1 / 30

Performance Excellence Initiative 2010 Facts & Figures: Benchmark Data

Performance Excellence Initiative 2010 Facts & Figures: Benchmark Data. Presented by: Larry Weishaar, Vice President for Support Services, ResCare Rebecca Guess, Sr. Research Analyst, Deyta. PE National Benchmark 2010. What is the criteria for a valid benchmark?

bsprinkle
Download Presentation

Performance Excellence Initiative 2010 Facts & Figures: Benchmark Data

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. Performance Excellence Initiative 2010 Facts & Figures: Benchmark Data Presented by: Larry Weishaar, Vice President for Support Services, ResCare Rebecca Guess, Sr. Research Analyst, Deyta

  2. PE National Benchmark 2010 • What is the criteria for a valid benchmark? • One provider cannot make up 50% of a reporting group. • A valid benchmark takes years to generate. • Therefore the data reported within this report is NOT statistically valid. • Smaller sample size.

  3. PE National Benchmark 2010 Metrics Required: Required: • DSP Rates • Turnover • Stability • Retention • Satisfaction • Employee • Family/Guardian • Consumer

  4. PE National Benchmark Proposed Schedule • PreventiveHealthcare • Desired Health Care Outcome Measures • Communicable Diseases Heart Condition • Infections Stroke • Diabetes Dental Health • Obesity

  5. PE National Benchmark Proposed Schedule • PreventiveHealthcare • Valued Health Care Outcomes • Vaccinations • Weight Management • Blood Pressure Management • Dental Care • Medications

  6. Performance Excellence *Estimated # of People Served in 2010 36,699 AK: 659 149 1017 2462 833 171 NJ 72 85 DE: 19 9 388 MD 640 839 MA 195 5513 929 1462 90 895 501 925 891 59 110 1730 465 305 3915 536 810 119 26 697 37 States Represented 372 2418 304 • * Estimated numbers based on provider’s self-report data and averages. • * Additional states may be represented by multi-state providers.

  7. PE National Benchmark # Served Annual Comparisons

  8. Performance Excellence DSP TURNOVER RATE The turnover rate for direct service professionals reports the amount of turnover an organization experiences on an annual basis. This metric reports the number of people who leave an organization in one year divided by the total number positions within that organization. FOCUS LEVEL: ANCOR DSP Turnover Rate Numerator 17,627 Denominator 67,586 2010 Benchmark Turnover Rate 26.1% Calculations from Assessing Retention Outcomes; Sheryl Larson (June 13, 2000)

  9. PE National Benchmark Turnover Annual Comparisons

  10. 2008 – 2009 - 2010 Comparison Report Employee Satisfaction & Turnover 34.5% Overall I enjoy working in this organization 45.8% 26.1% 2008 Results 2009 Results 2010 Results

  11. 2008 – 2009 - 2010 Comparison Report Employee Satisfaction & Turnover 34.5% Likelihood I would recommend this organization to my family and friends 45.8% 26.1% 2008 Results 2009 Results 2010 Results

  12. Performance Excellence Turnover: 26.1% Turnover Noteworthy Findings • Overall turnover decreased in 2010 (26.1%), when compared with the results from 2009 (45.8%) and 2008 (34.5%). • No significant relationship between employee satisfaction compared with turnover in 2009 and 2008.

  13. Performance Excellence DSP STABILITY RATE The stability rate for direct service professionals reports longevity of employees within an organization. The stability rate reports the number of people working for the organization for one year or more divided by the total number of employees. FOCUS LEVEL: ANCOR DSP Stability Rate Numerator 41,951 Denominator 63,027 2010 Benchmark Stability Rate 66.6% Calculations from Assessing Retention Outcomes; Sheryl Larson (June 13, 2000)

  14. PE National Benchmark Stability Annual Comparisons

  15. 2008 – 2009 - 2010 Comparison Report Employee Satisfaction & Stability 64.6% Overall I enjoy working in this organization 62.9% 66.6% 2008 Results 2009 Results 2010 Results

  16. 2008 – 2009 - 2010 Comparison Report Employee Satisfaction & Stability 64.6% Likelihood I would recommend this organization to my family and friends 62.9% 66.6% 2008 Results 2009 Results 2010 Results

  17. Performance Excellence Stability: 66.6% Stability Noteworthy Findings • Overall stability increased in 2010 (66.6%), when compared with the results from 2009 (62.9%) and 2008 (64.6%). • No significant relationship between employee satisfaction compared with stability in 2009 and 2008.

  18. Performance Excellence DSP RETENTION RATE The tenure rate for direct service professionals is one way to measure retention for an organization. This metric reports in terms of months. Add the number of months each employee has worked for the organization and divide by the total number of employees. This will give an organization the average number of months employees have worked at this organization. FOCUS LEVEL: ANCOR DSP Retention Rate Numerator 3,334,944 Denominator 74,210 2010 Benchmark Retention Rate 44.93 Months Calculations from Assessing Retention Outcomes; Sheryl Larson (June 13, 2000)\

  19. PE National Benchmark Retention Annual Comparisons

  20. 2008 – 2009 - 2010 Comparison Report Employee Satisfaction & Retention 38.0 months Overall I enjoy working in this organization 37.8 months 44.9 months 2008 Results 2009 Results 2010 Results

  21. 2008 – 2009 - 2010 Comparison Report Employee Satisfaction & Retention 38.0 months Likelihood I would recommend this organization to my family and friends 37.8 months 44.9 months 2008 Results 2009 Results 2010 Results

  22. Performance Excellence Retention: 44.9 months Retention Noteworthy Findings • Overall retention increased in 2009 (44.9 months), when compared with the results from 2009 (37.8 months) and 2008 (38.0). • No significant relationship between employee satisfaction compared with retention in 2009 and 2008.

  23. Employee Satisfaction Performance Excellence Overall Satisfaction: 4.08 (81.6% answered 4 or 5) • Overall, these are the top five items that have the greatest influence in overall employee satisfaction. • Overall, employees take pride in their work and that contributes the greatest to their overall satisfaction with their job. • Leadership and supervisors also impact overall satisfaction for employees. LOWEST IMPACT MODERATE IMPACT HIGHEST IMPACT Relative Impact Rank (based on indexed Beta) AVG. SCORE TOP 2 (4+5) IMPACT RANK DRIVER I take pride in my work Have proper equipment, supplies, materials necessary Leadership gives employee satisfaction a high priority Supervisor maintains open line of communication Supervisor gives me recognition for the work I do 77.9% 95.6% 72.6% 75.7% 56.6% 1 3.93 4.57 3.87 3.94 3.47 2 3 4 5 “Impact Rank” is based on a “Beta” generated by the Multivariate Regression Analysis. Drivers are ranked relative to the most influential (Rank 1) factor.

  24. Person Receiving Services Choice & Self-Direction Findings n = 589 n = 599 n = 587 n = 639 n = 582 n = 685 Who loved one lives with? Where loved one lives? n = 685 n = 605 n = 684 n = 688 n = 606 n = 684 What loved one does in free time? Where loved one goes in free time? HOW MUCH CHOICE? IMPORTANCE OF CHOICE? SATISFIED WITH CHOICE? n = 611 n = 606 n = 613 n = 600 n = 600 n = 597 Staff who supports loved one? Who loved one spends free time with?

  25. Family / Guardian Choice & Self-Direction Findings n = 1432 n = 1574 n = 1518 n = 1569 n = 1447 n = 1508 Who loved one lives with? Where loved one lives? n = 1581 n = 1636 n = 1484 n = 1567 n = 1486 n = 1475 What loved one does in free time? Where loved one goes in free time? HOW MUCH CHOICE? IMPORTANCE OF CHOICE? SATISFIED WITH CHOICE? n = 1574 n = 1495 n = 1558 n = 1452 n = 1402 n = 1412 Staff who supports loved one? Who loved one spends free time with?

  26. Performance Excellence *2010 Unemployment Rates 9.1 RI: 10.9 AK: 7.3 7.3 VT: 5.3 7.6 3.3 6.5 MA: 7.8 9.6 CT: 9.1 7.3 9.6 4.9 NH: 4.9 7.9 10.2 6.0 NJ: 9.3 6.0 7.5 DE: 8.2 4.2 12.5 8.6 8.7 7.4 8.2 MD: 6.8 8.8 8.8 DC: 9.6 6.1 11.9 6.7 10.0 8.9 9.7 9.6 5.6 9.3 9.8 7.6 7.7 9.3 9.9 10.4 8.1 8.0 10.8 HI: 6.1 * Bureau of Labor Statistics; www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm

  27. Performance Excellence Unemployment Unemployment Noteworthy Findings • No significant relationship between satisfaction (employee & consumer & family/guardian) compared with unemployment in 2009 and 2008. • No significant relationship between DSP rates / employee satisfaction compared with unemployment in 2009 and 2008.

  28. What Next? Generate Your Reports! https://secure.deyta.com/PET/Login.aspx • Currently within PET there are three reports available for each metric. Every report is generated for one individual metric. • Agency Overall Report • Location Report • Profile Specific Report

  29. What Next? • Review Your Data! • Powerpoint available: www.ancor.org • Identify Top Providers • Determine Best Practices • Next Steps • Update from ANCOR

  30. Thank-You! Contact Information: Rebecca Guess rguess@deyta.com DEYTA 502.379.6179 Debra Langseth dlangseth@ancor.org ANCOR 703.535.7850 ext: 15

More Related