jls presentation - overview of jfrc staff and 2016 session prep (to may 2015 jfrc mtg)
TRANSCRIPT
Where We StandOVERVIEW OF JFRC STAFF OPERATIONS (AND 2016 SESSION PREP)MAY 13, 2015
Current Landscape• High Stakes on Fiscal Notes• Premium Placed on Speed and Quantity• Lack of Confidence
-NCSL Review Requested• Erosion of Fiscal Analysis Capacity
Erosion in Fiscal Analysis Capacity
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Change in Fiscal Note/Memo Quantity3,413
2,7292,988
2,7672,500 2,424
2,268
Erosion in Fiscal Analysis Capacity
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
74%Notes
61%Notes
76%Notes
65%Notes
58%Notes
51%Notes
61%Notes
26%Memos
39%Memos
24%Memos
35%Memos
42%Memos 49%
Memos 39%Memos
Change in Fiscal Note/Memo Quantity3,413
2,7292,988
2,7672,500 2,424
2,268
Erosion in Fiscal Analysis Capacity
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Fiscal Staff FTE vs Fiscal Note/Memo Quantity3,413
2,7292,988
2,7672,500 2,424
2,268
Fiscal Staff FTE
Erosion in Fiscal Analysis Capacity
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Session Work Days vs Fiscal Staff FTE vs Fiscal Note/Memo Quantity3,413
2,7292,988
2,767
2,500 2,4242,268
Fiscal Staff FTE
Session Work Days
Erosion in Fiscal Analysis Capacity
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Session Days vs Fiscal Staff FTE vs Fiscal Note/Memo Quantity3,413
2,7292,988
2,767
2,500 2,4242,268
Fiscal Staff FTE
Session Work Days
Count of session work days OVERSTATES actual time for fiscal analysis since filing deadline is well after session start date
Erosion in Fiscal Analysis Capacity
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Effective Staff Time vs Fiscal Note/Memo Quantity3,413
2,7292,988
2,767
2,500 2,4242,268
Fiscal Staff FTE
Session Work Days
Effective Fiscal Staff Time
Erosion in Fiscal Analysis Capacity
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Effective Staff Time vs Fiscal Note/Memo Quantity + New Duty3,413
2,7292,988
2,767
2,500 2,4242,268
Commerce Impact Added
Fiscal Staff FTE
Session Work Days
Effective Fiscal Staff Time
So What Has to Give? Higher Productivity or Lower Quality• Average Work Day Extended (more comp time)• Research Time Reduced• Fiscal Notes Drafted More Quickly• Internal Review Time Reduced
Work day extension is a viable (and expected) response, but beyond a certain point worker effectiveness/efficiency suffers.
Higher Productivity or Lower Quality?
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
5
10
15
20
25
3.6 3.3 3.7 4.0 3.8 4.0 3.9
11.6 11.012.7 13.7
22.523.8
21.0
Fiscal Notes/Memos per Session Work Day - Writers & Reviewers
Fiscal Note/Memo per Writer Work Day Fiscal Note/Memo per Reviewer Work Day
Higher Productivity or Lower Quality?
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
133
146
128119
128121
41
44
3835
2120
Minutes per Fiscal Note/Memo
Writer Time per Fiscal Note/Memo (Minutes per Item) Reviewer Time per Fiscal Note/Memo (Minutes per Item)
174 3 Hours
2 Hours
1 Hour
190
166155 149
141
What Do These Numbers Mean? Higher Productivity or Lower Quality• Understates peak level time crunch
- 90% of production demand falls during about 66% of session time • Emphasis has been on maintaining fiscal note generating capacity (vs quality review)
A deeper look at staffing levels behind these numbers reveals even more!
Evolution of JFRC Fiscal Staffing
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
2
4
6
8
10
12
8.4 7.7
8.5 8.5 9.0 9.0
8.0
2.6
2.3
2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
1.5
Fiscal Staff Total FTE
Fiscal Note Writer FTE Fiscal Note Reviewer FTE
1110
11 1110.5 10.5
9.5
Evolution of JFRC Fiscal Staffing
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
20
40
60
80
10099 101
7075
4652 50
JFRC Fiscal Staff Total Years Experience
Dramatic loss of institutional knowledge
Evolution of JFRC Fiscal Staffing
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fiscal Staff Experience Weighted FTE
< 2 yrs 2+ yrs 5+ yrs 10+ yrs 20+ yrs
1110
11 1110.5 10.5
9.5
Evolution of JFRC Fiscal Staffing
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fiscal Staff Experience Weighted FTE
< 2 yrs 2+ yrs 5+ yrs 10+ yrs 20+ yrs
1110
11 1110.5 10.5
9.5
No progress on FTE with < 5 yrs experi-ence!
Evolution of JFRC Fiscal Staffing Over the past 5 sessions, 19 different people have occupied fiscal staff positions: 9 Gone 4 Hired prior to 2011 Session and are still here 6 Hired since 2010 Session are still here
- of those six, 3 were hired over just the last 2 sessions
So Where Do We Stand?• Time compression has outpaced workload change.• Work content has become more complex.• Dramatic and recurring turnover has cut deeply into fiscal
staff experience level (and kept it low).• Quality review time have been sacrificed to maintain
output speed.• Confidence in fiscal notes remains too low.
So what shall we do?
2016 Session Prep PlanFor a high performing legislative fiscal office, after session isn’t just time off…it’s off-season training!• Off-season work focuses on improving execution for the next
season (legislative session).• Monthly “off-season” work plan prepared to ready ourselves for the
2016 Session.• This plan sets guideposts, not fixed milestones for both the staff and
the Committee.• Goal #1a: Build trust and raise confidence in fiscal notes• Goal #1b: Reverse trend of constant staff churn (build expertise)
2016 Session Prep PlanMay 2015 2015 Session Review Identify Key Issues to Address & Resolve Initiate IT Support Requests to LIS
June 2015 Examine Fiscal Note Procedures and Scoring Rules
• Refine throughput procedures to increase efficiency (e.g. managing requests; internal tracking; etc.)
• Clarify (and refine, as needed) scoring standards to elevate quality and confidence in fiscal notes (e.g. budget impact vs fiscal impact; define “Not Significant”; etc.).
• Refine the fiscal note layout for ease of use
2016 Session Prep PlanJuly 2015 Examine Staff Duties, Structure, and Size
• Internal organization (e.g. topical areas; committee support duties; job categories; House vs Senate orientation; etc.)
• External partnerships (e.g. tapping outside expertise when needed)• Cross-department relationships (e.g. can JRFC and OLS work together more closely)
Develop Lobbyist Engagement Protocol Develop JFRC Staff Confidentiality Rules Continue Work on Fiscal Note Procedures and Scoring Rules
2016 Session Prep PlanAugust 2015 Continue work on Staff Duties, Structure, and Size Committee adopts Fiscal Note Procedures and Scoring Rules Committee adopts Lobbyists Engagement Protocol Committee adopts JFRC Staff Confidentiality Rules Follow-up on Remaining (Unresolved) IT Support Modifications with LIS
2016 Session Prep PlanSeptember 2015 Committee adopts JFRC Staff Duties, Structure, and Size for 2016 Session
• JFRC Director begins implementing all staffing changes adopted by the full committee Develop JFRC Staff Employee Handbook/Personnel Rules
• Includes all aspects basic legislative staff employment rules plus any special provisions unique to JFRC (e.g. lobbyist protocol, confidentiality, career ladder, etc.)
October 2015 Continue Implementation of Adopted Changes to JFRC Staff Duties, Structure,
and Size Committee adopts JFRC Staff Employee Handbook/Personnel Rules
Whose Plan Is It Anyway?• The Fiscal Review Office works for you.
- By law, all of our work is done on behalf of the Committee• Enhancing the quality and status of fiscal impact analysis
is your success.• Committee member active participation and strong
support is essential to making any lasting improvements.• Building trust and confidence in the fiscal note process
starts RIGHT HERE!
DiscussionJeff Spalding, Executive Director
Joint Fiscal Review Committee
[email protected](615) 741-2564