Performance Excellence Initiative 2010 Facts & Figures: Benchmark Data
description
Transcript of Performance Excellence Initiative 2010 Facts & Figures: Benchmark Data
Performance Excellence Initiative Performance Excellence Initiative
2010 Facts & Figures: Benchmark Data2010 Facts & Figures: Benchmark Data
Presented by:Presented by:
Larry Weishaar, Vice President for Support Services, ResCareLarry Weishaar, Vice President for Support Services, ResCare
Rebecca Guess, Sr. Research Analyst, DeytaRebecca Guess, Sr. Research Analyst, Deyta
What is the criteria for a valid benchmark?What is the criteria for a valid benchmark?
• One provider cannot make up 50% of a reporting group. One provider cannot make up 50% of a reporting group.
• A valid benchmark takes years to generate.A valid benchmark takes years to generate.
• Therefore the data reported within this report is Therefore the data reported within this report is NOTNOT statistically valid. statistically valid.
• Smaller sample size.Smaller sample size.
PE National BenchmarkPE National Benchmark
20102010
PE National BenchmarkPE National Benchmark
2010 Metrics2010 Metrics
DSP RatesDSP Rates
• TurnoverTurnover
• StabilityStability
• RetentionRetention
SatisfactionSatisfaction
• EmployeeEmployee
• Family/GuardianFamily/Guardian
• ConsumerConsumer
Required:Required: Required:Required:
PE National BenchmarkPE National Benchmark
Proposed ScheduleProposed Schedule
•PreventivePreventive Healthcare Healthcare
• Desired Health Care Outcome MeasuresDesired Health Care Outcome Measures Communicable DiseasesCommunicable Diseases Heart ConditionHeart Condition
InfectionsInfections StrokeStroke
DiabetesDiabetes Dental HealthDental Health
ObesityObesity
PE National BenchmarkPE National Benchmark
Proposed ScheduleProposed Schedule
•PreventivePreventive Healthcare Healthcare
• Valued Health Care OutcomesValued Health Care Outcomes VaccinationsVaccinations
Weight ManagementWeight Management
Blood Pressure ManagementBlood Pressure Management
Dental CareDental Care
MedicationsMedications
Performance ExcellencePerformance Excellence
*Estimated # of People Served in 2010 *Estimated # of People Served in 2010 36,69936,699
1730
3915
891501
304
697
5513
1017
2462
465
810
929
171
839
536
833
305
1462
110895
26
DE: 199
90
925
372
MD 640
85
59
388
NJ 72
2418
149
119
AK: 659
* Estimated numbers based on provider’s self-report data and averages.
* Additional states may be represented by multi-state providers.
MA 195
37 States Represented
PE National BenchmarkPE National Benchmark# Served Annual Comparisons# Served Annual Comparisons
29,205
36,699
58,349
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2008 2009 2010
Years
Nu
mb
er S
erve
d
Performance Excellence Performance Excellence
DSP TURNOVER RATEDSP TURNOVER RATEThe turnover rate for direct service professionals reports The turnover rate for direct service professionals reports the amount the amount of turnover an organization experiences on an annual basis. This of turnover an organization experiences on an annual basis. This metric reports the number of people who leave an organization in one metric reports the number of people who leave an organization in one year divided by the total number positions within that organization.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)
PE National BenchmarkPE National Benchmark
Percentage
26.1%
45.8%
34.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
2008 2009 2010Years
Turnover Annual ComparisonsTurnover Annual Comparisons
4.18
4.08
4.10
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
2008 Results2008 Results 2009 Results2009 Results
Overall I enjoy working in this organizationOverall I enjoy working in this organization
2008 – 2009 - 2010 Comparison Report
Employee Satisfaction & Turnover
2010 Results2010 Results
34.5%
26.1%
45.8%
3.91
3.77
3.75
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
2008 Results2008 Results 2009 Results2009 Results
Likelihood I would recommend this Likelihood I would recommend this
organization to my family and friendsorganization to my family and friends
2008 – 2009 - 2010 Comparison Report
Employee Satisfaction & Turnover
2010 Results2010 Results
34.5%
26.1%
45.8%
• Overall turnover decreased in 2010 Overall turnover decreased in 2010 (26.1%), when compared with the results (26.1%), when compared with the results from 2009 (45.8%) and 2008 (34.5%).from 2009 (45.8%) and 2008 (34.5%).
• No significant relationship between No significant relationship between employee satisfaction compared with employee satisfaction compared with turnover in 2009 and 2008.turnover in 2009 and 2008.
Performance ExcellencePerformance Excellence
Turnover: 26.1%Turnover: 26.1%
Turnover Noteworthy FindingsTurnover Noteworthy Findings
Performance Excellence Performance Excellence
DSP STABILITY RATEDSP STABILITY RATE
The stability rate for direct service professionals reports longevity The stability rate for direct service professionals reports longevity of employees within an organization. The stability rate reports the of employees within an organization. The stability rate reports the number of people working for the organization for one year or number of people working for the organization for one year or more divided by the total number of employees.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)
PE National BenchmarkPE National Benchmark
Percentage66.6%
64.6%
62.9%
61.0%
62.0%
63.0%
64.0%
65.0%
66.0%
67.0%
2008 2009 2010
Years
Stability Annual ComparisonsStability Annual Comparisons
4.18
4.08
4.10
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
2008 Results2008 Results 2009 Results2009 Results
Overall I enjoy working in this organizationOverall I enjoy working in this organization
2008 – 2009 - 2010 Comparison Report
Employee Satisfaction & Stability
2010 Results2010 Results
64.6%
66.6%
62.9%
3.91
3.77
3.75
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
2008 Results2008 Results 2009 Results2009 Results
Likelihood I would recommend this Likelihood I would recommend this
organization to my family and friendsorganization to my family and friends
2008 – 2009 - 2010 Comparison Report
Employee Satisfaction & Stability
2010 Results2010 Results
64.6%
66.6%
62.9%
• No significant relationship between No significant relationship between employee satisfaction compared with employee satisfaction compared with stability in 2009 and 2008.stability in 2009 and 2008.
Performance ExcellencePerformance Excellence
Stability: 66.6%Stability: 66.6%
Stability Noteworthy FindingsStability Noteworthy Findings
• Overall stability increased in 2010 Overall stability increased in 2010 (66.6%), when compared with the results (66.6%), when compared with the results from 2009 (62.9%) and 2008 (64.6%).from 2009 (62.9%) and 2008 (64.6%).
Performance Excellence Performance Excellence
DSP RETENTION RATEDSP RETENTION RATEThe tenure rate for direct service professionals is one way to measure The tenure rate for direct service professionals is one way to measure retention for an organization. This metric reports in terms of months. Add retention for an organization. This metric reports in terms of months. Add the number of months each employee has worked for the organization and the number of months each employee has worked for the organization and divide by the total number of employees. This will give an organizationdivide by the total number of employees. This will give an organizationthe average number of months employees have worked at this the average number of months employees have worked at this organization.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)\
PE National BenchmarkPE National Benchmark
44.9
3837.8
34363840424446
2008 2009 2010
Years
Mo
nth
sRetention Annual ComparisonsRetention Annual Comparisons
4.18
4.08
4.10
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
2008 Results2008 Results 2009 Results2009 Results
Overall I enjoy working in this organizationOverall I enjoy working in this organization
2008 – 2009 - 2010 Comparison Report
Employee Satisfaction & Retention
2010 Results2010 Results
38.0 months
44.9 months
37.8 months
3.91
3.77
3.75
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
2008 Results2008 Results 2009 Results2009 Results
Likelihood I would recommend this Likelihood I would recommend this
organization to my family and friendsorganization to my family and friends
2008 – 2009 - 2010 Comparison Report
Employee Satisfaction & Retention
2010 Results2010 Results
38.0 months
44.9 months
37.8 months
• Overall retention increased in 2009 (44.9 Overall retention increased in 2009 (44.9 months), when compared with the results months), when compared with the results from 2009 (37.8 months) and 2008 (38.0).from 2009 (37.8 months) and 2008 (38.0).
• No significant relationship between No significant relationship between employee satisfaction compared with employee satisfaction compared with retention in 2009 and 2008.retention in 2009 and 2008.
Performance ExcellencePerformance Excellence
Retention: 44.9 monthsRetention: 44.9 months
Retention Noteworthy FindingsRetention Noteworthy Findings
Employee SatisfactionEmployee Satisfaction
• Overall, these are the Overall, these are the top five items that top five items that have the greatest have the greatest influence in overall influence in overall employee employee satisfaction.satisfaction.
• Overall, employees Overall, employees take pride in their take pride in their work and that work and that contributes the contributes the greatest to their greatest to their overall satisfaction overall satisfaction with their job.with their job.
• Leadership and Leadership and supervisors also supervisors also impact overall impact overall satisfaction for satisfaction for employees.employees.
I take pride in my workI take pride in my work
Have proper equipment, supplies, materials necessaryHave proper equipment, supplies, materials necessary
Leadership gives employee satisfaction a high priorityLeadership gives employee satisfaction a high priority
Supervisor maintains open line of communicationSupervisor maintains open line of communication
Supervisor gives me recognition for the work I doSupervisor gives me recognition for the work I do
3.933.93
4.574.57
3.873.87
3.943.94
3.473.47
Overall Satisfaction: 4.08 (81.6% answered 4 or 5)Overall Satisfaction: 4.08 (81.6% answered 4 or 5)
AVG. SCOREAVG. SCORE TOP 2 (4+5)TOP 2 (4+5)IMPACT RANKIMPACT RANK
1
2
3
4
5
DRIVERDRIVER
1
2
34
5
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LOWEST IMPACTLOWEST IMPACT MODERATE IMPACTMODERATE IMPACT HIGHEST IMPACTHIGHEST IMPACT
Relative Impact Rank (based on indexed Beta)Relative Impact Rank (based on indexed Beta)
““Impact Rank” is based on a “Beta” generated by the Multivariate Regression Analysis. Impact Rank” is based on a “Beta” generated by the Multivariate Regression Analysis.
Drivers are ranked relative to the most influential (Rank 1) factor.Drivers are ranked relative to the most influential (Rank 1) factor.
77.9%77.9%
95.6%95.6%
72.6%72.6%
75.7%75.7%
56.6%56.6%
Performance ExcellencePerformance Excellence
Person Receiving ServicesPerson Receiving Services
Choice & Self-Direction FindingsChoice & Self-Direction Findings
3.754.16 4.11
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.503.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Dept. CA or IS Total All KCA/ISWhere loved one lives?
n = 639 n = 582 n = 685
4.14 4.30 4.20
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.503.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Dept. CA or IS Total All KCA/ISWhere loved one goes in free time?
n = 688 n = 606 n = 684
4.03 4.29 4.17
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.503.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Dept. CA or IS Total All KCA/ISWho loved one spends free time with?
n = 611 n = 606 n = 613
3.344.04 3.98
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.503.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Dept. CA or IS Total All KCA/ISWho loved one lives with?
n = 587 n = 589 n = 599
4.15 4.29 4.19
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.503.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Dept. CA or IS Total All KCA/ISWhat loved one does in free time?
n = 685 n = 605 n = 684
3.794.14 4.09
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.503.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Dept. CA or IS Total All KCA/ISStaff who supports loved one?
n = 600 n = 600 n = 597
HOW MUCH CHOICE?
IMPORTANCE OF CHOICE?
SATISFIED WITH CHOICE?
Family / GuardianFamily / GuardianChoice & Self-Direction FindingsChoice & Self-Direction Findings
3.013.79
4.30
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.503.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Dept. CA or IS Total All KCA/ISWhere loved one lives?
n = 1569 n = 1447 n = 1508
3.273.96 4.13
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.503.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Dept. CA or IS Total All KCA/ISWhere loved one goes in free time?
n = 1567n = 1486 n = 1475
3.274.02 4.17
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.503.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Dept. CA or IS Total All KCA/ISWho loved one spends free time with?
n = 1574 n = 1495 n = 1558
2.80
3.864.21
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.503.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Dept. CA or IS Total All KCA/ISWho loved one lives with?
n = 1518 n = 1432 n = 1574
3.394.10 4.13
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.503.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Dept. CA or IS Total All KCA/ISWhat loved one does in free time?
n = 1581 n = 1636 n = 1484
3.10
3.99 4.18
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.503.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Dept. CA or IS Total All KCA/ISStaff who supports loved one?
n = 1452 n = 1402 n = 1412
HOW MUCH CHOICE?
IMPORTANCE OF CHOICE?
SATISFIED WITH CHOICE?
Performance ExcellencePerformance Excellence
*2010 Unemployment Rates*2010 Unemployment Rates
7.39.1
9.6
12.5
11.9
9.6
9.3
7.48.8
4.9
4.2
6.5
6.7
5.6
8.0
7.3
6.0
8.9
7.7
8.19.3
10.8
9.9
9.79.6
10.0 6.18.8
10.2
8.7 8.28.6
7.6
CT: 9.1
NJ: 9.3DE: 8.2
7.9
7.5
7.6
* Bureau of Labor Statistics; www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm
3.3
MD: 6.8
6.0
AK: 7.3
10.4
9.8
RI: 10.9MA: 7.8
HI: 6.1
DC: 9.6
NH: 4.9
VT: 5.3
• No significant relationship between No significant relationship between satisfaction (employee & consumer & satisfaction (employee & consumer & family/guardian) compared with family/guardian) compared with unemployment in 2009 and 2008.unemployment in 2009 and 2008.
Performance ExcellencePerformance Excellence
UnemploymentUnemployment
Unemployment Noteworthy FindingsUnemployment Noteworthy Findings
• No significant relationship between DSP No significant relationship between DSP rates / employee satisfaction compared rates / employee satisfaction compared with unemployment in 2009 and 2008.with unemployment in 2009 and 2008.
What Next?Generate Your Reports!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
What Next?
• Review Your Data!Review Your Data!
• Powerpoint available: Powerpoint available: www.ancor.org
• Identify Top ProvidersIdentify Top Providers
• Determine Best PracticesDetermine Best Practices
• Next StepsNext Steps
• Update from ANCORUpdate from ANCOR
Thank-You!Thank-You!
Contact Information: Contact Information:
Rebecca Guess Rebecca Guess [email protected]
DEYTADEYTA
502.379.6179502.379.6179
Debra Langseth Debra Langseth [email protected]
ANCORANCOR
703.535.7850 ext: 15703.535.7850 ext: 15