R E S E A R C H N O T E

B E N N E T T H A R R I S O N *

State and Local Government Manpower Policies

Introduction DURING THE WINTER of 1969-1970, the National Civil Service

League conducted a comprehensive survey of state, county, and city jurisdictions across the country.1 The survey was designed to elicit information on the man- power policies and programs of these governments, particularly as they affect the disadvantaged who work or are seeking work in the local public sector. Usable returns were obtained from 353 jurisdictions, collectively employing nearly two and a half million workers.2 This represents about 55 per cent of all state and local public employees in America, as of February 1970.3 The sample is distributed as follows:

NumFr of Lev$ ?I jurisdrctions Total

junsdlchon reporting employment

states 41 1,298,108 counties 111 340,986 cities 201 844,582

Overall Employment The size of these jurisdictions varies substantially. For example,

state jurisdictions range in size from New York, with 129,226 employees, to North Dakota, with only 1,121 on its payrolls. Similar variation exists at the local level. Nearly all of these public employees are permanent, full-time workers.

On the average current vacancy rates are well over half again as great in state governments as in county and city jurisdictions. The states in the sample show an

* Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Maryland. 1 This paper reports on a ma'or survey conducted by the National Civil Service League,

with financial support from the Ohce of Economic Opportunity, the Model Cities Administra- tion of the U.S. D F of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Labor. A more de ' ed presentation of the findings summarized here may be found in the Spring 1971 issue of the League's magazine, Good Couermnent under the authorship of Jacob Rut- stein. f am grateful to Jean Couturier, Milton Millan, and Jacob Rutstein for contributing to the inte etation of the data and for constructive criticism of earlier drafts.

YEducational workers were not included in the survey. *But about five-sixths of all employment in jurisdictions with 500 or more civilian work-

ers. The NCSL sample is very heavily weighted toward these large jurisdictions.

110

Research Note / 111

average vacancy rate of 8.7 per cent, compared with the county and city averages of 4.9 per cent and 4.7 per cent, respectively. The individual rates, however, vary from 0 to 30 per cent. Even under the assumption that many of these vacancies are intentionally unfilled in order to ensure budgetary slack, the magnitude of the rates indicate a substantial manpower absorption potential in state and local gov- ernment. These vacancy rates are much greater than those reported in manufactur- ing industries in 25 cities in April 1970: These private industry vacancy rates ranged from 0.3 to 1.6 per cent.4

Equally promising are the findings with respect to annual turnover rates. Again, the states displayed relatively less ability to retain and/or recruit workers than the counties or cities. The average annual turnover rate for states was 20.5 per cent, while for counties and cities it was 16.2 and 15.0 per cent, respectively. Individual turnover rates varied from 0 to 50 per cent, These turnover rates rein- force the impression of substantial manpower absorption potential in State and local government, even with existing budgets.

There is no sigdicant correlation between vacancy or turnover rates and the size of a jurisdiction. Large jurisdictions-whether states, counties, or cities-are just PS likely to have any given proportion of job openings as smaller jurisdictions.

Merit Coverage About four-fifths of the jurisdictions at each level are covered by a

merit system, dehed specifically as a “system which includes an objective, non- political method of selection and promotions, and provisions of tenure.” In fact, about 90 per cent of the jurisdictions indicated that they definitely have some kind of tenure system (although no more than a fourth of these systems grant guaran- teed tenure to all employees in the jurisdiction). All but one of the jurisdictions in the sample required a one-year probationary period of all employees prior to the granting of tenure. Overall, about 84 per cent of the state employees, 75 per cent of the county employees, and 82 per cent of the city employees were “covered” by a merit system in 1969-1970.

Central Personnel Office Most of the jurisdictions reported the existence of a central per-

sonnel office. However, many jurisdictions--even some with several personnel offi- cials-report that user agencies within the jurisdiction have substantial control over their own personnel policies, especially the hiring process.

PERCENTAGE OF JURISDICTIONS WHOSE CENTRAL PERSONNEL OFFICE IS THE SELECTING OFFICE FOR ALL

A ~ P O ~ T M E N T S IN TRE JURISDICTION

State county city

15.08 29.8% 43.8%

As can be seen, individual state agencies are most likely to exercise control over their own hiring.

4 U.S. Department of Labor News Release No. 11-355, July 30,1970.

112 / BENNETTHARRISON

General Manpower Programs Five classes of questions about general progams, i.e., amss-the-

board programs common to most job titles, were asked of the jurisdictions sur- veyed by the League.

EducutiomZ policy. A larger proportion of states give released time to their employees for education than is true for either counties or cities. The figures are 75.0, 48.7, and 47.7 per cent, respectively.

In-service training. Jurisdictions were asked whether they conducted regular, in-service training programs for four classes of employees: (a) unskilled workers, (b) skilled craftsmen, (c) office (clerical) workers, and (d) administrative, profes- sional, and technical workers. For all four classes of workers, nearly 59 per cent of the states, about 53 per cent of the cities, but only 40 per cent of the counties pro- vide in-service training.

Police records as obstacles to employment. Nearly all the jurisdictions reported that police records are not necessarily prejudicid to employment. To elicit more specific information, the League questionnaire proposed a four-step continuum, consisting of: (a) misdemeanor (arrest only), (b) misdemeanor (conviction), (c) felony (arrest only), and (d) felony (conviction). Are prospective employees with police records stipdating each of these categories of offense still acceptable to the personnel officials of the jurisdictions?

PERCENTAGE OF JURISDICIIONS IN WHXCH POLICE RECORDS ARE ACCEPT~LE

city

Misdemeanor (arrest) 97.4 88.0 87.9 Misdemeanor ( mnviction) 97.4 76.3 83.9 Felony (arrest) 89.7 54.8 57.5

__ __. I - State County Offense

Felony (conviction) 84.6 46.2 51.1

It is clear from this table that state jurisdictions are far more permissive with respect to police records of potential employees than are county or city jurisdictions.

Veterans’ preference. Nearly all the states (97.6 per cent) grant veterans’ pref- erence, in contrast to less than 60 per cent of the counties, and only a little over 70 per cent of the cities. However, a smaller proportion of the states grant absolute preference-the policy that a job applicant who is also a veteran must be moved to the top of the eligible list-than counties or cities. The proportions are 19.5, 33.3, and 30.0 per cent, respectively. From the point of view of maintaining maxi- mum leverage for placement of disadvantaged workers in the public service, mini- mal absolute preference is probably desirable.

Vertical us. horizontal promotion. Many jurisdictions make all (or nearIy all) promotions from within the public service-whenever possible. From the p i n t of view of developing career ladders for upgrading entry level disadvantaged (and

ResearchNote / 113

other) workers, vertical promotion is highly desirable. Thus, the higher the inci- dence of vertical promotion policies, the better. On this variable, cities rank “best” Nearly 60 per cent of the reporting cities rely exclusively on vertical promotion. Just exactly half of the counties do so. Among the states, less than a third of the states use exclusively vertical promotion procedures. Of course, it is difEcult to interpret these findings until we are able to control for the occupational “mix” in each jurisdiction. It may well be, for example, that the jobs which states so in- tensively W from outside the system are specialist-technical positions (such as geologists or surveyors) for which county or city governments seldom hire.

Special Programs for the Disadvantaged Finally, how many jurisdictions have special programs or provi-

sions for dealing with “the disadvantaged and/or minority groups”? We find that state governments are much more likely to have special provisions for the disad- vantaged than are either county or city jurisdictions:

PERCENTAGE OF JURISDICTION WITH SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR THE DISADVANTAGED AND/OR MINOIUTIES

With respect to

Recruiting Hiring Upgrading

County City State

67.5 28.0 40.7 67.4 31.8 37.7 56.1 19.1 29.5

- - _.

A series of chi-square contingency analyses shows some extremely surprising patterns. Table 1 indicates the confidence levels associated with various hypotheti- cal correlates of programs for the disadvantaged.

TABLE 1

PROGRAMS FOR THE DISADVANTAGED” -

Hiring and recntiting Upgrading

Cm-variable State County City State County City

(Per cent) Size (number of employees) - - 99 - 99 -90 -90 - 95 Civil Service commission +@ + 90 + 99 - +go Central pemonuel office or

Tenure/merit system - - - - - + 90

b b -

Civil Service commission conducts test validations + 95 - - - b b b b

b b b b - + 9:

Codficients are x* confidence levels. b Statistidly insignificant correlation.

The most dramatic finding is the very strong inverse relation between the size of a jurisdiction and the probability of its having special programs for the disad- vantaged. In general, the smaller the jurisdiction, the more likely it is to have such programs. Overall, relative to the other factors in Table 1, size is the best predic- tor of the existence of programs for the disadvantaged.

Nearly as surprising, in view of the widespread belief to the contrary, is the finding that jurisdictions with a Civil Service Commission are more likely to have special programs for the disadvantaged than jurisdictions not covered by such a

114 / BENNETTHARRTSON

Commission (strictly speaking, this is true only for states and cities; the county correlations were not significant).

The very different values in the second and fourth lines of the table indicate that the presence of a Civil Service Commission in a jurisdiction and the claim of jurisdictions to be “covered by a “merit system” are not closely correlated. It is apparently the presence of a Civil Service Commission itself-and not just a “merit system”-which aids the disadvantaged.

Conclusion The main conclusion to be drawn from this survey is that state

governments are quantitatively and qualitatively the most important and the most modern large, sub-federal public employers. Compared with counties and cities, state governments have larger jurisdictions, relatively fewer provisional or part- time employees, the largest vacancy and turnover rates: relatively broader merit coverage, a higher incidence of central personnel offices with full-time personnel officers, a greater propensity to grant released time to workers for educational pur- poses, a greater frequency of in-service training programs, less antipathy to the police records of prospective employees, a lower incidence of absolute veterans’ preference,6 and a significantly higher incidence of special manpower programs for the disadvantaged.

Many dimensions of public employment are absent from our survey. Neverthe- less, from the institutional and programmatic sketch above, it certainly appears that the greatest relative access for the Black, Brown, and poor seeking a foothold in state and local public employment is to be found in jurisdictions at the state level.

6 Reflecting rapid growth of demand for employees, but

8 But equally low incidence of reliance on vertical promotion.

aps also reflecting relative diffi- culty in retaining workers because of, e.g., low wages, a varia rh le we were unable to measure.