly of loose chronological documents for each employee in a
folder. Though there were not issues identified with missing or incomplete documentation, the organization
style of the files could be improved.
Some organizations will organize personnel information in secured sections. Organization sometimes
includes sections for recruitment (application, resume, offer letter, references), employment (job
description, certificates and licenses, evaluations, changes in status), benefits (election forms), payroll
(withholding forms, W-4, timesheets), and separation (termination letter).
Organizing files by section makes it faster to find what you are looking for. Securing down documents in
the folder assures documents stay in the file and do not get misplaced.
For long time employees, their personnel files become large and unwieldy making it more difficult to locate
items. For employees who have moved through various positions, there are multiple locations for offer
letters and applications.
It is suggested (not recommended) that Personnel consider updating the style of their personnel
files to tab secured sections. Once an employee is termed, they may want to recycle the tabbed
file and use a basic file for holding the information.
County could utilize more human resource performance measures.
The published human resource performance measures used by the County are fairly limited and are as
follows:
Employee turnover rate (goal of 5.2% or less for voluntary)
% receiving an exit interview (goal of 100%)
% of exit interview issues responded to (goal of 100%)
% of annual evaluations within 30 days of anniversary date (goal 75%)
A number of human resource measures might be useful for the County to monitor over time. Measures
are available in a number of areas including workforce planning, recruitment, affirmative action, training,
and labor relations.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 25 of 41
In the absence of monitoring and measuring activity, the County may not correctly identify issues in the
human resource areas. While we did not identify clear industry standards or benchmarks, regular
monitoring and reporting on measures is essential to identifying potential issues and guiding future policy
development.
It is suggested (not recommended) the County consider developing additional measures for
monitoring and measuring countywide human resource activities.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 26 of 41
5. Responses
5.1.
County
Administrator
(Administration
and Personnel)
Department of Administrative Services
Dave Kanner - County Administrator
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202
www.deschutes.org
December 16, 2009
TO: David Givans, internal auditor
FROM: Dave Kanner, county administrator
Erik Kropp, deputy county administrator
Debbie Legg, personnel services manager
Tracy Scott, human resources analyst
RE: Human Resources Report #08/09-16
Thank you for your audit of the County’s selection and recruitment process. It is, as usual, very thorough. We
appreciate the fine job you have done.
As you can see, I am responding not just on behalf of myself, but on behalf of the entire HR management
team at Deschutes County. While we agree with much of what the audit recommends, there is a great deal in
this report we disagree with, and there are certain recommendations that I cannot support. I look forward to
the discussion of the audit and this response to it with the Audit Committee, whose citizen members have
been senior or chief executives with very large organizations and who, I’m sure, can offer great insight into HR
processes such as those in the audit.
We realize, of course, that the purpose of an audit is to point out deficiencies and make recommendations for
correcting them, not to point out what we’re doing right and to commend us for doing so. Part of our concern
in reading this audit, however, is the determination that certain items are deficiencies, when I (we) do not
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 27 of 41
agree that’s the case. In fact, one of the most important measures of whether recruitment and selection is
being handled properly would be to count the number of challenges (legal or otherwise) we’ve had to our
recruitment and selection processes over the last 25 years. That number is zero. It would be interesting to
know how that compares with other similarly situated public organizations. Does that mean there is no room
for improvement? Of course not. But improvement must be balanced against the need to minimize our legal
exposures, to minimize unnecessary bureaucratic hoops, and manage the burden on our (very small) HR
staff.
I would also point out that since coming to Deschutes County in June 2006, I have made updating our
personnel rules and policies a priority. We have completely rewritten our personnel rules, revised or rewritten
most personnel policies, instituted a countywide training program and instituted a supervisor-specific training
program, building on supervisor training that has been in place in Deschutes County for at least ten years,
including a mandatory “Supervision in the Public Sector” training offered by Portland State University four
years ago. We have implemented an annual employee survey and a countywide employee recognition
program. We have been systematically reviewing all AFSCME-represented classifications since July 2007,
having previously updated all non-represented classifications. While the audit points out some problems in
recruitment and selection, I would be extremely disappointed to learn there has been no improvement over
time as these things have been implemented and taken hold. (The audit does note improvement in a few
specific areas since 2008.) Indeed, my sense is that there has in fact been tremendous improvement, that our
problems are few, and that they can mostly be solved through better training, some of which is already
scheduled and will have been completed by the time the Audit Committee convenes to discuss the results of
this report.
With all of that as introduction, we will first review those recommendations with which we agree.
Section 3
It is recommended for Personnel/Administration to perform the steps necessary to update the EEOP in
a timely manner.
o Agree. The Board of Commissioners approved the updated EEOP on November 2, 2009.
It is recommended for the County to implement solutions to the areas identified for improvement in the
EEOP.
o Agree. We can brief department heads at a department head meeting. The EEOP will be posted
on the County’s internet and intranet sites, and we will monitor impact from recruitment efforts.
Section 4.1
It is recommended for the County to implement appropriate human resource plans, policies and
procedures under these federal affirmative action obligations, which might include development and
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 28 of 41
annual update of a written affirmative action plan, invitation to candidates to self identify as veterans,
and annual reporting of veterans hired and employed.
o We agree with the need to add a question about veteran status on the County employment
application and have taken the necessary steps to comply with the new state law with regard to
veteran status. As discussed later in this response, we do not agree with the auditor’s
conclusions and recommendations regarding an affirmative action plan.
It is recommended for the County to investigate and identify on an ongoing basis the County’s human
resource obligations under grants and contracts executed.
o We believe this needs more discussion. Are the obligations vastly different for various
grants/contracts? This may not be good use of staff resources to monitor on an ongoing basis if
the requirements are standardized, and it is not necessarily ideal to have this function
centralized in the Personnel Office rather than having it done at the department level.
It is recommended for County Legal Counsel to evaluate whether the authorization/disclosure forms
currently being utilized comply with FCRA.
o We agree.
It is recommended the County train and work with departments to establish meaningful procedures to
comply with the FCRA. This might require some revision to the current background policy (HR-3) or
personnel rules..
o We agree.
It is recommended the County develop standardized “pre-adverse action disclosures” and “adverse
action notices” to provide to candidates whose applications are denied, in whole or in part, on the basis
of information contained within a “consumer report.”
o We agree, if Legal Counsel determines this is necessary.
Section 4.2 Hiring
It is recommended for Personnel, Risk Management and departments to review and update job
descriptions and announcements for consistent and appropriate language on good driving history.
Where driving on County business is critical, this language should be included in the offer letter.
o Language was added to the recruitments during the three year period that was audited. This is
occurring with all recruitments that require a driver’s license. This does not need to be added to
the job descriptions because the requirement may vary from one position to another. That is, a
customer service clerk in one department may not have driving as an essential job function,
while an individual in the same classification in a different department does. The driving
requirement should be – and is – noted in the recruitment. The discussion needs to center
around whether driving is an essential function and what to do if an employee in a job where
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 29 of 41
driving is an essential function is not able to drive either because they do not have a valid license
or are not allowed to per the County’s driving policy. The question of whether to include driving
as an essential job function in an offer letter is moot if it is contained in the recruitment and
position description. In addition, every County employee, whether driving is an essential job
function or not, is required to sign a statement indicating they have read and understood County
Policy RM-1, “Driving on County Business.” This should be sufficient. There is further
discussion of the use of offer letters later in this response.
It is recommended for the County to implement an authorization form for a driving history record check
consistent with the spectrum of job positions. It is recommended the job application or authorization
form have candidates identify the state(s) they have lived in over the prior five years.
o We agree in principle, but we don’t need authorization to check driving history. We currently use
an out-of-state system when an applicant has an out-of-state driver’s license.
It is recommended for County departments go through a process of reviewing and updating of job
descriptions with the help of Personnel, Legal and Administration.
o Agree. This is an ongoing process, currently focused on AFSCME and IUOE represented
positions. There are practical workload considerations that dictate the pace at which this can be
addressed.
It is recommended the County provide additional training and resources to departments as applicable,
on the recruitment process, on documentation standards to be followed, on background checks and
applicable laws. A pre and post checklist by departments might be useful.
o Agree. A session on “Hiring Right” was included in the Fall/Winter 2008 supervisory training and
a class called “Interviewing to Hire Right” was available in the Spring/Summer 2009 employee
training catalogue. In addition, running an effective interview process will be the next training
topic that Personnel/Legal will take out to department supervisors (beginning January 2010) and
hiring is again included in the supervisory academy offered through the employee training
catalogue.
It is recommended that returned recruitment information be reviewed on completion to make sure they
are reasonably complete and request additional information from departments in a timely manner if
anything is found to be missing.
o Agree. When the audit mentions there was no documentation, that does not mean interviews,
reference and background checks did not happen. It means the documentation did not make it
back to the Personnel Office to be archived in the recruitment file. Personnel will establish a
process to ensure documentation is returned and complete. For years, Personnel has included
instructions (in the form of a check-off list) with the application packets. This gives specific
instructions on what is expected back from them. It also provides information for supervisors
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 30 of 41
regarding what they must provide to Personnel when the process is complete. We don’t
understand why there’s confusion, except that supervisors may not be looking at the instructions
that are provided. This appears to be a training issue; one that will be addressed in the next
round of supervisory training.
It is recommended for the County to identify the minimum verification/background standards that should
occur with respect to each recruitment based on associated risk. This might be accomplished through
establishing guidance for general categories of hires. As appropriate to the category, this may include a
minimum number of references checked, verification of degrees and licenses, prior employment, credit
check, and the extent of criminal background testing performed.
o Agree in part. Personnel does currently screen for minimum qualifications; however, this
process often involves discussion with the department. For example, Personnel sometimes
needs clarification from the department to help determine acceptable degrees for a position
(“degree in a related field”). The County already has a background check policy in place.
It is recommended for department to consider utilizing some form of appropriate testing for essential
duties. The County might consider some way to evaluate and monitor tests utilized for appropriateness
and validity. Departments might see if Personnel can assist in administering some of these tests in a
controlled manner.
o Agree in part. To the extent that testing is used, Personnel can and will require that
departments submit the tests used for legal review. See further discussion of testing later in this
response.
It is recommended for the County to consider utilizing the offer letter more often to highlight when job
offers are made to candidates and there are expectations/conditions to be fulfilled in order to meet the
minimum qualifications or meet the essential duties. Probation should be extended or the employee
terminated if they do not meet the specified conditions.
o Agree with the recommendation regarding probation, but disagree with the use of offer letters.
See further discussion later in this response.
The statement is made in the audit that “Department’s documentation during recruitments could be
improved.”
o We believe this is already happening. Process improvements were implemented during the
three-year audit period. It would be helpful to know if there has been improvement in this area
over time.
It is recommended the County identify what Personnel’s role should be in ensuring minimum
qualifications and completeness and legibility of applications. Departments should work with Personnel
in advance to identify job screening criteria.
o We agree that departments should work with Personnel in advance to identify job screening
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 31 of 41
criteria. The requirement that Personnel will screen for minimum qualifications was implemented
during the three-year audit period. We disagree that Personnel should determine the
completeness and legibility of the applications. That should be evaluated by the department.
Section 4.3 Interviewing
It is recommended for department to document who is on their recruitment panels and look for ways to
assure interview teams represent a diverse set of perspectives. Departments should be encouraged to
gain representation from outside the department. The County should consider monitoring the diversity
in recruitment panels by department.
o Agree in part. We don’t think we should monitor the panels, but do more training on how to
select a good interview panel. See further discussion later in this response.
It is recommended for the County to provide basic training to interviewers on expectations during the
recruitment. Interview panel members should be consistent over the entire recruitment. It is
recommended the County consider limiting use of open-until-filled recruitments in their current form.
o Agree with the first two recommendations, and have been having discussions about electronic
trainings that we might require of interview panels prior to conducting interviews. We are not
sure about the recommendation regarding open-until-filled recruitments and the audit offers no
rationale for this recommendation. These are rarely used by the County in any event. For
difficult-to-fill positions, an open-until-filled recruitment saves time and money. There was one
recruitment that was open for an inordinately long time and that is the one in which the interview
panel changed. But that recruitment was a rare exception, not the norm. We believe the
departments understand the importance of having a consistent interview panel and they
understand that they have to consider every application received until the position has been
filled.
It is recommended for departments to consider improvements to the questions asked and how they are
evaluated. Departments should consider developing rating scales from anticipated responses to more
consistently evaluate candidates.
o We agree that interview questions can be improved and this topic is covered in training sessions.
We strenuously disagree with the recommendation for “rating scales.” There is further
discussion of that issue later in this response.
Section 4.4 Performance Evaluations
It is recommended for the county to develop performance measures to monitor and manage
expectations for performance evaluations.
o Agree.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 32 of 41
As noted in a previous recommendation, if conditions are raised in the offer letter, it is recommended
that those conditions be addressed in probationary evaluations. The County might need to identify a
process to inform supervisors when there are additional criteria to be addressed.
o See discussion of offer letters later in this response.
It is recommended the County establish policies around when and if performance evaluations should be
performed for temporary, on-call, hourly and “limited durations” employees and criteria for step
increases.
o We agree. Personnel and Administration will develop a County-wide policy to ensure consistent
application throughout all departments.
Section 4.5 Other
It is recommended for Personnel to determine whether some of their manual processes could benefit
from some computerization in order to fulfill their duties in a timely and cost effective manner.
Computerization might also provide opportunities to develop some monitoring and measurement tools
as well as gathering statistics relevant to human resource practices.
o Agree. Personnel has been researching “Applicant Tracking” and “On-Line Applications” for the
last two years. A quote was recently received in the amount of $17,500 for the initial set-up and
first year fees and then $10,000 on an annual basis. The recently acquired human resource
module was purchased in large part for on-line training registration, e-mail notifications
requesting supervisor approval, email reminders of training, and tracking trainings in each
employee’s electronic record. Personnel has successfully used these features in the newly
developed County-wide training programs. The human resource module has also given each
department on-line access to their employee data and has given them the capability to track their
individual department trainings, licenses, certifications, equipment, etc. This has been extremely
beneficial for departments and has eliminated numerous information requests from Personnel.
It is suggested the County consider developing additional measures for monitoring and measuring
countywide human resource activities.
o Agree.
However, there is much in the audit that begs a clarifying response or with which we simply disagree. Those
items are as follows:
Section 4.1, Employment Law
Recommendation: “Development and annual update of a written affirmative action plan.”
o I disagree with this recommendation. As you know, I am in receipt of a letter from the chief of
the Branch of Policy Development and Procedures Division of Policy, Planning and Program
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 33 of 41
Development, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, that
states, “[No] Deschutes County agency other than a medical or educational institution needs to
have an affirmative action program (AAP) under any Federal law… Many county agencies in
the United States receive Federal money in the form of grants, but most do not have a
Federal contract or subcontract. Grants are not contracts. Organizations that receive Federal
grants but have no Federal contracts or subcontracts are not under OFCCP jurisdiction and
need no AAP under Federal law.” All of our federal revenue streams (listed on pages 298-300 of
the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) are grants, not contracts, a fact confirmed by our
external auditors at Harrigan, Price, Fronk & Co. I am loathe to invest staff time in the
development of a plan that is not necessary and even more reluctant to create a new set of
bureaucratic hoops for hiring managers to jump through when we are clearly not required to do
so.
Audit statement: “Fair Credit Reporting Act may impact County recruitment efforts.”
o While we agree with your recommendations on page 9 of the audit report regarding FCRA, we
must point out that the County has a stellar record with regard to compliance with this law and
the use of background checks. The number of times we have been challenged, legally or
otherwise, on the use of background checks in the last 25 years is zero.
Section 4.2 Hiring
The audit notes that the County’s recruitment process is open and fair, then uses five paragraphs to
discuss one recruitment – involving an on-call, not a regular position -- that you believe was not. This
recruitment (one in 54 examined) was clearly an aberration.
This section contains a lengthy discussion of pre- and post-employment testing. While we agree that
testing should be used when appropriate, there are many County positions, perhaps the majority, for
which no legally valid test is available. How would we “test” the counseling skills of a mental health
specialist? How would we “test” the clinical skills of a public health nurse? Testing is merely a tool
that, when used appropriately and when matched to what is truly an essential job duty, can provide
useful information to a hiring manager. However, the excessive or inappropriate use of testing creates
major liabilities for the County that we have, to date, not encountered.
Recommendation: “[Personnel should screen for] completeness and legibility of applications.”
o We disagree. Personnel screens for minimum qualifications. The completeness and legibility of
the applications should be evaluated by the hiring manager.
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 34 of 41
This section of the audit makes a series of recommendations for “improving” offer letters. We as a
team and I personally strongly disagree with this recommendation. The County has always deliberately
avoided putting too much in the offer letters because we do not want them to become employment
contracts. In fact, the question of the nature of an offer letter is one of the issues the County is
currently contesting in a proceeding before the Employment Relations Board. Rather than larding offer
letters with additional terms and conditions of employment, the County would be better served by
ensuring that all such conditions are included in the recruitment announcement and/or job descriptions,
and that the attainment (or failure to attain) of these conditions is noted in probationary reviews. This
course offers the County far greater protection from liability.
Section 4.3., Interviewing
This section contains a lengthy discussion of interview panels and further discussion of “scoring” and
“rating scales.” The audit recommends “Departments should consider developing rating scales from
anticipated responses to more consistently evaluate candidates.” First, we feel the audit misconstrues
the role of an interview panel. An interview panel is purely advisory in nature; it makes a
recommendation to the hiring manager, but the hiring manager is not bound by that recommendation.
Second, we strenuously disagree with requiring “scoring” and “rating scales” in interview processes. A
recruitment is not and should not be reduced to a “low bid” process in which candidates are scored and
whoever gets the best score wins the job. Creating rating scales would likely create liability for the
County rather than offering greater protection from it, since jobs – in the County and in virtually every
other organization, public or private – go to the candidate who is not only highly qualified, but is also the
best “fit.” I’m not sure how we’d measure fit on an actuarially valid and legally defensible rating scale.
We can agree with the notion that interview panels should document questions and answers and that
there should perhaps be a checklist on which to document whether interviewees demonstrated required
competencies in their answers. We can also agree that the interview panel should provide the hiring
manager with a non-binding ranking of the candidates. Scoring and rating scales are great and
necessary when choosing among competing bidders in an RFP procurement process. They’re not so
great when filling positions in an interview process.
Recommendation: “County to consider evaluating/monitoring the success of interview panels in hiring
good employees. Evaluating this over time could yield some information for additional training and
makeup of interview panels.”
o We disagree. We believe it’s better to rely on professional publications and research studies to
learn about best practices. The type of evaluation and monitoring recommended would be
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 35 of 41
extremely labor intensive and would severely stretch the resources of an already stretched-thin
Personnel Office.
Section 4.4, Performance Evaluations
This section of the audit raises some legitimate issues with which we mostly agree. Getting
departments to do their performance evaluations in a timely manner has been an ongoing problem.
However, over the course of the last 18 months or so, we have taken steps to address this issue. We
have offered countywide supervisory training on performance evaluation and have begun tracking the
timeliness of evaluations on a department-by-department basis. The period covered by the audit
commences prior to the initiation of these corrective actions. In fact, the corrective actions began
roughly in the middle of the audit period. It would be helpful to know if there has been any improvement
over the latter portion of the audit period (as we believe there has). If there hasn’t been any
improvement, it would indicate that additional training is needed.
Section 4.5, Other
This section of the audit contains recommendations for changing the Personnel Office filing system.
The County’s personnel files can be accessed only by an extremely limited number of people.
Inasmuch as these people are happy with the filing system and inasmuch as the system works for
them, there is no need to change it.
In conclusion, and at the risk of being pedantic, let me say that a personnel office is expected to provide
control and support to the entire organization. The office mostly divides its time between items that are urgent
(e.g., Harassment/Discrimination complaints, grievances, arbitration, negotiation/bargaining, discipline issues,
payroll questions, leave questions/processing, etc.) and items that are important but not urgent (e.g.,
Classification and reclassification, policy interpretation – which can be urgent in some situations, legal and
regulatory compliance questions, employment application screening, employment opening advertising, policy
writing, training programs and schedule, salary surveys, new employee orientation, and general paperwork).
Given the small size of our Personnel staff and the relatively broad range of services they already provide, I
have difficulty envisioning how they could take on additional responsibilities as called for in this audit without
significantly increasing the staff; a course of action I am not prepared to recommend at this time. Deschutes
County, like most large public organizations I’m familiar with, has decentralized many of its HR functions
precisely so as to not wind up with an overly large Personnel Office. I believe this structure has worked and is
still working. More than anything, I believe this audit has identified a need for more and improved training on
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 36 of 41
recruitment and hiring issues, but I would be skeptical of creating a more centralized control function in the
Personnel Office.
I’d note, too, that the audit talks about measuring the success of our recruitment efforts. This is difficult at
best. But I would point out that our turnover rate is extraordinarily low, that we rarely have to terminate
anyone for malfeasance or non-performance or dismiss someone before the completion of their probationary
period, that our most recent employee survey found that nearly 95% of our employees are proud to be
associated with Deschutes County and nearly 93% would recommend Deschutes County as a good place to
work. These are metrics that tell us our recruitment and selection process is working pretty darn well.
Thank you for your hard work on this audit. We look forward to the discussion with the Audit Committee.
5.2.
County Counsel
From: Christopher Bell, Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010
To: David Givans
Subject: HR AUDIT - Legal Review
Overall it looks fine. A few substantive things I noticed which deserve comment are:
1. Section 3. It should be stressed that the County ensures it follows up on the implementation of the
strategies and recommendations identified in the EEOP (Equal Employment Opportunity Program). It is clear
from federal EEO regs that an EEOP cannot be just a form the County spits out to comply with federal law.
Agencies need to actually implement what they say they intend to do in their EEOP. I would suggest follow up
via either an EEOP audit or some less formal review to determine what has been done and what yet needs to
be done to fully implement the EEOP. If everything suggested in the EEOP has been or is being done, then
great. If not, we should take steps to complete them.
2. Section 4.1. I understand where Dave Kanner is coming from with the AAP (Affirmative Action Plan).
And if his belief is accurate that the County does not have any federal "contracts," but only federal "grants,"
then I am fine with not going forward with an AAP. The problem, as you know, is that the information you and
I had gathered led us to believe the County has several contracts with the federal government which would
qualify as "contracts." Indeed, I believe you showed me a few of these agreements which specifically stated
the affirmative action obligations identified in the regulations arising from Executive Order 11246, the
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 37 of 41
Rehabilitation Act, and VEVRAA applied to them. Therefore, I think at the very least some sort of review/audit
of the County's current agreements with the federal government should be performed to ensure none of them
are qualifying "contracts" under federal regulations requiring an AAP. I would think the potential
consequences of running afoul of these regulations, i.e., loss of the contract and/or monetary penalties, would
justify such a review.
3. Section 4.2. Several County agencies, such as the Sheriff's Office, have separate "essential
task/function" lists for each of their positions. Others have those functions specified as a separate list within
the job description. I believe it is crucial to have the essential tasks for each position identified prior to making
an offer, if possible. As to existing positions, these lists should be created or updated for the very reasons you
state in the audit. These lists can make or break the County's defenses to claims under the ADA or state
discrimination claims. They are crucial to determining whether reasonable accommodations can be made for
disabilities or religious beliefs. They are also crucial in many ways in determining how to handle workers
compensation claims, especially concerning requests for modified duty or reinstatement after injury. Knowing
the essential tasks of positions are also necessary for medical certifications to support claims for OFLA/FMLA
leave. Such lists may also give objective justification for disciplinary action or termination if it is determined
the employee cannot perform one of the essential functions of their position. Finally, such lists may provide
valuable evidence in defending against union grievances concerning discipline or poor performance
evaluations of union employees. Without such a verifiable list, it makes it much more difficult for the County to
defend decisions which are adverse to employees or that don't meet an employee's expectations. For these
reasons, I think it is advisable to create defensible "essential task/function lists" for every position at the
County.
You also discuss offer letters and I agree with what is discussed in the audit. I think it is crucial the County
adopt a policy or practice where temporary employees are uniformly discharged at the end of their temporary
term. If funding for the position is extended or the department finds additional funding to continue the
temporary employee's position, then the employee should be given a new offer letter for a new term. Even
though the discharge and re-hiring is in many ways a mere formality, it creates a clear definition of the nature
of the employee's status. In this way the temporary nature of the position is preserved and there is a clear,
documented break in employment demonstrating the employee is temporary. The department is always free
to make the employee regular, if that is what they desire. I would suggest this in the audit, if possible.
4.4 I think your recommendations on performance evals are right on. Supervisors need to do a better job
of being consistent in scoring these and also in timely completing them. I also think better use of probationary
periods needs to be a priority. It has become clear to me that one of the biggest problems in many
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 38 of 41
departments is hiring employees who looked great on their application and in interviews, but who turn out to
be a poor "fit." Often this manifests itself in poor work habits and attendance, lack of motivation, dishonesty,
not getting along with others, or just flat-out being cancers in the workplace for a host of reasons. Probation is
probably the County's best tool to weed these folks out. As you know, this is because while employees are on
probation they do not have due process rights, they are at-will. Thus, probationary employees can be
discharged for any reason, or none at all, subject to requirements in the union CBAs (County Bargaining
Agreements), and as long as the reasons aren't illegal. From what I gather, many, if not most of these
problems start to manifest within the probationary period. I would advise that supervisors should take
advantage of this, if necessary.
4.5 Consider OFLA/FMLA tracking software, if it exists. I seem to recall hearing someone out there in
Countyland saying they had installed it and it made things much easier. OFLA/FMLA tracking can be a
nightmare, and any help Personnel can get on this might be worthwhile. Personnel may already have this, but
it just came to mind.
One last thing, I'd stress the need for beefing up and - dare I say it - requiring supervisory training on any
number of issues affecting employee relations. Supervisors are our first line of defense on many of the liability
issues discussed in the audit. In my opinion, the vast majority of employee problems, lawsuits, claims, and
grievances we have experienced over the last few years arise from inadequate supervision, a complete lack of
supervision, or missed opportunities to address problems by supervisors. Although I believe supervisory
training has improved, I think we can and should do more.
That's all I have. Let me know if you have any questions.
5.3.
Sheriff’s Office
We agree with the auditor’s comments, however, under the circumstances, we will not change our hiring
process in regards to Consumer Reporting and Psychological evaluations until further review by DCSO
legal and County.
Darla Rhoden
Deschutes County Sheriff's Office
Human Resource Coordinator
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 39 of 41
5.4.
Road Dept
I have reviewed the audit report on human resources - new hires and I concur with all the findings and
recommendations in the report.
I appreciate the time and effort that went into this report and look forward to working with HR on the
implementation of the recommendations to improve our new-hire process.
Tom Blust, PE, PLS
Director,
Deschutes County Road Department
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 40 of 41
APPENDICES
A1 AUDIT METHODOLOGY
The audit attempted at address some of the higher risk areas within the human resource area of the
County. Human resource activities are highly decentralized and occur through departments, personnel,
legal and administration. County legal, personnel and administration were involved topically to scope
this audit. It was determined the greatest benefit of this performance audit could be obtained through
reviewing specific areas around hiring.
A random sample of 54 new hires (representing 14%) was utilized. The sample size was drawn from
the new hires from July 2006 through May 2009 (397 in total). The sample size was calculated using a
confidence level of 90%, 10% precision and with a tolerable error of 3%. The composition of the sample
was compared to size of county departments and found to be reasonably close. Some smaller
departments did not have any hires selected. The percent of recruitments selected by recruitment year
(2006/2007/2008) were 44%, 33% and 22%, respectively. Personnel and recruitment files were
examined for relevant data. A number of the findings were identified through this process. Additional
audit evidence was obtained through observation, interviews, analysis and testing.
Audit Procedures:
Audit procedures included:
Followed up on prior internal audit recommendation regarding EEOP.
Analysis of fiscal information related to personnel including budgets and actual results for
personnel expenditures by fiscal year, full time equivalent (FTE) trends, and turnover.
Developed an understanding of Personnel issues through
o review of similar audit reports and associated recommendations issued by other local
governments,
o meetings with Personnel, Legal, and Administration, and
o training and reading on human resource issues.
Performed attribute testing of recruitment files for randomly selected sample. Attribute sampling
included:
o recruitment file documentation – job description and announcement and identification of
essential duties, use of testing, minimum qualifications, prescreening, interviewing
techniques, interview panel, number interviewed, background authorization and reference
DESCHUTES COUNTY
INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT
Human Resources Report #08/09-16 January 2010
Page 41 of 41
checking, and
o personnel file documentation – applications, policy signoffs, reference checks, job offer,
performance evaluations, meeting of probation (if applicable), discharge information.
Interviewed department representatives on hiring/interviewing processes.
Analytical and computerized procedures including
o analysis and charting of employment trends and composition, and
o analysis of employee turnover and retention.
{End of Report}