District of Columbia Government: Overtime Costs Exceed Those of
Neighboring Governments (Briefing Report, 09/11/97, GAO/GGD-97-159BR).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
District of Columbia government's overtime expenditures, focusing on:
(1) the amount and extent of the District's overtime expenditures for
fiscal years (FY) 1992 through 1997; (2) reasons provided by District
officials for those overtime expenditures; (3) how the District's
overtime expenditures compared with those of selected surrounding
jurisdictions for FY 1996; and (4) how the District's overtime
management policies compared with those of the selected surrounding
jurisdictions.
GAO noted that: (1) in FY 1996, which was the most recently completed
fiscal year, the District government's overtime expenditures totaled
approximately $82.9 million, which represented about 6 percent of the
District's total salary costs; (2) between FY 1992 and 1996, the
District of Columbia government's overtime expenditures ranged from a
low of approximately $67.2 million in FY 1995 to a high of approximately
$98.8 million in FY 1994; (3) the District's overtime expenditures, when
measured as a percentage of total salary costs, ranged from a low of 4.6
percent in FY 1995 to a high of 6.3 percent in FY 1994; (4) through
April of FY 1997, these expenditures were approximately $53.4 million,
which represented 7.3 percent of total salary costs; (5) in FY 1996,
eight departments accounted for 97 percent of the District government's
overtime expenditures; (6) some reasons for overtime expenditures
commonly reported by District officials included staff management
policies that seek to address staff shortages, workforce reductions, and
the inability to fill position vacancies, addressing external mandates,
such as consent decrees and court orders that specify staffing or
service levels, infrastructure deficiencies, such as the need to repair
or maintain out-of-date facilities or equipment, and mission
requirements, such as the necessity to provide functions or services
related to public safety; (7) the District's governmentwide overtime
expenditures as a percentage of total salary costs (6 percent) were
higher than those of the selected surrounding jurisdictions in FY 1996;
(8) governmentwide overtime expenditures as a percentage of total salary
costs for the city of Baltimore were 5 percent; for Montgomery County,
5.3 percent; for Prince George's County, 2.8 percent; and Fairfax
County, 2 percent; (9) the District government and the governments of
all of the selected surrounding jurisdictions had written overtime
policies that reported compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act;
(10) however, the policies of the District and the selected surrounding
jurisdictions varied in their requirements for advance approval of
overtime, written justification for overtime work, provisions for
jurisdiction-level and department-level overtime audits, and the
reporting of overtime pay in the annual budget; and (11) only Fairfax
County's overtime management policies addressed all of these policy
elements.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-97-159BR
TITLE: District of Columbia Government: Overtime Costs Exceed
Those of Neighboring Governments
DATE: 09/11/97
SUBJECT: Overtime compensation
Overtime pay claims
Payroll records
Municipal governments
Financial management
Human resources utilization
Local governments
Government employees
IDENTIFIER: District of Columbia
Baltimore (MD)
Montgomery County (MD)
Prince George's County (MD)
Fairfax County (VA)
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Briefing Report to the Ranking Minority Member, District of Columbia
Subcommittee, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives
September 1997
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT -
OVERTIME COSTS EXCEED THOSE OF
NEIGHBORING GOVERNMENTS
GAO/GGD-97-159BR
District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
(410144)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DHS - Department of Human Services
DOC - Department of Corrections
DPW - Department of Public Works
FEMS - Fire and Emergency Medical Services
FLSA - Fair Labor Standards Act
FTE - Full Time Equivalent
FY - Fiscal Year
MPD - Metropolitan Police Department
PS - Public Schools
WASA - Water and Sewer Authority
WSSC - Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-277498
September 11, 1997
The Honorable James P. Moran
Ranking Minority Member
District of Columbia Subcommittee
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Moran:
This briefing report responds to your request for information on the
District of Columbia government's overtime expenditures.\1 It
presents information on (1) the amount and extent of the District's
overtime expenditures for fiscal years 1992 through 1997,\2 (2)
reasons provided by District officials for those overtime
expenditures, (3) how the District's overtime expenditures compared
with those of selected surrounding jurisdictions for fiscal year
1996, and (4) how the District's overtime management policies
compared with those of the selected surrounding jurisdictions.\3 On
September 3, 1997, we briefed your office on the results of our
review. This report provides the substance of that briefing.
--------------------
\1 For the purpose of this report, we used the definition of overtime
pay in the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., as
amended.
\2 The District follows an October 1 to September 30 fiscal year.
Fiscal year 1997 data provided by the District are through April
1997.
\3 As agreed with your office, we compared the District's overtime
expenditures for fiscal year 1996 and overtime management policies to
those of the following neighboring governments: the city of
Baltimore and Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland; and
Fairfax County, Virginia.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
In fiscal year 1996, which was the most recently completed fiscal
year, the District government's overtime expenditures totaled
approximately $82.9 million, which represented about 6 percent of the
District's total salary costs. Between fiscal years 1992 and 1996,
the District of Columbia government's overtime expenditures ranged
from a low of approximately $67.2 million in fiscal year 1995 to a
high of approximately $98.8 million in fiscal year 1994. The
District's overtime expenditures, when measured as a percentage of
total salary costs, ranged from a low of 4.6 percent in fiscal year
1995 to a high of 6.3 percent in fiscal year 1994. Through April of
fiscal year 1997, these expenditures were approximately $53.4
million, which represented 7.3 percent of total salary costs. In
fiscal year 1996, eight departments accounted for 97 percent of the
District government's overtime expenditures. These departments were
Corrections (DOC), Metropolitan Police (MPD), Human Services (DHS),
Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), Fire and Emergency Medical Services
(FEMS), Public Schools (PS), D.C. General Hospital, and Public Works
(DPW). Four of these eight departments in fiscal year 1996--DOC,
MPD, DHS, and WASA--accounted for 74 percent of the District's total
overtime expenditures. MPD and DHS were consistently among the four
highest users of overtime from fiscal year 1992 through 1996. (See
Briefing Section II for additional information on the amount and
extent of the District's overtime expenditures.)
The reasons provided by District officials for the District's
overtime expenditures generally varied by department. Some reasons
for overtime expenditures commonly reported by District officials
included staff management policies that seek to address staff
shortages, workforce reductions, and the inability to fill position
vacancies (in DOC, MPD, DHS, FEMS, DPW, D.C. General Hospital, and
WASA); addressing external mandates, such as consent decrees and
court orders that specify staffing or service levels (in DOC, DHS,
FEMS, PS, and WASA); infrastructure deficiencies, such as the need to
repair or maintain out-of-date facilities or equipment (DOC, DPW,
WASA, and D.C. General Hospital); and mission requirements, such as
the necessity to provide functions or services related to public
safety (MPD and DPW). (Briefing Section III provides reasons that
District officials cited for the District's overtime expenditures by
departments.)
The District's governmentwide overtime expenditures as a percentage
of total salary costs (6 percent) were higher than those of the
selected surrounding jurisdictions in fiscal year 1996.
Governmentwide overtime expenditures as a percentage of total salary
costs for the city of Baltimore were 5 percent; for Montgomery
County, 5.3 percent; for Prince George's County, 2.8 percent; and
Fairfax County, 2 percent. (Differences that could affect overtime
use between the operations of the District and four selected
governments are discussed in Briefing Sections III and IV. Briefing
Section IV provides a comparison of overtime expenditures as a
percentage of salary costs by departments and governmentwide
percentages.)
The District government and the governments of all of the selected
surrounding jurisdictions had written overtime policies that reported
compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). However, the
policies of the District and the selected surrounding jurisdictions
varied in their requirements for advance approval of overtime,
written justification for overtime work, provisions for
jurisdiction-level and department-level overtime audits, and the
reporting of overtime pay in the annual budget. Only Fairfax
County's overtime management policies addressed all of these policy
elements. (Briefing Section V provides a comparative summary of the
governments' overtime management policies.)
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Overtime is often used by public and private sector organizations as
a management tool to provide services to constituents and customers,
and its use has been increasing over the past several years.\4 Some
employers schedule overtime work on a regular basis, rather than hire
additional workers when they perceive the cost of overtime premiums
to be lower than the costs of hiring additional staff.
FLSA establishes minimum wage, overtime compensation, recordkeeping,
and other provisions that affect full- and part-time employees in the
private sector and in federal, state, and local governments. In
general, employees covered by the act must receive compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, at a rate of not
less than time and one-half their regular rate of compensation. The
District government's obligation to comply with the overtime
provision of FLSA began on April 15, 1986.\5
On December 27, 1996, the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Authority)
enacted an order to control District government operating expenses.
The Authority's order stated that some District government employees
had received overtime pay, although they had performed less than 40
hours of work in a week, thus contributing to the District's
operating deficit. This order provided that District government
employees are only to receive compensation for overtime work in
excess of 40 hours per week (or other applicable tour of duty) of
work actually performed, in accordance with the provisions of FLSA.\6
The order, in effect, prohibited the District from including annual
and sick leave or other scheduled leave in computing overtime and
from paying overtime to employees who worked more than eight hours in
a day unless they exceeded 40 hours of work per week. The Authority
estimated that this order should result in fiscal year 1997 cost
savings of $5.4 million. On March 12, 1997, the District government
revised its personnel regulations to implement the Authority's order.
The District of Columbia Fiscal Year 1998 Budget and Financial Plan
estimated fiscal year 1998 cost savings resulting from the
Authority's order at approximately $8.8 million, assuming that
overtime costs could be reduced by 13 to 14 percent as a result of
this initiative.
A May 1997 Authority report stated that the District government had
not effectively planned or controlled its workforce and thereby
contributed to overtime costs that the Authority characterized as
"staggering and not well-planned."\7 The report stated that one
result of the District's lack of systematic personnel planning was
the extensive amount of overtime being worked by personnel. The
report also noted that the District as a whole does not adequately
budget for overtime and that much of this overtime was frequently
authorized for the same employees each pay period.
--------------------
\4 Economic Report of the President, Feb., 1997; Darrell E. Carr,
"Overtime Work: An Expanded View," Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Nov. 1986; and Barry Bluestone and Stephen Rose,
"Overworked and Underemployed: Unraveling an Economic Enigma," in
The American Prospect, No. 31 (March-April 1997).
\5 In 1974, Congress extended FLSA to state and municipal government
employees, including the District of Columbia government. However,
in 1976 the Supreme Court ruled that the 1974 amendment to FLSA was
unconstitutional. Subsequently, in 1985 the Supreme Court overturned
its earlier decision and upheld the legality of applying FLSA to
state governments. However, being aware of potential hardship that
might result from immediate application of FLSA to state and
municipal governments, Congress enacted legislation, which delayed
application of the act to the state and municipal governments until
April 15, 1986.
\6 In May 1997, labor unions representing District government
employees brought a suit against the Authority and the District's
Chief Financial Officer, contending that the Authority's Dec. 27,
1996, order violates the applicable collective bargaining agreements,
the District Code, and the U. S. Constitution. The suit was still
pending as this report went to printing.
\7 Human Resource Management Reform: A Strategic Approach, The
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority, May 1997.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
To determine the amount and extent of the District's overtime
expenditures, we obtained data from District officials on full-time
equivalent employment (FTE)\8 levels, salary, and overtime
expenditures.\9 We reviewed and analyzed these data, which depicted
the District as a whole and its individual departments. We focused
on eight departments--DOC, FEMS, DPW, PS, MPD, DHS, WASA, and D.C.
General Hospital--because they accounted for approximately 97 percent
of the District government's fiscal year 1996 total overtime
expenditures. We analyzed trend data for fiscal year 1992 through
April of fiscal year 1997 for these departments.
To determine the reasons for the District's overtime expenditures, we
interviewed officials representing the District government (Office of
the Chief Financial Officer; Chief Financial Officers of the eight
selected departments, Office of the City Administrator; Office of
Personnel; Corporation Counsel; City Council; Inspector General, and
Auditor's Office), the Authority, and labor union representatives of
selected District departments. We asked them to identify factors
that may account for the District's overtime usage. We also reviewed
overtime expenditure data provided by several District departments
which was categorized by the reasons for overtime usage.
To compare District government overtime expenditures with the
selected jurisdictions that we agreed with your office to review, we
obtained information from the budget and finance offices of city of
Baltimore; Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland; and
Fairfax County, Virginia governments on FTE levels, salary, and
overtime expenditures. We compared the District and the four
governments by the following categories: (1) overtime expenditures
and (2) overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs. Our
comparisons were done by jurisdictions' and major departments'
totals, using fiscal year 1996 data provided by these governments.
The District follows an October 1 to September 30 fiscal year,
whereas the other governments follow a July 1 to June 30 fiscal year.
We were not able to present data on all departments in which we
focused our review in the District for the four other governments
because some did not have comparable departments. For example, the
District government operates its own corrections system whereas
corrections is a state government function in Maryland; therefore,
the city of Baltimore does not operate a corrections function.
To compare the overtime management policies of the District with
those of selected surrounding jurisdictions, we interviewed
government officials in all five jurisdictions and reviewed the five
governments' written overtime policies. On the basis of our
interviews and review of the governments' overtime policies, we
developed a list of elements for comparison. The elements that we
used in our comparisons were whether the governments (1) had written
overtime policies, (2) reported compliance with FLSA, (3) required
advance approval of overtime, (4) required written justification for
overtime work, (5) provided for jurisdiction- and department-level
audits of overtime, and (6) provided for overtime pay in their annual
budgets.
We also reviewed literature and interviewed officials from city and
county management and related associations. We did our work between
May and August 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Due to the short time frame of this review, we
did not verify the data provided by the District and the other
governments.
--------------------
\8 An FTE is a workforce measurement equal to a work year of 2,080
hours, rather than an on-board head count. This could mean, for
example, one employee on a full-time schedule of 40 hours for 52
weeks or two part-time employees for 20 hours per week each for the
same period.
\9 We did not adjust salary and overtime expenditures to constant
dollars to account for inflation. Our primary comparative measure,
overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs, is unaffected
by inflation.
COMMENTS FROM THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA AND OTHER
GOVERNMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Mayor of the
District of Columbia, the District's City Administrator, the
District's Chief Financial Officer, and the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. We
also requested comments from the budget and finance directors of the
governments of the city of Baltimore; Prince George's County and
Montgomery County, MD; and Fairfax County, VA. We received comments
from all of the officials or their designees in mid-August confirming
that the material in the report accurately depicted their
governments. We incorporated their clarifying information where
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
We are sending copies of this briefing report to the Chairman of this
Subcommittee and to the Chairpersons and Ranking Minority Members of
other congressional committees that have responsibilities related to
District of Columbia issues. We are also sending copies to the Mayor
of the District of Columbia, the District's City Administrator, the
District's Chief Financial Officer, the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, and
officials from the other four governments we reviewed. We will make
copies available to others on request.
The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. If
you need any additional information or have further questions, please
contact me, or J. Christopher Mihm, Acting Associate Director, on
(202) 512-8676.
Sincerely yours,
L. Nye Stevens
Director,
Federal Management and Workforce Issues
Briefing Section I INTRODUCTION
============================================================== Letter
(See figure in printed
edition.)
REVIEW OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
FY 1997 data are through April
1997.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Briefing Section II AMOUNT AND
EXTENT OF THE DISTRICT
GOVERNMENT'S OVERTIME EXPENDITURES
============================================================== Letter
(See figure in printed
edition.)
DISTRICT OVERTIME EXPENDITURES,
FY 1992-1997
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Note: The District government
follows an October 1 -
September 30 fiscal year.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\ a Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 data
are through April 1997.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\ b Salary excludes overtime,
benefits, Social Security, and
other compensation.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: District of Columbia
Chief Financial Officer.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
DISTRICT OVERTIME
EXPENDITURES, FY 1992-1997
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
The data in this table represent the District's total salary and
overtime and include all general and enterprise funds' full-time
equivalent employment (FTE), salary, and overtime for FY 1992 through
FY 1997 (FY 1997 data are through April 1997).
Between FYs 1992 and 1996, the years for which we provide complete FY
data, the District government's total salary expenditures ranged from
a low of $1,381,633,000 in FY 1996 to a high of $1,566,747,000 in FY
1994. Over this same period, the District's overtime expenditures
ranged from a low of $67.2 million in FY 1995 to a high of $98.8
million in FY 1994. The District's overtime as a percentage of
salary costs over this period ranged from a low of 4.6 percent in FY
1995 up to a high of 6.3 percent in FY 1994.
The District's overtime as a percentage of salary costs averaged 5.7
percent from FY 1992 through April 1997.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
DISTRICT OVERTIME EXPENDITURES
BY MAJOR DEPARTMENTS, FY 1996
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
Source: District of Columbia
Chief Financial Officer.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
DISTRICT OVERTIME
EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR
DEPARTMENTS, FY 1996
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
The District government's overtime expenditures totaled $82,931,000
in FY 1996.
For FY 1996, eight departments accounted for 97 percent of the
District government's overtime expenditures--Corrections (DOC),
Metropolitan Police (MPD), Human Services (DHS), Water and Sewer
Authority (WASA), Fire and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS), Public
Schools (PS), D.C. General Hospital, and Public Works (DPW).
(See figure in printed
edition.)
PRIMARY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT
OVERTIME USERS, FY 1996
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
Source: GAO analysis of data
provided by District of
Columbia Chief Financial
Officer.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
PRIMARY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT
OVERTIME USERS, FY 1996
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1
For FY 1996, DOC, MPD, DHS, and WASA accounted for 74 percent
($60,437,000) of the District government's overtime expenditures.
DOC accounted for over one-fourth of the District's total overtime
expenditures in FY 1996.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
TRENDS FOR PRIMARY DISTRICT
GOVERNMENT OVERTIME USERS, FY
1992-1997
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
Note: FY 1997 data are through
April 1997.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO analysis of data
provided by District of
Columbia Chief Financial
Officer.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Between FYs 1992 and 1996, the District's overtime expenditures as a
percentage of salary costs ranged from a low of 4.6 percent in FY
1995 to a high of 6.3 percent in FY 1994. Through April of FY 1997,
the District's overtime as a percentage of salary costs was 7.3
percent. The overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs
of the four primary District overtime users in FY 1996--DOC, MPD,
DHS, and WASA--varied during this period. For example, the overtime
of DOC, MPD, and WASA as a percentage of salary costs increased while
the overtime of DHS decreased.
DOC had the largest increase in overtime expenditures as a percentage
of salary costs of the eight departments. DOC's overtime expenses as
a percentage of salary costs increased from 2.9 percent in FY 1992 to
17.8 percent in FY 1996. Through April of FY 1997, DOC's overtime
expenditures as a percentage of salary costs were 22.4 percent.
MPD's overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs ranged
from a low of 7.3 percent in FY 1995 to a high of 12 percent in FY
1994. Through April of FY 1997, MPD's overtime expenditures as a
percentage of salary costs were 16 percent.
DHS' overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs were
relatively stable between FYs 1992 and 1996. DHS' overtime payments
ranged from a low of 4.5 percent in 1995 to 6.4 percent in FY 1992.
Through April of FY 1997, DHS' overtime expenditures as a percentage
of salary costs were 5.4 percent.
WASA's overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs ranged
from a low of 16.8 percent in FY 1992 to a high of 26.1 percent in FY
1994. Through April of FY 1997, WASA's overtime expenditures as a
percentage of salary costs were 23.7 percent.
The FY 1996 primary users of overtime as a percentage of salary
costs--DOC, MPD, DHS, and WASA, were not consistently the largest
District overtime users. For example, of the eight departments which
accounted for 97 percent of the District's FY 1996 overtime
expenditures, DOC was the eighth highest user of overtime in FY 1992
and rose to the highest user in FYs 1995 and 1996. MPD and DHS were
consistently among the four highest users of overtime from FY 1992
through FY 1996. Between FYs 1992 and 1996, FEMS and WASA were
occasionally among the top four overtime users as a percentage of
salary costs.
Briefing Section III REASONS
REPORTED FOR DISTRICT GOVERNMENT
OVERTIME EXPENDITURES
============================================================== Letter
(See figure in printed
edition.)
SUMMARY OF REASONS REPORTED FOR
OVERTIME USE BY DISTRICT
DEPARTMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10
Note: The District's Water and
Sewer Authority became an
independent authority in
October 1996.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: District of Columbia
Government departments' Chief
Financial Officers.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
SUMMARY OF REASONS REPORTED
FOR OVERTIME USE BY DISTRICT
DEPARTMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1
In general, the reasons reported by Chief Financial Officers of the
eight District government departments for incurring overtime expenses
fell into one of four categories:
Staff management policies refer to the manner whereby departments
have managed their staff to seek to address staff shortages,
workforce reductions, and the inability to fill position vacancies.
External mandates include court orders and negotiated consent decrees
and city and federal laws that mandate minimum service levels or
timely actions to remedy inadequately managed programs. According to
the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 1998 Budget and Financial Plan,
the District is currently subject to 39 court orders and mandates.
Infrastructure deficiencies involve the need to repair or maintain
out-of-date facilities or equipment such as water and sewer lines and
medical facilities.
Mission requirements involve the necessity to provide functions or
services related to public safety, such as police patrols and snow
removal.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
REPORTED REASONS FOR OVERTIME
USE: 1. STAFF MANAGEMENT
POLICIES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :11
Source: District of Columbia
Government departments' Chief
Financial Officers.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
REPORTED REASONS FOR
OVERTIME USE:
1. STAFF MANAGEMENT
POLICIES
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :11.1
Chief Financial Officers of DOC, MPD, DHS, FEMS, DPW, WASA and D.C.
General Hospital reported that their staff management policies
contributed to overtime expenses.
DHS stated that one of the biggest drivers of overtime expenditures
was the shortage of personnel for mental health, hospital, and lab
positions, which was caused by DHS' inability to fill these
positions. DHS stated that high staff turnover in key DHS functions,
driven by job stress and low pay compared with that of other local
governments, has driven overtime expenses. For example, DHS pointed
to its Mental Health function, which it stated has had approximately
200 vacancies over the prior 2 fiscal years. DHS noted that most of
its overtime was directly attributable to the need to provide
in-patient care, which is a 24-hour-a-day, 7-days-a-week operation.
D.C. General Hospital officials said that vacancies in occupations
such as nurses, physicians, and engineers, caused primarily by
noncompetitive salaries, required the hospital to use its existing
staff to work longer hours on overtime.
FEMS reported that its current number of authorized positions is
insufficient, and to meet fire and emergency vehicle staffing
requirements, it uses its staff on overtime. FEMS also stated that
when firefighters are injured on duty, they are placed on
Performance-of-Duty (POD) leave, and the department stated that it
manages this staff shortage by using firefighters on overtime pay to
backfill these positions. FEMS stated that there are currently 36
firefighters that have been on POD an average of 2 years.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
REPORTED REASONS FOR OVERTIME
USE: 2. EXTERNAL MANDATES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :12
Source: District of Columbia
Government departments' Chief
Financial Officers.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Chief Financial Officers of DOC, DHS, WASA, FEMS, and PS reported
that they used staff on overtime to address a variety of external
mandates.
According to the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 1998 Budget and
Financial Plan, DOC operates under 13 court orders and consent
decrees. For example, DOC stated that for the past three years it
has had approximately 300 court-ordered correctional officer
positions which it has been unable to fill because of
District-imposed hiring restrictions. DOC stated that it has been
required to provide coverage for these vacant positions strictly on
an overtime basis. DOC also said that its staff deployment plan to
satisfy a court order for the 24 hour-a-day operation of prison
watchtowers and other security posts at corrections institutions has
contributed to overtime. FEMS stated that its requirement to comply
with city laws, which specify minimum staff levels for the operation
of engines, ladder trucks, and ambulances, and prohibit the use of
volunteer firefighters, was a reason for overtime use. For example,
when fire officers call in sick or are not able to work for other
reasons, the replacement staff is paid overtime.
DHS operates several of its programs under 16 consent decrees or
court orders, according to the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 1998
Budget and Financial Plan. For example, one DHS function affected by
a court order, which--due to a shortage of staff--DHS has decided to
use staff on overtime to address, is a requirement to process
Medicaid payments in specified time frames. WASA stated that consent
decrees resolving lawsuits, which mandated that certain tasks be
performed to maintain or establish water quality levels, have
significantly contributed to WASA's overtime spending. PS stated it
has used staff on overtime to address a District legal requirement
that boiler rooms be staffed 24 hours a day when boiler equipment is
operating.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
REPORTED REASONS FOR OVERTIME
USE: 3. INFRASTRUCTURE
DEFICIENCIES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :13
Source: District of Columbia
Government departments' Chief
Financial Officers.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
REPORTED REASONS FOR
OVERTIME USE:
3. INFRASTRUCTURE
DEFICIENCIES
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :13.1
Chief Financial Officers of DOC, WASA, DPW, and D.C. General
Hospital reported that the need to address infrastructure
deficiencies contributed to overtime expenses.
For example, DOC officials noted that the National Council on Crime
and Delinquency assessed DOC's operations and concluded that, if it
had state-of-the-art corrections facilities its overtime expenses
would be 5 percent of base salaries. DOC noted that this would
compare with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, which, according to the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency, has an overtime rate of 6
percent of base salaries.
D.C. General Hospital officials explained that overtime expenses
were unusually high in 1996, primarily due to unbudgeted emergency
facility repairs. Officials stated that a basement flood,
power-plant storage tank leak, and collapsed roofs caused a loss of
electrical power that required emergency procedures to be performed
on overtime to maintain patient care, provide security, and make
facility repairs. Hospital officials estimated that the flood alone
cost approximately $3 million, much of it for overtime expenses.
WASA noted that emergencies, such as water main breaks, sewer
back-ups, and equipment breakdown have caused a significant amount of
unscheduled overtime. WASA noted that its inability to obtain
funding for preventative maintenance since FY 1992 has contributed to
the need to perform emergency maintenance on an overtime basis.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
REPORTED REASONS FOR OVERTIME
USE: 4. MISSION REQUIREMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :14
Source: District of Columbia
Government departments' Chief
Financial Officers.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
REPORTED REASONS FOR
OVERTIME USE:
4. MISSION REQUIREMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :14.1
Chief Financial Officers of MPD and DPW reported that their mission
requirements contributed to overtime expenses.
MPD reported that court appearances by police officers and crime
fighting initiatives have been the largest drivers of MPD's overtime
expenses. Court appearance overtime expenses accounted for an
average of 47 percent of MPD's total overtime expenditures from FY
1992 through April of FY 1997. Court overtime, as a percentage of
total MPD overtime, has decreased from a high of 67 percent
(approximately $7.3 million) in FY 1995 to 25 percent through April
of FY 1997 (approximately $3.7 million). In order to implement crime
fighting initiatives, MPD chose to place additional officers on the
streets using overtime pay. MPD reported that crime fighting
initiatives accounted for an average of 17 percent of MPD's total
overtime expenditures from FY 1992 through April of FY 1997.
DPW reported that during FY 1996, the primary overtime driver was the
blizzard of 1996. The snow emergency accounted for major unplanned
overtime throughout DPW but particularly in its facilities
maintenance function, which is responsible for District
government-owned buildings, and in design engineering, which
maintains streets and bridges.
Briefing Section IV DISTRICT
GOVERNMENT OVERTIME EXPENDITURES
COMPARED WITH THOSE OF SURROUNDING
JURISDICTIONS
============================================================== Letter
(See figure in printed
edition.)
COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENTS'
OVERTIME AS A PERCENTAGE OF
SALARY, FY 1996
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :15
N/A We did not report data on
entity; see discussion on
following page.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\ a Baltimore's water and sewer
function is provided by the
city's DPW, its public works
overtime data is exclusive of
the water and sewer function.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\ b The District's WASA treats
sludge for Prince George's,
Montgomery, and Loudoun
Counties, the city of Vienna,
and parts of Fairfax County for
user fees.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: District of Columbia
Chief Financial Officer and
budget offices of selected
governments.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
COMPARATIVE GOVERNMENTS'
OVERTIME AS A PERCENTAGE OF
SALARY COSTS, FY 1996
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :15.1
According to data provided by the District's Chief Financial Officer
and budget officials from the selected surrounding governments, the
District's overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs (6
percent) was higher than those of the selected surrounding
jurisdictions in FY 1996.\10
Overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs for the city of
Baltimore were 5 percent; for Montgomery County, 5.3 percent; for
Prince George's County, 2.8 percent; and for Fairfax County, 2
percent. (See appendix I for the salary costs of the departments
shown in the chart.)
The District's DOC (17.8 percent), DHS (5.2 percent), and FEMS (10
percent) overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs
exceeded those of each of the selected governments.
We did not perform an analysis of each department's organization and
staffing to determine factors that may account for the higher
overtime use of some departments. For example, the District's DOC
operates several prison facilities for long-term internment of
convicted inmates while the other jurisdictions tend to operate jails
to detain individuals prior to criminal sentencing.
We were unable to present overtime information on all 5 governments'
corrections, human services, water and sewer, and hospital functions.
For example, the city of Baltimore does not have a DOC and does not
directly administer the city's human services function, which is
directed by Maryland's Department of Human Resources. The Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) provides water and sewer services
for Montgomery and Prince George's Counties. WSSC's FY 1996 overtime
as a percentage of salary costs of 2.39 percent is not reflected in
the governmentwide percentages for Montgomery and Prince George's
Counties. Fairfax County's sewer functions are provided by DPW; its
water functions are provided by the Fairfax County Water Authority.
Also, we did not compare D.C. General Hospital to hospitals in the
selected jurisdictions because of its unique organization and
staffing. D.C. General's FY 1996 overtime as a percentage of salary
was 9.5 percent.
Briefing Section V
--------------------
\10 The District follows an Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 FY, the other
governments follow a July 1 to June 30 FY.
DISTRICT GOVERNMENT OVERTIME
MANAGEMENT POLICIES COMPARED WITH
THOSE OF SURROUNDING JURISDICTIONS
============================================================== Letter
(See figure in printed
edition.)
SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENTS'
OVERTIME MANAGEMENT POLICIES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :16
Note: Empty cells designate
that the jurisdictions'
governmentwide policies did not
address the item. However, in
cases, selected departmental
management policies did address
them.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO review of
governments' overtime policies
and information provided by the
governments' chief financial
officers, budget, and personnel
officials.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Our review of the District's overtime management policies indicate
they are comparable with those of the selected governments in (1)
having a written overtime policy and (2) reporting compliance with
FLSA.
Only Prince George's and Fairfax County's policies provided for
written justification for overtime work. Their policies specified
that authorized officials document work to be performed on overtime.
The other governments' policies did not require written
justification. However, several departments in those governments did
require such justification.
Three governments' policies addressed jurisdiction-level overtime
audits. The Office of Management and Budget of the city of
Baltimore, Montgomery County, and Fairfax County are to review
governmentwide overtime expenses on a quarterly basis. Also, Fairfax
County's Internal Audit Office reported in 1996 on county-wide
overtime practices.
Only Fairfax County's policies provided for department-level audits
of overtime pay. However, in the other governments, some departments
followed practices to control overtime. For example, the District's
MPD reported that the implementation of a time and attendance system
in 1997, which captures all police officers' time in court, has
helped to reduce court overtime. MPD noted a lesson learned in
managing overtime was that overtime expenditures will escalate
without proper management and controls. The District's DPW reported
it reviews individual employee's overtime charges when they exceed 20
percent of the employee's gross annual pay.
The city of Baltimore, Montgomery County, and Fairfax County's
governmentwide overtime policies provided for including overtime pay
estimates in the annual budget. For example, Baltimore budgets
overtime on the basis of historical expenditure trends, workload
requirements, and staff authorizations. The other jurisdictions'
governmentwide policies did not address overtime budgeting. However,
in our review, we found some departments used similar practices to
develop overtime budgets. For example, the District's FEMS stated
its overtime budgets are based on estimated staff needs and prior
year salary and overtime expenditures.
SALARY COSTS OF SELECTED
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, FY 1996
=========================================================== Appendix I
(Dollars in thousands)
Governments
------------------------------------------
Distri City Prince
ct of of George Fairfa
Columb Baltim Montgomery 's x
Departments ia ore County County County
------------------------------------ ------ ------ ---------- ------ ------
Corrections $121,0 \a $12,773 $17,24 $21,02
07 7 8
Police 161,81 $125,5 59,716 63,186 66,349
6 56
Human Services 214,75 \a 44,880 10,431 63,736
8
Water and Sewer 40,127 44,449 \c \c \d
\b \a
Fire and Emergency Medical Services 62,198 65,022 42,872 30,245 59,495
Public Schools 400,33 365,52 626,628 496,74 620,29
5 3 1 7
Public Works 52,711 77,975 16,903 11,497 16,921
\a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: The District follows an Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 FY, the other
governments follow a July 1 to June 30 FY.
Note 2: We did not compare D.C. General Hospital to hospitals in
the selected jurisdictions because of its unique organization and
staffing. D.C. General Hospital's FY 1996 salary expenditures were
$53.2 million.
\a The city of Baltimore does not have a DOC and does not directly
administer the city's human services function, which is directed by
Maryland's Department of Human Resources.\ Baltimore's water and
sewer function is provided by the city's DPW, its public works salary
data is exclusive of the water and sewer function.
\b The District's WASA treats sludge for Prince George's, Montgomery,
and Loudoun Counties, the city of Vienna, and parts of Fairfax County
for user fees.
\c Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) provides water and
sewer services for Montgomery and Prince George's Counties.
\d Fairfax County's sewer functions are provided by DPW; its water
functions are provided by the Fairfax County Water Authority.
Source: District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer and budget
offices of selected governments.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS
BRIEFING REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II
GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
John Needham, Assistant Director, (202) 512-5274
Anthony J. Wysocki, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-6016
Don Allison, Senior Evaluator
Patrick Mullen, Senior Evaluator
Marlene Zacharias, Issue Area Assistant
Katherine M. Wheeler, Publishing Advisor
Lessie M. Burke, Writer-Editor
Andrew Rosenberger, Intern
*** End of document. ***