This presentation was made at the 2009 AMPO Annual Meeting. It contains the preliminary results of a study on MPO Staffing and Organizational Structure funded by FHWA.
1. MPO Staffing and Governance structures 2009 AMPO Annual Conference, Savannah, GA Alex Bond & Jeff KramerCenter for Urban Transportation ResearchUniversity of South Florida 1
2. Research Problem 2 MPO role is complex and responsibility is broad MPO role and work load have expanded over time MPO staffing and organizational capacity is critical to meeting responsibilities and expectations Few materials comparing strategies are available MPO resources are relatively limited To date, national research on MPO organizational structure and staffing is limited
3. Project Scope 3 Document MPO organizational structures Staffing profiles and practices Case studies Sample staffing plan for new MPOs Project completion – March 2010 Funded through the FHWA Surface Transportation and Environment Research Program (STEP)
4. Methodology and Data Collection 4 Administer on-line survey using custom built tool (www.mposurvey.com) Beta-tested survey instrument (design, content, terminology) Survey in field for 3 months (March-May 2009) 61-72 questions, depending on MPO characteristics Ability to save and return Participant recruitment Timely AMPO email blasts Newsletters State association and notable MPO leader solicitation Targeted direct contact
5. Special Thanks 5 AMPO Beta Test Group Jane Hayse – Atlanta Regional Commission Rich Perrin – Genesee Transportation Council Harold Barley – METROPLAN Orlando Craig Casper – Pikes Peak Area COG Thera Black – Thurston RPC
6. Eligible MPOs and Participation 6 374 MPOs were eligible to take the survey 11 MPOs ineligible to participate Single staff for more than one MPO board 133 MPOs responded to the survey 35% participation rate Statistically significant sample Margin of error: +/- 6.83% Very high participation in FL, WA, NY, GA Likely due to good promotion Unlikely to affect results
11. Definitions 11 An independent MPO provides all of its organizational needs in-house or through contractors A hosted MPO meets its organizational needs through another agency which acts as the fiscal agent There are a variety of dependency levels between MPOs and their hosts Some MPOs are so intertwined with the host that MPO employees cannot be identified In other cases, the MPO operates in a segregated fashion, but receives goods and services from the host
12. Hosted vs. Independent 12 69% of all MPOs are hosted More likely to be hosted if the MPO is a non-TMA Very large MPOs (1 million +) were the most likely to be independent
13. Types of Hosting 13 There is a wide varietyof MPO organizationalstructures Regional Council ismost common host Combined, localgovernments host 40% of all MPOs
14. Other Hosting Observations 14 Municipally-hosted MPOs tended to be in small regions (under 200,000) County-hosted MPOs were tightly focused in the 200-500,000 range RC-hosted MPOs were common across all ranges, but were slightly more common at non-TMAs Air quality attainment appears to have little impact on hosting status or host type Other hosting types can be found, but are rare
15. Advantages/Disadvantages – Hosted 15 Advantages: Lower overall cost Administration Benefits Office space Sharing of expertise Coordinated programs Employees Capital float Disadvantages: Responsibilities blurred Staff Board MPO subject to host rules, budget and oversight Managerial authority and autonomy Policy interference Unfamiliarity with MPO work
16. Advantages/Disadvantages – Independent 16 Advantages: Political and administrative autonomy Clarity in chain of command Staff Board Agency identity Cleaner finances Disadvantages: Cash flow problems Federal reimbursements Matching funds High cost of operation Administrative burdens Staff and administrative versatility is required
19. Laws/Rules Governing MPO Boards 19 Federal law Local elected officials Representatives of agencies that operate other modes Relevant state officials Silent on: Size Composition Voting rights Advisory committees Some states regulate aspects of board composition
20. Board Size – Voting Seats 20 2,142 voting board seats in our sample Wide range of MPO Board sizes 5 to 73 voting members Measures of central tendency Median: 14 Bottom quarter – 8 or fewer Top quarter – 19 or more High outliers tend to be RCs Mean: 16.1 Mode: 9 Max: 73 Third Q: 19 Mean: 16 Median: 14 Voting Board Seats Mode: 9 First Q: 8 Min: 5
21. Board Size – By Population 21 Board size seems to be related to population
24. Board Composition – Voting Rights 24 One person-one vote is the prevailing voting structure Common for larger jurisdictions to have more than one seat Weighted voting 13.5% of MPOs in the sample Most commonly weighted by population Many MPOs with weighted voting have never used it “Rotating” voting seats 27% of MPOs in the sample have a “rotating” voting seat Typically between smaller local governments More common among larger MPOs
38. Number of Employees 29 Ranged from 121 to less than one employee Part time employees are found at 73% of MPOs Mean MPO: 11.7 full-time and 2.2 part-time employees
39. Number of Employees 30 A dozen high outliers skew the mean higher. Median is more instructive. Median MPO: 5 full-time and 1 part-time employees (6 total) Three-quarters of MPOs have less than 11 total staff A quarter of MPOs have 3 or fewer total staff Max: 121 Third Q: 11 Median: 6 Total Employees First Q: 3 Min: 1
41. Staff Size Metrics 32 Analysis shows staff size is correlated to population and planning area square mileage One employee per 47,963 people OR One employee per 665 square miles Approximately 4,200 MPO employees nationwide About 860 (20%) work at non-TMAs 51% of MPOs are non-TMAs Large MPOs employ a large majority of MPO workers
42. Specialties on Staff 33 MPOs were asked if any staff member spent more than half of his/her time in a specialized area *Only selected results are shown*
43. General Tasks 34 Time spent on general agency administration Hosted MPOs: 21.3% Independent: 28.1% More than 20 employees: 12.5% Less than 3 employees: 29.6% Time spent on public involvement- 15.3% Time spent on committee management- 21.7%
44. Consultants 35 Consultants are an important source of MPO labor All but one MPO reported using consultants 25% of all UPWP funds are spent on contractors $1 spent internally : 40¢ to contractors Non-attainment areas spend more money on consultants MPOs over 500,000 population spend more money on consultants than smaller MPOs The LRTP/MTP is the only “core” document that frequently is authored by consultants
46. Position Creation 37 Over the period 2007-2008,a third of MPOs created positions Some MPOs reported: Technology tasks were moved in-house Increased emphasis on certain planning areaslike bike/ped, transit, or safety
47. Employee Turnover 38 MPOs with smaller staffs experienced higher rates of employee turnover MPOs in smaller regions experienced higher turnover rates MPO universe experiences 12.5% turnover/year Twenty or more employees: 4.1% Less than three: 20.1%
54. New Employers of Specialists 41 Engineers and modelers tend to stay in transportation Engineers and modelers are more often hired by consultants Planners tend to land at other transportation agencies Other professionals often leave transportation entirely
55. Other Topics in the Survey 42 Salary Scales Employee Benefits Organization Funding State Governance MPO Directors Aging Workforce Intergovernmental Efforts Indirect Rate Employee Tenure
Likely as a result of expansion of the MPO area over time – bringing in new governments
Many MPOs reported that if modal agency was part of local government – the agency was considered to be “represented” by elected officials of that local government
Aggregate of all seats in the sample
Voting rights becomes an issue when MPO seat availability is constrained or when political dominancy is in play or in question
A quarter of MPOs are smaller than 3 people. Three-quarters have less than 11.
Some MPOs are so intertwined with the host they are unable to separate who the MPO employees are. Most of the largest MPO staffs in each population class fall into this category
