[IPAC-List] Candidate Reduction Strategies

[Kelly Sorensen]

Why not use multiple hurdle approach starting with Min Quals and a Training
and Experience measure?

Kelly

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:20 PM, TR Lin <TR.Lin at lmsvsd.k12.ca.us> wrote:


> That brings back some of my good memory, and it's getting harder and

> harder. I remember Karen published a great article on Public Personnel

> Management on this very topic about 10 or so years ago.  Do not have access

> to it right away, but it's worth the effort, Adele.

>

> T.R. Lin

> Director, Classified Personnel

> Personnel Commission

> La Mesa-Spring Valley School District

> 619-668-5700 ext. 6483

> tr.lin at lmsvsd.k12.ca.us

>

> >>> "Karen Coffee" <kcoffee1 at frontiernet.net> 3/12/2012 2:34 PM >>>

>  In California many agencies have a long history of only accepting a

> predetermined number of applications.  What Lance proposes would also work

> in Calif.  A note of caution, in this state an informal Attorney General's

> opinion many years ago suggested that random selection before any screening

> device would violate the state constitution which requires competition

> based

> on competitive exam.  Random selection absent the preceding use of any

> selection process has been deemed competition solely based on chance.

> Karen Coffee

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org]

> On Behalf Of Lance Seberhagen

> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 12:43 PM

> To: Demooy, Adele

> Cc: 'ipac-list at ipacweb.org'

> Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Candidate Reduction Strategies

>

> Hi Adele:

>

> The best way to reduce the number of applicants to be tested is to use

> random selection.  For example, assume 3,000 people apply for the job, and

> you want to administer the written test to a maximum of only 1,000

> applicants.  Here are the steps that I would recommend:

>

> 1.  Screen the 3,000 applications for minimum qualifications to screen out

> the obviously unfit applicants.  (Most employers do this as part of the

> online application process.)  Let's say that 2,500 of the original

> 3,000 applicants pass this step.

>

> 2.  Assign a unique code number in consecutive order (1-2,500) to each of

> the remaining 2,500 applicants.

>

> 3.  Use a random numbers generator (e.g., RANDBETWEEN in Excel) to list the

> 2,500 numbers in random order.

>

> 4.  Select the first 1,000 random numbers (applicants) to invite to the

> written test.  Place the remaining 1,500 random numbers (applicants) on a

> waiting list, or discard them.

>

> By definition, random selection gives each applicant the same probability

> of

> being selected.  Therefore, the method is objective, fair, and

> nondiscriminatory, provided that you always assign code numbers to

> applicants BEFORE you run the random numbers generator each time.  However,

> by definition, random selection also has zero validity (or

> job-relatedness).

> Therefore, there could be an issue if Civil Service Rules or an agency's

> Charter require all selection procedures to be merit-based, but most

> agencies should be able justify random selection for part of the selection

> process as long as the overall process is based on merit.

>

> Approximations of random selection (e.g., date of application, birth date,

> Social Security Number, alphabetical order of last name) should not be used

> because these methods have zero validity AND they may have adverse impact

> due to hidden biases.  Therefore, they could be discriminatory.  There is

> also the possibility of cronyism if applicants are selected by date of

> application and "insiders" can give advance notice of job opportunities to

> their friends and relatives.

>

> Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.

> Seberhagen & Associates

> 9021 Trailridge Ct

> Vienna, VA 22182

> Tel 703-790-0796

> www.seberhagen.com **

>

>

>

>

> On 3/12/2012 11:16 AM, Demooy, Adele wrote:

> > For economic reasons we are looking into ways to reduce the number of

> candidates who participate in exams.  One option we are considering is

> accepting a predetermined number of applications based on statistics from

> previous exam administrations.  I am interested in your feedback on this

> approach or learning about any other methods you are using.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > _______________________________________________________

> > IPAC-List

> > IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> > http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

> >

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

>

>

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list

>