Reduce the Ratio of Supervisory to Non-supervisory Employees

Savings: $190 million

As of August 16, 2011, the City had 33,606 active employees.  The table below details the number of non-supervisory and supervisory employees and the resulting ratio of non-supervisory employees to supervisory employees.  The breakdown between supervisory and non-supervisory employees is based on an analysis of the City’s position titles.  This is a superficial analysis that simply relied on analyzing whether a title was a likely manager position.  The basic criteria used were if the words Commissioner, Director, Chief, Supervisor, Superintendent, or Foreman, appeared in the title, it was generally assumed to be a managerial position.  However, if the title included “Assistant to”, then it was not assumed to be managerial.  Additionally, a distinction was made between titles with Supervisor versus Supervising.  For titles that were structured as a Supervisor of some function, those were generally assumed to be managerial.  However, if the titles were structured with “Supervising” being used a qualifier for another title, it was assumed that these titles just signified a higher status of frontline position rather than a managerial one. Update 9/27/2011 @ 7 p.m. In order to see which titles were classified as supervisory and conduct your own analysis of the City’s position titles download the spreadsheet below.

(end of update)

DEPARTMENT

Non-supervisory Employees

Supervisory Employees

Total employees

Non-supervisory Employees to Supervisors

057-  DEPARTMENT OF POLICE

12,469

1,556

14,025

8.01

059-  FIRE DEPARTMENT

3,954

1,103

5,057

3.58

081-  DEPT STREETS AND SANITATION

1,991

121

2,112

16.45

088-  DEPT OF WATER MANAGEMENT

1,603

179

1,782

8.96

058-  OEMC

1,295

94

1,389

13.78

085-  DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION

1,123

144

1,267

7.80

084-  CHICAGO DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

1,002

135

1,137

7.42

091-  CHICAGO PUBLIC LIBRARY

1,024

31

1,055

33.03

041-  DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

792

51

843

15.53

050-  FAMILY AND SUPPORT SERVICES

606

74

680

8.19

040-  DEPARTMENT OF FLEET MANAGEMENT

537

61

598

8.80

038-  GENERAL SERVICES

406

57

463

7.12

031-  DEPARTMENT OF LAW

359

58

417

6.19

015-  CITY COUNCIL

315

102

417

3.09

029-  DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

362

42

404

8.62

067-  DEPT OF BUILDINGS

257

27

284

9.52

054-  HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

195

32

227

6.09

070-  BUS AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PROT

152

34

186

4.47

027-  DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

142

39

181

3.64

025-  CITY CLERK

124

17

141

7.29

039-  BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONER

82

32

114

2.56

006-  DOIT

63

28

91

2.25

056-  IPRA

80

4

84

20.00

033-  DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

72

6

78

12.00

001-  OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

68

7

75

9.71

023-  DEPT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS

49

15

64

3.27

073-  COMM ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL

56

7

63

8.00

035-  DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT SERV

47

13

60

3.62

072-  DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

46

11

57

4.18

003-  INSPECTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE

35

17

52

2.06

005-  OFFICE OF BUDGET & MANAGEMENT

30

20

50

1.50

030-  DEPT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

35

4

39

8.75

048-  MAYORS OFFICE-DISABILITIES

28

4

32

7.00

045-  COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS

22

6

28

3.67

028-  CITY TREASURER

11

11

22

1.00

032-  OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

21

1

22

21.00

078-  BOARD OF ETHICS

6

1

7

6.00

055-  POLICE BOARD

1

1

2

1.00

077-  LICENSE APPEAL COMMISSION

1

0

1

NA

Total

29,461

4,145

33,606

Source: August 16, 2011 Active Employees excluding Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions.

Under this option, the City would increase the ratio of non-supervisory employees to supervisory employees to a minimum of 10 in every City department.  The table below shows the reduction in managers that this would entail by individual department.

DEPARTMENT

Non-supervisory Employees

Supervisory Employees

Total Employees

Necessary Number of Supervisory Employees if Ratio Increased to 10

Reduction in Managers

059-  FIRE DEPARTMENT

3,954

1,103

5,057

396

707

057-  DEPARTMENT OF POLICE

12,469

1,556

14,025

1247

309

031-  DEPARTMENT OF LAW

315

102

417

32

70

084-  CHICAGO DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

1,002

135

1,137

101

34

027-  DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

142

39

181

15

24

039-  BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONER

82

32

114

9

23

015-  CITY COUNCIL

359

58

417

36

22

006-  DOIT

63

28

91

7

21

088-  DEPT OF WATER MANAGEMENT

1,603

179

1,782

161

18

070-  BUS AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PROT

152

34

186

16

18

005-  OFFICE OF BUDGET & MANAGEMENT

30

20

50

3

17

038-  GENERAL SERVICES

406

57

463

41

16

050-  FAMILY AND SUPPORT SERVICES

606

74

680

61

13

003-  IG

35

17

52

4

13

054-  HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

195

32

227

20

12

023-  DEPT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS

49

15

64

5

10

028-  CITY TREASURER

11

11

22

2

9

035-  DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT SERV

47

13

60

5

8

040-  DEPARTMENT OF FLEET MANAGEMENT

537

61

598

54

7

072-  DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

46

11

57

5

6

029-  DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

362

42

404

37

5

025-  CITY CLERK

124

17

141

13

4

045-  COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS

22

6

28

3

3

067-  DEPT OF BUILDINGS

257

27

284

26

1

073-  COMM ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL

56

7

63

6

1

048-  MAYORS OFFICE-DISABILITIES

28

4

32

3

1

Total Supervisor Reduction

1,372

Note: The Department of Aviation (CDA) was removed from this analysis because its employees are funded by airport operations and any savings from reducing management in CDA would be restricted to airport operations and could not be used to offset the City’s budget deficit. The average salary of the 4,145 supervisory positions is $103,500. Thus if the City were to eliminate these 1,372 positions the City would save approximately $142 million, assuming the positions eliminated had average salaries for all the supervisory positions.  Including fringe benefits at 35 percent of salary the total savings would be approximately $190 million.  This also assumes that the City would not add managers to those departments with a ratio above 10.

Proponents might argue that cutting the number of managers is appropriate to ensure that the services frontline staff provide are preserved.  Additionally, a number of states and private sector employers target low manager to non-supervisory employee ratios in order to reduce the cost of their operations.   Finally, managers earn the highest salaries and eliminating their positions results in the greatest savings to the City.   Opponents might argue that this is an arbitrary metric to apply Citywide.  Certain functions lend themselves to more supervision than others so it is too blunt to hold each department to the same standard.   Additionally, some might criticize this option as focusing too closely on the inputs of programs without determining what impact this might have on how these functions perform.

Discussion and Additional Questions As described above, this analysis is based on a superficial analysis of City position titles.  For instance, nine titles classified as supervisory in the Inspector General’s Office are not supervisory positions.  Conversely, in the Mayor’s office, an Administrative Assistant title actually corresponds to the Chief Data Officer and an Assistant to the Mayor title really corresponds to the Chief Technology Officer.  Therefore, in this analysis, these positions are not included as supervisory titles.  In the Fire and Police Departments, which have the largest potential staff reductions, this is because lieutenants, captains, and sergeants, in the case of the Police department, were categorized as supervisory.  However, it is unclear whether these positions should be categorized as supervisory. So, if the City was to implement this option, it first must obtain reliable data that accurately shows the ratio of non-supervisory employees to supervisory employees.  To do this, there first must be fixed criteria for what constitutes a manager.  The Texas State Auditor provides the following criteria: [1] Manager has the responsibility for strategic operations and planning and

  • Formulates statewide policy or directs the work of an agency, higher education institution, or subdivision; OR
  • Administers one or more statewide policies or programs of an agency, higher education institution, or subdivision; OR
  • Manages, administers, and controls a local branch office of an agency, higher education institution, or subdivision, including the physical, financial, or human resources; OR
  • Has substantial responsibility in human resources management, legislative relations, public information, or the preparation and administration of budgets;”

To further explore this issue, the City Council could require each department to categorize their employees as either managers or non-managers and then provide a breakdown by each function.  Conversely, a position audit could be conducted to make appropriate connections of title to responsibilities.  Both would provide a meaningful picture of the actual ratio of managers to non-supervisors throughout the City. Budget Details

Dept: Various Bureau: NA
Fund: Various Approp Code: Various
The appropriations are located throughout the 2011 Annual Appropriation Ordinance. http://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/obm/supp_info/2011BudgetOrdinance.pdf

 


[1] Texas State Auditor. “Quarterly Report of Full-Time Equivalent Positions- Management Span of Control”. http://sao.hr.state.tx.us/advisory/FTEMgmntStaffRatio.html