DOD Civilian Personnel
Intelligence Personnel System Incorporates Safeguards, but Opportunities Exist for Improvement Gao ID: GAO-10-134 December 17, 2009Since 2001, Government Accountability Office (GAO) has designated strategic human capital management as a high-risk area because of the federal government's long-standing lack of a consistent approach to such management. In 2007, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) began developing a human capital system--called the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS)--to manage Department of Defense (DOD) civilian intelligence personnel. In response to a congressional request, GAO examined the extent to which DOD has (1) incorporated internal safeguards into DCIPS and monitored the implementation of these safeguards and (2) developed mechanisms to identify employee perceptions about DCIPS. GAO analyzed guidance, interviewed appropriate officials, and conducted discussion groups with employees at select DOD components. At the end of GAO's review, legislation was enacted that impacts, among other things, how DCIPS employees will be paid.
While early in its implementation of DCIPS, DOD has taken some positive steps to incorporate 10 internal safeguards to help ensure the fair, effective, and credible implementation of the system; however, opportunities exist to immediately improve the implementation of two of these safeguards, and continued monitoring of all is needed. For example, one safeguard requires employees to be trained on the system's operations, and GAO noted that DOD had provided extensive training to employees on DCIPS to include several Web-based and classroom courses. For another safeguard--which requires ongoing performance feedback--GAO noted that DOD's guidance requires feedback between employees and supervisors at the midpoint and at the close of the performance rating cycle. However, GAO determined that in the case of two safeguards--involving employees and fully implementing the merit principles--DOD could immediately improve its implementation. First, while DOD has leveraged mechanisms like town hall meetings and "brown bags" to involve employees in DCIPS, its guidance does not identify a formalized process for the continuous involvement of employees in the system implementation--which could ultimately undermine its credibility. Second, while DOD has stated that it will conduct an analysis of final ratings utilizing demographic data, DOD does not have a written policy outlining how this will be accomplished, and therefore may be unable to fully determine whether potential barriers to fair and equitable ratings exist. Without steps to improve implementation of this safeguard, employees may lack confidence in the system. Finally, GAO previously reported--for systems like DCIPS--that continued monitoring of such systems' safeguards is needed to help ensure agency actions are effective. In October 2009, DOD provided GAO with a draft DCIPS evaluation plan that would be executed after the first payout in January 2010. Without finalizing and executing the plan, DOD will not know if it has achieved desired outcomes from the system. DOD has used several mechanisms to provide employees with information; however, these mechanisms do not comprehensively identify and address employee perceptions of DCIPS. For example, USD(I), among other things, maintains a Web-site that contains frequently asked questions submitted by employees and responses by USD(I). Absent, however, are mechanisms to systematically identify employee perceptions. The nongeneralizable results of the discussion groups GAO conducted with employees and supervisors yielded mixed views. For example, participants generally expressed positive views about the concept of pay for performance. But participants at most of the Intelligence Components noted that DCIPS was being implemented too quickly or many questions went unanswered. Although DOD officials have drafted surveys that will allow them to more comprehensively collect employee perceptions about DCIPS, these surveys lack questions that would provide insight about employee perceptions of certain safeguards and overall acceptance of DCIPS. Without including such questions and expeditiously implementing its surveys, DOD will not have clear insight into employee perceptions.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-10-134, DOD Civilian Personnel: Intelligence Personnel System Incorporates Safeguards, but Opportunities Exist for Improvement
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-134
entitled 'DOD Civilian Personnel: Intelligence Personnel System
Incorporates Safeguards, but Opportunities Exist for Improvement' which
was released on December 18, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2009:
DOD Civilian Personnel:
Intelligence Personnel System Incorporates Safeguards, but
Opportunities Exist for Improvement:
GAO-10-134:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-134, a report to the Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since 2001, GAO has designated strategic human capital management as a
high-risk area because of the federal government‘s long-standing lack
of a consistent approach to such management. In 2007, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) began developing a human
capital system”-called the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System (DCIPS)”-to manage Department of Defense (DOD) civilian
intelligence personnel. In response to a congressional request, GAO
examined the extent to which DOD has (1) incorporated internal
safeguards into DCIPS and monitored the implementation of these
safeguards and (2) developed mechanisms to identify employee
perceptions about DCIPS. GAO analyzed guidance, interviewed appropriate
officials, and conducted discussion groups with employees at select DOD
components. At the end of GAO‘s review, legislation was enacted that
impacts, among other things, how DCIPS employees will be paid.
What GAO Found:
While early in its implementation of DCIPS, DOD has taken some positive
steps to incorporate 10 internal safeguards to help ensure the fair,
effective, and credible implementation of the system; however,
opportunities exist to immediately improve the implementation of two of
these safeguards, and continued monitoring of all is needed. For
example, one safeguard requires employees to be trained on the system‘s
operations, and GAO noted that DOD had provided extensive training to
employees on DCIPS to include several Web-based and classroom courses.
For another safeguard”which requires ongoing performance feedback”GAO
noted that DOD‘s guidance requires feedback between employees and
supervisors at the midpoint and at the close of the performance rating
cycle. However, GAO determined that in the case of two safeguards”
involving employees and fully implementing the merit principles”DOD
could immediately improve its implementation. First, while DOD has
leveraged mechanisms like town hall meetings and ’brown bags“ to
involve employees in DCIPS, its guidance does not identify a formalized
process for the continuous involvement of employees in the system
implementation”which could ultimately undermine its credibility.
Second, while DOD has stated that it will conduct an analysis of final
ratings utilizing demographic data, DOD does not have a written policy
outlining how this will be accomplished, and therefore may be unable to
fully determine whether potential barriers to fair and equitable
ratings exist. Without steps to improve implementation of this
safeguard, employees may lack confidence in the system. Finally, GAO
previously reported”for systems like DCIPS”that continued monitoring of
such systems‘ safeguards is needed to help ensure agency actions are
effective. In October 2009, DOD provided GAO with a draft DCIPS
evaluation plan that would be executed after the first payout in
January 2010. Without finalizing and executing the plan, DOD will not
know if it has achieved desired outcomes from the system.
DOD has used several mechanisms to provide employees with information;
however, these mechanisms do not comprehensively identify and address
employee perceptions of DCIPS. For example, USD(I), among other things,
maintains a Web-site that contains frequently asked questions submitted
by employees and responses by USD(I). Absent, however, are mechanisms
to systematically identify employee perceptions. The nongeneralizable
results of the discussion groups GAO conducted with employees and
supervisors yielded mixed views. For example, participants generally
expressed positive views about the concept of pay for performance. But
participants at most of the Intelligence Components noted that DCIPS
was being implemented too quickly or many questions went unanswered.
Although DOD officials have drafted surveys that will allow them to
more comprehensively collect employee perceptions about DCIPS, these
surveys lack questions that would provide insight about employee
perceptions of certain safeguards and overall acceptance of DCIPS.
Without including such questions and expeditiously implementing its
surveys, DOD will not have clear insight into employee perceptions.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DOD issue guidance to involve employees in system
design and implementation and guidance for the analysis of final
performance ratings using demographic data; finalize and execute its
evaluation plan to assess the system, including the safeguards; and
implement mechanisms that comprehensively identify employee
perceptions. DOD concurred with all four recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-134] or key
components. For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202)
512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOD Has Taken Steps to Incorporate Internal Safeguards into DCIPS, but
Two Safeguards and Monitoring Have Not Been Fully Implemented:
DOD Had Several Mechanisms to Provide Information to Employees, but
These Did Not Comprehensively Identify Employee Perceptions of DCIPS,
and Future Mechanisms Do Not Include Some Needed Questions:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: The National Intelligence Civilian Compensation Program:
Appendix II: Merit System Principles:
Appendix III: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix IV: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System Compared to
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency System:
Appendix V: Training Curriculum:
Appendix VI: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System Comparison
with the National Security Personnel System:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence:
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Composition of Discussion Groups by Demographic Category per
Component.
Table 2. DCIPS and Total Pay Compensation Comparison.
Table 3: Selected DCIPS Training Curriculum:
Table 4. DCIPS and the National Security Personnel System Comparison:
Figures:
Figure 1: U.S. Intelligence Community's Pay Modernization Framework and
Efforts:
Figure 2: DCIPS Implementation Timeline:
Figure 3: Sample DCIPS Pay Pool Structure:
Figure 4: DCIPS Pay Band Structure:
Figure 5: Alignment of SMART Objectives to National Intelligence
Strategy Goals:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DCIPS: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System:
ODNI: Office of the Director for National Intelligence:
SMART: Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-limited:
USD(I): Under Secretary for Defense (Intelligence):
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 17, 2009:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
Since 2001, we have designated strategic human capital management as a
high-risk area because of the federal government's long-standing lack
of a consistent approach to such management.[Footnote 1] We have
previously reported that strategic human capital management can be a
powerful lever for affecting transformational change.[Footnote 2]
Additionally, in our 2009 High-Risk Series update, we identified the
importance of having committed and sustained top leadership in agencies
across the federal government to address this challenge and of
developing a clear linkage between individual employee performance and
organizational success to create and maintain a more results-oriented,
customer-focused, collaborative, diverse, and inclusive workforce.
[Footnote 3] In a 2008 report to Congress, the Office of the Director
for National Intelligence (ODNI) noted that, in the aftermath of the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and prior to Operation Iraqi
Freedom, congressional and presidential reviews identified significant
institutional, cultural, and organizational factors that impeded the
Intelligence Community from operating in an effective and collaborative
manner.[Footnote 4] As an example, the report noted that one such
review concluded that the U.S. Intelligence Community (1) had failed to
encourage joint personnel assignments that could break down cultural
barriers and foster collaboration amongst the various intelligence
agencies; (2) contained personnel systems that were ill-suited to hire
and retain the most talented young people, who could often earn far
more money outside the government; and (3) had compensation systems--
like the General Schedule System--that were too often tied to "time-in-
grade," rather than demonstrated achievement.[Footnote 5] The
commission recommended, among other things, that ODNI establish a
central human resources authority for the Intelligence Community;
[Footnote 6] create a uniform system for performance evaluations and
compensation; and develop a more comprehensive and creative set of
performance incentives.[Footnote 7] To this end, both ODNI and the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I))--the primary
organization responsible for development and oversight of DOD's
intelligence community personnel system--have consistently emphasized
their commitment to reforming and modernizing the disparate personnel
systems used throughout the Intelligence Community.
Specifically, as part of a comprehensive approach to consistently
modernize compensation across the U.S. Intelligence Community, ODNI has
taken steps to develop a pay modernization framework to help prevent
inequality in pay, ensure a level playing field, help the Intelligence
Community compete with the private sector for employees with critical
skills, and retain a competitive workforce. ODNI officials stated that
this pay modernization framework will also help bring the U.S.
Intelligence Community closer together and act as a true community and
not simply an association of agencies with similar and related
missions.[Footnote 8] According to ODNI officials, to address the
personnel challenges in the Intelligence Community that mirror those
found throughout the rest of the executive branch, the Director of
National Intelligence launched the National Intelligence Civilian
Compensation Program. Further, according to these same officials, the
National Intelligence Civilian Compensation Program is a modern
performance management and pay-for-performance initiative for the U.S.
Intelligence Community, which is intended to replace the existing
obsolete compensation systems used in much of the U.S. Intelligence
Community. Specifically, the National Intelligence Civilian
Compensation Program is an overarching framework established by various
Intelligence Community directives, which sets forth common performance
management and pay rules for this community. See appendix I for a
detailed discussion of the National Intelligence Civilian Compensation
Program. Using this framework, among other things, USD(I), in 2007,
began developing a human capital system--called the Defense Civilian
Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS)--to manage civilian intelligence
personnel in the Department of Defense (DOD) intelligence components.
[Footnote 9] The statutory authority for this system originated in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997,[Footnote 10]
which provided DOD the authority to create a pay-for-performance system
for the defense Intelligence Community--the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency was the first DOD organization to implement this
authority in 1998. In 2006, the ODNI, in partnership with all of the
elements of the U.S. Intelligence Community, adopted the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's piloted model in its design.
In 2008, the Senate Armed Services Committee asked us to review the
implementation of DCIPS. In response to this request, we examined the
extent to which DOD has (1) incorporated internal safeguards into DCIPS
and monitored the implementation of the safeguards and (2) developed
mechanisms to identify employee perceptions about it.
At the end of GAO's review, legislation was enacted that contains
provisions that affect DCIPS.[Footnote 11] Specifically, provisions of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 suspended
the fixing of "rates of basic pay" under DCIPS "for employees and
positions within any element of the Intelligence Community," except for
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. The act also required
"rates of basic pay" to be fixed in accordance with provisions of law
that (disregarding DCIPS) would otherwise apply, during the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of the defense authorization act
and ending on December 31, 2010. The act further required the Secretary
of Defense, the Director of the Office of Personnel and Management, and
the Director of National Intelligence to jointly designate an
independent organization to review the operation of DCIPS. The
Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Office of Personnel and
Management, and the Director of National Intelligence are required,
under the act, to submit to the congressional oversight committees a
written report describing any actions that the Secretary has taken or
proposes to take in response to the report of the independent
organization. Additionally, the provisions require the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the congressional oversight committees a written
description of any actions taken or proposed to be taken by the
Secretary in response to GAO's review and recommendations regarding
DCIPS. On November 3, 2009, the USD(I) stated in a memorandum to the
defense intelligence workforce, that the legislation did not repeal or
terminate DCIPS, but suspended certain provisions of the DCIPS pay-
setting regulations until December 31, 2010. The memorandum further
noted that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency would be the
only defense intelligence component to continue under all DCIPS
regulations--including all of the performance-based pay adjustment
processes included in the regulations. According to the memorandum,
eligible employees in the remaining intelligence components will not
receive a payout under DCIPS but will receive scheduled increases
equivalent to step increases under the General Schedule structure, as
well as the full General Pay Increase and locality pay, in January.
To address our first objective, we analyzed guidance issued by the
Director of National Intelligence and the USD(I) and interviewed key
DOD officials to determine the extent to which DOD has incorporated
internal safeguards identified in our prior work on human capital
management issues. Specifically, we assessed the extent to which DOD
has incorporated the following 10 performance management safeguards:
[Footnote 12]
* Assure that the agency's performance management system links employee
objectives to the agency's strategic plan, related goals, and desired
outcomes.
* Implement a pay-for-performance evaluation system to better link
individual pay to performance and provide an equitable method for
appraising and compensating employees.
* Provide adequate training and retraining for supervisors, managers,
and employees in the implementation and operation of the performance
management system.
* Institute a process for ensuring ongoing performance feedback and
dialogue between supervisors, managers, and employees throughout the
appraisal period and setting timetables for review.
* Assure that the agency's performance management system results in
meaningful distinctions in individual employee performance.[Footnote
13]
* Provide a means for ensuring that adequate agency resources are
allocated for the design, implementation, and administration of the
performance management system.
* Assure that there is an independent and credible employee appeals
mechanism.
* Assure that there are reasonable transparency and appropriate
accountability mechanisms in connection with the results of the
performance management process, including periodic reports on internal
assessments and employee survey results relating to performance
management and individual pay decisions while protecting individual
confidentiality.
* Involve employees in the design of the system, to include employees
directly involved in validating any related implementation of the
system.
* Adhere to merit principles set forth in section 2301 of title 5 of
the U.S. Code. (For example, section 2301 (b)(2) deals with fair and
equal treatment, regardless of factors such as political affiliation,
race, color, sex, age, or handicapping condition and section 2301
(b)(8)(A) says that employees should be protected against arbitrary
action, personal favoritism, and coercion for partisan political
purposes.) (The merit principles are listed in their entirety in
appendix II.)
To address our second objective, we examined the extent to which DOD
had mechanisms in place to identify employee perceptions about DCIPS
and reviewed DOD surveys and information about DCIPS on defense
intelligence component Web sites. We also reviewed town hall meetings
about DCIPS and interviewed headquarters level DCIPS staff responsible
for implementing DCIPS at each of the nine defense intelligence
components and the Defense Security Service. To obtain insight into
employee perceptions and opinions of DCIPS, we visited seven DOD
intelligence components and conducted 26 nongeneralizable discussion
groups.[Footnote 14] For each of the seven DOD intelligence components,
we conducted separate discussion groups for employees and supervisors
both in the Washington, D.C., area at each organization's headquarters,
as well as at three field locations in the United States to determine
if employee perceptions varied by location.[Footnote 15] While the
information from our discussion groups is not generalizable to the
entire population of DOD civilian intelligence personnel, this
information provides insight into civilian intelligence personnel
perceptions about the implementation of DCIPS. However, other employees
and supervisors under DCIPS who did not participate in our discussion
groups may have different perceptions.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2008 through November
2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A more
thorough description of our scope and methodology is provided in
appendix III.
Results in Brief:
While early in its implementation of DCIPS, DOD has taken some positive
steps to incorporate 10 internal safeguards into DCIPS, but
opportunities exist to immediately improve the implementation of 2 of
these safeguards and continued monitoring of all of the safeguards is
needed. For example, DOD has taken some steps to, among other things,
provide extensive training to employees on DCIPS and require feedback
between employees and supervisors at the mid-point and at the close of
the performance rating cycle. However, additional steps could be taken
to help ensure (1) continuous employee involvement in DCIPS and (2) the
implementation of merit principles regarding the need for an
independent analysis of ratings. More specifically:
* DOD has taken steps to involve employees in the implementation of
DCIPS; however, opportunities exist to expand this involvement by
establishing a formal process for the continued involvement of
employees in the system. As we previously reported, leading
organizations involve employees directly and consider their input
before finalizing key decisions. We further stated that such
involvement in system design and implementation must be early, active,
and continuous if employees are to gain a sense of understanding and
ownership of the changes that are being made.[Footnote 16] At the time
of our review, DOD had sought employee input through several
mechanisms, including a survey that validated performance competencies
for DCIPS and numerous Town hall meetings with employees[Footnote 17]-
-both domestically and overseas--to provide employees information about
DCIPS. While these steps demonstrate a commitment to engage the
workforce, DOD has not taken advantage of other opportunities to expand
such efforts by establishing a formal process for the continuous
involvement of employees in DCIPS. Specifically, DCIPS guidance does
not identify a formalized process for the continued and direct
involvement of employees in the development and implementation of
DCIPS. Employees and supervisors in discussion groups at 12 of the 13
sites we visited indicated that they felt they had limited or no
involvement in the design and implementation of the system. Without
continuous employee involvement in the implementation of DCIPS,
employees may experience a loss of ownership over the system, which
could ultimately undermine its credibility. We are therefore
recommending that DOD issue guidance to institutionalize a process to
involve employees continually in future design and implementation
changes.
* DOD has taken steps to ensure that DCIPS incorporates the merit
principles set forth in section 2301 of title 5 U.S. code.[Footnote 18]
However, DOD may be unable to fully determine whether ratings are fair
and equitable because the department does not have a written policy
outlining how it will analyze final ratings by demographic categories/
groups; how the components will identify potential barriers, if they
exist; or what DOD will do, if anything, with the results of that
analysis. The Office of Personnel Management has noted that, prior to
rolling out an alternative personnel system, an agency should document
its business processes and procedures associated with all aspects of
the system.[Footnote 19] In September 2009, USD(I) provided us with the
"2009 DCIPS Guidance on Pay Pools and Reporting of Results," which
stipulates that no later than March 31, 2010, components will provide
the USD(I) Human Capital Management Office with detailed data,
including demographic analysis, on performance evaluation and payout
results for 2009. While notable, this 2009 document does not specify
what data is to be collected for DOD's analysis of demographics; how
the data should be analyzed; what process the components should follow
to investigate potential barriers to fair and equitable ratings and
their causes; or a process for eliminating barriers that are found.
Until DOD specifies these steps in guidance, the intelligence
components may not follow a consistent approach in these areas, the
department may be unable to fully determine whether potential barriers
to fair and equitable ratings exist, and employees may then lack
confidence in the fairness and credibility of the DCIPS and its
ratings. To help ensure equity, fairness, and non-discrimination in
ratings, we are recommending that DOD issue guidance on its analysis of
finalized ratings that explains how the demographic analysis of ratings
is to be conducted.
Additionally, we have previously reported with another pay-for-
performance system that continued monitoring of the safeguards is
needed to help ensure that a department's actions are effective as
implementation of such performance management systems
progresses.[Footnote 20] We also noted that adequate evaluation
procedures would, among other things, facilitate better congressional
oversight, allow for any midcourse corrections, assist DOD in
benchmarking its progress, and help document best practices and lessons
learned with employees and other stakeholders.[Footnote 21] In October
2009, DOD provided us with a draft evaluation plan that details
tentative procedures to monitor and evaluate DCIPS implementation,
including all of the safeguards. According to DOD officials, they do
not expect to execute the evaluation plan until after the first payout
in January 2010. DOD's efforts to develop an evaluation plan are
notable; however, without finalizing and executing such a plan, the
department will not have a clear understanding of whether it is
achieving its desired outcomes when implementing the new performance
management system for its intelligence components. To help ensure the
department evaluates the impact of DCIPS, we are therefore recommending
that it take steps to finalize and execute its evaluation plan to
assess the system, including the implementation of the internal
safeguards.
At the time of our review, DOD used several mechanisms to provide
employees with information and respond to questions; however, these
mechanisms do not comprehensively identify and address employee
perceptions of DCIPS. For example, each of the defense intelligence
components has conducted numerous Town hall meetings to brief employees
on DCIPS. In addition, USD(I) maintained a Web site that publishes
responses to frequently asked questions. While notable, these efforts
do not directly assess employees' perceptions of DCIPS. The
nongeneralizable results of the discussion groups we conducted
identified, among other things, mixed views about certain aspects of
the system. For example, employees and supervisors generally expressed
positive views about the concept of pay for performance; however,
employees at most of the components noted that they were frustrated
because, among other things they felt that the implementation of DCIPS
was moving too quickly or that many questions about DCIPS went
unanswered. While DOD's mechanisms and the results of our discussion
groups provide insight to DCIPS officials on the intelligence
employees' perceptions, they do not comprehensively identify and
address employee perceptions of DCIPS. We have previously reported that
high-performing organizations continuously review and revise their
performance management systems based on data-driven lessons learned and
changing needs in the environment.[Footnote 22] Consistent with this
approach, USD(I) officials have drafted four surveys that will cover
various parts of DCIPS, such as training and be accompanied by guidance
on how to assess survey results. However, these surveys lacked
questions that would provide insight on certain aspects of the
safeguards, such as the likelihood that an employee would use the
internal grievance process to challenge a rating that was perceived to
be unfair.[Footnote 23] Moreover, the surveys--at the time--did not
directly ask questions about or measure employee overall acceptance of
DCIPS. Until DOD incorporates such questions and implements its
mechanisms, DOD may not be able to comprehensively and accurately
identify and measure employee perceptions. We are therefore
recommending that DOD expeditiously implement mechanisms--including the
four surveys--that comprehensively identify employee perceptions and
ensure that those mechanisms include questions regarding certain
safeguards such as the internal grievance process and employees'
acceptance of DCIPS.
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with all
of our recommendations and noted specific steps taken to implement each
one. We also provided ODNI with a draft of this report because, though
not the focus of our review, ODNI has played a significant role in
strategic human capital management reform for the U.S. Intelligence
Community and is thus well positioned to provide additional insights
and comments on DCIPS and companion efforts in the Intelligence
Community. ODNI agreed to work with USD(I) to address the areas
identified in our report and stated that they strongly believed that
DCIPS had been established on a strong foundation of policy directives
and incorporated many best practices in its processes. Both DOD and
ODNI provided technical comments, which we incorporated into this
report, as appropriate.
Background:
The authority for DOD to establish a pay-for-performance management
system for civilian defense intelligence employees originated in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.[Footnote 24]
Initially, in 1998, only the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
implemented Full Pay Modernization for its employees. Specifically, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense granted the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency the authority to pilot test a pay-for-performance
system. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency eventually
converted all of its employees out of the General Schedule pay scale
and into a system it called Total Pay Compensation in 1999 and thus has
been under that system for about 10 years.
As stated previously, ODNI, with agreement from agencies and
departments in the Intelligence Community, established the overarching
evaluation and performance based pay framework for this community--the
National Intelligence Civilian Compensation Program. This framework was
established by Intelligence Community Directives, which among other
things, set common rating categories and performance standards that
were adopted by the Intelligence Community. According to Intelligence
Community Directive 650, the Director of National Intelligence has the
responsibility to establish, in collaboration and coordination with the
heads of executive departments and independent agencies with
Intelligence Community employees, a set of unifying Intelligence
Community-wide principles, policies, and procedures governing the
compensation of civilian employees in the Intelligence Community.
[Footnote 25] DOD, in 2007, designated USD(I) as the organization
responsible for overseeing the implementation of DCIPS. USD(I) based
DCIPS primarily on the pay-for-performance system implemented at the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Appendix IV shows the notable
differences between the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's
system and DOD's DCIPS. Additionally, figure 1 outlines the U.S.
Intelligence Community's pay modernization efforts under the National
Intelligence Civilian Compensation Program framework. DCIPS is one of
the first systems to use this framework.
Figure 1: U.S. Intelligence Community's Pay Modernization Framework and
Efforts:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Policy & Funding:
United States Intelligence Community:
IC Pay Modernization Effort:
NICCP: National Intelligence Civilian Compensation Program.
Implementation and Execution:
Organization: Defense Intelligence Components[B];
Who[A]: All IC Civilians;
Program: DCIPS: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System.
Organization: Central Intelligence Agency;
Who[A]: All IC Employees;
Program: Pay Modernization.
Organization: Department of Homeland Security;
Who[A]: Intelligence Analysts;
Program: To be determined.
Organization: Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Who[A]: Intelligence Analysts;
Program: To be determined.
Organization: Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
Who[A]: All IC Employees;
Program: ODNI PfP.
[A] Applies to GS-15 and below; excludes senior executives and wage
grade employees.
[B] Also including military intelligence program (MIP) funding.
Source: Office of the Director of National Intelligence; GAO analysis.
Note: According to officials at the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, this figure shows Intelligence Community organizations
that presently have the statutory authority to implement pay-for-
performance systems within their agency. According to these officials,
other national intelligence organizations from other federal agencies
and departments--including the intelligence offices within the
Departments of Energy, State, and Treasury, and the Drug Enforcement
Administration--currently do not have the statutory authority to
implement the National Intelligence Civilian Compensation Program.
The Senior Executive Service is currently under a pay-for-performance
management system, which was established in 2004.
[End of figure]
DCIPS will be the performance management system applicable to DOD
civilian intelligence personnel in the DOD intelligence components,
which include the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National
Security Agency, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, and the intelligence elements of the military
departments. Although not a defense intelligence component, the Defense
Security Service also converted to DCIPS.
Implementation of DCIPS pay-for-performance began in September 2008 and
consists of three specific phases:[Footnote 26] (1) Performance
Management, which focuses on the processes of setting expectations and
objectives for monitoring, rating, and rewarding employee performance;
(2) Pay Bands, which moves employee pay from the General Schedule/
Government Grade pay scale to the five pay ranges associated with a
particular DCIPS work category and work level; and (3) the First
Performance Payout, which is when employees will receive a combination
of their performance-based salary increase and their performance-based
bonus increase for the first time. The DOD components have implemented
DCIPS, in some instances, at different times. Figure 2 depicts the
timeline, at the time of our review, for each component's phased
implementation.
Figure 2: DCIPS Implementation Timeline:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Performance Management System:
October, 2008: DIA, Navy/USMC, NGA, NSA, OUSD(I);
July, 2009: Army;
August, 2009: AF, NRO;
October, 2009: DSS.
Pay Bands:
September, 2008: DIA;
October, 2008: NGA;
November 2008: Navy/USMC;
July, 2009: Army; OUSD(I);
August, 2009: AF, NRO;
October, 2009: DSS.
First Performance Payout (Bonuses only – 2010):
January, 2010: DIA, Navy/USMC, NGA, NSA, OUSD(I);
January, 2011: Army AF NRO, DSS.
DIA: Defense Intelligence Agency;
USMC: United States Marine Corps;
NGA: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency;
NSA: National Security Agency;
OUSD(I): Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence;
AF: Air Force;
NRO: National Reconnaissance Office;
DSS: Defense Security Service;
Navy: Navy;
Army: Army.
Source: DOD.
Note: Section 1114 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-84 (2009), prohibits the fixing of rates of
basic pay under DCIPS for employees and positions within any element of
the Intelligence Community, except for the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency, and requires them to be fixed in accordance with
provisions of law that (disregarding DCIPS) would otherwise apply,
during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of the defense
authorization act and ending on December 31, 2010. Prior to the
President signing the defense authorization legislation into law, the
USD(I) had, on October 8, 2009, temporarily halted the conversion of
the Defense Security Service and National Security Agency employees
into pay bands.
[End of figure]
Under DCIPS, performance management consists of two interrelated
processes: the performance management process and the pay pool process.
[Footnote 27]The performance management process includes a 12-month
performance evaluation period that runs annually from October 1 through
September 30, unless USD(I) has granted an exception. During this
period, employees, along with their supervisors--who are also referred
to as rating officials--collaborate to identify performance
expectations and outcome-focused objectives; engage in regular dialogue
to monitor performance throughout the year, including a required mid-
point review; develop performance strengths and skills; document
achievements through employee self-assessments and rating official
assessments; and, finally, conduct an end-of-year performance review.
At the end of the performance evaluation period, the rating official
completes an evaluation of record for each of the employees they
supervise. These evaluations of record are then passed through two
levels of review: first by reviewing officials and then by the
Performance Management Performance Review Authority. Reviewing
officials are responsible for coordinating with rating officials in
evaluating and rating the performance of employees. Concurrent with the
actions of the reviewing officials, the Performance Management
Performance Review Authority conducts a high-level review of all
evaluations of record and ratings across the component with the intent
of ensuring rigor and consistency across all supervisors and reviewing
officials and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Within
45 days of the end of the performance evaluation period, all ratings
must be finalized and approved by the reviewing officials and the
Performance Management Performance Review Authority.
The pay pool process begins at the same time as the performance
management process with the establishment of pay pool structures and
annual training to strengthen participants' understanding about the pay
pool process from October 1 to September 30. However, pay pools begin
their annual deliberations about employee salary increases and bonuses
after ratings are finalized. A pay pool is a group of individuals who
share in the distribution of a common pay-for-performance fund. Each
employee is assigned to a pay pool according to considerations
regarding organizational structure, geographic location, and/or
occupation. Figure 3 illustrates a sample DCIPS pay pool structure,
specifically the relationship between the members of each pay pool--the
employee, supervisor or rating official, reviewing official, pay pool
panel, pay pool manager, and performance review authority.
Figure 3: Sample DCIPS Pay Pool Structure:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Pay Pool: Performance Review Authority (PRA):
Pay Pool 1:
Pay Pool 2:
Pay Pool 3:
Pay Pool Panel:
* Pay Pool Manager;
- Reviewing Official (2);
Under each Reviewing Official:
* Rating Official(2);
- Employees.
Pay Pool 4:
Source: DOD training materials.
[End of figure]
Each of these pay pool members has defined responsibilities during the
annual deliberations and pay out process. The Pay Pool Performance
Review Authority, who can be either an individual or a panel of
individuals,[Footnote 28] oversees one or more pay pools to ensure
procedural consistency among the pay pools under its authority. The Pay
Pool Manager provides financial, scheduling, and business rules
guidance for the process; settles differences among panel members; and
approves the final pay pool panel recommendations. The Pay Pool Panel
members, which include reviewing officials and, in some cases, rating
officials, are responsible for determining performance-based salary
increases and bonuses using established pay pool guidance.[Footnote 29]
Payouts are normally effective on the first day of the first pay period
following January 1 of the new calendar year. The department issued
overall guidance in September 2009 regarding its pay pool business
rules.
DCIPS is a pay-banded performance management system. As such, employees
have converted or will convert from the General Schedule/General
Government system to five distinct pay bands. Under the General
Schedule/General Government system, salary is determined by the 15-
grade/10-step system.[Footnote 30] Pay banding consolidates these 15
grades into five broad pay bands, and the DCIPS pay system establishes
a salary range for each pay band, with a minimum and a maximum pay
rate. Figure 4 illustrates which Government Grade/General Schedule pay
grades/steps apply to each pay band during conversion.
Figure 4: DCIPS Pay Band Structure:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration: stair step image, with each pay
band on a subsequently higher step]
Pay Band 1: GG-01/01 - 07/12;
Technician/support Level 1.
Pay Band 2: GG-07/01 - 10/12;
Professional Level 1;
Technician/support Level 2.
Pay Band 3: GG-11/01 - 13/12;
Management Level 2;
Professional Level 2;
Technician/Support Level 3.
Pay Band 4: GG-13/01 - 14/12;
Management Level 3;
Professional Level 3.
Pay Band 5: GG-15/01 - 15/12;
Management Level 4;
Professional Level 4.
Source: DOD.
[End of figure]
DOD Has Taken Steps to Incorporate Internal Safeguards into DCIPS, but
Two Safeguards and Monitoring Have Not Been Fully Implemented:
Although DOD has taken some steps to implement internal safeguards to
ensure that the DCIPS performance management system is fair, effective,
and credible, opportunities exist to improve DOD's implementation of 2
of the 10 safeguards. Specifically, DOD has taken some steps to (1)
link employee objectives and the agency's strategic goals and mission;
(2) provide a system to better link individual pay to performance in an
equitable manner; (3) train and retrain employees and supervisors in
the system's operation; (4) require ongoing performance feedback
between supervisors and employees; (5) assure meaningful distinctions
in employee performance; (6) ensure agency resources are allocated for
the design, implementation, and administration of the system; (7)
assure that there is an independent and credible employee appeals
mechanism; (8) assure reasonable transparency of the system and its
operation; (9) involve employees in the design and implementation of
the system; and (10) adhere to merit principles set forth in section
2301 of title 5 of the U.S. Code. We have previously reported that
continued monitoring of such systems' safeguards is needed to help
ensure DOD's actions are effective as implementation proceeds.[Footnote
31] While we believe continued monitoring of all of these safeguards is
needed as implementation proceeds and more employees become covered by
DCIPS, we determined that USD(I)'s implementation of two safeguards--
employee involvement and the adherence to merit principles--could be
improved immediately. Until USD(I) effectively implements all of the
safeguards, employees will not have assurance that the system is fair,
equitable, and credible, which ultimately could undermine employees'
confidence and result in failure of the system.
Link Employee Objectives to the Agency's Strategic Goals and Mission:
DOD has made efforts to link employees' objectives to the agency's
strategic goals, mission, and desired outcomes. For example, DCIPS
guidance[Footnote 32] stipulates that employees' individual performance
objectives[Footnote 33] should align with the goals and objectives of
the National Intelligence Strategy, DOD, and the employee's
organization. Specifically, an employee, in conjunction with a rating
official and supervisor (if different), will establish approximately
three to six performance objectives, which set specific performance
targets for the individual, and link to National Intelligence Strategy,
departmental, and component goals and objectives.[Footnote 34] Further,
according to the DCIPS guidance, performance objectives for non-
supervisory employees should be appropriate to the employee's pay band,
pay, and career or occupation category, and will be structured such
that they are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-
limited (SMART). The guidance further requires the creation of annual
performance plans, to serve as records of the performance planning
process, which are to be reviewed and approved by reviewing officials
to ensure they are consistent with organizational goals and objectives.
DOD officials we spoke with identified SMART objectives as the primary
method of linking individual employee performance objectives to agency
mission and goals. Figure 5 illustrates how an individual's SMART
objectives align to agency and National Intelligence Strategy goals.
Figure 5: Alignment of SMART Objectives to National Intelligence
Strategy Goals:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Image shows a two-directional arrow between the National Defense
Strategy/National Intelligence Strategy and Employee SMART Objectives:
National Defense Strategy/National Intelligence Strategy:
Defense Intelligence Strategy;
Component Strategic Plan;
Directorate Strategic Plan;
Office/Division Goals;
Employee SMART Objectives.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
Link Individual Pay to Performance in an Equitable Manner:
USD(I) officials stated that DCIPS's design allows for a better linkage
between individual pay and performance than the previous General
Schedule pay scale. DCIPS policy requires that DCIPS shall provide a
basis for linking performance-based pay increases and bonuses to (1)
individual accomplishments, (2) demonstrated competencies, and (3)
contributions to organizational missions and results--such that the
greatest rewards go to those who make the greatest contributions,
consistent with both performance and competitive pay administration
principles.[Footnote 35] Moreover, DCIPS draft guidance states that the
goal of the system is that it provide for a reward system that attempts
to motivate employees to increase their performance contribution,
making the employees' level of performance commensurate with their
total compensation. Several DCIPS components we spoke with, including
the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force, cited DOD's Compensation Work
Bench, a computerized tool that calculates pay increases by using
performance ratings and pay pool information as a primary mechanism for
quantitatively connecting individual performance and pay. In addition,
the same components also cited the Performance Appraisal Application,
an online tool for monitoring employee performance throughout a rating
cycle, as another means of establishing such linkage.[Footnote 36]
Although DOD has created policy to better link an individual's pay to
performance, it is too soon, given the current implementation status,
to determine the extent to which pay will be equitably linked to
performance, as a full performance cycle has not been completed and
DCIPS payouts have not yet occurred.[Footnote 37]
Provide Training in the Implementation and Operation of the System:
DOD has taken several steps to provide extensive training to DCIPS
users in the implementation and operation of the performance management
system. For example, DCIPS policy requires that employees be trained in
the system, and that rating officials, supervisors, pay pool managers,
and pay pool members be trained in their responsibilities. According to
USD(I), each of the DCIPS components is required to implement training,
tailoring any materials provided by USD(I) as necessary to meet the
needs of its workforce. Additionally, there are currently a number of
training mechanisms, including Web-based courses, classroom sessions,
and town hall forums--so employees have a range of opportunities to
learn about DCIPS. USD(I) provided a training curriculum that includes
courses such as DCIPS 101, Managing Performance, and DCIPS Compensation
Fundamentals. Some training tools are designed for distinct groups
(i.e., supervisors, human resource personnel, etc.) in order to ensure
that different groups have a contextual understanding of DCIPS. See
appendix V for a list of major courses in this curriculum.
Officials we spoke with at a number of DCIPS components stated that
they offer a variety of classroom and Web-based training tools, some of
which were adapted from USD(I) training in order to better suit the
needs of the component's workforce. For example, one component modified
USD(I)'s iSuccess course, which provides employees with step-by-step
instruction on how to write SMART performance objectives and self-
assessments. Other components have employed innovative approaches to
training, such as conducting joint training sessions with employees and
supervisors in order to increase transparency and to open dialogue
between the two groups.
Additionally, USD(I) administered a number of training evaluations for
its introductory DCIPS courses that indicated that employees generally
viewed the training as informative and beneficial. However, during our
nongeneralizable discussion groups with employees, we found that
employee perceptions of training were somewhat mixed, as participants
at 9 of our 13 discussion group sites stated that too many questions
regarding DCIPS went unanswered, including questions posed during
training. In particular, employees in one discussion group stated that
training on developing performance objectives was not helpful because
it focused on developing objectives for jobs that had very specific
outputs, such as making widgets. Although such feedback indicates that
the breadth of training offerings, as well as the scope and/or format
of individual sessions, could be improved, we note that we conducted
our discussion groups during April 2009 and May 2009, and according to
one USD(I) official, new training courses have since been added, such
as Compensation Fundamentals.
Ensure Ongoing Performance Feedback and Dialogue between Supervisors
and Employees:
DCIPS policy requires that rating officials and/or supervisors[Footnote
38] provide employees with meaningful, constructive, and candid
feedback relative to their progress against performance expectations in
at least one documented midpoint performance review and an end-of-year
review.[Footnote 39] In addition, guidance requires rating officials
and employees to engage in dialogue throughout the rating period to,
among other things, develop performance objectives and an individual's
development plan. They are also required to discuss progress toward
achieving performance objectives, behaviors related to successful
performance, and individual employee development. Most of the DCIPS
components we spoke with stated that additional feedback beyond the
minimum required guidance is encouraged, but not mandatory. Formal
feedback between employees and supervisors should be documented in the
Performance Appraisal Application--DOD's online performance management
tool. At 7 of the 13 sites we visited, discussion group participants
told us that communication with supervisors has increased under DCIPS,
with most interactions being face-to-face, as encouraged by DOD.
Assure Meaningful Distinctions in Individual Employee Performance:
DCIPS is intended to create a performance management system that
provides meaningful distinctions in employee performance.[Footnote 40]
However, because performance evaluations have yet to occur under DCIPS,
it is unclear the extent to which ratings will actually result in
meaningful distinctions. Unlike the pass fail system, which some of the
employees were under, the performance ratings scale for DCIPS consists
of five rating categories, of which the lowest rating is a "1"
(unacceptable performance) and the highest rating is a "5" (outstanding
performance).[Footnote 41] Ratings are determined by comparing employee
performance against performance standards for the employee's pay-band
level.
Officials we spoke with at USD(I) and the DCIPS components also cited
other mechanisms to implement this safeguard. For example, USD(I) told
us that distinctions in individual employee performance will also be
made through the bonus process. While all employees with performance
evaluations rated Successful or above will be eligible, USD(I)
officials expect that only 45 percent to 50 percent of employees who
are eligible will receive a bonus. A USD(I) official noted that
limiting bonuses to less than 50 percent of the staff will make bonuses
more meaningful. Also, to ensure accountability at the supervisory
level, one of the components told us it requires supervisors to
demonstrate how they make distinctions in ratings as part of their own
performance objectives. Finally, DOD officials stated that the mock
performance review process will provide an opportunity to determine how
meaningful distinctions in performance will be made, as well as a
chance to garner lessons learned for assessing performance.
Several of our discussion group participants expressed concern that
there is potential for a "forced distribution" of ratings (i.e., a
fixed numeric or percentage limitation on any rating level), which
could effectively erode meaningful distinctions in individual employee
performance. However, USD(I) officials told us that they had informed
the components that forced distributions of ratings are unacceptable
and potentially illegal, and that USD(I) has emphasized rigor and
consistency in ratings throughout DCIPS's implementation by way of
leadership training and the Performance Review Authority. Additionally,
in August 2009, USD(I) posted a statement on the DCIPS Web site
reiterating its prohibition on forced distribution of ratings found in
DCIPS guidance.[Footnote 42]
Means to Ensure Adequate Agency Resources Are Allocated for the
System's Design, Implementation, and Administration:
DOD, through USD(I), has taken steps to ensure that agency resources
are allocated for the implementation and administration of DCIPS. For
example, DCIPS guidance provides for an initial permanent salary
increase budget that is no less than what would have been available for
step increases, quality step increases, and within-band promotions
under the previous personnel system.[Footnote 43] Further, USD(I) will
conduct, in coordination with the components, an annual analysis of
salary adjustments to determine the effects on the distribution of the
workforce within pay bands, position of the workforce relative to the
applicable labor market, anticipated adjustments to the ranges, and
projected General Schedule increases for the year in which the next
payout is to be effective.
Funding for the implementation of DCIPS was drawn from two primary
funding streams including: 1) the National Intelligence Program, and 2)
Military Intelligence Program. According to USD(I), funding was used to
cover the costs associated with conversion, including training,
technology, and Within-Grade Increases. USD(I) and several of the DCIPS
components we spoke with indicated that resources were sufficient to
implement the system. In particular, one component told us that the
Office of the Director for National Intelligence has been very
receptive to resource concerns and had asked to be notified of any
shortfalls. In fact, at the time of our review, only one DCIPS
component told us it had requested additional funds for a shortfall. In
addition, USD(I) created a resource management group consisting of
Chief Financial Officer officials from each DCIPS component in order to
ensure the proper level of funding is available for payouts beginning
in 2010.
Assure an Independent, Credible Employee Appeals Mechanism:
We previously identified an independent and credible employee appeals
mechanism as a key component to ensuring that pay-for performance
systems are fair, effective, and credible.[Footnote 44] DCIPS does not
provide a distinct mechanism for employees to appeal adverse actions.
Instead, it relies on existing agency procedures to fulfill this
function, so that each of the defense intelligence components has its
own appeals mechanism. According to USD(I) officials, guidance that
would provide DCIPS a distinct employee appeals mechanism is in draft.
When issued, according to these officials, this guidance will provide
the minimum requirements for adverse action appeals, including
fundamental due process, based on the requirements established in
chapter 75 of title 5 of the U.S. Code. According to ODNI officials,
chapter 75 does not statutorily apply to DCIPS. Rather, DOD is adopting
these standards pursuant to ODNI Intelligence Community Directives.
Additionally, ODNI guidance provides that employees will receive due
process in any adverse action, as defined by applicable law and
regulation, involving performance, as established by their respective
departments or agencies, including an objective and transparent appeals
process.[Footnote 45]
Assure Reasonable Transparency of the System and Its Operation:
DOD has taken steps to ensure a reasonable amount of transparency is
incorporated into the implementation of DCIPS. For example, in contrast
to the National Security Personnel System--which uses a system of
weighted shares to determine employee payouts--DCIPS uses a software
algorithm, available to all DCIPS employees, to calculate salary
increases and bonus awards.[Footnote 46] In addition, USD(I) officials
told us that USD(I) has communicated the performance management process
through town hall meetings, DCIPS Web sites, quarterly newsletters, and
letters from USD(I) management. Similarly, the DCIPS components are
individually conducting a range of activities to provide transparency,
such as their own town halls and open forum discussions. In particular,
officials from one component told us that they conducted a survey of
employees to determine how they received information about DCIPS and
how they preferred to receive such information in the future. According
to USD(I) officials, sharing aggregate rating results with employees is
key to ensuring transparency and ultimately to gaining employee
acceptance of the system. These officials also told us that they are
instructing the DCIPS components to publish aggregate rating results.
In fact, in September 2009, USD(I) provided a template for reporting
DCIPS performance evaluation and payout results to the workforce.
USD(I) officials stated that while the template can be tailored to suit
specific agency needs, it will also establish a common way of reporting
in which individual employees will be able to see where they stand
relative to their peers and within pay bands. Separately, according to
these same officials, USD(I) also plans to publish rating results at
the department level by merging the results of all pay pool data from
each of the DCIPS components. According to ODNI officials, they
intended to do the same for Intelligence Community-wide results.
Involve Employees in the Design and Implementation of the System:
USD(I) and the defense intelligence components have taken some steps to
involve employees in the implementation of DCIPS, however more
opportunities exist to expand this involvement. As we previously
reported, involvement in a performance management system's design and
implementation must be early, active, and continuing if DOD employees
are to gain a sense of understanding and ownership of the changes that
are being made.[Footnote 47] Specifically, USD(I) and the defense
intelligence components have used various mechanisms to obtain employee
input. For example, USD(I) sponsored a survey to validate performance
competencies for DCIPS and administered training evaluations for a
variety of DCIPS courses, covering topics such as SMART objectives. In
addition, the defense intelligence components conducted town hall
meetings to provide domestic and overseas employees with information
about DCIPS and to communicate with the workforce.
According to a USD(I) official, the components possess considerable
discretion regarding the nature and extent of employee involvement at
the agency level, and as such, have independently employed a number of
feedback mechanisms, including discussion groups and "brown bag"
meetings. In most cases, the impact of such efforts is unclear;
however, officials at one DCIPS component told us that some employee
concerns were elevated to the Defense Intelligence Human Resources
Board and actions were taken. For example, some employees expressed
concerns about the elimination of career ladders, which eventually
resulted in a policy change allowing employees who were hired under a
particular career ladder to remain in that career ladder under DCIPS.
Similarly, USD(I) provided us with a draft guide to writing effective
performance objectives, which, according to officials, was produced at
the request of employees that attended a pilot training course.
While the above-mentioned steps demonstrate a commitment to engage the
workforce, USD(I) has not taken advantage of other opportunities to
expand such efforts by establishing a formal process for the continuous
involvement of employees in DCIPS. As we previously reported, leading
organizations involve employees directly and consider their input
before finalizing key decisions--such as draft guidance.[Footnote 48]
Although USD(I) officials stated they allow employees to comment on
draft guidance, USD(I) does not have, in its guidance, a formalized
process for the continued and direct involvement of employees in the
development and implementation of DCIPS. This is of concern, since
employees and supervisors in discussion groups at 12 of the 13 sites we
visited indicated that they had limited or no involvement in the design
and implementation of the system. Without continuous employee
involvement in the implementation of DCIPS, employees may experience a
loss of ownership over the system, which could ultimately undermine its
credibility.
Adherence to Merit Principles:
USD(I) has taken steps to ensure that DCIPS incorporates the merit
principles set forth in section 2301 of title 5 of the U.S. Code.
[Footnote 49] The Office of Personnel Management has noted that prior
to rolling out an alternative personnel system, an agency should
document its business processes and procedures associated with all
aspects of the system.[Footnote 50] In September 2009, USD(I) provided
to us a document that stipulates that no later than March 31, 2010,
components will provide the USD(I) Human Capital Management Office with
detailed data, including demographic analysis, on performance
evaluation and payout results. In September 2009, USD(I) also published
a template for publishing DCIPS performance evaluation and payout
results to the workforce. This template provides a sample aggregate
workforce report for employees, which contains demographic-based
reporting categories, including gender, race, ethnicity, age,
disability status, and veterans' status and provides details to report
to employees, including each groups' average rating, salary increase,
and bonus.
While notable, this 2009 document, however, does not specify what data
are to be collected for the post-decisional demographic analysis,
[Footnote 51] how the data should be analyzed, what process the
components should follow to investigate potential barriers to fair and
equitable ratings and their causes, or a process for eliminating
barriers that are found. Until DOD specifies these steps in its
guidance, the intelligence components may not follow a consistent
approach in these areas, the department may be unable to fully
determine whether potential barriers to fair and equitable ratings
exist, and employees may lack confidence in the fairness and
credibility of the DCIPS and its ratings. To help ensure equity,
fairness, and non-discrimination in ratings, we are recommending that
DOD issue guidance on its analysis of finalized ratings that explains
how the demographic analysis of ratings is to be conducted.
DOD's Initial Plans to Monitor DCIPS and the Safeguards:
We have previously reported with another pay-for-performance system
that continued monitoring of safeguards is needed to help ensure that a
department's actions are effective as implementation progresses.
[Footnote 52] We have also reported that adequate evaluation procedures
would, among other things, facilitate better congressional oversight,
allow for any midcourse corrections, assist DOD in benchmarking its
progress, and help document best practices and lessons learned with
employees and other stakeholders.[Footnote 53] In October 2009, DOD
provided us with a draft evaluation plan that details tentative
procedures to monitor and evaluate DCIPS implementation, including all
of the safeguards. For example, it provides for the examination of the
relationship between performance ratings and annual performance
payouts, and establishes methods of obtaining employee feedback, such
as attitude surveys, interviews, and focus groups.
According to DOD officials, they do not expect to execute the
evaluation plan until after the first payout, in January 2010. DOD's
efforts to draft an evaluation plan are notable; however, without
finalizing and executing such a plan, the department will not have a
clear understanding of whether it is achieving its desired outcomes as
part of implementing the new performance management system for its
intelligence components.
DOD Had Several Mechanisms to Provide Information to Employees, but
These Did Not Comprehensively Identify Employee Perceptions of DCIPS,
and Future Mechanisms Do Not Include Some Needed Questions:
At the time of our review, DOD had several mechanisms to engage
employees and provide information. However, these mechanisms did not
comprehensively identify employee perceptions. GAO conducted 26
discussion groups, which while not generalizable, did show that
employees and supervisors had mixed views about certain aspects of the
system. Additionally, DOD's planned mechanisms do not include certain
questions related to the safeguards.
DOD Had Several Mechanisms to Provide Information to Employees, but
These Did Not Comprehensively Identify and Address Employee
Perceptions:
DOD, at the time of our review, had several mechanisms in place to
provide information to employees about DCIPS; however, these mechanisms
did not comprehensively identify and address employee perceptions.
Specifically, the defense intelligence components conducted numerous
town hall meetings to brief employees on DCIPS--covering such topics as
the performance management cycle and roles and responsibilities of
employees/supervisors---and to understand their concerns. USD(I) also
maintained a Web site that contained frequently asked questions
submitted by employees and USD(I)'s response. Some of the frequently
asked questions provided by the naval Intelligence Community, as an
example, included:
* Will basic civil service protections be preserved, such as whistle
blower protections and veteran's preference?
* What safeguards will be in place to ensure that DCIPS rewards merit
for merit's sake, and does not cater to nepotism and cronyism?
USD(I) officials stated that it has used several other mechanisms,
including site visits and the annual Intelligence Community Climate
Survey, to collect employee opinions on various management policies and
practices.[Footnote 54] While these efforts are notable, these
mechanisms do not comprehensively identify employee perceptions of
DCIPS. However, USD(I) does have plans to implement additional
mechanisms that will be discussed later in this report.
Employees and Supervisors in Discussion Groups Expressed Mixed Views
regarding Some Aspects of DCIPS:
The non-generalizable results of the discussion groups we conducted
identified, among other things, mixed views about certain aspects of
the system. Specifically, our discussion groups identified areas that
employees and supervisors found positive regarding DCIPS and several
areas where they expressed a consistent set of concerns about DCIPS,
some of which are listed below. Our prior work, as well as that of the
Office of Personnel Management,[Footnote 55] has recognized that
organizational transformations, such as the adoption of a new
performance management system, often entail fundamental and radical
changes that require an adjustment period to gain employees' trust and
acceptance. As a result, we expect major change management initiatives
in large-scale organizations to take several years to be fully
successful.
Employees Generally Expressed Positive Views about the Concept of Pay-
for-Performance but Were Concerned About the Pace of Implementation:
At 7 of the 13 locations visited, discussion group participants
generally expressed positive views about the concept of pay for
performance. For example, employees at one location stated they like
the idea of linking pay to performance and think that there is more
opportunity for financial growth. Additionally, supervisors at another
location stated they thought DCIPS is a better system than pay for
tenure/time. At another location, supervisors stated they liked the
concept of DCIPS because they felt pay for performance will reward the
hard workers. However, participants in 9 of 13 discussion groups felt
that DCIPS was being implemented too quickly. Additionally, employees
and supervisors at 9 of the 13 locations visited said too many
questions about DCIPS went unanswered. For example, employees at one
location felt that in-class instructors were unable to provide answers
to basic questions about DCIPS and its implementation. Further,
supervisors in another location stated they felt unprepared to answer
employee questions about DCIPS.
Amount of Time Spent on Performance Management Diverts Attention from
Mission Work:
Participants at 10 of the 13 locations visited said the amount of time
spent working on DCIPS diverts attention from their mission work. For
example, supervisors at one location stated mission activities have
taken a back seat to the activities required to implement DCIPS, and at
another location supervisors were dismayed by the significant amount of
time the rating process entails. Both employees and supervisors at
several locations also felt that DCIPS was a tremendous administrative
burden. For example, supervisors in one discussion group stated the
administrative burden is a "nightmare," while supervisors in another
discussion group stated DCIPS is too time-consuming, takes away from
actual work of value, monopolizes the chain of command at critical
moments; and is overly laborious without tangible benefits compared
with other systems. Other supervisors stated employees are now more
focused on DCIPS metrics than their actual jobs. Moreover, employees in
one discussion group stated that DCIPS is a detriment to the mission
because it is a huge administrative burden that takes one away from
performing his or her mission work.
DOD Plans to Implement Mechanisms to Comprehensively Identify and
Address Employee Perceptions:
We have previously reported that high-performing organizations
continuously review and revise their performance management systems
based on data-driven lessons learned and changing needs in the
environment.[Footnote 56] Consistent with this approach, USD(I)
officials have drafted four surveys to be used by the components that
will cover various parts of DCIPS (training, performance objectives,
ratings process, and payouts) and be accompanied by guidance on how to
assess survey results. However, while these surveys cover aspects of
DCIPS, they lack questions that would provide insight on certain
aspects of the safeguards, such as the likelihood an employee would
utilize the internal grievance process to challenge a rating.
Additionally, the surveys--at the time of our review--did not directly
ask questions or measure employees' overall acceptance of DCIPS.
Further, it is unclear exactly when these surveys will be implemented,
although USD(I) officials said they hoped to start soon in order to
capture baseline feedback from the first year. USD(I) officials further
said the results of the surveys will inform future changes to DCIPS.
However, without implementing a mechanism--like the four surveys that
include questions regarding certain safeguards, such as the internal
grievance process--DOD may not be able to comprehensively and
accurately identify and measure employee perceptions.
Conclusions:
Human capital reform is one of the most significant transformations in
the federal government. In our 2009 High-Risk Series update, we
identified the importance of developing a clear linkage between
individual employee performance and organizational success and pointed
out that the success of implementing a performance management system is
contingent on how, when, and the basis on which it is done. However, at
the end of this review, legislation was signed by the President that
contained provisions that affect DCIPS. As mentioned previously, the
USD(I) November 3, 2009, memorandum to the defense intelligence
workforce noted that the legislation did not repeal or terminate DCIPS,
but suspended certain provisions of the DCIPS pay-setting regulations
until December 31, 2010, to allow for an independent review of DCIPS.
This memorandum also stated that the department would continue to press
forward with unifying the defense Intelligence Community under a common
personnel system and specifically noted that the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency would continue under all DCIPS regulations--as
allowed by the legislation--and would be the focus of the department's
review of DCIPS. We have acknowledged in prior work on performance
management systems that moving too quickly or prematurely could have
detrimental consequences for such systems. The additional review of
DCIPS efforts to date may provide the department time needed to address
any potential issues and help ensure successful implementation.
We have further reported that a basic framework is needed to implement
major reforms, including performance management systems. Our prior
reports make it clear that incorporation of internal safeguards is
fundamental for the effective implementation of performance management
systems. Further, we have reported that committed top leadership and
involving employees in a new performance management system is a
continuous process. While we recognize that DOD faces many challenges
in changing the culture to implement a pay-for-performance system
capable of serving the entire DOD Intelligence Community, we believe
that it is imperative that DOD continue to explore ways to build
employee confidence in the system to help ensure the system's success.
By partially incorporating the two safeguards we specifically mention,
DOD could put the fairness and credibility of DCIPS at risk. However,
given the newness of DCIPS, constant monitoring of all safeguards is a
prudent course of action. Further, without developing an evaluation
plan that assesses DCIPS, including the safeguards, the department will
be unable to determine if it is meeting its intended human capital
reform goals.
Finally, until DOD implements its mechanism to comprehensively and
accurately identify and measure employee perceptions, including
questions related to the safeguards such as the internal grievance
process, it is not well positioned to develop a strategy to effectively
address concerns raised by employees regarding DCIPS. Employees are the
number one stakeholders in this type of transformation. With employees
from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency being the only
employees continuing under DCIPS regulations and given the agency's 10-
year history with a pay for performance human capital system, the
perspective of those employees will provide DOD with valuable insights
as it reviews DCIPS and monitors the implementation of the safeguards.
As the Office of Personnel Management and other studies have shown, it
takes time for employees to accept organizational transformation--in
this case, a move to a performance management system. As a result,
employee acceptance of the system--both eligible employees in the
defense intelligence components as well as those in the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency--is dependent on those employees'
involvement in the system's design and implementation. Ultimately, the
success of the system is dependent on this acceptance.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve DOD's implementation of internal safeguards in DCIPS, and
mechanisms to identify employee perceptions of it, we recommend that
the Secretary of Defense direct that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence take the following four actions:
* Issue guidance to institutionalize a process to involve employees
continually in future design and implementation changes to DCIPS;
* Issue guidance on its analysis of finalized ratings that explains how
the demographic analysis of ratings is to be conducted, to help ensure
equity, fairness, and non-discrimination in ratings;
* Finalize and execute its evaluation plan with metrics to assess the
system, including the implementation of internal safeguards, to help
ensure the department evaluates the impact of DCIPS; and:
* Expeditiously implement mechanisms--including the four surveys--that
comprehensively and accurately identify and measure employee
perceptions; and ensure those mechanisms include questions regarding
certain safeguards, such as the internal grievance process and
employees' acceptance of DCIPS.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to DOD and ODNI. DOD, in written
comments, concurred with all of our recommendations. We provided ODNI
with a draft of this report because, though not the focus of our
review, ODNI has played a significant role in strategic human capital
management reform for the U.S. Intelligence Community and is thus well
positioned to provide additional insights and comments on DCIPS and
companion efforts in the Intelligence Community. Both DOD and ODNI
provided us with technical comments, which we incorporated in this
report, as appropriate. DOD's and ODNI's written comments are reprinted
in their entirety in appendixes VII and VIII, respectively.
In its written comments, DOD noted there are inherent challenges
implicit in implementing a change of this magnitude--specifically
establishing a common DCIPS framework within the defense intelligence
components that is fair and equitable, consistent, and transparent. We
agree with the department and note in our report that change of this
magnitude can take several years to be fully successful. Furthermore,
DOD characterized our recommendations as logical next steps in the
evolution of DCIPS and elaborated on specific steps it was taking to
address each of our recommendations. First, DOD stated that, as
recommended, it was developing guidance to more formally
institutionalize a process to involve employees continually in design,
implementation, and evaluation to the evolving DCIPS. DOD noted that
since the Intelligence Community does not have employee bargaining
units, it is all the more important to ensure a robust and consistent
process for employee engagement. Second, regarding our recommendation
that DOD issue guidance on the analysis of its ratings, the department
noted that it issued initial guidance and was finalizing guidance for
individual components that takes into account requirements of the
Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. Third, DOD stated
that, as recommended, it was in the process of finalizing the DCIPS
evaluation plan with metrics to assess the system and stated that the
department recognized the importance of evaluating DCIPS. Fourth, DOD
stated that, as recommended, it was finalizing plans to develop
mechanisms that comprehensively and accurately identify and measure
employee perceptions. DOD also noted that, as recommended, the
mechanisms would include questions regarding certain safeguards, such
as the internal grievance process and employees' acceptance of DCIPS.
If implemented in accordance with our recommendations, the department's
actions appear to be a positive step in helping ensure fairness,
equity, and credibility of the personnel system.
In written comments, ODNI stated that it appreciated the opportunity to
comment on our report, thought the overall tone of the report was fair
and balanced; but noted that they felt the reports Highlights page,
unlike the overall report, was overly negative. We reevaluated our
Highlights page to ensure that it appropriately reflected our findings
as seen throughout the report and made some changes to address ODNI's
comments about tone. For example, we previously enumerated the ten
safeguards in the highlights page but deleted a number of those to
incorporate specific actions that DOD had taken to more directly mirror
language in other parts of our report. ODNI also stated that it
believed our report should emphasize that DCIPS was authorized by
statute in 1997 and is separate and distinct from the National Security
Personnel System.[Footnote 57] Our draft noted both of these points.
ONDI also noted in its comments that it believed our report should
emphasize that DCIPS and the NICCP are intended to meet the goals of
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. We have
made appropriate changes to our report but note also that we reviewed
the implementation of DCIPS and not ODNI's National Intelligence
Civilian Compensation Program. ODNI further stated that Intelligence
Community Directive 650 clearly lays out 10 guiding principles that
very closely align to the 10 criteria we chose for our review. We agree
but note that our objective was not to determine whether DCIPS met the
intent of Intelligence Community Directives but rather to determine
whether DCIPS incorporated the safeguards identified in our prior work
as best practices for public and private performance management
systems. ODNI also commented that change is often difficult for
employees to accept and there will always be some employee discomfort;
however, these officials believed that this discomfort is more a
reflection of where DCIPS is in its implementation schedule than with
any material defect with system's design. We also acknowledge, in our
draft and in prior reports, that major change management initiatives in
large-scale organizations take several years to be fully successful.
ODNI expressed an appreciation for our comprehensive review and our
recommendations to DOD and agreed to work with USD(I) in an expeditious
manner to address the areas we identified. ODNI made a number of other
technical comments that we considered and incorporated into our draft,
as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and the Secretary of Defense. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3604 or by e-mail at farrellb@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to the report are listed in appendix IX.
Signed by:
Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: The National Intelligence Civilian Compensation Program:
In March 2005, the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction recommended to the
President that the Director of National Intelligence use its human
resources authority to create a uniform system for performance
evaluations and compensation, and develop a more comprehensive and
creative set of performance incentives. In response to the commission's
recommendation, the Director of National Intelligence established the
National Intelligence Civilian Compensation Program (NICCP), which
creates a uniform system of performance evaluation and compensation for
the Intelligence Community's civilian workforce and aims at building a
culture of collaboration across the Intelligence Community.[Footnote
58] NICCP represents a fundamental shift from the current General
Schedule pay scale to a more performance-based, market model. The
cornerstone of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's
approach to establishing NICCP has been inter-departmental
collaboration within the Intelligence Community. An ODNI official noted
that NICCP essentially acts as a "treaty", or common, framework that
establishes the performance management and pay rules that are to be
commonly and consistently applied across the Intelligence Community.
Specifically, NICCP institutes a common set of core requirements such
as setting basic rates of pay, managing performance, and pay based on
performance. This framework also includes establishing six common
performance elements by which all Intelligence Community civilian
employees will be assessed. Specifically, these include Accountability
for Results, Communication, Critical Thinking, Engagement and
Collaboration, Personal Leadership and Integrity, and Technical
Expertise. Supervisors will also be evaluated on six performance
elements, of which they share four with non-supervisors--Accountability
for Results, Communication, Critical Thinking, Engagement and
Collaboration--and two that are unique to them, Leadership and
Integrity, and Management Proficiency. Additionally, rating levels
under this new system are from 1 to 5--with 1 being unacceptable
performance and 5 being outstanding performance:
In addition to being applicable to Intelligence Community employees
within DOD, NICCP is also applicable to certain other national
intelligence organizations from other federal agencies and departments--
including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Homeland
Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence, which currently have pay-setting
authorities. For example, the Central Intelligence Agency is currently
using its statutory authority to implement a pay-for-performance system
and has, to date, created a Pay Modernization Office, and developed a
project plan, implementation schedule, and pay modernization Web site.
According to officials in the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, other federal agencies or departments that do not
currently have the same statutory authorities include offices within
Departments of Energy, State, Treasury, and the Drug Enforcement
Administration.
As reported by ODNI, the Intelligence Community agreed upon the several
"enabling" directives that actually constitute NICCP.[Footnote 59]
Specifically, the essence of the NICCP framework has been captured in a
suite of five enabling directives. They include the following:
* Intelligence Community Directive 650--National Intelligence Civilian
Compensation Program: Guiding Principles and Framework (Effective April
28, 2008).
* Intelligence Community Directive 651--Performance Management System
Requirements for the Intelligence Community Civilian Workforce
(Effective November 28, 2007 and Updated Nov. 21, 2008).
* Intelligence Community Directive 652--Occupational Structure for the
IC Civilian Workforce, (Effective April 28, 2008).
* Intelligence Community Directive 653--Pay-Setting and Administration
Policies for the IC Civilian Workforce (Effective May 14, 2008)):
* Intelligence Community Directive 654 -Performance-Based Pay for the
IC Civilian Workforce (Effective April 28, 2008.)
[End of section]
Appendix II: Merit System Principles:
While our review focused on two merit principles that relate directly
to performance management, 5 U.S.C. §§ 2301(b)2 and (b)(8A), the
following provides the entire list of merit principles found in section
2301:
Section 2301 of title 5 of the U.S. Code applies to executive agencies
and requires federal personnel management to be implemented consistent
with the following merit system principles.[Footnote 60]
1. Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate
sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of
society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on
the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and
open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.
2. All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and
equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without
regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national
origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with
proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.
3. Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with
appropriate consideration of both national and local rates paid by
employers in the private sector, and appropriate incentives and
recognition should be provided for excellence in performance.
4. All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct,
and concern for the public interest.
5. The Federal work force should be used efficiently and effectively.
6. Employees should be retained on the basis of adequacy of their
performance, inadequate performance should be corrected, and employees
should be separated who cannot or will not improve their performance to
meet required standards.
7. Employees should be provided effective education and training in
cases in which such education and training would result in better
organizational and individual performance.
8. Employees should be:
(A) protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or
coercion for partisan political purposes, and:
(B) prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the
purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a
nomination for election.
9. Employees should be protected against reprisal for the lawful
disclosure of information which the employees reasonably believe
evidences:
(A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or (B) mismanagement,
a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and
specific danger to public health or safety.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Scope and Methodology:
In conducting our review of the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System (DCIPS), we limited our scope to the performance management
aspect of DCIPS. We did not address either the performance management
of the Senior Executive Service at the Department of Defense (DOD) or
other aspects of DCIPS, such as classification and pay.
Extent to which DOD Incorporated Internal Safeguards into DCIPS:
To determine the extent to which DOD has incorporated internal
safeguards and accountability mechanisms into DCIPS, we used the
following internal safeguards and accountability mechanisms, which were
derived from our previous work on pay-for-performance management
systems in the federal government:
* Assure that the agency's performance management system links employee
objectives to the agency's strategic plan, related goals, and desired
outcomes;
* Implement a pay-for-performance evaluation system to better link
individual pay to performance, and provide an equitable method for
appraising and compensating employees;
* Provide adequate training and retraining for supervisors, managers,
and employees in the implementation and operation of the performance
management system;
* Institute a process for ensuring ongoing performance feedback and
dialogue between supervisors, managers, and employees throughout the
appraisal period and setting timetables for review;
* Assure that the agency's performance management system results in
meaningful distinctions in individual employee performance;[Footnote
61]
* Provide a means for ensuring that adequate agency resources are
allocated for the design, implementation, and administration of the
performance management system;
* Assure that there is an independent and credible employee appeals
mechanism;
* Assure that there are reasonable transparency and appropriate
accountability mechanisms in connection with the results of the
performance management process, including periodic reports on internal
assessments and employee survey results relating to performance
management and individual pay decisions while protecting individual
confidentiality;
* Involve employees in the design of the system, to include employees
directly involved in validating any related implementation of the
system; and:
* Adhere to the merit principles set forth in section 2301 of title 5
of the U.S. Code. (Two of these merit principles, which relate directly
to performance management--((b)2 and (b)(8A)--for example, identify (1)
fair and equal treatment, regardless of factors such as political
affiliation, race, color, sex, age, or handicapping condition and (2)
protection against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, and coercion
for partisan political purposes, as necessary, in all aspects of
personnel management. The merit principles are listed in their entirety
in appendix II.)
To assess the implementation of these safeguards and accountability
mechanisms, we obtained, reviewed, and analyzed DOD guidance and other
regulations provided by officials in the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, and the intelligence components in DOD. Specifically, we
reviewed and analyzed key documents such as DCIPS guidance and
policies, along with Office of Personnel Management guidance on
performance management systems. We also reviewed available DCIPS
training materials, including self-paced online trainings on the DCIPS
Web site: [hyperlink, http://dcips.dtic.mil/index.html], attended the
DCIPS Data Administrator Training Course, and reviewed and analyzed
DVDs of town hall meetings recorded by the Office of Naval
Intelligence. Because DCIPS was in early implementation, we
continuously reviewed the DCIPS Web sites including the Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence's main Web site for updates on training
materials and policies. Finally, we obtained relevant documentation and
interviewed key Intelligence Community and DOD officials from the
following organizations:[Footnote 62]
* The Associate Director of National Intelligence for Human Capital and
Intelligence Community Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of the
Director of National Intelligence;
* The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence;
- Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Human Capital Management
Office;
- Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Chief of Staff
Directorate;
* Defense Agencies:
- Defense Intelligence Agency, Directorate for Human Capital, Office
for Performance Management;
- National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, DCIPS Program Management
Office;
- National Reconnaissance Office, Office of Human Resources;
- National Security Agency, Human Resource Strategies;
* Military Services:
- Department of the Army, Intelligence Personnel Management Office;
- Department of the Navy, Civilian Personnel Programs;
- Office of Naval Intelligence, Civilian Intelligence Personnel Office;
- Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Intelligence Department,
Intelligence Support;
- Department of the Air Force, DCIPS Program Office;
* Defense Security Service, Office of Human Resources.
Extent to which DOD has Mechanisms to Identify Employee Perceptions
about DCIPS:
To determine the extent that DOD had developed mechanisms to identify
and address employee perceptions about DCIPS, we evaluated two primary
sources of information. First, we reviewed the results of existing
mechanisms DOD is using to address employee perceptions--which included
climate surveys for the Intelligence Community, town hall meetings,
along with information from the USD(I)'s Web site. Second, we conducted
small group discussions with civilian intelligence personnel within the
department who were converting to DCIPS and administered a short
questionnaire to these participants to collect information on their
background, tenure with the federal service and DOD, and attitudes
toward DCIPS.
Discussion Groups:
We conducted 26 discussion groups with defense civilian intelligence
employees and supervisors from 7 of the 10 defense intelligence
components converting to DCIPS.[Footnote 63] For the purposes of our
discussion groups, we omitted defense civilian intelligence personnel
from the Army, Air Force, and the Defense Security Service because at
the time of our review, these components had not attained the same
level of implementation as the other defense intelligence components.
Additionally, for the defense intelligence components we did conduct
discussion groups with, we also conducted discussion groups with 6 of 7
defense intelligence components that had a field location.
Our overall objective in using the discussion group approach was to
obtain insight into employee and supervisor perceptions about DCIPS and
its implementation thus far. Discussion groups, which are similar in
nature and intent to focus groups, involve structured small group
discussions that are designed to obtain in-depth information about
specific issues. The information obtained is such that it cannot easily
be obtained from a set of individual interviews. From each location, we
requested that each defense intelligence component draw a systematic
sample from its list of personnel in order to obtain a sample of 8 to
12 employees and 8 to 12 supervisors to participate. At the majority of
the discussion groups, we reached our goal of meeting with 8 to 12
employees and supervisors in each discussion group; however, since
participation was not compulsory and at some locations populations of
employees to draw this random sample from were small, in a few
instances we did not reach the recommended 8 participants in the group.
Discussions were held in a semi-structured manner, led by a moderator
who followed a standardized list of questions. The discussions were
documented by one or two other analysts at each location. For field
sites, we selected components that had a concentration of more than 25
employees.
Scope of Our Discussion Groups:
In conducting our discussion groups, our intent was to achieve
saturation--the point at which we were no longer hearing new
information. As noted, we conducted 26 discussion groups with employees
and supervisors of DOD civilian intelligence personnel at the 13 DOD
sites we visited. Our design allowed us to identify themes, if any, in
perceptions held by employees and supervisors. Discussion groups were
conducted between April 2009 and May 2009.
Methodology of Our Discussion Groups:
A discussion guide was developed to facilitate the discussion group
moderator in leading the discussions. The guide helped the moderator
address several topics related to employees' and supervisors'
perceptions of the performance management system, including their
overall perception of DCIPS and the rating process, the training they
received on DCIPS, the communication they have with their supervisor,
positive aspects of DCIPS, and any changes they would make to DCIPS,
among others. Each discussion group began with the moderator greeting
the participants, describing the purpose of the study, and explaining
the procedures for the discussion group. Participants were assured that
all of their comments would be discussed in the aggregate or as part of
larger themes that emerged. The moderator asked participants open-ended
questions related to DCIPS. All discussion groups were moderated by a
GAO analyst, while at least one other GAO analyst observed the
discussion group and took notes. After each discussion group, the
moderator and note taker reviewed the notes from the session to ensure
that the nature of the comments was captured accurately.
Content Analysis:
We performed content analysis of our discussion group sessions in order
to identify the themes that emerged during the sessions and to
summarize participant perceptions of DCIPS. Specifically, at the
conclusion of all our discussion group sessions, we reviewed responses
from each of the discussion groups and created a list of themes. We
then reviewed the comments from each of the 26 discussion groups and
assigned comments to the appropriate themes, which were agreed upon by
three analysts. The responses were used in our evaluation and
discussion of how civilian employees perceive DCIPS.
Limitations:
Discussion groups are not designed to (1) demonstrate the extent of a
problem or to generalize the results to a larger population, (2)
develop a consensus to arrive at an agreed-upon plan or make decisions
about what actions to take, or (3) provide statistically representative
samples or reliable quantitative estimates. Instead, discussion groups
are intended to provide in-depth information about participants'
reasons for holding certain attitudes about specific topics and to
offer insights into the range of concerns about and support for an
issue. Specifically, the projectability of the information obtained
during our discussion groups is limited for three reasons. First, the
information gathered during our discussion groups on DCIPS represents
the responses of only the employees and supervisors present in our 26
discussion groups. The experiences of other employees and supervisors
under DCIPS who did not participate in our discussion groups may have
varied. Second, while the composition of our discussion groups was
designed to ensure a random sample of employees and supervisors under
DCIPS, our sampling did not take into account any other demographic or
job-specific information. Third, our discussion group samples are not
generalizable to all component locations.
Use of a Questionnaire to Supplement Discussion Group Findings:
We administered a questionnaire to discussion group participants during
the discussion group session to obtain further information on their
backgrounds and perceptions of DCIPS. The questionnaire was
administered and received from 238 participants of our discussion
groups. The purpose of our questionnaire was to (1) collect demographic
data from participants for the purpose of reporting with whom we spoke
(see table 1), and (2) collect information from participants that could
not easily be obtained through discussion, e.g., information
participants may have been uncomfortable sharing in a group setting.
Specifically, the questionnaire included questions designed to obtain
employees' perceptions of DCIPS as compared with their previous
personnel system, the accuracy with which they felt their ratings would
reflect their performance, and management's methods for conveying
individual and group rating information. Since the questionnaire was
used to collect supplemental information and was administered solely to
the participants of our discussion groups, the results represent the
opinions of only those employees who participated in our discussion
groups. Therefore, the results of our questionnaire cannot be
generalized across the population of DOD civilian intelligence
personnel.
Table 1: Composition of Discussion Groups by Demographic Category per
Component.
Agency: Defense Intelligence Agency;
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 4;
Supervisors: 7;
Male: 7;
Female: 4;
No answer (sex): [Empty];
American Indian/Alaskan Native: [Empty];
Asian: [Empty];
Black/African-American: 2;
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: [Empty];
White: 8;
Indicated More than One Race: 1;
Other: [Empty];
No Answer (Race): [Empty].
Agency: Defense Intelligence Agency; field location;
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 12;
Supervisors: 12;
Male: 15;
Female: 8;
No answer (sex): 1;
American Indian/Alaskan Native: [Empty];
Asian: [Empty];
Black/African-American: 3;
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: [Empty];
White: 20;
Indicated More than One Race: [Empty];
Other: [Empty];
No Answer (Race): 1.
Agency: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency;
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 11;
Supervisors: 15;
Male: 18;
Female: 8;
No answer (sex): [Empty];
American Indian/Alaskan Native: [Empty];
Asian: 1;
Black/African-American: 6;
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: [Empty];
White: 18;
Indicated More than One Race: 1;
Other: [Empty];
No Answer (Race): [Empty].
Agency: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; field location;
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 11;
Supervisors: 10;
Male: 12;
Female: 9;
No answer (sex): [Empty];
American Indian/Alaskan Native: [Empty];
Asian: [Empty];
Black/African-American: 1;
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: [Empty];
White: 20;
Indicated More than One Race: [Empty];
Other: [Empty];
No Answer (Race): [Empty].
Agency: National Security Agency;
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 6;
Supervisors: 9;
Male: 5;
Female: 10;
No answer (sex): [Empty];
American Indian/Alaskan Native: [Empty];
Asian: [Empty];
Black/African-American: 1;
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: [Empty];
White: 13;
Indicated More than One Race: 1;
Other: [Empty];
No Answer (Race): [Empty].
Agency: National Security Agency; field location;
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 5;
Supervisors: 6;
Male: 6;
Female: 5;
No answer (sex): [Empty];
American Indian/Alaskan Native: ;
Asian: [Empty];
Black/African-American: 1;
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: 1;
White: 7;
Indicated More than One Race: 1;
Other: [Empty];
No Answer (Race): 1.
Agency: National Reconnaissance Office;
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 10;
Supervisors: 7;
Male: 10;
Female: 7;
No answer (sex): [Empty];
American Indian/Alaskan Native: [Empty];
Asian: [Empty];
Black/African-American: 1;
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: [Empty];
White: 15;
Indicated More than One Race: 1;
Other: [Empty];
No Answer (Race): [Empty].
Agency: National Reconnaissance Office; field location;
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 5;
Supervisors: 7;
Male: 9;
Female: 3;
No answer (sex): [Empty];
American Indian/Alaskan Native: [Empty];
Asian: [Empty];
Black/African-American: [Empty];
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: 1;
White: 10;
Indicated More than One Race: 1;
Other: [Empty];
No Answer (Race): [Empty].
Agency: Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence;
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 9;
Supervisors: 4;
Male: 6;
Female: 7;
No answer (sex): [Empty];
American Indian/Alaskan Native: [Empty];
Asian: 1;
Black/African-American: 2;
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: [Empty];
White: 10;
Indicated More than One Race: [Empty];
Other: [Empty];
No Answer (Race): [Empty].
Agency: Navy;
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 16;
Supervisors: 14;
Male: 19;
Female: 11;
No answer (sex): [Empty];
American Indian/Alaskan Native: [Empty];
Asian: 1;
Black/African-American: 4;
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: [Empty];
White: 23;
Indicated More than One Race: 1;
Other: 1;
No Answer (Race): [Empty].
Agency: Office of Naval Intelligence; (field location);
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 7;
Supervisors: 10;
Male: 13;
Female: 4;
No answer (sex): [Empty];
American Indian/Alaskan Native: [Empty];
Asian: [Empty];
Black/African-American: 3;
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: [Empty];
White: 13;
Indicated More than One Race: 1;
Other: [Empty];
No Answer (Race): [Empty].
Agency: Marine Corps;
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 10;
Supervisors: 10;
Male: 14;
Female: 6;
No answer (sex): [Empty];
American Indian/Alaskan Native: [Empty];
Asian: [Empty];
Black/African-American: [Empty];
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: [Empty];
White: 16;
Indicated More than One Race: 1;
Other: [Empty];
No Answer (Race): 2.
Agency: Marine Corps Intelligence Activity; (field location);
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 12;
Supervisors: 9;
Male: 14;
Female: 7;
No answer (sex): [Empty];
American Indian/Alaskan Native: [Empty];
Asian: [Empty];
Black/African-American: [Empty];
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: [Empty];
Hispanic/Latino: [Empty];
White: 19;
Indicated More than One Race: [Empty];
Other: [Empty];
No Answer (Race): 2.
Agency: Total;
Non-Supervisory: Employees: 118;
Supervisors: 120;
Male: 148;
Female: 89;
No answer (sex): 1;
American Indian/Alaskan Native: 0;
Asian: 3;
Black/African-American: 24;
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander: 0;
Hispanic/Latino: 2;
White: 192;
Indicated More than One Race: 9;
Other: 1;
No Answer (Race): 6.
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: Participants voluntarily self-reported demographic information in
our questionnaire; some participants did not provide responses for all
demographic questions. In addition, participants could select more than
one response category for the ethnic and racial questions.
[End of table]
We conducted our review from November 2008 to November 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System Compared to
the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency System:
The Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) is largely
based on the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's Total Pay
Compensation pay-for-performance system. The National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency's system was in existence for about 10 years (1999-
2009). Table 2 provides a comparison of the two systems.
Table 2: DCIPS and Total Pay Compensation Comparison.
Comparison: Department of Defense; DCIPS; with
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Total Pay Compensation.
Authorities;
Department of Defense; DCIPS: Pub. L. No. 104-201 §§1631-1632 (1996),
as amended by Pub. L. No. 106-398, § 1141 (2000) (codified at 10 U.S.C.
§§1601-1614);
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Total Pay Compensation: Same.
Performance Management: Rating Cycle;
Department of Defense; DCIPS: Fiscal Year;
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Total Pay Compensation: Same.
Performance Management: Rating Elements (What);
Department of Defense; DCIPS: Generally Three to Six Performance
Objectives [A];
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Total Pay Compensation: N/A -
no specific objectives designed.
Performance Management: (How);
Department of Defense; DCIPS: Six Performance Elements [B];
* Accountability For Results;
* Communication;
* Critical Thinking;
* Engagement and Collaboration;
* Personal Leadership and Integrity;
* Technical Expertise;
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Total Pay Compensation: 3-10
Critical Elements recommended (similar). Examples include:
* Accountability
* Leading People
* Interpersonal Relationship Development and,
* Networking.
Performance Management: Rating Scale;
Department of Defense; DCIPS: Assigns 1-5 for each objective and each
element:
5 = Outstanding;
4 = Excellent;
3 = Successful;
2 = Minimally Successful;
1 = Unacceptable;
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Total Pay Compensation: 500
point scale with weighting applied to five rating levels:
5 = Superior;
4 = Excellent;
3 = Successful;
2 = Marginal;
1 = Unsatisfactory.
Performance Management: Employee Rating;
Department of Defense; DCIPS: Established by Rater and approved by
Reviewer(s)[C];
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Total Pay Compensation: Same.
Occupational Structure;
Department of Defense; DCIPS: Component-specific job titles (with cross-
walk to OPM job titles/categories) aligned to common work
categories/levels;
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Total Pay Compensation: Work
roles and occupations crosswalk to OPM job titles/categories.
Pay Structure;
Department of Defense; DCIPS: One common pay band structure for all
occupations aligned to common work categories/levels[ D];
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Total Pay Compensation: One
common pay band structure for all occupations.
Pay Administration: Pay Pool Process;
Department of Defense; DCIPS: Annual consideration for base pay and
bonuses;
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Total Pay Compensation: Same.
Pay Administration: Payout Decisions;
Department of Defense; DCIPS: Employee payout in early January;
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Total Pay Compensation: Same.
Department of Defense; DCIPS: Pay Pool Performance Review Authority
(PRA): Final Ratings will be inserted into Compensation Work Bench--a
software tool which utilizes an algorithm to determine salary increases
and bonus awards.[E] Any changes to pay increases based on the
algorithm, per DCIPS guidance, must be documented, justified, and
approved by the PRA (see below)[F];
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; Total Pay Compensation: Pay
Pool Performance Review Authority (PRA): Final ratings are inserted
into a Total Performance Compensation spreadsheet--software tool which
utilizes an algorithm to determine salary increases and bonuses. Any
changes to salary increases and bonuses, per guidance, must be
documented, justified, and approved by boards, office level directors,
and Agency review authority.
Pay Pool Performance Review Authority (PRA);
Comparison: A Pay Pool PRA oversees one or more pay pools, and conducts
a summary review of all salary decisions to assess conformance to
policy guidance and equity across pay pools. The Pay Pool PRA approves
the final pay pool decisions;
Comparison: PRA function is incorporated into higher level.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Employees in consultation with their supervisors, design three to
six objectives that link their job to the agency mission as noted in
Figure 5. These objectives are to be specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant, and time limited (SMART).
[B] Supervisors will be evaluated on Accountability for Results,
Communication, Critical Thinking, Engagement and Collaboration,
Leadership, and Management Proficiency.
[C] A Performance Review Authority reviews the ratings from multiple
reviewing officials. Under DCIPS, this Performance Management
Performance Review Authority is separate from the Pay Pool Performance
Review Authority.
[D] DCIPS work levels include: Entry/Developmental, Full Performance,
Senior, and Expert. Except for Entry/Developmental, these other work
levels include positions that may be defined as supervisors/managers.
[E] Per ODNI, NICCP uses a standard mathematical formula that applies,
among other things, the following factors: an individual employee's
performance rating; the overall performance ratings distribution in the
pay pool; the employee's current base salary; the total payroll for all
employee in the pay pool; and the overall pay pool budget for
performance pay increases.
[F] Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25-V2012, DOD Civilian
Personnel Management System: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System (DCIPS) Performance-Based Compensation (September 15, 2009).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Training Curriculum:
The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence has designed several
training courses as part of a curriculum for the Defense Civilian
Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS). This curriculum covers various
aspects of DCIPS. Table 3 illustrates the range of training courses
provided to Intelligence Community employees.
Table 3: Selected DCIPS Training Curriculum:
Training Category: Transition to DCIPS;
Course: Communication Matters: Succeeding Under DCIPS;
Audience: Managers/Supervisors and Employees;
Duration: 1.5 hour;
Delivery Method: Web-based;
Summary: This is a self-paced, interactive, Web-based course designed
to provide an overview of DCIPS and offer ways for employees, managers,
and supervisors to prepare for the transition.
Training Category: Overview;
Course: DCIPS 101;
Audience: Employees;
Duration: 1.5 hour;
Delivery Method: Web-based;
Summary: This is a self-paced, Web-based course about core DCIPS
elements. This course serves as a recommended prerequisite for the
classroom sessions.
Training Category: Overview;
Course: Core Elements of DCIPS;
Audience: Managers/Supervisors and Employees;
Duration: ˝ day;
Delivery Method: Classroom;
Summary: Participants will review how core elements of human resource
management are changing with the policies associated with DCIPS.
Training Category: Overview;
Course: HR Elements for HR Practitioners;
Audience: Human Resource Practitioners;
Duration: 3 days;
Delivery Method: Classroom;
Summary: Participants will review the detailed guidance that HR
Practitioners need to operate under the new aspects of DCIPS.
Training Category: Performance Management;
Course: Understanding Performance Management;
Audience: Employees;
Duration: 1 day;
Delivery Method: Classroom;
Summary: Participants will learn about how to work in a performance-
based organization;
how to develop performance based objectives;
and how their performance will be rated under DCIPS.
Training Category: Performance Management;
Course: Managing Performance;
Audience: Managers/Supervisors;
Duration: 2 days;
Delivery Method: Classroom;
Summary: Participants will learn about how performance management works
under DCIPS, including how to plan and drive performance throughout the
year, write accomplishments, rate performance, represent employees,
etc.
Training Category: Performance Management;
Course: Driving Performance Through Dialogue;
Audience: Managers/Supervisors and Employees;
Duration: 5 hours;
Delivery Method: Classroom;
Summary: Participants will learn how to prepare for and engage in
performance conversations required under DCIPS' performance management
process. This course can be taught to separate groups of
manager/supervisors or employees as a mixed audience.
Training Category: Performance Objectives;
Course: SMART Performance Objectives;
Audience: Managers/Supervisors and Employees;
Duration: 2.5 hours;
Delivery Method: Classroom;
Summary: Participants will learn more about how to write SMART
Objectives. This course can be taught to separate groups of
manager/supervisors or employees as a mixed audience.
Training Category: Performance Objectives;
Course: DCIPS iSuccess;
Audience: All employees;
Duration: 1.5 hours;
Delivery Method: Web-based;
Summary: Self-paced course that guides employees through the writing
process using a step-by-step approach.
Training Category: Pay Pool;
Course: DCIPS Pay Pools, Performance, and You;
Audience: All employees;
Duration: 1.5 hours;
Delivery Method: Web-based;
Summary: Self-paced, interactive, Web-based course that explains how
performance management and pay pool process are designed to ensure that
employees are appropriately recognized and rewarded for their
contributions to achieving organizational goals.
Training Category: Pay Pool;
Course: DCIPS Pay Pools Advisor Guide;
Audience: Pay Pool Advisors;
Duration: N/A;
Delivery Method: Print;
Summary: Working guide for pay pool advisors to use during mock and
real pay pools. Topics include key players and their responsibilities,
getting started, what to look out for, and keeping the pay pool on
track.
Training Category: Pay Pool;
Course: Preparing Your Organization for Pay Pools;
Audience: Rating Officials and Reviewing Officials;
Duration: ˝ day;
Delivery Method: Classroom;
Summary: Participants will review the pay pool process, including how
to achieve appropriate and fair performance-based ratings, review
ratings for consistency across the pay pool and organization, and
communicate salary increase and bonus information to employees.
Training Category: Pay Pool;
Course: Pay Pools in Action;
Audience: Pay Pool Managers, Panel Members, Pay Pool Performance Review
Authorities (PRAs), and Pay Pool Advisors;
Duration: 1 day;
Delivery Method: Classroom;
Summary: Participants will have an opportunity to practice conducting
pay pool decisions about performance-based salary increases and bonuses
and addresses steps that can be take to ensure fairness and consistency
during the payout process.
Training Category: Compensation;
Course: DCIPS Compensation Fundamentals;
Audience: Human capital practitioners, budget/financial
specialists/analysts, compensation specialists/analysts, and other
employees/managers who are involved in compensation issues on a regular
basis;
Duration: 1 day;
Delivery Method: Classroom;
Summary: Participants will review the pay elements under DCIPS and
flexibilities that can be used to ensure the long-term effectiveness of
DCIPS; discuss pay-setting rules based on where the new hire is coming
from; and review the six factors to consider when setting pay.
Source: DOD.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System Comparison
with the National Security Personnel System:
In addition to the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System
(DCIPS), DOD has also been implementing a pay-for-performance system
for civilian employees who were not in the Intelligence Community--the
National Security Personnel System. Table 4 provides a comparison of
the two systems.
Table 4: DCIPS and the National Security Personnel System Comparison:
DCIPS and the National Security Personnel System: A Comparison:
Authorities;
DCIPS: Pub. L. No. 104-201 §§1631-1632 (1996), as amended by Pub. L.
No. 106-398, § 1141 (2000) (codified at 10 U.S.C. §§1601-1614);
National Security Personnel System: Pub. L. No. 108-136, § 1101 (2003),
as amended by Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 1106 (2008) (codified at 5 U.S.C.
§§ 9901-9904).
Performance Management: Rating Cycle;
DCIPS: Fiscal Year;
National Security Personnel System: Same.
Performance Management: Rating Elements (What);
DCIPS: Generally Three to Six Performance Objectives [A];
National Security Personnel System: Generally Three to Five Performance
Objectives.
Performance Management: (How);
DCIPS: Six Performance Elements [B]:
* Accountability for Results];
* Communication;
* Critical Thinking;
* Engagement and Collaboration;
* Personal Leadership and Integrity;
* Technical Expertise;
National Security Personnel System: Seven Contributing Factors:
* Communication;
* Cooperation and Teamwork;
* Critical Thinking;
* Customer Focus;
* Leadership;
* Resource Management;
* Technical Proficiency.
Performance Management: Rating Scale;
DCIPS: Assigns 1-5 for each objective and each element:
5 = Outstanding;
4 = Excellent;
3 = Successful;
2 = Minimally Successful;
1 = Unacceptable;
National Security Personnel System: Assigns 1-5 for each objective, but
+/-for contributing factors:
5 = Role Model;
4 = Exceeds Expectations;
3 = Valued Performer;
2 = Fair;
1 = Unacceptable.
Performance Management: Employee Rating;
DCIPS: Established by Rater and approved by Reviewer(s) before the pay
pool process[C];
National Security Personnel System: Established by the Pay Pool. Pay
Pools are responsible for reviewing ratings of record, share
allocations, and payout distribution.
Occupational Structure;
DCIPS: Component-specific job titles (with cross-walk to OPM job
titles/categories) aligned to common work categories/levels;
National Security Personnel System: Job titles aligned to four
occupationally-based career groups.
Pay Structure;
DCIPS: One common pay band structure for all occupations aligned to
common work categories/levels [D];
National Security Personnel System: 4 career groups [G] comprised of 15
pay schedules and 44 pay bands.
Pay Administration: Payout Decisions;
DCIPS: Employee payout in early January; Final Ratings will be inserted
into Compensation Work Bench--a software tool which utilizes an
algorithm to determine salary increases and bonus awards.[E] Any
changes to pay increases based on the algorithm must be documented,
justified, and approved by the PRA (see below)[F];
National Security Personnel System: Employee payout in early January;
Also uses a Compensation Work Bench, however employees are assigned a
number of shares based on their performance rating; the value of one
share is determined by the overall number of shares awarded.
Pay Administration: Pay Pool Performance Review Authority (PRA);
DCIPS: A Pay Pool PRA oversees one or more pay pools, and conducts a
summary review of all salary decisions to identify potential issues
with regard to merit, consistency, or unlawful discrimination among the
pay pools under its authority. The Pay Pool PRA approves the final pay
pool decisions;
National Security Personnel System: Provides oversight of several pay
pools, and addresses the consistency of performance management policies
within a component, major command, field activity, or other
organization as determined by the component.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Employees in consultation with their supervisors, design three to
six objectives that link their job to the agency mission as noted in
Figure 5. These objectives are to be specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant, and time limited (SMART).
[B] Supervisors will be evaluated on Accountability for Results,
Communication, Critical Thinking, Engagement and Collaboration,
Leadership, and Management Proficiency.
[C] A Performance Review Authority reviews the ratings from multiple
reviewing officials. Under DCIPS, this Performance Management
Performance Review Authority is separate from the Pay Pool Performance
Review Authority.
[D] DCIPS work levels include: Entry/Developmental, Full Performance,
Senior, and Expert. Except for Entry/Developmental, these other work
levels include positions that may be defined as supervisors/managers.
[E] Per ODNI, NICCP uses a standard mathematical formula that applies,
among other things, the following factors: an individual employee's
performance rating; the overall performance ratings distribution in the
pay pool; the individual employee's current base salary; the total
payroll for all employee in the pay pool; and the overall pay pool
budget for performance pay increases.
[F] Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25-V2012, DOD Civilian
Personnel Management System: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System (DCIPS) Performance-Based Compensation (September 15, 2009).
[G] The NSPS career groups include: Standard Career Group, Medical
Career Group, Scientific and Engineering Career Group, and
Investigative and Protective Services Career Group.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Intelligence:
5000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-15000:
December 9, 2009:
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell:
This is the Department of Defense response to GAO draft report, "DOD
Civilian Personnel: Intelligence Personnel System Incorporates
Safeguards, but Opportunities Exist for Improvement" dated November 12,
2009 (GAO Code 351297). We thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment.
As noted throughout the draft report, the common Defense Civilian
Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) is in its infancy. While
conversions to DCIPS Performance Management and DCIPS Occupational
Bands largely occurred during the same timeframe as the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) review, efforts and planning,
to include design, development, training and communication for the
common DCIPS architecture, began in earnest in 2005. These efforts
included representatives from each Defense intelligence component, in
addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the
Department of Defense, and focused on creating a common DCIPS framework
within our Defense intelligence components that is fair and equitable,
consistent, and transparent.
There are inherent challenges in implementing a change of this
magnitude, and we appreciate the report taking notice of our
communication and training strategies and efforts, while noting that
employee perceptions are a challenge. We see the recommendations in the
GAO draft report as logical next steps in the evolution of DCIPS and
note that action has already been taken towards all four
recommendations.
We recognize the challenges and uncertainty we face as we work within
the restrictions of the NDAA FY 2010 language that suspended certain
pay authorities through December 31, 2010. We continue to move forward
with DCIPS, within the language of the law, with focus on a robust and
rigorous evaluation program and support to the independent review of
DCIPS required by the NDAA FY2010. Thank you for your review and
recommendations.
Signed by:
Kristi M. Waschull:
Director, Human Capital Management Office:
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence):
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report Dated November 12, 2009:
GAO-10-134 (GAO code 351297):
"DOD Civilian Personnel: Intelligence Personnel System Incorporates
Safeguards, But Opportunities Exist For Improvement"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to develop
guidance to institutionalize a process to involve employees continually
in future design and implementation changes to the Defense Civilian
Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS).
DOD Response: The Department concurs on this recommendation and is
developing guidance to more formally institutionalize a process that
involves employees continually in the design, implementation and
evaluation of the evolving DCIPS. We agree that continuous employee
feedback and involvement are important to gaining acceptance of DCIPS.
As you are aware, the Intelligence Community (IC) does not have
employee bargaining units. Consequently, we believe it to be all the
more important that we ensure a robust and consistent process for
employee engagement across the Defense intelligence enterprise.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to issue
guidance on its analysis of finalized ratings that explains how the
demographic analysis of ratings is to be conducted, to help ensure
equity, fairness, and non-discrimination in ratings.
DOD Response: The Department concurs on this recommendation and has
issued initial guidance on the requirement for analysis of finalized
ratings that outlines timing and content of the demographic analysis of
ratings. We are finalizing specific guidance for individual components
that takes into account requirements of the FY 2010 National Defense
Authorization Act with regard to DCIPS.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to finalize and
execute its evaluation plan with metrics to assess the system,
including the implementation of internal safeguards, to help ensure the
department evaluates the impact of DCIPS.
DOD Response: The Department concurs on this recommendation and is in
the process of finalizing the DCIPS evaluation plan with metrics to
assess the system, including the implementation of internal safeguards.
The Department recognizes the importance of evaluating the impact of
DCIPS.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to expeditiously
implement mechanisms-including the four surveys-that comprehensively
and accurately identify and measure employee perceptions; and ensure
those mechanisms include questions regarding certain safeguards, such
as the internal grievance process and employee's acceptance of DCIPS.
DOD Response: The Department concurs with this recommendation. The
Department is finalizing plans for mechanisms that comprehensively and
accurately identify and measure employee perceptions. The mechanisms
will include questions regarding certain safeguards, such as the
internal grievance process and employee's acceptance of DCIPS as
recommended.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence:
Unclassified:
Office Of The Director Of National Intelligence:
Washington, DC 20511:
December 8, 2009:
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell:
This responds to the November 12, 2009 request for review of a draft
report entitled "DOD Civilian Personnel: Intelligence Personnel System
Incorporates Safeguards, but Opportunities Exist for Improvement," GAO-
10-134.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report given the
central role the ODNI played in recent development of Defense Civilian
Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) and the National Intelligence
Civilian Compensation Program (NICCP), and the importance of those
companion efforts to the Intelligence Community's overall
transformation. Please find attached our suggested edits to the body of
the report and our official comments for inclusion in the appendices.
Overall, we believe the tenor of the report is fair and balanced,
though the Highlights are overly negative and should be modified to
more accurately reflect the tone and body of the report. In addition,
we believe the report should also emphasize that DCIPS and the NICCP
are intended to meet the goals of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004. Thus, the ODNI and DoD are pursuing these
efforts as a means of integrating and unifying the Community under a
single, common human capital policy framework, where the IC's agencies
and elements have historically operated under as many as six separate
statutory personnel systems. GAO has noted that common human capital
policies can act as a powerful tool in support of organizational
transformation, and no where is this more critical than in the IC. We
also believe the report should emphasize that DCIPS was authorized by
statute in 1997 and is separate and distinct from the National Security
Personnel System; the latter was authorized several years later and has
taken a much different path with respect to its design and
implementation.
In 2001 GAO identified human capital as a "High Risk Area" across the
executive branch, and it has been a champion of civil service reform
ever since. We applaud your efforts in that regard and believe that
NICCP/DCIPS is consistent with the spirit and intent of GAO's views. We
also appreciate your comprehensive review and thoughtful
recommendations; we take them seriously and will work with DoD to
implement them insofar as possible.
Specific comments are provided in the Enclosure.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate
to contact me at (703) 275-2473.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Kathleen Turner:
Director of Legislative Affairs:
Enclosure:
[End of letter]
Unclassified:
Enclosure:
Comments of the Intelligence Community Chief Human Capital Officer
on the GAO DRAFT Report:
DOD Civilian Personnel: Intelligence Personnel System Incorporates
Safeguards, but Opportunities Exist for Improvement:
ODNI appreciates the opportunity to comment on this GAO report. While
the overall tenor of the report is fair and balanced, we do feel
obligated to make a couple of important points. The design of DCIPS
complies with all IC Directives, which were developed after an
extensive period of collaboration among IC agencies and elements. The
policy design represents a serious consideration of lessons learned
from best practices found in existing successful alternative pay
systems (with particular attention paid to NGA). Furthermore, the IC
did gather input (in 2006) from hundreds of IC employees during the
policy development and program design phases. It has always been our
intention to continue soliciting additional employee suggestions for
process improvement at the conclusion of each annual performance and
pay cycle.
IC Directive 650 clearly lays out ten guiding principles which very
closely align to the ten criteria chosen by GAO for their review. We
agree that employees must be informed and educated on the details of
the IC-wide program, as well as their department or agency's
compensation and performance management systems. They are to be given
the opportunity to provide feedback on the content of those systems and
their implementation, and their feedback must be considered when those
systems are developed, implemented, and administered. During the design
and implementation phases of our change initiative, we made several
changes based on employee feedback. For example, we decided to pass
through to all employees the full general pay increase (unadjusted by
performance results). We also modified our implementation schedules
whenever the agencies or elements didn't feel their workforce was
properly prepared to convert to DCIPS.
Change is often difficult for employees to accept, and there will
always be some who are uncomfortable with the rate of change. But we
believe this is more a reflection of where DCIPS is in its
implementation schedule then any material defect in the design. The
feedback that will be the most valuable will only come after we have
been allowed to run all the way through a pay-for-performance cycle so
we can evaluate the results.
Regarding safeguards, our ICDs clearly affirm the need for employee
protections. We must provide rigorous oversight of the administration
of IC compensation and performance management systems, including review
mechanisms to guard against unlawful discrimination and partisan
pressures, and other non-merit factors such as cronyism and favoritism.
We must also ensure transparency of merit-based pay and performance
decisions for employees. We acknowledge that DCIPS can and must be
improved, and agree to work with USD(I) in an expeditious manner to
address the areas you have identified. However, we strongly believe
that DCIPS has been established on a strong foundation of policy
directives and incorporates many best practices in its processes. We
think DCIPS is off to a very solid start and will only get better.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604, or farrellb@gao.gov.
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Marion Gatling (Assistant
Director), Beth Bowditch, Margaret Braley, Ryan D'Amore, Nicole Harms,
Cynthia Heckman, Mae Jones, James P. Krustapentus, Lonnie McAllister,
II, Spencer Tacktill, Carolyn Taylor, John Van Shaik, José Watkins, and
Greg Wilmoth made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Human Capital: Monitoring of Safeguards and Addressing Employee
Perceptions Are Key to Implementing a Civilian Performance Management
System in DOD. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-102].
Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2009.
Human Capital: Continued Monitoring of Internal Safeguards and an
Action Plan to Address Employee Concerns Could Improve Implementation
of the National Security Personnel System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-840]. Washington, D.C.: June 25,
2009.
Human Capital: Improved Implementation of Safeguards and an Action Plan
to Address Employee Concerns Could Increase Employee Acceptance of the
National Security Personnel System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-464T]. Washington, D.C.: April 1,
2009.
Questions for the Record Related to the Implementation of the
Department of Defense's National Security Personnel System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-669R]. Washington, D.C.: May 18,
2009.
High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271]. Washington, D.C.: January
2009.
Human Capital: DOD Needs to Improve Implementation of and Address
Employee Concerns about Its National Security Personnel System.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-773]. Washington, D.C.:
September 10, 2008.
Human Capital: DOD Needs Better Internal Controls and Visibility over
Costs for Implementing Its National Security Personnel System.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-851]. Washington, D.C.:
July 16, 2007.
Office of Personnel Management: Key Lessons Learned to Date for
Strengthening Capacity to Lead and Implement Human Capital Reforms.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-90]. Washington, D.C.:
January 19, 2007.
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Related to the Department of
Defense's National Security Personnel System (NSPS). [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-582R]. Washington, D.C.: March 24,
2006.
Human Capital: Observations on Final Regulations for DOD's National
Security Personnel System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-227T]. Washington, D.C.: November
17, 2005.
Human Capital: Designing and Managing Market-Based and More Performance-
Oriented Pay Systems. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-1048T]. Washington, D.C.: September
27, 2005.
Human Capital: DOD's National Security Personnel System Faces
Implementation Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-730]. Washington, D.C.: July 14,
2005.
Questions for the Record Related to the Department of Defense's
National Security Personnel System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-771R]. Washington, D.C.: June 14,
2005.
Questions for the Record Regarding the Department of Defense's National
Security Personnel System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-770R]. Washington, D.C.: May 31,
2005.
Post-Hearing Questions Related to the Department of Defense's National
Security Personnel System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-641R]. Washington, D.C.: April 29,
2005.
Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on Proposed Regulations for
DOD's National Security Personnel System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-559T]. Washington, D.C.: April 14,
2005.
Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on Proposed Department of
Defense National Security Personnel System Regulations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-517T]. Washington, D.C.: April 12,
2005.
Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on Proposed DOD National
Security Personnel System Regulations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-432T]. Washington, D.C.: March 15,
2005.
Posthearing Questions Related to Strategic Human Capital Management.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-779R]. Washington, D.C.:
May 22, 2003.
Human Capital: DOD's Civilian Personnel Strategic Management and the
Proposed National Security Personnel System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-493T]. Washington, D.C.: May 12,
2003.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington, D.C.: January
2009); High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-310] (Washington, D.C.: January
2007); High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-207] (Washington, D.C.: January
2005); and High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-119] (Washington, D.C.: January
2003).
[2] GAO, 21ST Century Challenges: Transforming Government to Meet
Current and Emerging Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-830T] (Washington, D.C.: July 2005);
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271].
[3] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271].
[4] Office of the Director for National Intelligence, United States
Intelligence Community Report on IC Pay Modernization: Response to
Section 308 of H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (April 22, 2008).
[5] The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United
States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction: Report to the President
of the United State (March 31, 2005). This Commission was directed to
assess whether the Intelligence Community was sufficiently authorized,
organized, equipped, trained, and resourced to identify and warn the
U.S. government of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
[6] The Director of National Intelligence is the head of the
Intelligence Community and is responsible for integrating foreign,
military, and domestic intelligence in defense of U.S. interests at
home and abroad. The intelligence community comprises the Central
Intelligence Agency and the intelligence components of the Departments
of Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, State, Treasury, and
intelligence offices within the U.S. Coast Guard, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
[7] The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United
States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, "A Report to the
President of the United States" (March 31, 2005).
[8] According to these officials, this is a key objective of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
[9] The nine DOD intelligence components include the Defense
Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the
National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and the
intelligence elements of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.
Although the Defense Security Service does not employee intelligence
personnel, it will also be covered by DCIPS because that organization
reports directly to the USD(I).
[10] The authority for DCIPS is codified in 10 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1614.
Further, 10 U.S.C. § 1601 was amended in 2000 to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to include in DCIPS civilian personnel who perform
intelligence functions, but who are not employees of a DOD intelligence
component. Pub. L. No. 106-398, § 1141 (2000).
[11] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub.
L. No. 111-84 (2009).
[12] The safeguards identified for this report are, however, derived
from our extensive work on human capital management. Examples of this
work include: GAO, Human Capital: DOD Needs to Improve Implementation
of and Address Employee Concerns about Its National Security Personnel
System, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-773]
(Washington, D.C.: September 2008); Post-Hearing Questions for the
Record Related to the Department of Defense's National Security
Personnel System (NSPS), [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-582R] (Washington, D.C.: September
2008); Human Capital: Designing and Managing Market-Based and More
Performance-Oriented Pay Systems, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-1048T] (Washington, D.C.: September
2005); and Posthearing Questions Related to Strategic Human Capital
Management, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-779R]
(Washington, D.C.: May 2003). ODNI's Intelligence Community Directive
650, National Intelligence Civilian Compensation Program: Guiding
Principles and Framework (Effective April 28, 2008), also articulates a
number of safeguards to be incorporated into the National Intelligence
Civilian Compensation Program, some of which are similar to those we
have previously reported on in our human capital work.
[13] This safeguard also accounts for an internal grievance process to
address employee complaints, such as the reconsideration of ratings.
[14] We conducted discussion groups with seven of the nine defense
intelligence components. Specifically, our sample included civilian
intelligence personnel from the intelligence elements of the Navy,
Marine Corps, and civilian intelligence personnel from the Defense
Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National
Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, and the office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. We excluded from our
sample discussion groups civilian intelligence personnel from the
intelligence elements within the Army and Air Force, and personnel from
the Defense Security Service because these organizations, at the time
of our study, had plans to begin implementing in July 2009, August 2009
and October 2009, and thus, had not yet implemented DCIPS to the extent
that the other seven defense intelligence components had.
[15] The specific locations we visited are omitted from this report
since that information is classified. Further, at some locations, we
were able to conduct multiple discussion groups with defense
intelligence components.
[16] GAO, Post-Hearing Questions Related to the Department of Defense's
National Security Personnel System, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-644] (Washington, D.C.: April 2005).
[17] This survey was for official use only.
[18] Section 2301 of title 5 of the U.S. Code sets out the merit
principles. One principle states that employees and applicants for
employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects
of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race,
color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or
handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and
constitutional rights.
[19] Office of Personnel Management, Alternative Personnel Systems
Objectives-Based Assessment Framework Handbook, (Washington, D.C.:
October 2008).
[20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-773].
[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-730].
[22] GAO, Office of Personnel Management: Key Lessons Learned to Date
for Strengthening Capacity to Lead and Implement Human Capital Reforms,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-90] (Washington, D.C.:
January 2007).
[23] Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25-V2011, DOD Civilian
Personnel Management System: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System (DCIPS) Performance Management (August 14, 2009) contains
information about the internal grievance process employees can use to
challenge ratings. That process addresses the safeguard pertaining to
ensuring the agency's performance management system results in
meaningful distinctions in individual employee performance.
[24] Pub.L. No. 104-201, §§ 1631-1632 (1996). These provisions, as
amended, are codified at 10 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1614.
[25] Intelligence Community Directive Number 650, National Intelligence
Civilian Compensation Program: Guiding Principles and Framework, April
28, 2008.
[26] According to USD(I) officials, while implementation of a common
DCIPS architecture began in 2008, efforts to design DCIPS began in
2005.
[27] Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25-V2011, DOD Civilian
Personnel Management System: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System (DCIPS) Performance Management (August 14, 2009) and Department
of Defense Instruction 1400.25-V2012, DOD Civilian Personnel Management
System: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS)
Performance-Based Compensation (September 15, 2009).
[28] The Pay Pool Performance Review Authority might also be the head
of the component.
[29] DCIPS uses an algorithm to determine employee performance-based
salary increases and bonuses. According to ODNI and USD(I), Pay Pools
are not allowed to deviate from the algorithm unless it is documented,
justified, and approved by a higher authority.
[30] According to ODNI officials, the great majority of U.S.
Intelligence Community employees occupy the top four General Schedule
grades (GS-12 to GS-15), which fit in the top three pay bands.
[31] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-773].
[32] Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25-V2011, DOD Civilian
Personnel Management System: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System(DCIPS) Performance Management System (August 14, 2009).
[33] Performance objectives relate individual job assignments or
position responsibilities and/or accomplishments to performance
elements and standards and the mission, goals, and objectives of the
DCIPS component.
[34] Performance targets may be quantitative or non-quantitative.
[35] Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25-V2012, DOD Personnel
Management System: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System
(DCIPS) Performance-Based Compensation (September 15, 2009).
[36] The Performance Appraisal Application documents performance
objectives, mid-point feedback, final feedback, and employee
performance ratings.
[37] As previously noted, six DCIPS components were expected to receive
their first payout under DCIPS in January 2010, while the remaining
four were expected to receive payouts in January 2011.
[38] In most cases, supervisors will be the rating official for
employees under their direct supervision.
[39] Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25-V2011, DOD Personnel
Management System: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System
(DCIPS) Performance Management (August 14, 2009).
[40] Enclosure 2 of the Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25-
V2011, DOD Civilian Personnel Management System: Defense Civilian
Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) Performance Management (August
14, 2009), sets out the reconsideration process by which employees who
disagree with their rating may challenge it. Specifically, DCIPS policy
states that the Performance Management Performance Review Authority
(PRA), will, at an employee's request, reconsider an individual's
rating.
[41] Employees may also receive a rating of "Not Rated" if there was
insufficient opportunity to complete an objective because it became
obsolete due to changing mission requirements or because of extenuating
circumstances.
[42] Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25-V2011, DOD Civilian
Personnel Management System: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System (DCIPS) Performance Management (August 14, 2009).
[43] Department of Defense Instruction 1400.25-V2012, DOD Personnel
Management System: Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System
(DCIPS) Performance-Based Compensation (September 15, 2009).
[44] GAO, Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Related to the
Department of Defense's National Security Personnel System (NSPS),
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-582R] (Washington, D.C.,
March 2006).
[45] Intelligence Community Directive Number 650: National Intelligence
Civilian Compensation Program, Guiding Principles and Framework.
[46] For more information regarding the National Security Personnel
System use of shares, see GAO-08-773. See appendix VI of this report
for a comparison of some of the features of DCIPS and the National
Security Personnel System.
[47] GAO, Post-Hearing Questions Related to the Department of Defense's
National Security Personnel System, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-641R] (Washington, D.C.: April
2005).
[48] GAO, Human Capital: DOD's National Security Personnel System Faces
Implementation Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-730] (Washington, D.C.: July 2005),
and Posthearing Questions Related to Proposed Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Human Capital Regulations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-570R] (Washington, D.C.: March
2004).
[49] Section 2301 of title 5 of the U.S. Code sets out the merit
principles. One principle states that employees and applicants for
employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects
of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race,
color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or
handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and
constitutional rights.
[50] Office of Personnel Management, Alternative Personnel Systems
Objectives-Based Assessment Framework Handbook (Washington, D.C.:
October 2008).
[51] Post decisional analysis of demographic information occurs after
ratings and payouts are final to determine if potential barriers to
fair and equitable ratings exist and form the basis on which an
organization would take corrective actions to address these barriers.
[52] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-773].
[53] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-730].
[54] The Intelligence Community Climate Survey collecting this
information is to study and report attitudes and perceptions of the
Intelligence Community workforce regarding their work environments,
with a focus on various management policies and practices that affect
them--not specifically perceptions about DCIPS.
[55] Office of Personnel Management, Working for America: Alternative
Personnel Systems in Practice and a Guide to the Future (Washington,
D.C.: October 2005).
[56] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-90].
[57] Human Capital: Monitoring of Safeguards and Addressing Employee
Perceptions Are Key to Implementing a Civilian Performance Management
System in DOD. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-102].
Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2009.
[58] The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Intelligence
Community Pay Modernization, United States Intelligence Community:
Building A Culture of Collaboration, Fact #1 (March 2009).
[59] ODNI, Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Report on Intelligence Community Pay
Modernization (Unclassified).
[60] 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b) (2009).
[61] This safeguard also accounts for an internal grievance process to
address employee complaints, such as the reconsideration of ratings.
[62] DOD organizations are located in the Washington, D.C.,
metropolitan area unless otherwise indicated.
[63] Discussion groups were conducted with employees and supervisors
from the Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy,
Marine Corps, and the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
