Completing the Puzzle Comparable Community Determination for Illinois Municipalities.

Completing the Puzzle

Comparable Community Determination for Illinois Municipalities

Comparable Communities

Used in collective bargaining negotiations involving Public Safety employees

Consists of a list of communities which are “comparable” to the community involved in negotiations

The wages, benefits and working conditions of the communities are compared to those of the home community

Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (IPLRA)

Prohibits the “Right to Strike” from being used by Public Safety Employees

Impasses are settled through interest arbitration

Arbitrators are instructed to consider the wages, benefit and working conditions of “comparable communities” when deciding awards

The Problem

IPLRA provides no guidance as to what to consider when making a determination of which communities are comparable

City Managers and Union Officials are left to make their own determinations

Methods employed are very simple, lack an analytical basis, and often provide disparate determinations of comparability

An Example

Abbyville $51,000Brownsville $50,000Carlsburg $50,000Daviston $45,000Eagleton $40,000Franklinville $40,000Georgetown $39,000

The Solution

Analytical• Which communities are comparable?• Why are two communities

comparable?• How comparable are they?

Flexible• Results Subject to Interpretation• Allow for input from negotiating

teams

First Element

Socio-Economic Analysis• Analytical• Previous Studies• 30 Census statistics for each of 177

communities in Illinois of 10,000 or greater population as of 1990 (excepting Chicago)

• 1990 and 1992 censuses (latest data)

Second Element

Geo-Political Constraints• Critique of the results of the Socio-

Economic Analysis by the negotiating team

• Application of geographic and political constraints

• Acknowledge characteristics that were not taken into account during the Socio-Economic Analysis

• Location of communities, Home Rule/Non-Home Rule communities, Unionization

Socio-Economic Analysis

30 census variables accounting for the demographics and economies of each community

Factor Analysis performed Groups dependent variables

together Provides description of why

communities are comparable Reduces data from 30 to 8

variables

Factor Analytic Tables and Rankings

Eight factors were identified: Affluence, Industrial, Density, Elderly, Children, Urban, Condo and Labor Force

Mean value for each Factor is zero Tables provide easy way to look up

Factor scores for a particular community

Rankings allow better visualization of which communities are comparable

Factor Analytic Tables

Affluence IndustrialAddison -.26981 2.90228Algonquin .37165 -.21164Alsip -.40359 .93971Alton -1.05228 -.34401Arlington Hts. 1.31105 .00732Aurora -.35808 .07221

Factor Analytic Rankings

AffluenceWinnetka 4.38036Lake Forest 3.61093Wilmette 2.66071Northbrook 2.58157Hinsdale 2.41172Western Springs 2.25453

Dissimilarity Matrix

8 Comparisons of Factor Scores necessary to determine comparability

Dissimilarity Matrix reduces comparisons to one simple number

Dissimilarity Score is the sum of the squared differences between the communities’ Factor Scores

Unique for each set of two communities

Dissimilarity Matrix

Addison Algonquin

Addison 21.542

Algonquin 21.542

Alsip 5.604 10.161

Alton 19.306 16.828

Comparability Tables

Dissimilarity Matrix reduced comparisons to one number

Very Cumbersome Sort matrix by community to find

twenty most comparable (least dissimilar) communities for each community

Display results in tables

Comparability Table - Franklin Park

DS CPRBensenville 3.572 87%Schiller Park 8.887 35%Addison 9.059 33%Elk Grove Village 12.114 3%Melrose Park 14.746Wood Dale 14.782

Trend Spotting

Factor Analytic Tables and Rankings describe why two communities are comparable

Communities who score on one end of the spectrum on one or more factors are likely to be highly comparable to only a few communities

Factor Scores used to spot trends

Combined Solution

Comparability Tables• Initial list of twenty most comparable

communities Dissimilarity Matrix

• Look up Dissimilarity Scores for other communities not in tables

Factor Rankings and Tables• Spotting Trends in Data • Why two communities are

comparable

Applying Geo-Political Constraints

Allow negotiating teams to interpret results rather than to dictate the results to the negotiating team

Impossible to account for all the characteristics of a community in the Socio-Economic Analysis

Variable and subjective portion of comparability determination

Procedure

Use Comparability Tables as an initial starting point

Use Factor Analytic Tables and Rankings to determine why communities are comparable, and whether any trends are present

Use Dissimilarity Matrix for missing communities (if necessary)

Apply Geopolitical Constraints

Factor Analytic RankingsElmwood Park

Elderly Score Density ScoreWestchester 2.130 Cicero 3.738Berwyn 2.114 Maywood 3.034Niles 2.042 Elmwood Park 2.437Kewanee 1.987 Bellwood 2.288Norridge 1.970 Berwyn 2.183Elmwood Park 1.936 Melrose Park 1.908