United States General Accounting Office

GAO Briefing Report to the Ranking Minority

Member, District of Columbia

Subcommittee, Committee on

Appropriations, House of

Representatives

September 1997 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GOVERNMENT

Overtime Costs Exceed

Those of Neighboring

Governments

GAO/GGD-97-159BR

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-277498 

September 11, 1997

The Honorable James P. Moran

Ranking Minority Member

District of Columbia Subcommittee

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Moran:

This briefing report responds to your request for information on the

District of Columbia government’s overtime expenditures.1

 It presents

information on (1) the amount and extent of the District’s overtime

expenditures for fiscal years 1992 through 1997,2

 (2) reasons provided by

District officials for those overtime expenditures, (3) how the District’s

overtime expenditures compared with those of selected surrounding

jurisdictions for fiscal year 1996, and (4) how the District’s overtime

management policies compared with those of the selected surrounding

jurisdictions.3

 On September 3, 1997, we briefed your office on the results

of our review. This report provides the substance of that briefing.

Results in Brief In fiscal year 1996, which was the most recently completed fiscal year, the

District government’s overtime expenditures totaled approximately

$82.9 million, which represented about 6 percent of the District’s total

salary costs. Between fiscal years 1992 and 1996, the District of Columbia

government’s overtime expenditures ranged from a low of approximately

$67.2 million in fiscal year 1995 to a high of approximately $98.8 million in

fiscal year 1994. The District’s overtime expenditures, when measured as a

percentage of total salary costs, ranged from a low of 4.6 percent in fiscal

year 1995 to a high of 6.3 percent in fiscal year 1994. Through April of

fiscal year 1997, these expenditures were approximately $53.4 million,

which represented 7.3 percent of total salary costs. In fiscal year 1996,

eight departments accounted for 97 percent of the District government’s

overtime expenditures. These departments were Corrections (DOC),

Metropolitan Police (MPD), Human Services (DHS), Water and Sewer

1

For the purpose of this report, we used the definition of overtime pay in the Fair Labor Standards Act,

29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., as amended.

2

The District follows an October 1 to September 30 fiscal year. Fiscal year 1997 data provided by the

District are through April 1997.

3

As agreed with your office, we compared the District’s overtime expenditures for fiscal year 1996 and

overtime management policies to those of the following neighboring governments: the city of

Baltimore and Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland; and Fairfax County, Virginia.

Page 1 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
B-277498 

Authority (WASA), Fire and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS), Public

Schools (PS), D.C. General Hospital, and Public Works (DPW). Four of these

eight departments in fiscal year 1996—DOC, MPD, DHS, and WASA—accounted

for 74 percent of the District’s total overtime expenditures. MPD and DHS

were consistently among the four highest users of overtime from fiscal

year 1992 through 1996. (See Briefing Section II for additional information

on the amount and extent of the District’s overtime expenditures.)

The reasons provided by District officials for the District’s overtime

expenditures generally varied by department. Some reasons for overtime

expenditures commonly reported by District officials included staff

management policies that seek to address staff shortages, workforce

reductions, and the inability to fill position vacancies (in DOC, MPD, DHS,

FEMS, DPW, D.C. General Hospital, and WASA); addressing external

mandates, such as consent decrees and court orders that specify staffing

or service levels (in DOC, DHS, FEMS, PS, and WASA); infrastructure

deficiencies, such as the need to repair or maintain out-of-date facilities or

equipment (DOC, DPW, WASA, and D.C. General Hospital); and mission

requirements, such as the necessity to provide functions or services

related to public safety (MPD and DPW). (Briefing Section III provides

reasons that District officials cited for the District’s overtime expenditures

by departments.)

The District’s governmentwide overtime expenditures as a percentage of

total salary costs (6 percent) were higher than those of the selected

surrounding jurisdictions in fiscal year 1996. Governmentwide overtime

expenditures as a percentage of total salary costs for the city of Baltimore

were 5 percent; for Montgomery County, 5.3 percent; for Prince George’s

County, 2.8 percent; and Fairfax County, 2 percent. (Differences that could

affect overtime use between the operations of the District and four

selected governments are discussed in Briefing Sections III and IV.

Briefing Section IV provides a comparison of overtime expenditures as a

percentage of salary costs by departments and governmentwide

percentages.)

The District government and the governments of all of the selected

surrounding jurisdictions had written overtime policies that reported

compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). However, the

policies of the District and the selected surrounding jurisdictions varied in

their requirements for advance approval of overtime, written justification

for overtime work, provisions for jurisdiction-level and department-level

overtime audits, and the reporting of overtime pay in the annual budget.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
B-277498 

Only Fairfax County’s overtime management policies addressed all of

these policy elements. (Briefing Section V provides a comparative

summary of the governments’ overtime management policies.)

Background Overtime is often used by public and private sector organizations as a

management tool to provide services to constituents and customers, and

its use has been increasing over the past several years.4

 Some employers

schedule overtime work on a regular basis, rather than hire additional

workers when they perceive the cost of overtime premiums to be lower

than the costs of hiring additional staff.

FLSA establishes minimum wage, overtime compensation, recordkeeping,

and other provisions that affect full- and part-time employees in the

private sector and in federal, state, and local governments. In general,

employees covered by the act must receive compensation for hours

worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, at a rate of not less than time

and one-half their regular rate of compensation. The District government’s

obligation to comply with the overtime provision of FLSA began on April 15,

1986.5

On December 27, 1996, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility

and Management Assistance Authority (Authority) enacted an order to

control District government operating expenses. The Authority’s order

stated that some District government employees had received overtime

pay, although they had performed less than 40 hours of work in a week,

thus contributing to the District’s operating deficit. This order provided

that District government employees are only to receive compensation for

overtime work in excess of 40 hours per week (or other applicable tour of

duty) of work actually performed, in accordance with the provisions of

4

Economic Report of the President, Feb., 1997; Darrell E. Carr, “Overtime Work: An Expanded View,”

Monthly Labor Review, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Nov. 1986; and Barry Bluestone and Stephen Rose,

“Overworked and Underemployed: Unraveling an Economic Enigma,” in The American Prospect, No.

31 (March-April 1997).

5

In 1974, Congress extended FLSA to state and municipal government employees, including the

District of Columbia government. However, in 1976 the Supreme Court ruled that the 1974 amendment

to FLSA was unconstitutional. Subsequently, in 1985 the Supreme Court overturned its earlier decision

and upheld the legality of applying FLSA to state governments. However, being aware of potential

hardship that might result from immediate application of FLSA to state and municipal governments,

Congress enacted legislation, which delayed application of the act to the state and municipal

governments until April 15, 1986.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
B-277498 

FLSA.

6

 The order, in effect, prohibited the District from including annual

and sick leave or other scheduled leave in computing overtime and from

paying overtime to employees who worked more than eight hours in a day

unless they exceeded 40 hours of work per week. The Authority estimated

that this order should result in fiscal year 1997 cost savings of $5.4 million.

On March 12, 1997, the District government revised its personnel

regulations to implement the Authority’s order. The District of Columbia

Fiscal Year 1998 Budget and Financial Plan estimated fiscal year 1998 cost

savings resulting from the Authority’s order at approximately $8.8 million,

assuming that overtime costs could be reduced by 13 to 14 percent as a

result of this initiative.

A May 1997 Authority report stated that the District government had not

effectively planned or controlled its workforce and thereby contributed to

overtime costs that the Authority characterized as “staggering and not

well-planned.”7

 The report stated that one result of the District’s lack of

systematic personnel planning was the extensive amount of overtime

being worked by personnel. The report also noted that the District as a

whole does not adequately budget for overtime and that much of this

overtime was frequently authorized for the same employees each pay

period.

Scope and

Methodology

To determine the amount and extent of the District’s overtime

expenditures, we obtained data from District officials on full-time

equivalent employment (FTE)8

 levels, salary, and overtime expenditures.9

We reviewed and analyzed these data, which depicted the District as a

whole and its individual departments. We focused on eight

departments—DOC, FEMS, DPW, PS, MPD, DHS, WASA, and D.C. General

Hospital—because they accounted for approximately 97 percent of the

District government’s fiscal year 1996 total overtime expenditures. We

6

In May 1997, labor unions representing District government employees brought a suit against the

Authority and the District’s Chief Financial Officer, contending that the Authority’s Dec. 27, 1996,

order violates the applicable collective bargaining agreements, the District Code, and the U. S.

Constitution. The suit was still pending as this report went to printing.

7

Human Resource Management Reform: A Strategic Approach, The District of Columbia Financial

Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, May 1997.

8

An FTE is a workforce measurement equal to a work year of 2,080 hours, rather than an on-board

head count. This could mean, for example, one employee on a full-time schedule of 40 hours for 52

weeks or two part-time employees for 20 hours per week each for the same period.

9

We did not adjust salary and overtime expenditures to constant dollars to account for inflation. Our

primary comparative measure, overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs, is unaffected by

inflation.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
B-277498 

analyzed trend data for fiscal year 1992 through April of fiscal year 1997

for these departments.

To determine the reasons for the District’s overtime expenditures, we

interviewed officials representing the District government (Office of the

Chief Financial Officer; Chief Financial Officers of the eight selected

departments, Office of the City Administrator; Office of Personnel;

Corporation Counsel; City Council; Inspector General, and Auditor’s

Office), the Authority, and labor union representatives of selected District

departments. We asked them to identify factors that may account for the

District’s overtime usage. We also reviewed overtime expenditure data

provided by several District departments which was categorized by the

reasons for overtime usage.

To compare District government overtime expenditures with the selected

jurisdictions that we agreed with your office to review, we obtained

information from the budget and finance offices of city of Baltimore;

Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland; and Fairfax County,

Virginia governments on FTE levels, salary, and overtime expenditures. We

compared the District and the four governments by the following

categories: (1) overtime expenditures and (2) overtime expenditures as a

percentage of salary costs. Our comparisons were done by jurisdictions’

and major departments’ totals, using fiscal year 1996 data provided by

these governments. The District follows an October 1 to September 30

fiscal year, whereas the other governments follow a July 1 to June 30 fiscal

year. We were not able to present data on all departments in which we

focused our review in the District for the four other governments because

some did not have comparable departments. For example, the District

government operates its own corrections system whereas corrections is a

state government function in Maryland; therefore, the city of Baltimore

does not operate a corrections function.

To compare the overtime management policies of the District with those

of selected surrounding jurisdictions, we interviewed government officials

in all five jurisdictions and reviewed the five governments’ written

overtime policies. On the basis of our interviews and review of the

governments’ overtime policies, we developed a list of elements for

comparison. The elements that we used in our comparisons were whether

the governments (1) had written overtime policies, (2) reported

compliance with FLSA, (3) required advance approval of overtime,

(4) required written justification for overtime work, (5) provided for

Page 5 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
B-277498 

jurisdiction- and department-level audits of overtime, and (6) provided for

overtime pay in their annual budgets.

We also reviewed literature and interviewed officials from city and county

management and related associations. We did our work between May and

August 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards. Due to the short time frame of this review, we did not verify the

data provided by the District and the other governments.

Comments From the

District of Columbia and

Other Governments

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Mayor of the

District of Columbia, the District’s City Administrator, the District’s Chief

Financial Officer, and the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility

and Management Assistance Authority. We also requested comments from

the budget and finance directors of the governments of the city of

Baltimore; Prince George’s County; and Montgomery County, MD; and

Fairfax County, VA. We received comments from all of the officials or their

designees in mid-August confirming that the material in the report

accurately depicted their governments. We incorporated their clarifying

information where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this briefing report to the Chairman of this

Subcommittee and to the Chairpersons and Ranking Minority Members of

other congressional committees that have responsibilities related to

District of Columbia issues. We are also sending copies to the Mayor of the

District of Columbia, the District’s City Administrator, the District’s Chief

Financial Officer, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and

Management Assistance Authority, and officials from the other four

governments we reviewed. We will make copies available to others on

request.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
B-277498 

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. If you need

any additional information or have further questions, please contact me, or

J. Christopher Mihm, Acting Associate Director, on (202) 512-8676.

Sincerely yours,

L. Nye Stevens

Director,

Federal Management and Workforce Issues

Page 7 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Contents

Letter 1

Briefing Section I 

Introduction

10

Review Objectives 10

Scope and Methodology 11

Briefing Section II 

Amount and Extent of

the District

Government Overtime

Expenditures

12

District Overtime Expenditures, FY 1992-1997 12

District Overtime Expenditures by Major Departments, FY 1996 14

Primary District Government Overtime Users, FY 1996 16

Trends for Primary District Government Overtime Users, FY

1992-1997

18

Briefing Section III 

Reasons Reported for

District Government

Overtime

Expenditures

20

Summary of Reasons Reported for Overtime Use by District

Departments

20

Reported Reasons for Overtime Use: 1. Staff Management

Policies

22

Reported Reasons for Overtime Use: 2. External Mandates 24

Reported Reasons for Overtime Use: 3. Infrastructure

Deficiencies

26

Reported Reasons for Overtime Use: 4. Mission Requirements 28

Briefing Section IV 

District Government

Overtime

Expenditures

Compared With

Surrounding

Jurisdictions

30

Comparative Governments’s Overtime as a Percentage of Salary,

FY 1996

30

Page 8 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Contents

Briefing Section V 

District Government

Overtime

Management Policies

Compared With Those

of Surrounding

Jurisdictions

32

Summary of Governments’ Overtime Management Policies 32

Appendix I 

Salary Costs of

Selected Government

Departments, FY 1996

34

Appendix II 

Major Contributors to

This Briefing Report

35

Abbreviations

DHS Department of Human Services

DOC Department of Corrections

DPW Department of Public Works

FEMS Fire and Emergency Medical Services

FLSA Fair Labor Standards Act

FTE Full Time Equivalent

FY Fiscal Year

MPD Metropolitan Police Department

PS Public Schools

WASA Water and Sewer Authority

WSSC Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

Page 9 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section I 

Introduction

GAO Review Objectives

To provide overtime information on the following:

extent and amount of the District's expenditures for FY 92-97;

reasons provided by District officials for those expenditures;

how the District's expenditures compared with the selected 

jurisdictions for FY 1996:

- City of Baltimore, MD - Montgomery County, MD

- Fairfax County, VA - Prince George's County, MD

how the District's overtime management policies compared with 

those of the selected jurisdictions.

FY 1997 data are through April 1997.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section I 

Introduction

GAO Scope and Methodology 

Reviewed the selected governments: District of Columbia; City 

of Baltimore, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, MD; 

and Fairfax County, VA. 

Collected data on governments' salary, FTE, overtime pay, 

and overtime management policies.

Interviewed District government officials and reviewed 

records to determine reasons for the overtime expenses. 

Compared the five governments' overtime expenditures as a 

percentage of salary.

Compared the five governments' overtime management 

policies.

Page 11 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section II 

Amount and Extent of the District

Government Overtime Expenditures

GAO District Overtime Expenditures,

FY 1992-1997 

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Number of FTE's 34,015 35,404 38,683 38,583 36,385 32,573

Expenditures

 Salary $1,522,876 $1,513,854 $1,566,747 $1,448,569 $1,381,633 $734,304

 Overtime 77,513 75,187 98,786 67,238 82,931 53,417

Overtime as a 

percentage of 

salary

5.1% 5.0% 6.3% 4.6% 6.0% 7.3%

(Dollars in thousands)

Fiscal years

a

b

Note: The District government follows an October 1 - September 30 fiscal year.

aFiscal Year (FY) 1997 data are through April 1997.

bSalary excludes overtime, benefits, Social Security, and other compensation.

Source: District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section II 

Amount and Extent of the District

Government Overtime Expenditures

District Overtime

Expenditures, FY

1992-1997

The data in this table represent the District’s total salary and overtime and

include all general and enterprise funds’ full-time equivalent employment

(FTE), salary, and overtime for FY 1992 through FY 1997 (FY 1997 data are

through April 1997).

Between FYs 1992 and 1996, the years for which we provide complete FY

data, the District government’s total salary expenditures ranged from a

low of $1,381,633,000 in FY 1996 to a high of $1,566,747,000 in FY 1994. Over

this same period, the District’s overtime expenditures ranged from a low

of $67.2 million in FY 1995 to a high of $98.8 million in FY 1994. The

District’s overtime as a percentage of salary costs over this period ranged

from a low of 4.6 percent in FY 1995 up to a high of 6.3 percent in FY 1994.

The District’s overtime as a percentage of salary costs averaged

5.7 percent from FY 1992 through April 1997.

Page 13 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section II 

Amount and Extent of the District

Government Overtime Expenditures

GAO District Overtime Expenditures by 

Major Departments, FY 1996

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

21,590

18,070

11,235

9,542

6,186

5,257 5,040

3,650

2,343

Dollars in thousands

Corrections

Police

Human Services

Water and Sewer

Fire and Emergency

 Medical Services

Public Schools

D.C. General

Public Works

Other

Overtime expenditures for eight departments, $80,588 (97% of total)

Total overtime for the District Government, $82,931 

Source: District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer.

Page 14 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section II 

Amount and Extent of the District

Government Overtime Expenditures

District Overtime

Expenditures by Major

Departments, FY 1996

The District government’s overtime expenditures totaled $82,931,000 in FY

1996.

For FY 1996, eight departments accounted for 97 percent of the District

government’s overtime expenditures—Corrections (DOC), Metropolitan

Police (MPD), Human Services (DHS), Water and Sewer Authority (WASA),

Fire and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS), Public Schools (PS), D.C.

General Hospital, and Public Works (DPW).

Page 15 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section II 

Amount and Extent of the District

Government Overtime Expenditures

GAO Primary District Government Overtime 

Users, FY 1996

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

26

22

14

12

7 6 6

4 3

Percentage

Corrections

Police

Human Services

Water and

 

Sewer

Fire and Emergency

 

 Medical Services

Public Schools

D.C. General

Public Works

Other

Four departments accounted for 74 percent of the total overtime expenditures.

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section II 

Amount and Extent of the District

Government Overtime Expenditures

Primary District

Government Overtime

Users, FY 1996

For FY 1996, DOC, MPD, DHS, and WASA accounted for 74 percent

($60,437,000) of the District government’s overtime expenditures. DOC

accounted for over one-fourth of the District’s total overtime expenditures

in FY 1996.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section II 

Amount and Extent of the District

Government Overtime Expenditures

GAO Trends for Primary District Government 

Overtime Users', FY 1992-1997

Overtime as a percentage of department's total salary expenditures

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fiscal years

Water and sewer

Police

Human services

District total

Corrections

Note: FY 1997 data are through April 1997.

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer.

Between FYs 1992 and 1996, the District’s overtime expenditures as a

percentage of salary costs ranged from a low of 4.6 percent in FY 1995 to a

high of 6.3 percent in FY 1994. Through April of FY 1997, the District’s

overtime as a percentage of salary costs was 7.3 percent. The overtime

expenditures as a percentage of salary costs of the four primary District

overtime users in FY 1996—DOC, MPD, DHS, and WASA—varied during this

Page 18 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section II 

Amount and Extent of the District

Government Overtime Expenditures

period. For example, the overtime of DOC, MPD, and WASA as a percentage of

salary costs increased while the overtime of DHS decreased.

DOC had the largest increase in overtime expenditures as a percentage of

salary costs of the eight departments. DOC’s overtime expenses as a

percentage of salary costs increased from 2.9 percent in FY 1992 to

17.8 percent in FY 1996. Through April of FY 1997, DOC’s overtime

expenditures as a percentage of salary costs were 22.4 percent.

MPD’s overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs ranged from a

low of 7.3 percent in FY 1995 to a high of 12 percent in FY 1994. Through

April of FY 1997, MPD’s overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary

costs were 16 percent.

DHS’ overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs were relatively

stable between FYs 1992 and 1996. DHS’ overtime payments ranged from a

low of 4.5 percent in 1995 to 6.4 percent in FY 1992. Through April of FY

1997, DHS’ overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs were

5.4 percent.

WASA’s overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs ranged from

a low of 16.8 percent in FY 1992 to a high of 26.1 percent in FY 1994.

Through April of FY 1997, WASA’s overtime expenditures as a percentage of

salary costs were 23.7 percent.

The FY 1996 primary users of overtime as a percentage of salary

costs—DOC, MPD, DHS, and WASA, were not consistently the largest District

overtime users. For example, of the eight departments which accounted

for 97 percent of the District’s FY 1996 overtime expenditures, DOC was the

eighth highest user of overtime in FY 1992 and rose to the highest user in

FYs 1995 and 1996. MPD and DHS were consistently among the four highest

users of overtime from FY 1992 through FY 1996. Between FYs 1992 and

1996, FEMS and WASA were occasionally among the top four overtime users

as a percentage of salary costs.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section III 

Reasons Reported for District Government

Overtime Expenditures

GAO Summary of Reasons Reported for 

Overtime Use by District Departments

Departments 1. Staff 

 management

 policies

2. External

 mandates

3. Infrastructure

 deficiencies

4. Mission

 requirements

Corrections

Police

Human Services

Water and Sewer 

Authority

Fire and 

Emergency 

Medical Services

Public Schools

D.C. General 

Hospital

Public Works

Total 7 5 4 2

Reasons

Reason reported by department

Note: The District’s Water and Sewer Authority became an independent authority in October 1996.

Source: District of Columbia Government departments’ Chief Financial Officers.

Page 20 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section III 

Reasons Reported for District Government

Overtime Expenditures

Summary of Reasons

Reported for Overtime Use

by District Departments

In general, the reasons reported by Chief Financial Officers of the eight

District government departments for incurring overtime expenses fell into

one of four categories:

Staff management policies refer to the manner whereby departments

have managed their staff to seek to address staff shortages, workforce

reductions, and the inability to fill position vacancies.

External mandates include court orders and negotiated consent decrees

and city and federal laws that mandate minimum service levels or timely

actions to remedy inadequately managed programs. According to the

District of Columbia Fiscal Year 1998 Budget and Financial Plan, the

District is currently subject to 39 court orders and mandates.

Infrastructure deficiencies involve the need to repair or maintain

out-of-date facilities or equipment such as water and sewer lines and

medical facilities.

Mission requirements involve the necessity to provide functions or

services related to public safety, such as police patrols and snow removal.

Page 21 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section III 

Reasons Reported for District Government

Overtime Expenditures

GAO Reported Reasons for Overtime Use: 

1. Staff Management Policies

Seven District departments reported staff 

management policies as a reason for

incurring overtime expenditures:

Corrections

Police

Human Services

Water and Sewer Authority

Fire and Emergency Medical Services

D.C. General Hospital

Public Works 

Source: District of Columbia Government departments’ Chief Financial Officers.

Page 22 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section III 

Reasons Reported for District Government

Overtime Expenditures

Reported Reasons for

Overtime Use: 1. Staff

Management Policies

Chief Financial Officers of DOC, MPD, DHS, FEMS, DPW, WASA and D.C. General

Hospital reported that their staff management policies contributed to

overtime expenses.

DHS stated that one of the biggest drivers of overtime expenditures was the

shortage of personnel for mental health, hospital, and lab positions, which

was caused by DHS’ inability to fill these positions. DHS stated that high staff

turnover in key DHS functions, driven by job stress and low pay compared

with that of other local governments, has driven overtime expenses. For

example, DHS pointed to its Mental Health function, which it stated has had

approximately 200 vacancies over the prior 2 fiscal years. DHS noted that

most of its overtime was directly attributable to the need to provide

in-patient care, which is a 24-hour-a-day, 7-days-a-week operation.

D.C. General Hospital officials said that vacancies in occupations such as

nurses, physicians, and engineers, caused primarily by noncompetitive

salaries, required the hospital to use its existing staff to work longer hours

on overtime.

FEMS reported that its current number of authorized positions is

insufficient, and to meet fire and emergency vehicle staffing requirements,

it uses its staff on overtime. FEMS also stated that when firefighters are

injured on duty, they are placed on Performance-of-Duty (POD) leave, and

the department stated that it manages this staff shortage by using

firefighters on overtime pay to backfill these positions. FEMS stated that

there are currently 36 firefighters that have been on POD an average of 2

years.

Page 23 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section III 

Reasons Reported for District Government

Overtime Expenditures

GAO Reported Reasons for Overtime Use: 

2. External Mandates

Five District departments reported the

need to address external mandates as a 

reason for incurring overtime

expenditures:

Corrections

Human Services

Water and Sewer Authority

Fire and Emergency Medical Services

Public Schools 

Source: District of Columbia Government departments’ Chief Financial Officers.

Chief Financial Officers of DOC, DHS, WASA, FEMS, and PS reported that they

used staff on overtime to address a variety of external mandates.

According to the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 1998 Budget and

Financial Plan, DOC operates under 13 court orders and consent decrees.

For example, DOC stated that for the past three years it has had

approximately 300 court-ordered correctional officer positions which it

Page 24 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section III 

Reasons Reported for District Government

Overtime Expenditures

has been unable to fill because of District-imposed hiring restrictions. DOC

stated that it has been required to provide coverage for these vacant

positions strictly on an overtime basis. DOC also said that its staff

deployment plan to satisfy a court order for the 24 hour-a-day operation of

prison watchtowers and other security posts at corrections institutions

has contributed to overtime. FEMS stated that its requirement to comply

with city laws, which specify minimum staff levels for the operation of

engines, ladder trucks, and ambulances, and prohibit the use of volunteer

firefighters, was a reason for overtime use. For example, when fire officers

call in sick or are not able to work for other reasons, the replacement staff

is paid overtime.

DHS operates several of its programs under 16 consent decrees or court

orders, according to the District of Columbia Fiscal Year 1998 Budget and

Financial Plan. For example, one DHS function affected by a court order,

which—due to a shortage of staff—DHS has decided to use staff on

overtime to address, is a requirement to process Medicaid payments in

specified time frames. WASA stated that consent decrees resolving lawsuits,

which mandated that certain tasks be performed to maintain or establish

water quality levels, have significantly contributed to WASA’s overtime

spending. PS stated it has used staff on overtime to address a District legal

requirement that boiler rooms be staffed 24 hours a day when boiler

equipment is operating.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section III 

Reasons Reported for District Government

Overtime Expenditures

GAO Reported Reasons for Overtime Use:

3. Infrastructure Deficiencies

Four District departments reported the

need to address infrastructure deficiencies

as a reason for incurring overtime 

expenditures:

Corrections

Water and Sewer Authority

D.C. General Hospital

Public Works 

Source: District of Columbia Government departments’ Chief Financial Officers.

Page 26 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section III 

Reasons Reported for District Government

Overtime Expenditures

Reported Reasons for

Overtime Use: 3.

Infrastructure Deficiencies

Chief Financial Officers of DOC, WASA, DPW, and D.C. General Hospital

reported that the need to address infrastructure deficiencies contributed

to overtime expenses.

For example, DOC officials noted that the National Council on Crime and

Delinquency assessed DOC’s operations and concluded that, if it had

state-of-the-art corrections facilities its overtime expenses would be

5 percent of base salaries. DOC noted that this would compare with the U.S.

Bureau of Prisons, which, according to the National Council on Crime and

Delinquency, has an overtime rate of 6 percent of base salaries.

D.C. General Hospital officials explained that overtime expenses were

unusually high in 1996, primarily due to unbudgeted emergency facility

repairs. Officials stated that a basement flood, power-plant storage tank

leak, and collapsed roofs caused a loss of electrical power that required

emergency procedures to be performed on overtime to maintain patient

care, provide security, and make facility repairs. Hospital officials

estimated that the flood alone cost approximately $3 million, much of it

for overtime expenses.

WASA noted that emergencies, such as water main breaks, sewer back-ups,

and equipment breakdown have caused a significant amount of

unscheduled overtime. WASA noted that its inability to obtain funding for

preventative maintenance since FY 1992 has contributed to the need to

perform emergency maintenance on an overtime basis.

Page 27 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section III 

Reasons Reported for District Government

Overtime Expenditures

GAO Reported Reasons for Overtime Use: 

4. Mission Requirements

Two District departments reported 

mission requirements as a reason for 

incurring overtime expenditures:

Police

Public Works 

Source: District of Columbia Government departments’ Chief Financial Officers.

Page 28 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section III 

Reasons Reported for District Government

Overtime Expenditures

Reported Reasons for

Overtime Use: 4. Mission

Requirements

Chief Financial Officers of MPD and DPW reported that their mission

requirements contributed to overtime expenses.

MPD reported that court appearances by police officers and crime fighting

initiatives have been the largest drivers of MPD’s overtime expenses. Court

appearance overtime expenses accounted for an average of 47 percent of

MPD’s total overtime expenditures from FY 1992 through April of FY 1997.

Court overtime, as a percentage of total MPD overtime, has decreased from

a high of 67 percent (approximately $7.3 million) in FY 1995 to 25 percent

through April of FY 1997 (approximately $3.7 million). In order to

implement crime fighting initiatives, MPD chose to place additional officers

on the streets using overtime pay. MPD reported that crime fighting

initiatives accounted for an average of 17 percent of MPD’s total overtime

expenditures from FY 1992 through April of FY 1997.

DPW reported that during FY 1996, the primary overtime driver was the

blizzard of 1996. The snow emergency accounted for major unplanned

overtime throughout DPW but particularly in its facilities maintenance

function, which is responsible for District government-owned buildings,

and in design engineering, which maintains streets and bridges.

Page 29 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section IV 

District Government Overtime Expenditures

Compared With Surrounding Jurisdictions

GAO Comparative Governments' Overtime 

as a Percentage of Salary, FY 1996

Jurisdictions

Departments

District of

Columbia

City of

Baltimore

Montgomery

County

Prince

George's

County

Fairfax

County

Corrections 17.8% N/A 7.1% 0.2% 8.3%

Police 11.2 5.4 6.8 5.4 16.1

Human Services 5.2 N/A 0.3 0.2 1.3

Water and Sewer 23.8 13.3 N/A N/A N/A

Fire 10.0 6.6 5.4 1.5 8.0

Public Schools 1.3 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.3

Public Works 6.9 12.1 12.2 6.8 1.7

Governmentwide

percentage:

 6.0% 5.0% 5.3% 2.8% 2.0%

a

a

b

N/A We did not report data on entity; see discussion on following page.

aThe District’s WASA treats sludge for Prince George’s, Montgomery, and Loudoun Counties, the city

of Vienna, and parts of Fairfax County for user fees.

bBaltimore’s water and sewer function is provided by the city’s DPW, its public works overtime data

is exclusive of the water and sewer function.

Source: District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer and budget offices of selected governments.

Page 30 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section IV 

District Government Overtime Expenditures

Compared With Surrounding Jurisdictions

Comparative Governments’

Overtime as a Percentage

of Salary Costs, FY 1996

According to data provided by the District’s Chief Financial Officer and

budget officials from the selected surrounding governments, the District’s

overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs (6 percent) was

higher than those of the selected surrounding jurisdictions in FY 1996.10

Overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs for the city of

Baltimore were 5 percent; for Montgomery County, 5.3 percent; for Prince

George’s County, 2.8 percent; and for Fairfax County, 2 percent. (See

appendix I for the salary costs of the departments shown in the chart.)

The District’s DOC (17.8 percent), DHS (5.2 percent), and FEMS (10 percent)

overtime expenditures as a percentage of salary costs exceeded those of

each of the selected governments.

We did not perform an analysis of each department’s organization and

staffing to determine factors that may account for the higher overtime use

of some departments. For example, the District’s DOC operates several

prison facilities for long-term internment of convicted inmates while the

other jurisdictions tend to operate jails to detain individuals prior to

criminal sentencing.

We were unable to present overtime information on all 5 governments’

corrections, human services, water and sewer, and hospital functions. For

example, the city of Baltimore does not have a DOC and does not directly

administer the city’s human services function, which is directed by

Maryland’s Department of Human Resources. The Washington Suburban

Sanitary Commission (WSSC) provides water and sewer services for

Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. WSSC’s FY 1996 overtime as a

percentage of salary costs of 2.39 percent is not reflected in the

governmentwide percentages for Montgomery and Prince George’s

Counties. Fairfax County’s sewer functions are provided by DPW; its water

functions are provided by the Fairfax County Water Authority. Also, we

did not compare D.C. General Hospital to hospitals in the selected

jurisdictions because of its unique organization and staffing. D.C. General’s

FY 1996 overtime as a percentage of salary was 9.5 percent.

10The District follows an Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 FY, the other governments follow a July 1 to June 30 FY.

Page 31 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section V 

District Government Overtime Management

Policies Compared With Those of

Surrounding Jurisdictions

GAO Comparative Governments' Overtime 

as a Percentage of Salary, FY 1996

Jurisdictions

Departments

District of

Columbia

City of

Baltimore

Montgomery

County

Prince

George's

County

Fairfax

County

Corrections 17.8% N/A 7.1% 0.2% 8.3%

Police 11.2 5.4 6.8 5.4 16.1

Human Services 5.2 N/A 0.3 0.2 1.3

Water and Sewer 23.8 13.3 N/A N/A N/A

Fire 10.0 6.6 5.4 1.5 8.0

Public Schools 1.3 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.3

Public Works 6.9 12.1 12.2 6.8 1.7

Governmentwide

percentage:

 6.0% 5.0% 5.3% 2.8% 2.0%

a

a

b

Note: Empty cells designate that the jurisdictions’ governmentwide policies did not address the item.

However, in cases, selected departmental management policies did address them.

Source: GAO review of governments’ overtime policies and information provided by the

governments’ chief financial officers, budget, and personnel officials.

Our review of the District’s overtime management policies indicate they

are comparable with those of the selected governments in (1) having a

written overtime policy and (2) reporting compliance with FLSA.

Page 32 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Briefing Section V 

District Government Overtime Management

Policies Compared With Those of

Surrounding Jurisdictions

Only Prince George’s and Fairfax County’s policies provided for written

justification for overtime work. Their policies specified that authorized

officials document work to be performed on overtime. The other

governments’ policies did not require written justification. However,

several departments in those governments did require such justification.

Three governments’ policies addressed jurisdiction-level overtime audits.

The Office of Management and Budget of the city of Baltimore,

Montgomery County, and Fairfax County are to review governmentwide

overtime expenses on a quarterly basis. Also, Fairfax County’s Internal

Audit Office reported in 1996 on county-wide overtime practices.

Only Fairfax County’s policies provided for department-level audits of

overtime pay. However, in the other governments, some departments

followed practices to control overtime. For example, the District’s MPD

reported that the implementation of a time and attendance system in 1997,

which captures all police officers’ time in court, has helped to reduce

court overtime. MPD noted a lesson learned in managing overtime was that

overtime expenditures will escalate without proper management and

controls. The District’s DPW reported it reviews individual employee’s

overtime charges when they exceed 20 percent of the employee’s gross

annual pay.

The city of Baltimore, Montgomery County, and Fairfax County’s

governmentwide overtime policies provided for including overtime pay

estimates in the annual budget. For example, Baltimore budgets overtime

on the basis of historical expenditure trends, workload requirements, and

staff authorizations. The other jurisdictions’ governmentwide policies did

not address overtime budgeting. However, in our review, we found some

departments used similar practices to develop overtime budgets. For

example, the District’s FEMS stated its overtime budgets are based on

estimated staff needs and prior year salary and overtime expenditures.

Page 33 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Appendix I 

Salary Costs of Selected Government

Departments, FY 1996

Governments

Dollars in thousands

Departments

District of

Columbia

City of

Baltimore

Montgomery

County

Prince

George’s

County

Fairfax

County

Corrections $121,007 a $12,773 $17,247 $21,028

Police 161,816 $125,556 59,716 63,186 66,349

Human Services 214,758 a 44,880 10,431 63,736

Water and Sewer 40,127b 44,449a c c d

Fire and Emergency Medical Services 62,198 65,022 42,872 30,245 59,495

Public Schools 400,335 365,523 626,628 496,741 620,297

Public Works 52,711 77,975a 16,903 11,497 16,921

Note 1: The District follows an Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 FY, the other governments follow a July 1 to

June 30 FY.

Note 2: We did not compare D.C. General Hospital to hospitals in the selected jurisdictions

because of its unique organization and staffing. D.C. General Hospital’s FY 1996 salary

expenditures were $53.2 million.

aThe city of Baltimore does not have a DOC and does not directly administer the city’s human

services function, which is directed by Maryland’s Department of Human Resources. Baltimore’s

water and sewer function is provided by the city’s DPW, its public works salary data is exclusive

of the water and sewer function.

bThe District’s WASA treats sludge for Prince George’s, Montgomery, and Loudoun Counties, the

city of Vienna, and parts of Fairfax County for user fees.

cWashington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) provides water and sewer services for

Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties.

dFairfax County’s sewer functions are provided by DPW; its water functions are provided by the

Fairfax County Water Authority.

Source: District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer and budget offices of selected governments.

Page 34 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Briefing Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

John Needham, Assistant Director, (202) 512-5274

Anthony J. Wysocki, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-6016

Don Allison, Senior Evaluator

Patrick Mullen, Senior Evaluator

Marlene Zacharias, Issue Area Assistant

Katherine M. Wheeler, Publishing Advisor

Lessie M. Burke, Writer-Editor

Andrew Rosenberger, Intern

(410144) Page 35 GAO/GGD-97-159BR District of Columbia Government Overtime Costs
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100