1 / 16

National Core Indicator Panel Discussion: Data on Workforce and Staffing

Why Measure Staff Turnover?. Anecdotes are not enoughNeed data to build a case for wage increasesUnderstanding the critical management issues facing providers and statesUltimately affects quality of supports and outcomes for peopleUse trend data to evaluate strategies aimed at reducing turnover and increasing retention.

Patman
Download Presentation

National Core Indicator Panel Discussion: Data on Workforce and Staffing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. National Core Indicator Panel Discussion: Data on Workforce and Staffing NASDDDS Mid-Year Meeting ~ Rapid City, SD May 11, 2007

    2. Why Measure Staff Turnover? Anecdotes are not enough Need data to build a case for wage increases Understanding the critical management issues facing providers and states Ultimately affects quality of supports and outcomes for people Use trend data to evaluate strategies aimed at reducing turnover and increasing retention

    3. NCI Staff Stability Indicators Concern: Direct contact staff turnover ratios and absentee rates are low enough to maintain continuity of supports and efficient use of resources. Three separate indicators: Separation rate = # direct contact staff who left in past year/ total number of direct contact staff on payroll as of [date] Average length of employment for staff who separated in past year, and for current staff Vacancy rates = # of direct contact staff positions vacant / total # of positions (for full and part time staff)

    4. Data Collection Protocol Collected via Provider Survey Direct contact staff: “primary duties include hands-on, face-to-face contact with consumers…” Derived from payroll and employee records Residential and day figures are reported separately, but there is significant overlap since many provide both Exclusions: providers that serve <10 individuals and those that started up within past year States are advised to survey all providers

    5. Summary of Data Six states reported data for FY2005 Alabama (N=35) Arizona (N=24) Georgia (N=79) Hawaii (N=28) South Carolina (N=38) Wyoming (N=8) Preliminary findings display aggregate rates only

    6. Preliminary Results for Residential Service Providers ~ FY2005 Aggregate turnover rate = 38% (range: 25% - 67%) Average length of employment for separated staff <6 months: 31% 6-12 months: 20% >12 months: 49% Average length of employment for current staff <6 months: 15% 6-12 months: 14% >12 months: 71% Vacancy rates Part-time positions = 11% (range: 5% - 17%)

    7. States Included in Trend Analysis (FY’00-FY’05)

    8. Aggregate Direct Contact Staff Turnover Rates (FY2000-FY2005)

    9. Length of Employment - Separated Staff - Residential (FY’00-FY’05)

    10. Length of Employment - Separated Staff - Day Supports (FY’00-FY’05)

    11. Length of Employment – Current Staff - Residential (FY’00-FY’05)

    12. Length of Employment – Current Staff - Day Services (FY’00-FY’05)

    13. Part-Time Vacancy Rates – Residential and Day (FY’00-FY’05)

    14. Observed Trends FY’00-FY’05 Aggregate turnover rates peaked in 2001, then steadily decreased through 2004. Turnover began to increase again in 2005. Turnover tends to be higher in residential than in day services (but there is overlap). Vacancy rates are fairly steady for part-time positions and are higher than full time vacancies. From 2001-2004, retention rates improved (current staff had longer tenure; % of “early leavers” declined). Figures in 2005 suggest possible negative trend.

    15. Challenges Ahead Increase participation by NCI states (only 6 of 24 submitted data) Developing an online version of the survey Establishing links with College of Direct Support, DSW Resource Center, other national efforts to define measures Site-level data collection can be time-consuming; if the activity has benefit for providers, it may facilitate state’s ability to gather aggregate data

    16. Challenges Ahead (con’t) How to capture workforce issues related to hiring independent providers Assessing the impact of staff turnover from the perspective of individuals and families

    17. For More Info… Email us: vbradley@hsri.org staub@hsri.org cmoseley@nasddds.org Visit the NCI website to access reports: www.hsri.org/nci

More Related