Human Capital
Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies' Hiring Processes Gao ID: GAO-03-450 May 30, 2003Improving the federal hiring process is critical, as the number of new hires is expected to increase substantially. Federal agencies are responsible for their hiring processes, but must generally comply with applicable Office of Personnel Management (OPM) rules and regulations. Congressional requesters asked GAO to identify federal hiring obstacles, provide examples of innovative hiring practices, and identify opportunities for improvement. To address these issues, GAO interviewed the human resources directors in 24 largest departments and agencies, analyzed the hiring practices of five federal executive branch agencies, and reviewed OPM's role in the hiring process.
There is widespread recognition that the current federal hiring process all too often does not meet the needs of agencies in achieving their missions, managers in filling positions with the right talent, and applicants for a timely, efficient, transparent, and merit-based process. Numerous studies over the past decade have noted problems with the federal hiring process. Nearly all of the federal human resource directors from the 24 largest federal agencies told us that it takes too long to hire quality employees. According to data compiled by OPM, the estimated time to fill a competitive service position was typically more than 3 months, with some human resources directors citing examples of hiring delays exceeding 6 months. The competitive hiring process is hampered by inefficient or ineffective practices, including defining a vacant job and pay that is bound by narrow federal classification standards, unclear job announcements, the quality of certain applicant assessment tools, time-consuming panels to evaluate applicants, and the "rule of three" that limits selecting managers choice of candidates. Equally important, agencies need to develop their hiring systems using a strategic and results-oriented approach. GAO studied five agencies that human capital experts identified as having taken steps to improve parts of the hiring process--the U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of the Army, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and Forest Service. Some of these practices might help agencies across government improve their hiring processes. OPM recognizes that the federal hiring process needs reform and has a major initiative to study the federal hiring process. OPM's efforts will be most effective to the extent to which they help transform agency hiring practices from process focused to mission-focused hiring tools that are more closely integrated into agencies strategic plans.
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-03-450, Human Capital: Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies' Hiring Processes
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-450
entitled 'Human Capital: Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies'
Hiring Processes' which was released on June 30, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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 Congressional Requesters:
May 2003:
HUMAN CAPITAL:
Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies' Hiring Processes:
GAO-03-450:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-450, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Improving the federal hiring process is critical, as the number of
new hires is expected to increase substantially. Federal agencies are
responsible for their hiring processes, but must generally comply with
applicable Office of Personnel Management (OPM) rules and regulations.
Congressional requesters asked GAO to identify federal hiring
obstacles, provide examples of innovative hiring practices, and
identify opportunities for improvement. To address these issues, GAO
interviewed the human resources directors in 24 largest departments
and agencies, analyzed the hiring practices of five federal executive
branch agencies, and reviewed OPM‘s role in the hiring process.
What GAO Found:
There is widespread recognition that the current federal hiring
process all too often does not meet the needs of agencies in achieving
their missions, managers in filling positions with the right talent,
and applicants for a timely, efficient, transparent, and merit-based
process. Numerous studies over the past decade have noted problems
with the federal hiring process. Nearly all of the federal human
resource directors from the 24 largest federal agencies told us that
it takes too long to hire quality employees. According to data
compiled by OPM, the estimated time to fill a competitive service
position was typically more than 3 months, with some human resources
directors citing examples of hiring delays exceeding 6 months. The
competitive hiring process is hampered by inefficient or ineffective
practices, including defining a vacant job and pay that is bound by
narrow federal classification standards, unclear job announcements,
the quality of certain applicant assessment tools, time-consuming
panels to evaluate applicants, and the ’rule of three“ that limits
selecting managers choice of candidates. Equally important, agencies
need to develop their hiring systems using a strategic and results-
oriented approach.
GAO studied five agencies that human capital experts identified as
having taken steps to improve parts of the hiring process”the U.S.
Geological Survey, the Department of the Army, the U.S. Census Bureau,
and the Department of Agriculture‘s Agricultural Research Service and
Forest Service. Some of these practices might help agencies across
government improve their hiring processes.
OPM recognizes that the federal hiring process needs reform and has a
major initiative to study the federal hiring process. OPM‘s efforts
will be most effective to the extent to which they help transform
agency hiring practices from process focused to mission-focused hiring
tools that are more closely integrated into agencies strategic plans.
What GAO Recommends:
As a part of its ongoing efforts to improve federal human capital
management, OPM needs to reform the classification process, assist
agencies in automating their hiring processes, develop and help
agencies develop improved hiring assessment tools; and review the
effectiveness of selected hiring authorities.
OPM and the agencies we studied provided comments on a draft of this
report. OPM generally agreed with the conclusions and recommendations.
The report was revised to reflect the agency comments.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-450.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at
(202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Federal Hiring Is a Lengthy, Cumbersome Process:
OPM's Role and Performance in the Federal Hiring Process:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Federal Hiring Using the Competitive Service or the
Excepted Service:
Appendix II: Description of Category Rating Project Carried Out by the
Agricultural Research Service and the Forest Service:
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Hiring Problems and Actions Under Way:
Table 2: Fiscal Year 2002 New Hires by Department:
Table 3: Survey Responses from 24 HR Directors:
Figures:
Figure 1: Total New Federal Hires from Fiscal Years 1990 through 2002:
Figure 2: Typical Steps for Filling Vacancies through the Competitive
Examining Process:
Abbreviations:
ACWA: Administrative Careers with America:
ARS: Agricultural Research Service:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FS: Forest Service:
HR: human resources:
MSPB: Merit Systems Protection Board:
NAPA: National Academy of Public Administration:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
PACE: Professional and Administrative Career Exam:
SES: Senior Executive Service:
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey:
:
Letter May 30, 2003:
Congressional Requesters:
A high performance organization needs a dynamic, results-oriented
workforce with the requisite talents, multidisciplinary knowledge, and
up-to-date skills to ensure that it is equipped to accomplish its
mission and achieve its goals. To acquire such a workforce and replace
the huge cohort of federal employees eligible for retirement within the
next 5-10 years demands that agencies have effective hiring processes
so that they can compete for talented people in a highly competitive
job market. Governmentwide, the number of federal new hires was about
50,000 a year in the mid-1990s, when many agencies were downsizing, but
totaled more than 143,000 in fiscal year 2002.[Footnote 1] The annual
number of new hires could easily increase to more than 150,000 as
agencies take actions to address the security needs arising from the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and to fill vacancies created
by the large number of employees expected to retire over the next few
years. The fiscal year 2003 budget called for an additional 27,000
full-time equivalent civilian positions in the Executive Branch over
fiscal year 2002.
Since 1996, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has delegated to
federal executive branch agencies the authority to perform almost all
hiring-related tasks; individual federal agencies control the way
virtually all new hires are brought into their organizations.[Footnote
2] Generally, people are hired into competitive service positions,
excepted service positions, or the Senior Executive Service. As shown
in figure 1, the majority of federal hiring is for competitive service
positions, and most are filled through the competitive examination
process, which is governed by statutes and OPM regulations. In fiscal
year 2001, about 72 percent (75,000 of the 104,000) of jobs that were
filled were staffed using competitive service hiring authorities. In
fiscal year 2002, with the increased excepted service hiring of the
Transportation Security Administration, the percentage of competitive
service hires dropped to 52 percent (74,000 of 143,000).
Figure 1: Total New Federal Hires from Fiscal Years 1990 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Data are for new permanent full-and part-time hires based on
information from OPM.
[End of figure]
While recognizing the need for flexibility in hiring employees, the
federal government seeks to ensure that appointments comply with the
cornerstone of federal hiring--the merit principles. The examination
process is one of the processes intended to ensure that merit
principles are complied with and includes notifying the public that the
government will accept applications for employment and assessing
applicants' relative competencies or knowledge, skills, and abilities
against job-related criteria to identify the most qualified candidates.
The applicants for competitive service positions must generally compete
against each other through the competitive examination process.
In response to your requests,[Footnote 3] the objectives of this report
are to:
* identify major factors that hamper or delay the federal hiring
process;
* provide examples of innovative practices used by our selected
agencies to improve their hiring processes; and:
* identify opportunities for OPM, agencies, and others to improve the
federal hiring process.
To address these issues, we interviewed and surveyed the human
resources (HR) directors in the federal government's 24 largest
departments and agencies. In addition to reviewing our own previous
work, we reviewed several studies of federal hiring by OPM, the Merit
Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA), and others. In addition, we further analyzed the
hiring practices of five executive branch agencies that had taken steps
to improve their hiring processes: the Department of Agriculture's
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Forest Service (FS), the
Department of the Army (Army), the U.S. Census Bureau (Census), and U.S
Geological Survey (USGS).[Footnote 4] We also reviewed OPM's role in
the hiring process and collected and analyzed data from OPM's Central
Personnel Data File on the use of various hiring authorities. (See app.
III for details on our scope and methodology.):
Results in Brief:
There is widespread recognition that the current federal hiring process
all too often does not meet the needs of agencies in achieving their
missions, managers in filling positions with the right talent, and
applicants for a timely, efficient, transparent, and merit-based
process. Numerous studies over the past decade by OPM, MSPB, NAPA, the
Partnership for Public Service, the National Commission on the Public
Service, and GAO have noted problems with the federal hiring process.
Nearly all of the federal HR directors from the 24 major federal
departments and agencies reported that it takes too long to hire
quality employees. Specifically, 21 of these HR directors said that the
time-to-hire was a moderate to great problem. According to data
compiled by OPM, the estimated time to typically fill a competitive
service position was more than 3 months with some HR directors citing
examples of hiring delays exceeding 6 months.
OPM and others have recognized that nearly all parts of the lengthy
competitive hiring process are cumbersome and ineffective. Agencies
have the primary responsibility for streamlining and automating their
hiring processes, but OPM also plays an important role in providing
leadership and oversight of the merit-based employment system and
helping agencies meet their hiring challenges. Both the agencies we
studied and OPM have recognized that the hiring system needs
improvement and have taken a number of actions. Table 1 below
summarizes the key problems with the federal hiring process that we,
OPM, and others have identified, and what actions are being taken to
address them.
Table 1: Hiring Problems and Actions Under Way:
The problem: Defining a job and determining the appropriate pay is
complicated by the classification processes and standards, which are
outdated and not applicable to the jobs and work of today; Actions
under way: OPM has revised the classification standards for several job
series, including health care professions and law enforcement, to make
them clearer and more relevant to current job duties and
responsibilities. OPM points out that this is only a partial solution
noting that the classification standards and process need to be
reformed.
The problem: Unclear, unfriendly job announcements cause confusion,
delay hiring, and serve as poor recruiting tools; Actions under way:
OPM has initiated an interagency project to modernize federal job
vacancy announcements, including providing guidance to agencies to
enhance announcements. OPM is seeking contractor support for its
USAJOBS Web site to make it easier and quicker for people to find
federal jobs and to enhance the site's "eye-catching" appeal.
The problem: A key assessment tool for evaluating applicants for
Luevano Consent Decree[A] positions and related hiring programs is
ineffective; Actions under way: OPM's strategic plan states that by
fiscal year 2005 governmentwide hiring selections are to be based on
improved assessment tools.
The problem: Manual processes, including the convening of panels and
the manual rating and ranking of applicants to determine best-qualified
applicants, are time consuming; Actions under way: Automating the
hiring process can improve hiring timeliness and efficiency. USGS
automated its hiring function resulting in a reduction of processing
time, a reduction of 1,800 staff days of work, and an exponential
increase in the number of applicants. Census also developed an
automated hiring system for three critical occupations. In addition,
OPM has developed an automated staffing system, USA Staffing, which can
be purchased by federal agencies.
The problem: Numerical rating and ranking and the "rule of three" [B]
limit the choice of applicants; Actions under way: Congress passed the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 that authorized agencies to use category
rating in lieu of numerical rating and adherence to the "rule of
three." Category rating was determined to be effective in a
demonstration project conducted by the ARS and FS. OPM is currently
drafting guidance implementing this new flexibility.
Source: GAO.
[A] The Luevano consent decree is a 1981 agreement that settled a
lawsuit alleging that a written test, Professional and Administrative
Careers Examination (PACE), had an adverse impact on African Americans
and Hispanics. See Luevano v. Campbell, 93 F.R.D. 68 (D.D.C. 1981). The
consent decree called for the elimination of PACE and required
replacing it with alternative examinations. Eventually, OPM developed
the Administrative Careers with America examination. The consent decree
also established two special hiring programs, Outstanding Scholar and
Bilingual/Bicultural, for limited use in filling former PACE positions.
[B] 5 U.S.C. § 3318(a) requires the selecting official to select from
among the top three ranked candidates available for appointment--this
is the rule of three.
[End of table]
The importance of OPM's success in its hiring initiatives is
underscored by the results to our survey in October 2002, where HR
directors had mixed views on whether OPM helped or hindered their
agencies' hiring processes. A little less than half thought that OPM
helped the hiring process. Many thought that OPM neither helped nor
hindered the process and a few thought OPM hindered their hiring
efforts. HR directors said that OPM needed to be a more active resource
and enhance its role as a "clearinghouse" of information while
providing more guidance and better expertise to agencies. This included
assisting agencies in evaluating their internal hiring processes as
well as completing more comprehensive evaluations of governmentwide
hiring. As a part of this process, some agencies explained that OPM
needed to provide information and "best practices" associated with
automating the hiring process. They said it is also important that OPM
address key hiring obstacles, including job classification, job
announcements, manually rating candidates, and assessment tools,
especially those tools associated with hiring for the more than 100
entry-level occupations covered by the Luevano Consent Decree.
More specifically, OPM's efforts will be most effective to the extent
to which they help transform agency hiring practices from process
focused to mission-focused hiring tools that are more closely
integrated into agencies' strategic plans. Accordingly, as a part of
its overall hiring initiative, we recommend that OPM:
* study how to improve, streamline, and reform the classification
process;
* continue to assist agencies in making job announcements and Web
postings more user friendly and effective;
* assist agencies in automating their hiring processes;
* develop and help agencies develop improved hiring assessment tools;
and:
* review the effectiveness of the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/
Bicultural Luevano Consent Decree hiring authorities.
OPM and the Department of Defense (DOD) provided written comments on a
draft of this report, which are reprinted in appendices IV and V. USGS,
Census, FS, and ARS provided technical comments that have been
incorporated into the report.
OPM generally agreed with the conclusions and recommendations in the
report. However, OPM expressed several concerns with our methodology.
It believed the section on the classification and position description
process could be misleading because the majority of jobs are filled
without this step. We agree, but note that the more important problem
with the classification process is that inaccurate position
descriptions and related pay determinations that result from the job
classification could hamper efforts to fill the positions with the
right employees. OPM also believed that our draft missed an opportunity
to hold agencies more accountable for their hiring processes.
Throughout the draft, we note that agencies are primarily responsible
for their hiring processes and provide concrete examples of what some
agencies have done to improve their processes. OPM also provided
several examples of actions it is taking to improve the hiring process.
Finally, OPM questioned our methodology of meeting with agency HR
directors to assess how well OPM is assisting agencies in improving
their hiring processes. It believes that chief operating officers would
provide a better perspective of agency recruiting and retention issues.
While we agree these officials could provide some added overall
perspective about the results of the hiring process, agency HR
directors better understand and are responsible for their agencies'
hiring processes.
DOD noted several areas where it believed that OPM needed to do much
more to address governmentwide hiring problems. We agree that OPM
should do more to improve governmentwide hiring and include several
recommendations to OPM.
Background:
The cornerstone of federal hiring is its merit basis. Congress has
retained the principle of appointment by merit throughout its various
amendments and compilations of civil service laws. In enacting the
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Congress reiterated the importance of
merit in hiring by including a merit principle, which requires that
"[r]ecruitment 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."
[Footnote 5] OPM is responsible for ensuring that the personnel
management functions it delegates to agencies are conducted in
accordance with merit principles and the standards it has established
for conducting those functions.[Footnote 6] In January 1996, OPM
delegated examining authority, acting under the authority of Public Law
104-52, to federal agencies for virtually all positions in the
competitive service. The delegated examining authority requires
agencies to conduct competitive examinations that comply with merit
system principles, other personnel-related laws, and regulations as set
forth in OPM's Delegated Examining Operations Handbook.
Even though the majority of the civilian workforce obtained positions
through the open competitive service examination process,[Footnote 7]
certain positions are in the excepted service and are excepted from the
competitive examination process.
The competitive hiring process, which is described in more detail in
appendix I, is shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Typical Steps for Filling Vacancies through the Competitive
Examining Process:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The number of new hires increased substantially since the mid-1990s--
increasing from about 50,000 employees in 1996 to over 143,000
employees in 2002. Hiring in the mid-1990s declined because many
agencies were downsizing and did not need to fill positions. With the
slowdown in downsizing and the increasing numbers of personnel
retiring, agencies are increasingly hiring new employees. Prior to
fiscal year 2002, about one-third of all hires were hired by DOD. In
2002, the largest federal hirer was the Department of Transportation,
primarily the Transportation Security Administration.[Footnote 8]
Table 2 shows total new hires by department in fiscal year 2002.
Table 2: Fiscal Year 2002 New Hires by Department:
Agency: Department of Transportation; Competitive service: 1,041;
Excepted service: 42,872; Total: 43,913.
Agency: DOD; Competitive service: 24,969; Excepted service: 12,372;
Total: 37,341.
Agency: Department of the Treasury; Competitive service: 16,924;
Excepted service: 943; Total: 17,867.
Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs; Competitive service: 6,399;
Excepted service: 3,994; Total: 10,393.
Agency: Department of Justice; Competitive service: 6,956; Excepted
service: 1,122; Total: 8,078.
Agency: Department of Agriculture; Competitive service: 4,327; Excepted
service: 1,161; Total: 5,488.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Competitive service:
3,072; Excepted service: 925; Total: 3,997.
Agency: Department of the Interior; Competitive service: 2,184;
Excepted service: 953; Total: 3,137.
Agency: Social Security Administration; Competitive service: 1,572;
Excepted service: 1,485; Total: 3,057.
Agency: Department of Commerce; Competitive service: 2,032; Excepted
service: 526; Total: 2,558.
Agency: All others; Competitive service: 4,753; Excepted service:
2,550; Total: 7,303.
Agency: Total; Competitive service: 74,229; Excepted service: 68,903;
Total: 143,132.
Source: OPM Central Personnel Data File.
[End of table]
The federal government's hiring is expected to continue to increase. In
2003, the President's budget called for approximately 27,000 additional
full-time equivalent federal civilian workers in the executive branch.
This follows a 36,000 increase in full time equivalent positions in
fiscal year 2002.
Federal Hiring Is a Lengthy, Cumbersome Process:
It is widely recognized both within government and the private sector
that the federal hiring process is lengthy and cumbersome and hampers
agencies' ability to hire the people they need to achieve their agency
goals and missions. Numerous studies over the past decade by OPM, MSPB,
NAPA, the Partnership for Public Service, the National Commission on
the Public Service, and GAO have noted problems with the federal hiring
process. Our October 2002 survey of HR directors at 24 major
departments and agencies indicated that 21 of 24 said that the time
needed to fill positions in their agencies was a moderate to very great
problem. Moreover, directors at 13 of those agencies reported that the
time to hire was a great to very great problem. Our October 2001 survey
showed that 22 directors reported that time to hire was a moderate to
great problem. Nearly all (22 of 24) of the HR directors we met with
said the lengthy and cumbersome hiring process is a major factor that
affects or increases the time needed to fill positions.
HR directors cited problems with the lengthy hiring process. For
example, an HR director of a major federal department noted that
thousands of applicants had responded to nationwide openings for a
critical occupation at a number of locations. However, because it took
so long to manually process the applications, only 1 in 20 of the
applicants were still interested in the job when notified that they had
been selected. Another HR director noted that many managers,
supervisors, and job applicants do not understand the rules and
procedures governing federal employment. She said that because of the
lack of expertise and complicated process, the agency often loses out
in competition with the private sector because of its inability to make
timely job offers. Another HR director told us that a significant
factor that hampers hiring is the paperwork-intensive hiring process
that continues from application, rating and ranking of applicants and
production of best qualified lists, through to the "17 forms" that a
new hire must complete before being brought onboard.
Although, as noted above, nearly all HR directors and others note that
the time to hire is too long for most federal hires. Comprehensive
department or governmentwide data are not available; however, in fiscal
year 2002, OPM compiled and analyzed data on time-to-hire and found
that it typically took 102 days for agencies to fill a vacancy using
the competitive process. OPM defined the time to hire time frame as the
time between when the request to hire or fill a position was received
in the HR office to the appointment of an applicant to the position.
Additional time might be needed for a manager to obtain approval for
the requested hiring action at the beginning of the process or for the
new employee to receive a security clearance at the end of the process.
Other organizations have noted problems with the lengthy cumbersome
federal hiring process.
* In July 2002, NAPA reported that federal "hiring remains a slow and
tedious process." The report noted that "Many managers are attempting
to rebuild a pipeline of entry level employees in this very competitive
labor market, yet current hiring methods do not keep pace with the
private sector."[Footnote 9]
* In September 2002, MSPB said that the federal hiring process has a
number of key problems including "overly complex and ineffective hiring
authorities" and "inadequate, time-consuming assessment
procedures."[Footnote 10]
* In November 2002, OPM in its strategic plan for 2002 through 2007
stated, " There is a general perception that our hiring process takes
too long and may not provide well-qualified candidates."[Footnote 11]
* In January 2003, the National Commission on the Public Service said,
"Recruitment to federal jobs is heavily burdened by ancient and
illogical procedures that vastly complicate the application process and
limit the hiring flexibility of individual managers."[Footnote 12]
Not only does the current hiring process not serve agencies and
managers well as they seek to obtain the right people with the right
skills, but applicants can be dissuaded from public service by the
complex and lengthy process. According to a poll commissioned by the
Partnership for Public Service, "many people view the process of
seeking federal employment as a daunting one. Three-quarters of non-
federal workers say making the application process quicker and simpler
would be an effective way of attracting talented workers to
government."[Footnote 13]
As many of these and other studies have noted, and as many HR directors
noted in our interviews, nearly all parts of the competitive hiring
process hamper effective and efficient federal hiring. Key problem
areas include the following.
* Outdated and cumbersome procedures to define a job and set the pay
are not applicable to the jobs and work of today.
* Unclear, unfriendly job announcements cause confusion, delay hiring,
and serve as poor recruiting tools.
* A key assessment tool and hiring programs used for several entry-
level positions are ineffective.
* Convening panels and the manual rating and ranking of applicants to
determine best-qualified applicants is time-consuming.
* Numerical rating and ranking and the "rule of three" limit the choice
of applicants and are viewed as ineffective.[Footnote 14]
OPM and the agencies we studied have taken steps to address some of
these hiring obstacles. Specifically, five agencies we examined--USGS,
Army, Census, ARS, and FS--took systematic and comprehensive approaches
that helped to transform their process-oriented hiring systems to ones
that are focused on meeting their agencies' goals and missions. The
USGS approach was to focus on automating its hiring process for all of
its occupations, except research Senior Executive Service positions, in
order to reduce hiring time, increase the number of applicants, and
better serve its internal and external customers. Army's approach was a
data-driven approach--Army developed automated tools to identify
weaknesses in its hiring process and identified an approach to overcome
them, including automation. Census's approach, in reaction to the need
to quickly hire 500 specialists for the 2000 Census, was to work with
OPM to jointly develop an automated hiring system for three mission-
critical occupations and later to work toward integrating hiring for
all its occupations into its parent organization's automated hiring
system. And, as discussed later, OPM also identified hiring
improvements as a critical goal in its strategic plan and has a multi-
faceted hiring initiative under way. ARS and FS implemented a pilot
project that demonstrated a more effective way to rate and rank
candidates for positions.
The following sections describe each of these problems in more detail
and discuss some specific actions under way by agencies and OPM to
begin to address the problem.
Process of Defining the Job and Determining Pay Is Complex and
Antiquated:
The Problem:
The process of defining a job and determining pay is complex and
antiquated, according to HR directors and experts. Defining the job and
setting pay must be based on federal job classification standards,
which are set forth in the Classification Act of 1949.[Footnote 15] The
classification process and standard job classifications were generally
developed decades ago when typical jobs were more narrowly defined and
in many cases, were clerical or administrative. However, today's
knowledge-based organizations' jobs require a much broader array of
tasks that may cross over the narrow and rigid boundaries of job
classifications. The federal job classification process not only delays
the hiring process, but more important, the resulting job
classifications and related pay might not match the actual duties of
the job. This mismatch can hamper efforts to fill the positions with
the right employees.
Once management decides to fill a vacant position, or create a new
position, the HR office is called upon to see if a position description
exists. If a position description does not exist or is not accurate for
the vacant position, a position description must be completed. Such a
description documents the major duties, responsibilities, and
organizational relationships of a job and includes, among others, the
knowledge required for the position, supervisory controls, complexity
and nature of the assignment, and the scope and effect of the work.
Once the job description is complete, the job is classified by matching
the duties and responsibilities to the General Schedule requirements.
The Classification Act of 1949 provides a plan for classifying
positions and sets out 15 grade levels. The law expresses these grade
levels in terms of the difficulty and level of responsibility for a
specific position. OPM develops standards that must be consistent with
the principles in the Classification Act of 1949. The classification
system categorizes jobs or positions according to the kind of work
done, the level of difficulty and responsibility, and the
qualifications required for the position, and serves as a building
block to determine the pay for the position. Today's knowledge-based
organizations' jobs require a much broader array of tasks that may
cross over the narrow and rigid boundaries of job classification
standards and make it difficult to fit the job appropriately into one
of the over 400 occupations. According to a recent OPM study, a key
problem with classification is that, under present rules,
characteristics such as workload, quality of work, and results are not
classification factors.[Footnote 16]
As reported in a January 2003 report of the National Commission on the
Public Service, OPM's director has noted that "continued reliance on
this antiquated system is comparable to insisting that today's offices
use carbon paper and manual type writers."[Footnote 17] Furthermore,
NAPA in its July 2002 report for the National Commission on the Public
Service concluded that classification and compensation systems must be
based on work and
performance rather than position.[Footnote 18] The NAPA panel
recommendations included abolishing the General Schedule and developing
a modern system for defining and valuing work, which could help to make
the hiring process more results-oriented and efficient. The National
Commission on the Public Service recommended that operating agencies
need more flexible personnel management systems. The commission
recommended abolishing the General Schedule and as a default position,
recommended a broadband system under which the 15 pay grades and salary
ranges would be consolidated into six to eight broad bands with
relatively wide salary ranges.[Footnote 19]
Actions Under Way:
Some agencies have automated the complicated classification process to
reduce the time it takes to carry out this task. For example, the Army
created a centralized database that gives Army HR managers access to
active position descriptions and position-related information to help
with the classification process. In addition, OPM has revised the
standards for several job series, including health care professions and
law enforcement, to make them clearer and more applicable to the
current duties and responsibilities of the occupations. But such steps
are only partial solutions to the classification issue. OPM points out
that the classification standards and process need to be reformed.
Changes to the Classification Act of 1949 are needed to make
fundamental changes to how jobs are defined and pay is set.
Specifically, OPM believes that the time may have come for substantive
reform that brings the era of the General Schedule classification
system to a close. OPM recognizes the need to maintain the General
Schedule in the absence of an alternative and well-managed transition
to any new system.[Footnote 20]
Job Vacancy Announcement Content Cited as Hampering the Hiring Process:
The Problem:
Several HR directors we interviewed for this study cited the content of
job announcements as a factor that hampered or delayed the hiring
process. These HR directors noted that job announcements are frequently
incomprehensible and make it difficult for applicants to determine what
the jobs require, and therefore do not serve as effective recruiting
tools. A February 2000 MSPB study stated that federal job announcements
generally appeared to be written for people already employed by the
government and that the use of jargon and acronyms is a common
problem.[Footnote 21] The study noted that some announcements were
lengthy, difficult to read on-line, and only gave brief or vague
descriptions of the duties to be performed. Vague job descriptions make
it difficult for applicants to describe how their knowledge, skills,
and abilities are related to the job. MSPB also noted that almost no
announcements included information on retirement and other benefits,
such as vacation time and medical and health insurance, which might
entice people to apply. The study recommended that OPM and agencies
improve how vacancy announcements are posted on the Internet. The
report said making them more visually appealing, informative, and easy
to navigate could also make announcements more effective as a
recruiting tool. In a December 2002 report on federal vacancy
announcements, MSPB reported that its review of the quality of 100
vacancy announcements posted on USAJOBS indicated that 53 percent were
poor, 2 percent were good, while 45 percent were judged
acceptable.[Footnote 22] The problems in the vacancy announcements
included poor organization and readability, unclear job titles and
duties, vague or restrictive qualification standards, and the use of
negative language or tone that might deter many qualified candidates.
Actions Under Way:
Both agencies and OPM are taking some steps to address this problem.
For example, the Department of Health and Human Services rewrote one of
its typical vacancy announcements for budget analysts to make it more
understandable and appealing to applicants outside the government.
Instead of the typical language such as "incumbent is responsible for
monitoring the results of budget execution and formulation input from
six regional budget offices in coordination with the controller," the
announcement's language began with "For the energetic individual who
wants a challenging career with growth and advancement opportunities,
we have positions available that will challenge to you to grow and
learn [and are on] the cutting edge of the nation's health and human
service policy and provide vital information and support required by
our policy makers." In addition, the job announcement was posted on a
private sector job search site and in The Washington Post employment
section. This approach garnered more than 100 qualified applicants per
position, compared to 20 qualified applicants per position under the
traditional announcements on USAJOBS Web site.[Footnote 23]
To address unclear job announcements, OPM has initiated an interagency
project to modernize federal job vacancy announcements, including
providing guidance to agencies to enhance announcements, and
instituting a multiprong approach to using e-government technology to
assist job seekers and employees governmentwide. Specifically, OPM has
improved the Web site to strengthen the job search engine, rewritten
the USAJOBS by Phone system to improve speech recognition, and
redesigned the way vacancy announcements appear on the Web site.
Currently, OPM is seeking contractor support for its USAJOBS to make it
easier and quicker for people to find federal jobs and to enhance the
site's "eye-catching" appeal.
Key Assessment Tool and Related Hiring Programs Are Ineffective:
The Problem:
Several HR directors and human capital experts have found problems with
candidate assessment tools, particularly those associated with filling
entry-level professional and administrative occupations covered by the
Luevano Consent Decree of 1981. In addition, both OPM and MSPB noted in
studies that there is a need to develop new assessment tools for
occupations and higher-grade levels that are not covered by the Luevano
decree that are more efficient and valid predictors of future job
performance. Primary responsibility for developing assessment tools
rests with the agencies, but frequently agencies do not have the
expertise or resources to develop them. In addition to problems found
with assessment tools, two hiring authorities set forth in the Luevano
Consent Decree --Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural--may not
be merit based.
Several HR directors we met with and a NAPA study found that the
Administrative Careers with America (ACWA) self-rating schedule
examination procedure that is currently used to competitively fill most
positions covered by the Luevano decree was cumbersome, delayed hiring,
and often did not provide quality candidates. The Luevano decree called
for eliminating the use of the Professional and Administrative Career
Exam (PACE) and required replacing it with alternative examination
procedures.[Footnote 24] The ACWA exam, which was developed by OPM for
Luevano positions, was generally administered by OPM to applicants.
Agencies entered into reimbursable contracts with OPM to receive lists
of candidates who passed the exam. OPM has now delegated authority to
administer the ACWA exam to agencies' delegated examining
units.[Footnote 25] In addition, some exams have been developed to
replace ACWA for a few occupations.
Agency managers criticized the ACWA examination because they said it is
not merit based, according to a NAPA study.[Footnote 26] The ACWA
rating-schedule examination contains 157 multiple-choice questions
that distinguish among qualified applicants on the basis of their self-
rated education and life experience, rather than on their relative
knowledge, skills, and abilities for the vacant position.[Footnote 27]
The study reported that agencies said the ACWA examination is not
relevant to specific jobs and occupations and therefore does not result
in lists of "qualified individuals — solely on the basis of relative
ability, knowledge, and skill"--a key merit systems principle.
Consequently, many agencies reported that the primary reason they did
not use the ACWA test was their past experience with the quality of the
candidates. In a more recent study, NAPA recommended that the ACWA
examination system be terminated and agencies be permitted to hire for
professional and administrative occupations using techniques that are
proven more operationally efficient and effective in meeting diversity
shortfalls.[Footnote 28] Also, MSPB recommended that OPM develop new
assessment tools for the occupations covered under the Luevano Consent
Decree.[Footnote 29]
HR directors and other officials illustrated numerous problems with the
ACWA exam. For example, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Human
Resources at the Social Security Administration said that the ACWA
examination process used for its mainstream entry-level positions--
claims representative, computer specialist, criminal investigator, and
regional support position--covered by the Luevano Consent Decree is
cumbersome, bureaucratic, and labor intensive. In another example,
officials of a major military installation said that recruiting
accountants and financial managers was hampered by the ACWA
examination. They noted that managers believed the test was not an
effective screen to identify quality candidates--a theme consistent
with the NAPA study. They also pointed out that applicants were "turned
off" to federal employment by the lack of relevance of many of the exam
questions to the specific jobs for which they were applying.
Agencies cited the Outstanding Scholar program as a quick way to hire
quality college graduates for positions covered by the Luevano decree.
The Outstanding Scholar program and Bilingual/Bicultural program were
authorized by the Luevano Consent Decree as supplemental tools to
competitive examination. These programs were aimed at addressing the
under representation of African-Americans and Hispanics in the
workplace. Many HR directors and officials viewed the Outstanding
Scholar program as a way to hire quality candidates without getting
involved in the complexities of the OPM examination process.
However, OPM and MSPB have commented that this is an inappropriate use
of the authority. This hiring authority uses both baccalaureate grade
point average and class standing as eligibility criteria for
appointment. This authority allows candidates who meet the eligibility
criteria to be directly appointed without competition and operates
without regard to veterans' preference or the rule of three (see
discussion about the rule of three and veterans' preference later is
this report). MSPB has noted, however, that eligibility criteria based
on grade point average and class rank are highly questionable as valid
predictors of future job performance and that they unnecessarily deny
employment consideration to a large segment of the applicant pool who
meet basic job qualification requirements.
MSPB also has concerns about the Bilingual/Bicultural program because
it permits the hiring of individuals who need not be the best qualified
and avoids veterans' preference. This hiring program permits an agency
to directly hire an applicant who obtained a passing examination score,
without further regard to rank, when the position should be filled by
an incumbent with bilingual or bicultural skills and the applicant has
the requisite skills. MSPB has also recommended abolishing both the
Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural programs because other
competitive hiring methods have been more effective in hiring
minorities and because they are not merit based.
For positions that are not covered by the Luevano Consent Decree,
agencies typically examine candidates by rating and ranking them based
on their experience, training, and education, rather than testing them.
MSPB noted that the government's interest is not well served if
agencies do not have the resources and expertise to make high quality
case examining determinations. According to MSPB, agencies use of
computer-based assessments is increasing. MSPB notes this has
implications for OPM because the validity of computer-based assessments
and ranking is critical to ensuring that hiring is based solely on
merit.[Footnote 30] Computer-based assessments would also have
implications for category rating systems that are now permitted by the
Homeland Security Act of 2002.
In general, both OPM and MSPB are concerned about the validity of
assessment tools for all occupations and advocate that agencies improve
their assessment instruments. Under a largely decentralized approach,
agencies' delegated examining units make decisions on which assessment
tools or methods to use and on the development of new assessment tools.
However, experts have noted that that there has been a lack of
specialized experience in many agencies to develop and maintain valid,
effective applicant assessment methodologies. OPM told us that because
of budget constraints, it has spent more of its resources on services
for which agencies are willing to pay rather than on providing tools
that it might have believed to be more valuable, like assessment
instruments. OPM also noted that many agencies do not have the
technical expertise, funding, or time to develop valid assessment
tools. MSPB concluded in a recent report that OPM is a logical
organization to which agencies should be able to turn for help in
developing valid assessment tools and systems, but is not funded to
provide that assistance except on a reimbursable basis.[Footnote 31]
Actions Under Way:
OPM recognizes that it must do more to improve assessment tools. In its
fiscal year 2003 performance plan, OPM included a strategic objective
that, by fiscal year 2005, governmentwide hiring selections are to be
based on comprehensive assessment tools that assess the full range of
competencies needed to perform the jobs of the future.
Manual Processes Are Time Consuming and Paperwork Intensive:
The Problem:
A key problem noted by many HR directors is that much of the hiring
process is done manually. Among the most frequently cited factors that
hampered or delayed hiring were the logistics of convening assessment
panels and the time-consuming process of manually rating and ranking
job applicants. Twelve agency HR directors we interviewed commented
that manually rating and ranking candidates, or the panel process, was
a significant cause of delay in hiring. In addition, time-consuming and
paperwork-intensive record keeping is needed to document the rationale
of assessment panel ratings.
Prior to assessing applicants based on their relative merits, agencies
must conduct a screening process to determine if applicants meet
eligibility requirements (e.g. are U.S. citizens) and the basic or
minimum education or work experience qualifications that OPM
established for such a position. In a manual hiring system, staff
members would have to review all the applications and document why an
applicant did or did not meet minimum qualifications. If there are a
large number of applicants, carrying out this process can be time
consuming.
Once the applicants' eligibility is determined, agencies typically
undertake a labor-intensive effort to establish and convene assessment
panels and manually rate and rank the candidates based on their
relative merits. According to one of the HR directors we met with, the
logistics of setting up an assessment panel meeting makes for long
delays in the hiring process, in some cases up to 1 month. Some of the
delay is due to assembling the appropriate managers and subject matter
experts, coordinating their availability, and factoring in the
exigencies of other demands and travel time. Once the panel is formed,
the panel sorts through all of the applicants' paperwork, assesses the
applicants, and determines a numerical score for each applicant by
rating the education and experience described by the applicant against
the evaluation criteria in the crediting plan for the position. At this
point, any applicable veterans' preference points are added to the
applicants' score. As mentioned previously, the Homeland Security Act
of 2002 permits an agency to use a category rating system that might
make assessing candidates less complex and time consuming.
Automation has the potential to streamline operations by electronically
rating and ranking applicants, or placing them in quality categories,
eliminating the need to form assessment panels, and greatly reducing
the paperwork burden associated with manual assessments. An automated
system creates an easily assessable audit trail so that managers and HR
staffs could document their decisions. In addition, an automated system
could electronically determine if an applicant met the basic
qualifications and electronically notify the applicant of his or her
eligibility for the job for which he or she applied.
Actions Under Way:
Nineteen of the 24 agency HR directors we met with said they had
automated or planned to automate at least a portion of their hiring
processes. Some of these agencies have automated or planned to automate
the rating and ranking processes. Agencies have used private vendors or
have contracted to use OPM's USA Staffing automated hiring package.
USGS automated its hiring system and estimated that it cut hiring time
from the close of a job announcement to issuing a job certificate from
30 to 60 days to under 7 days. USGS's automated system is a
computerized employment application processing system, which automates
many of the functions and tasks of the competitive examination process.
It electronically prescreens applicants and rates and ranks applicants
according to specified job-related criteria. This also eliminates the
need to convene rating and ranking panels and reduces the paperwork and
administrative burden associated with documenting manual rating and
ranking. The system also electronically refers the job certificate to
the selecting official who has the rating and ranking data, résumés,
and other information on his or her desktop, an improvement in
efficiency. Furthermore, it makes recruiting data available on-line to
authorized staff members. Applicant benefits include user-friendly on-
line application and timely feedback on the status of applications.
NAPA chronicled the success of USGS's automated system in a 2001
report. The report notes that 1 year after being implemented, "it is
clear that the program is a huge success."[Footnote 32] The report lays
out the successes based on USGS information to include a significant
reduction of processing time a reduction of 1,800 staff days of work,
and a nearly tenfold increase in the number of applicants for many of
its announcements.
Census also automated its hiring process. The impetus for Census to
change from its manual hiring system to the automated system for its
occupations covering the majority of its ongoing hiring needs--
information technology specialist, statistician, and mathematical
statistician--was a large number or positions (500 positions) and
urgent hiring needed for the 2000 Census.[Footnote 33] The agency put
together a team of managers, human resource staff, and programmers and
worked with OPM to automate hiring for these three occupations. In
1998, Census automated their hiring system through OPM for the three
occupations. Under this system, OPM posts continuously open vacancy
announcements for multiple grade levels. As part of a contract with
Census, OPM receives the applications and maintains an inventory of
applicants on its system and can rate and rank the applicants and
generate a job certificate for Census within 3 days of the request for
a certificate. Since there is no closing date for job announcements,
many phases of the typical federal hiring process have been completed
in advance of a Census request for a certificate. Census managers
provide quality-ranking factors to OPM when they request a job
certificate. In addition, Census managers have electronic access to
information on the applicants because OPM updates Census's database
daily. Census officials told us that additional applicant information
collected by recruiters on college campuses provides managers pertinent
skill data, which could eliminate personal interviews. Census estimated
that time to hire declined from 3 to 4 months to a week or less. For
other occupations, Census continues to use its manual competitive
examination hiring process to hire people from outside the government.
The Rule of Three Limits Managers' Choice of Quality Candidates:
The Problem:
One of the largest obstacles to the federal hiring process mentioned in
our interviews with HR directors was the rule of three. Specifically,
15 of the 24 HR directors we met with raised concerns about the
negative impact of the rule of three on hiring. Once the panel has
rated and ranked the candidates and applied applicable veterans'
preference points, the panel refers a sufficient number of candidates
to permit the appointing officer to consider three candidates that are
available for appointment. The selecting official is required to select
from among the top three ranked candidates available for appointment--
this is the rule of three.[Footnote 34] If a candidate with veterans'
preference is on the list, the selecting official cannot pass over the
veteran and select a lower ranking candidate without veterans'
preference unless the selecting official's objection to hiring the
veteran is sustained by OPM.[Footnote 35] The Homeland Security Act of
2002, enacted in November 2002, now permits agencies governmentwide to
use category rating in lieu of numerical ranking and adherence to the
rule of three.[Footnote 36] OPM currently is drafting implementing
guidance for this provision. A more complete description of category
ranking is included in appendix II. It will be important for agencies
to adopt category ranking to improve their hiring processes.
Choosing from among the top three candidates is problematic for a
variety of reasons. MSPB noted in its study on the rule of three that
"the examination procedures underpinning this hiring rule vary in their
ability to make fine distinctions among candidates." Further, veterans'
preference points are added to the imprecise numerical score generated
through the panel's examination process, which can result in veterans
being ranked among the top three candidates. The result can be several
candidates with the exact same score. When more than three candidates
have the same score, examining offices may need to break the tie,
usually by electing three of the candidates at random.
Since current assessment tools cannot make fine distinctions between
applicants, encouraging selection from as many qualified candidates as
is reasonable enhances merit-based hiring. The MSPB conducted an in-
depth study of the rule of three and its interaction with veterans'
preference.[Footnote 37] MSPB concluded that given the limits of the
examining process to predict future job performance, the curb on the
number of candidates from which managers may select does not represent
good hiring policy. It also noted that the rule of three's original
purpose was to provide choices.
For several years, federal human capital experts said that categorical
rating or grouping could provide an alternative to the rule of three
methods and expand the number of candidates that a selecting official
could choose from while protecting veterans' preference. Both NAPA and
MSPB supported abolishing numerical ranking and the rule of three and
replacing them with category rating that would allow officials to
select among candidates that were placed in a high-quality category.
However, candidates with veterans' preference placed in the high-
quality category would be hired before candidates without veterans'
preference. OPM also supported allowing agencies to use category rating
in lieu of numerical ranking and the rule of three.
Actions Under Way:
The Department of Agriculture's ARS and FS tested and implemented
category rating in lieu of numerical ranking and the rule of three
under an OPM demonstration project. The final 5-year evaluation of the
project showed that (1) the number of candidates per job announcement
increased, (2) more candidates were referred to managers for selection,
(3) hiring speed increased, and (4) there was greater satisfaction with
the hiring process among managers. On average, there were from 60
percent (ARS) to 70 percent (FS) more applicants available for
consideration under the demonstration project quality grouping
procedure than under the standard rule of three and numerical ranking.
A higher percentage of veterans were hired in the ARS and about the
same percentage of veterans were hired by the FS compared with using
the rule of three process. Specifically, at ARS 16.3 percent of all
hires were veterans using categorical ranking, while just 9.5 percent
were veterans using the rule of three. At ARS, the average length of
time to hire was about 25 days quicker than at comparison sites. At FS,
the time to hire was quicker, but the difference was not significantly
different. Appendix II contains more information on the categorical
ranking project carried out by the ARS and FS.
As noted previously, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, enacted in
November 2002, included a governmentwide provision that OPM or an
agency to which OPM has delegated examining authority may establish
category rating systems for evaluating applicants for positions in the
competitive service. Under this provision a selecting official can
select anyone placed in the top category. However, a candidate with
veterans' preference who is placed in the top category could not be
passed over by a selecting official unless objection to hiring the
veteran is sustained by OPM. OPM is currently drafting guidance to
implement this new flexibility.
OPM's Role and Performance in the Federal Hiring Process:
OPM has recognized that the hiring system needs improvement and, as
pointed out earlier in this report, is taking a number of actions to
address governmentwide hiring challenges. OPM's current strategic plan
includes a major objective to "Increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of the Federal hiring process and make Federal employment
attractive to high-quality applicants of diverse backgrounds." To meet
this objective, OPM has identified a number of strategies, including
reducing regulatory burdens that hamper hiring, increasing recruitment
through e-government initiatives, and identifying other governmentwide
solutions to improve the hiring process. In addition, last spring OPM
announced a hiring initiative that is designed to create momentum for
success, build the image of public service, and fix the hiring process.
A number of actions have already taken place in the first wave. In July
2002, OPM announced the development of a hiring preferred practices
guide and asked agencies to contribute examples of how they had
optimized existing hiring flexibilities. Also, last summer OPM held the
government's first "virtual job fair" for information technology
workers that demonstrated that critically needed staff could be hired
effectively and efficiently. OPM said that in the coming months it will
identify other projects and proposals that will address systemic
problems associated with the hiring process. It will include deploying
competency-based qualifications, improving entry-level hiring, and
updating and modernizing exam scoring policy.
Our survey of HR directors in the fall of 2001 and then again in the
fall of 2002 showed mixed views on whether OPM helped or hindered the
hiring process in their agencies. Specifically in 2001, 13 thought OPM
helped, 5 thought OPM neither helped nor hindered, and 5 thought OPM
hindered their hiring processes. In 2002, 9 thought OPM helped, 9
thought OPM neither helped nor hindered, and four thought OPM hindered
the processes. Details of our survey are included in appendix III.
HR directors we talked with identified other actions that OPM took to
help their departments or agencies improve their hiring processes.
These processes included delegation of examination authority, providing
human capital expertise, and providing the USAJOBS and USA Staffing
programs. The HR directors also identified areas in which OPM could
take a more active role. Foremost, agencies said that OPM needed to be
a more proactive resource and enhance its role as a "clearinghouse" of
information and provide more guidance and better expertise to agencies.
Agencies explained that OPM needed to provide information and "best
practices" associated with automating the hiring process. They also
noted that OPM could do more to address key obstacles in the hiring
process, including outdated classification standards and inadequate
assessment tools.
Conclusions:
Improving the federal hiring process is critical as the number of new
hires is expected to increase substantially to address the security
needs arising from the terrorists attacks of September 11,2001, and to
replace the large number of employees expected to retire over the next
few years. Agencies are responsible for maximizing the efficiency and
effectiveness of their hiring processes within the current statutory
and regulatory framework. Steps toward a higher-level hiring system
include using a data-driven approach to identify hiring barriers and
ways to overcome them. A key step includes automating the hiring
process, which may drive efficiency and reduce the administrative and
paperwork burden. Innovative and best practices of model agencies need
to be made available to other agencies in order to facilitate the
transformation of agency hiring practices from compliance based to one
focused on the agencies' missions. While many improvements to hiring
processes can be made by agencies themselves, OPM has recognized that
it needs to do more to address some key governmentwide problems.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
OPM's hiring initiatives are moving in the direction that will help
agencies improve their hiring processes. OPM can assist agencies by
helping the agencies to improve and streamline their hiring processes
by taking a comprehensive and strategic approach. Consistent with its
current efforts to improve the federal hiring process, OPM needs to
take a number of specific actions to strengthen federal hiring.
Accordingly, as a part of its overall hiring initiative, we recommend
that OPM:
* study how to simplify, streamline, and reform the classification
process;
* assist agencies in automating their hiring processes;
* continue to assist agencies in making job announcements and Web
postings more user friendly and effective;
* develop and help agencies develop improved hiring assessment tools;
and:
* review the effectiveness of the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/
Bicultural Luevano Consent Decree hiring authorities.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
OPM and DOD provided written comments on a draft of this report.
Technical comments were provided orally by USGS and via email by
Census, ARS, and FS. These technical comments have been incorporated
into the report.
OPM generally agreed with the conclusions and recommendations in the
report. However, OPM expressed several concerns with our methodology.
It believes the section on the classification and position description
process could be misleading because the majority of jobs are filled
without this step. We agree, but note that the more important problem
with the classification process is that inaccurate position
descriptions and related pay determinations that result from the job
classification could hamper efforts to fill the positions with the
right employees. OPM also believed that our draft missed an opportunity
to hold agencies more accountable for their hiring processes.
Throughout the draft, we note that agencies are primarily responsible
for their hiring processes and provide concrete examples of what some
agencies have done to improve their processes. OPM also provides
several examples of actions it is taking to improve the hiring process.
Finally, OPM questioned our methodology of meeting with agency HR
directors to assess how well OPM is assisting agencies in improving
their hiring processes. It believes that chief operating officers would
provide a better perspective of agency recruiting and retention issues.
While we agree these officials could provide perspective about the
results of the hiring process, agency HR directors better understand
and are responsible for their agencies' hiring processes.
DOD noted several areas where it believed that OPM needed to do much
more to address governmentwide hiring problems. We agree that OPM
should do more to improve governmentwide hiring and include several
recommendations to OPM.
:
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Chair, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Chairman, House
Committee on Government Reform, the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on
Civil Service and Agency Organization, House Government Reform. We will
also send copies to the Director of OPM, the Secretary of the Army, the
Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Interior, and the Secretary of
Agriculture. We will also make copies available to others upon request.
In addition, the report will be made available at no charge on the GAO
Web site at http//:www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact Edward
Stephenson or me on (202) 512-6806. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VI.
J. Christopher Mihm
Director,
Strategic Issues:
Signed by J. Christopher Mihm:
List of Requesters:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget and International
Security
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich
Chairman
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce and the District of Columbia
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate:
The Honorable Thad Cochran
United States Senate:
The Honorable Danny K. Davis
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Dave Weldon, M.D.
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Federal Hiring Using the Competitive Service or the Excepted
Service:
Federal civil service employees, other than those in the Senior
Executive Service (SES) are employed in either the competitive service,
5 U.S.C. § 2102(a), or the excepted service, 5 U.S.C. §
2103(a).[Footnote 38] The competitive service examination process is
one of the processes intended to ensure that agencies' hiring
activities comply with merit principles. This includes notifying the
public that the government will accept applications for a job,
screening applications against minimum qualification standards, and
assessing applicants' relative competencies or knowledge, skills, and
abilities against job-related criteria to identify the most qualified
applicants. Federal agencies typically examine or assess candidates by
rating and ranking them based on of their experience, training, and
education, rather than by testing them.[Footnote 39]
Except as noted before, Title 5 of the U.S. Code requires federal
examining offices to give job applicants numerical scores and refer
candidates for employment to selecting officials based on their scores.
Higher scores theoretically represent greater merit and thus improve
candidates' employment opportunities. In addition, veterans'
preference requires augmenting scores of certain individuals because of
military service performed by them or members of their
families.[Footnote 40] The rule of three requires managers to select
from among the top three numerically ranked candidates available for
appointment.[Footnote 41] However, if a candidate with veterans'
preference is among the top three candidates, the manager cannot pass
over the veteran and select a lower ranked candidate without veterans'
preference unless the selecting official's objection to hiring the
veteran is sustained by the Office Of Personnel Management
(OPM).[Footnote 42] Ensuring that these objectives are met involves
several basic steps and the preparation of extensive supporting
documentation.
Soon agencies will have greater flexibility under the competitive
service examination process with the option of using category ranking.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002, enacted on November 25, 2002, has a
governmentwide provision that will now permit agencies to establish
category rating systems for evaluating applicants by placing them in
two or more quality categories based on merit.[Footnote 43] The rule of
three does not apply, and selecting officials can select anyone placed
in a best-qualified category. However, if a candidate with veterans'
preference is placed in a best-qualified category, the veteran cannot
be passed over and must be selected unless the selecting official's
objection to hiring the veteran is sustained by OPM. OPM is currently
drafting guidance to implement this legislation.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Description of Category Rating Project Carried Out by the
Agricultural Research Service and the Forest Service:
A Department of Agriculture demonstration project carried out by the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Forest Service (FS)
demonstrated that category rating, or quality grouping, can provide
managers with a larger pool of applicants from which to choose than
numerical ranking and the rule of three, while protecting veterans'
preference. ARS and FS believed that the rule of three hampered their
ability to hire the people they needed. From 1990 to 1998, ARS and FS
carried out the U.S. Department of Agriculture Personnel Management
Demonstration Project, authorized by the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM).[Footnote 44] The purpose of the project was to develop a
recruitment and selection program for new hires that was flexible and
responsive to local recruitment needs. This was the first demonstration
project testing a comprehensive simplification of the hiring system for
both blue and white-collar federal employees.
The project tested the use of category rating as an alternative hiring
process. Instead of numerical rating and ranking that required
selection from the highest three scorers under the rule of three, under
category rating applicants meeting minimum qualification standards are
placed in one of two groups (quality and eligible) on the basis of
their education, experience, and ability. All candidates in the quality
group are available for selection; however, if the quality group
contains a veteran, the veteran must be hired unless an objection to
hiring the veteran is sustained. If the number of candidates falling
into the quality group is inadequate, applicants from the eligible
group can also be referred to the manager for selection.
As noted before, evaluations of this demonstration project showed it to
be effective. Because there was no mechanism in current law to make a
demonstration project permanent, innovations that were tested
successfully in demonstration projects could not be implemented
permanently in the testing agency unless authorized by Congress in
special legislation. The demonstration project at the Department of
Agriculture was made permanent through legislation in October
1998.[Footnote 45]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
As agreed with the requesters and in accordance with discussions with
their offices, the objectives of this study were to:
* identify major factors that hamper or delay the federal hiring
process;
* provide examples of innovative practices or approaches used by
selected agencies to improve their hiring processes and have the
potential to be adapted by other agencies; and:
* identify opportunities for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM),
agencies, and others to improve the federal hiring process.
We reviewed the practices associated with how the government hires
people from outside the government for competitive service positions,
including entry-level and higher graded General Schedule positions. We
focused our work on the competitive examination process used to fill
those positions because that is usually the way that most agencies
bring people into their organizations. In addition, we obtained
information on special hiring authorities that are frequently used to
hire people for entry-level positions and that may supplement the
competitive examination hiring process. We did not review in detail how
the government fills positions through merit promotions with people who
are already employed by the federal government.
To identify major factors that hamper or delay the competitive hiring
process, we first reviewed our prior work and extant literature on
federal hiring. We also interviewed experts and obtained their studies
at:
* the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a federal agency that
hears and decides civil service cases, reviews OPM regulations, and
conducts studies of the federal government's merit system;
* the National Academy of Public Administration, an independent
nonpartisan, nonprofit, congressionally chartered organization that
assists federal, state, and local governments in improving their
performance;
* the National Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan
organization dedicated to revitalizing the public service; and:
* OPM, the federal government's human resources (HR) agency.
We used experts' findings or observations to augment information we
obtained from federal agencies and incorporated them into our report as
appropriate. We then reviewed the pertinent laws, Code of Federal
Regulations and OPM's Delegated Examining Operations Handbook that
governs the competitive examination hiring process in order to describe
how the hiring process works and to later describe what agency human
resource directors and studies identified as steps, processes, or
regulatory requirements that hampered or delayed hiring. In addition,
we reviewed data on hiring contained in OPM's Central Personnel Data
File.
Next we gathered information on our three objectives by conducting
semistructured interviews with the HR directors of the 24 largest
federal departments and agencies. The interviews were conducted from
September through December 2001. The open-ended questions were
categorized and coded and entered into a database we created. Responses
to closed questions on how significant a problem time to hire was were
also entered into our database. At least two staff reviewers
collectively coded the responses from each of the 24 interviews, and
the coding was verified when entered into the database.
In addition to these interviews with HR directors, we conducted brief
surveys of these 24 directors in both the fall of 2001 and fall of
2002.[Footnote 46] All 24 HR directors responded to both surveys.
During the period between the 2001 and 2002 surveys, 16 of the 24
individuals left their positions.
The results of each of these surveys are shown in table 3.
Table 3: Survey Responses from 24 HR Directors:
Question: To what extent is the time needed to fill a position, or
"hiring time," a problem within your department /agency?; Response:
Little or no extent; Fall 2001: 0; Fall 2002: 0.
Response: Some extent; Fall 2001: 2; Fall 2002: 3.
Response: Moderate extent; Fall 2001: 7; Fall 2002: 8.
Response: Great extent; Fall 2001: 13; Fall 2002: 10.
Response: Very great extent; Fall 2001: 2; Fall 2002: 3.
Response: No basis to judge/NA; Fall 2001: 0; Fall 2002: 0.
Question: Overall, would you say that OPM has helped or hindered the
hiring process in your department/agency?; Response: Greatly hindered;
Fall 2001: 0; Fall 2002: 2.
Response: Somewhat hindered; Fall 2001: 5; Fall 2002: 2.
Response: Neither helped nor hindered; Fall 2001: 5; Fall 2002: 9.
Response: Somewhat helped; Fall 2001: 11; Fall 2002: 7.
Response: Greatly helped; Fall 2001: 2; Fall 2002: 2.
Response: No basis to judge/NA; Fall 2001: 1; Fall 2002: 2.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
In order to provide examples of innovative practices or approaches used
by selected agencies to improve their hiring processes and that have
the potential to be adapted by other agencies, we conducted a second
phase of interviews at five selected agencies from February through
November 2002: Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) and Forest Service (FS), U. S. Geological Survey (USGS),
U.S. Census Bureau (Census), and Department of the Army (Army). We
selected those agencies based on interviews with HR directors across
government and discussions with HR experts who noted that these
agencies had taken actions to improve their hiring practices.
We assessed the role that OPM has played in the hiring process through
interviews with HR directors at the 24 largest departments or agencies,
experts at MSPB and OPM, and by reviewing expert studies and other
information. We provided a draft of this report to OPM, DOD, Census,
ARS, FS, and USGS for review and comment. Their responses and comments
are discussed at the end of the report. We did our review in Washington
D.C., from June 2001 through January 2003 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR:
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, DC 20415-1000:
MAY 06 2003:
Mr. J. Christopher Mihm
Director, Strategic Issues
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Mihm:
This responds to your request for written comments on your draft report
entitled HUMAN CAPITAL: Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies'
Hiring Process. We appreciate the opportunity to submit our comments
prior to the publication of the report.
Before commenting more specifically on the contents of the report, I
want to again bring to your attention one aspect of the fundamental
methodology you employed in exploring how well the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) has been assisting agencies. We have found that agency
human resources directors are an energetic and important source of
expertise on the human resources operations and opportunities facing
their agencies. We have also found that agency chief operating
officers, the individuals primarily responsible for implementing the
President's Management Agenda, as well as conducting the overall
administration of their organizations, often have the best perspective
and the widest array of information about recruitment and retention
issues across their agencies. For that reason, I urge you to poll their
perceptions in any future studies intended to address broad-based
leadership issues.
As for the report, while we generally agree with its conclusions and
recommendations, we have concerns about the methodology used to
identify issues addressed in the report, the basis of some conclusions,
and the omission of relevant information. We are, therefore, providing
the following information for your consideration.
It is unclear why the five major problems discussed in the report
(Classification and Compensation Process; Job Announcements;
Assessment Tools Used for Luevano Occupations; Manual Processing of
Applications; and Rating and Ranking under
5 U.S.C. 3318) were identified. We believe more rationale could be
given, and possibly more research done, to determine if, in fact, these
are paramount problems. As cited in the report, there are "Actions
Underway" in all five areas, and several will be alleviated based on
the actions being taken. In addition, we are disappointed that quality
of hires was not identified as an important issue rather than so much
emphasis being placed on time-to-hire.
The basis for the conclusions reached with respect to the
Classification Process and the Job Announcements Content include
background information that could be misleading. Following are some
examples:
* In discussing issues with a problematic classification system, the
report portrays the classification process as being an arduous first
step in the recruitment process. Realistically, the majority of
positions filled are based on continuing position descriptions that do
not require additional description or classification and at most, need
a pro forma review to verify accuracy.
* The report also states that the classification system, as well as most
standards issued thereunder, was developed decades ago when typical
jobs were more narrowly defined. Although that statement is true for
the statutory General Schedule grade level definitions that underpin
the entire system, nearly 50% of the position classification standards
have been revised within the past 15 years, with 20% updated within the
last 5 years. Most recently, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
has also been moving aggressively towards developing job family (vs.
single occupation) standards to further simplify the system.
* The report's recommendation that OPM "study how to simplify,
streamline, and reform the classification process" implies that we have
not done so to date. The opposite is true. OPM undertook an in-depth
study of the history and evolution of the Federal classification system
as background to the white paper on pay reform cited in the report, as
well as extensive and ongoing evaluation of multiple demonstration
projects and agency-specific personnel flexibilities that have
successfully simplified and streamlined the process.
OPM has also taken several actions to assist agencies in improving
their vacancy announcements. These include July 15, 2002, and December
9, 2002, memoranda to Human Resources Directors on "Improving Job
Announcements" and a "Pledge to Applicants." We also issued a Fact
Sheet for job seekers entitled "Tips for Letting Federal Employers Know
Your Worth." In addition, our Recruitment One-Stop has been a major
information technology initiative that has engaged an interagency team
to review vacancy announcements, the mechanics of the automated USAJOBS
system, and the application process itself. The efforts of this team
will result in the following major improvements to USAJOBS upon launch
in late spring of this year:
Job Seeker Improvements:
* Completely redesigned user interface that leverages industry best
practices; * Dramatically improved job search engine that now includes
full-text searching and a more intuitive search interface;
* Improved career management tools including storage of up to five
resume versions and cover letters, and basic on-line application status
tracking;
* Improved display and organization of job search results and vacancy
announcement content; and:
* Rewritten USAJOBS by Phone system that features improved text-to-
speech, advanced speech recognition, streamlined navigation, and live
operator support.
Hiring Agency Improvements:
* Real time vacancy posting;
* Improved user interface;
* Resume mining search tools for candidate sourcing;
* Workforce automation tools to improve productivity; and:
* Self-service reporting and administrative tools.
OPM is working with its interagency partners and contractor to rapidly
implement the following major changes in Vacancy Announcements:
* Redesigning the way vacancy announcements are displayed to only show
relevant information in a clean, easy-to-follow, tabbed format;
* Including prominent agency branding and agency marketing information
in every announcement;
* Making detailed/legal and regulatory statements available via
hypertext links rather than including it in the body of every
announcement;
* Revising boilerplate announcement text to be more "user friendly";
* Developing a new tool for recruiters to construct announcements that
will result in a higher-quality, more job seeker focused product; and:
* Delivering announcement content in a printer friendly format.
The revised vacancy announcement improvements will begin phased in
implementation as early as mid-June of this year.
These efforts by OPM and the interagency team should be identified as
central to improving this process, without highlighting the specific
contractor who was awarded the contract to work with OPM on this
effort.
We would also like to address comments made in your report about
assessment procedures, and the ACWA rating schedules in particular. You
reported that, "Agency managers criticized the ACWA examination because
they said it is not merit based, according to a NAPA study," and that
it measures education and life experience rather than knowledge,
skills, and abilities (KSAs) - as called for by a key merit systems
principle. In fact, the ACWA rating schedules specifically were
developed to measure the KSAs/competencies critical for success in
these occupations. OPM professionals followed the procedures outlined
in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures to establish
the validity of the ACWA examination, as documented in a report to the
Department of Justice. Even so, OPM agrees with MSPB, as stated in your
report, that it is time to reevaluate the ACWA examination against
other assessment
options. We are also in full agreement with MSPB in advocating "that
agencies improve their assessment instruments" as well, as you
highlighted in your report.
We believe the report misses an opportunity to hold agencies more
accountable for cumbersome hiring processes. In many cases these
processes are within the agency's control and could be improved for far
more efficient and effective hiring. In this regard, we believe that
your report should encourage agencies to:
* Delegate hiring authority to the lowest possible levels;
* Review their internal policies to ensure they have eliminated self-
imposed barriers that impede their hiring, such as announcing jobs for
lengthy minimum periods; * Conduct more sophisticated workforce planning
and develop more targeted, pro-active recruitment strategies, keeping
in mind that veterans have been, and continue to be, one of the main
sources of candidates for Federal jobs.
Considering veterans for jobs is nowhere near the magnitude of the
sacrifices our veterans have made for our freedoms;
* Develop job-specific recruitment plans that identify such things as
which colleges and universities might yield quality candidates, what
tools are best to use under specific circumstances, etc.; and:
* Include automation as an integral part of their hiring.
Finally, the report discusses the rule of three and its limitation of
managerial flexibility. We are very pleased that Homeland Security Act,
Public Law 107-296, provided the authority to use category rating as an
alternative throughout the Government. We are drafting the implementing
regulations and look forward to providing them soon for comment. While
the regulations will provide increased flexibility, we remain committed
to the brave men and women who serve this Nation. The proper
application of veterans' preference will continue to be a high
priority.
OPM is focused on achieving positive results in each of the areas
addressed in your report. We have realigned the agency to assist
Federal agencies in adopting human resources management systems that
improve their ability to build successful, high performance
organizations. We believe we are poised to meet this challenge, and
that these results will meet and exceed the Human Capital Standards for
Success.
We want to thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on this
report. For additional information or if you want to discuss these
comments, please contact OPM Deputy Director, Dan Blair, at 202-606-
1000.
Sincerely,
Kay Coles James,
Director
Signed by Kay Coles James:
The following are GAO's comments on the Office of Personnel
Management's (OPM) letter dated May 6, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. OPM questioned our methodology of meeting with agency human
resources (HR) directors to assess how well OPM is assisting agencies
in improving their hiring processes. OPM believes that chief operating
officers would provide a better perspective of agency recruiting and
retention issues. While we agree these officials could provide
perspective about the results of the hiring process, agency HR
directors better understand and are responsible for their agency hiring
process and most directly interact with OPM. Agency HR directors are
therefore in an excellent position to speak to federal hiring issues
and OPM's leadership.
2. OPM said it was unclear why we identified the five hiring problem
areas and also that the quality of hires was not identified as an
issue. We identified these areas based on our discussions with human
capital and other officials across government and in our review of
studies by the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Academy
of Public Administration. Our assessment of these problems considered
the impact on the quality of hires. For example, we note in our
discussion of the federal job classification process that it not only
delays the hiring process for those positions requiring the development
of job descriptions, but more important, the resulting job
classification and related pay might not match the actual duties of the
job. This mismatch can hamper efforts to fill the position with the
right employee. We also note that the automated process at the U.S.
Geological Survey increased the number of applicants--which increases
the likelihood of filling a position with the right person. Finally, in
our discussion of the use of the Administrative Careers with America
(ACWA) test we note managers' concerns with the quality of candidates
who were referred based on the test results. The recommendation to
address this issue was primarily based on the fact that, according to
managers, the test was not referring quality candidates.
3. OPM said that our conclusions about the classification process could
be misleading. For example, it believes the section on the
classification and position description process could be misleading
because the majority of jobs are filled without this step. We agree,
but note that the more important problem with the classification
process is that the existing inaccurate position description and
related pay that resulted from the job classification could hamper
efforts to fill the position with the right employee. OPM also said
that although it agreed that the grade level definitions that underpin
the entire classification system are decades old, it has taken steps to
revise position classification standards. We note in our report that
OPM has and is continuing to revise position standards, but point out
that the basic system needs revision. This position is not inconsistent
with OPM's and others' views of classification. OPM's white paper on
pay notes a key problem with classification is that, under present
rules, characteristics such as workload, quality of work, and results
are not classification factors. OPM and others conclude that the
classification system needs basic revision.
4. OPM points out in its comments that it has taken several steps to
assist agencies in improving their vacancy announcements. We recognized
many of these actions in our actions under way section and have
augmented the section to further outline OPM's positive steps.
5. OPM had some concerns about our comments about the ACWA test. We
noted that managers were critical of the ACWA exam because it was not
merit based and it measures life experiences rather than knowledge,
skills, and abilities. OPM says the ACWA exam was specifically
developed to measure competencies critical to the success of the
relevant occupations. We should point out that the ACWA exam is used
for more than 100 different occupations. Agency managers we met with
and several studies have pointed out that the test does not refer
quality candidates. Even though OPM in its comments defends the ACWA
exam, it agreed that the test needs to be reevaluated. We recommend
that OPM help agencies improve all applicant assessment tools.
6. OPM said that the report misses an opportunity to hold agencies more
accountable for the cumbersome hiring process. Throughout the report,
we point out that agencies are primarily responsible for improving
their hiring processes and include several examples how the agencies we
studied in detail took steps to improve various aspects of their hiring
processes. These steps could be taken by agencies without any action by
OPM. Several of our recommendations to OPM call for actions to assist
agencies in addressing their hiring problems.
:
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense:
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-4000:
APR 14 2003:
PERSONNEL AND READINESS:
Mr. J. Christopher Mihm Director, Strategic Issues U.S. General
Accounting Office 441 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Mihm:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report, GAO-03-450, (Code 450034), "HUMAN CAPITAL: Opportunities to
Improve Executive Agencies' Hiring Process," dated March 17, 2003.
While the GAO report does not contain recommendations for DoD, we
appreciate the opportunity to offer comments. The Department's comments
are enclosed.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Abell
Principal Deputy:
Signed by Charles S. Abell:
Enclosure: As stated:
Comments on GAO 03-450 Draft Report - Opportunities to Improve
Executive Agencies' Hiring Processes April 11, 2003:
In general, it is unclear whether the study was intended to look at all
recruitment sources (e.g., DEA, OPM Certificate, internal merit
promotion, etc.) in its assessment. To be of maximum value, the report
should further clarify the internal and external recruitment processes
and delineate the fill times and inherent problems for each.
* The "Results-In-Brief 'section on page 4 indicates that "Agencies have
the primary responsibility for streamlining and automating their hiring
processes, but OPM also plays an important role in providing leadership
and oversight of the merit-based employment system and helping agencies
meet their hiring challenges." This statement is problematic for two
reasons. First, the report goes on to recommend that OPM provide
assistance to agencies but with limited suggestion as to how or why it
would be done. Second, the statement belies the historical role of OPM
and its predecessor in providing more than leadership and oversight.
OPM develops all policy and procedures that are applied government-
wide. This report does little or nothing to examine actual steps taken
by OPM to relieve the onerous nature of such policies and procedures
other than several nebulous references to planning with no near-term
delivery dates.
* Table 1 on page 5 makes several observations with no definitive
analysis:
* While OPM points out that the job classification system is broken and
has been for some time, it offers no near-term solution. This is not a
new conclusion; efforts to redefine this process have been going on for
over a decade with limited results.
* The OPM strategic plan states that by FY05 selections will be based on
new assessment tools. We are by all accounts in a human capital crisis;
new tools must be developed immediately and with agency involvement
immediately.
* The Table cites the success of the U.S. Geological Survey automated
hiring function. There are many references to the USGS's success with
its automated function. We are concerned that the success of the system
is evidenced in this report without an analysis of the tool itself and
its demonstrated conformance to merit evaluation. It is our
understanding that the USGS system is based on employee self-identified
competencies, to include behavioral characteristics. Such systems
require significant upfront work to determine the set of competencies
to be applied to each position. An additional compounding problem with
the use of competency based automated staffing solutions is the amount
of time it takes to build the list of competencies for every position.
This point was not made in the report. In an organization the size of
USGS, where the positions are somewhat homogeneous, this may be a
viable solution. In an organization the size of the Department of
Defense, an effort to convert from KSA-based selections to competency-
based selections would require several years, perhaps a decade, with
little recognized value added.
* In the Background Section, on page 6, the report states that OPM
delegated examining authority to agencies in 1996; however, there is no
comparison of the procedures/timelines to OPM examination practices,
either before or after delegation was initiated.
* On page 6 and on various other references through the report, the
study references the "clearinghouse" role that OPM might or should play
as it concerns staffing barriers and what they are doing to improve the
hiring process. It does not report the delay or lack of activity by OPM
on almost 300 staffing barriers previously identified to OPM and the
lack of any appreciable results over the past two years. While numerous
working groups have been announced over the past year, few meetings
have been held and limited work has been accomplished, with the
exception of the Recruitment One-Stop project.
* In a report recommendation on page 6, it is recommended to OPM that
they "study" how to improve, streamline, and reform the classification
process. Study is not needed. This process has been studied from every
angle without producing significant results.
It is recommended that historical information be included to explain
statistics cited in the report. For example, on page 7, third
paragraph, GAO states that the number of new hires have substantially
increased since the mid-1990s. However, there is no explanation
provided to account for the increase.
* Page 8 contains an inaccurate statement that is repeated two more time
in the report that the DoD HR Director/Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Civilian Personnel Policy did not respond to the October
2002 survey. Input was provided on November 11, 2002. These statements
should be removed.
* Page 13 points out the problems with the Luevano consent decree dated
1981; however, despite several calls for reform of that process, OPM
has not offered
a viable alternative despite the almost two and a half decades that
have passed. The report even mentions that MSPB recommended the
development of new tools in September 2002. To date, no significant
action has been taken.
* Page 13 contains information that indicates that examining for
Administrative Careers with America (ACWA) positions has been delegated
by OPM to agencies. What is not indicated is when this authority was
delegated (not until October 2000) and the fact that the authority
cannot be redelegated to our Components, requiring us to approve
Component use. There are also additional requirements that are imposed
on Delegated Examining Units (DEU) when they are examining for ACWA
positions that are not described in the report.
* On page 15 and on other occasions in the report, there is reference to
OPM having something in their strategic plan that will solve a
particular problem. Yet there is no analysis on what is being done to
accomplish the tasks necessary to validate the strategic plan item.
* On page 18 and in several instances throughout the report, credit was
attributed to OPM for developing new guidance. The extent of agency
involvement is not apparent. We caution in claiming success on the
development of OPM government-wide regulations without looking at the
content and determining if the implementation is onerous or too
restrictive. OPM has not engaged agencies in participating in the
development of government-wide regulations on the government-wide
provisions found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The importance
of agency involvement in the development of government-wide rules and
regulations is critically important and cannot be overstated. Agencies
are going to have to implement what OPM develops and we should have the
opportunity to be part of the development process.
* Finally, the "Recommendations For Executive Action" do not address
many of the issues raised in these comments (e.g., timeliness,
cooperative efforts). Most significantly, however, they do not address
the need for OPM to review and revise policy and procedures that
inhibit the staffing process.
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Defense's (DOD)
letter dated April 14, 2003.
GAO Comments:
1. We have clarified that our report only discusses new hires to the
federal government, particularly focusing on the competitive service
hiring process. We note that agencies can also fill positions through
the internal merit selection process and other intergovernmental
methods.
2. The statement that agencies have the primary responsibility for
their hiring processes is a fact. Our report outlines several actions
that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has taken to address many
hiring problems. We agree that OPM could do more and have made several
recommendations that address that conclusion.
3. DOD noted the lack of progress by OPM in addressing the job
classification system and applicant assessment tools. We agree that OPM
needs to do more and have included recommendations in that regard. It
should be noted that agencies have the primary responsibility to
address their hiring problems. Although some problems, such as the job
classification system, are outside the control of agencies, others,
such as development of assessment tools is within the responsibility
and control of the agency. The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
has pointed out that while agencies have the responsibility to develop
assessment tools they often do not have the resources to do so. In
addition, DOD said that implementing an automated hiring system like
the one we describe at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) would take up
to a decade because DOD is so large and diverse. DOD explains that
converting from knowledge, skills, and abilities, to competencies takes
a considerable amount of work. Although, USGS officials and we believe,
and an independent study indicates that the specific USGS automated
system has been successful, we are not endorsing a specific method of
automation. Our larger point on this section is that automation can
assist agencies with their hiring processes.
4. It is correct that we did not attempt to compare procedures and time
lines for hiring before and after OPM delegated examining authority to
agencies in 1996. Such a comparison probably would yield little value
to today's discussion of hiring challenges.
5. DOD says the classification system has been studied from every angle
without producing significant results and that more study is not
needed. We believe that more analysis is needed to determine exactly
how to either revise the classification system or develop an entirely
new approach to determining job descriptions and pay determinations.
6. DOD asked that we explain why the number of new hires has increased
since the mid-1990s. We have added text to the report that explains
that hiring in the mid-1990s declined because many agencies were
downsizing and did not need to fill positions. We also added that with
the slowdown in downsizing and the increasing number of employees
retiring, agencies are increasingly hiring new employees.
7. Our draft report had noted that DOD did not respond to our fall 2002
survey of human resources (HR) directors. DOD explained that it
responded to our survey of HR directors in November 2002. However, we
did not receive itd response until April 2003. We have now included
DOD's response in our analysis of the 2002 HR director responses.
8. DOD points out that OPM has not taken any significant action to
address problems related to the Luevano Consent Decree. We agree that
the problems with the Luevano Consent Decree need to be addressed and
have made a recommendation to OPM to review the effectiveness of the
Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural Luevano Consent Decree
hiring authorities.
9. DOD notes that examining for Administrative Careers with America
(ACWA) positions was not delegated to agencies until October 2002 and
that the authority cannot be redelegated to components. We have added
this information to our report.
10. DOD noted that we did not analyze the planned actions in OPM's
strategic plan. In several areas, we have outlined actions that OPM is
currently taking to address some of the hiring challenges, including
some areas specific to actions indicated in OPM's strategic plan.
11. DOD notes that our report credits OPM with developing new guidance
in several human capital areas with no indication of the involvement of
agencies. OPM has explained that one of the vehicles it has used to
involve agencies is the Human Resources Management Council, an
interagency organization of federal HR directors. It should be noted
that the recently enacted Homeland Security Act of 2002 establishes an
Interagency Chief Human Capital Officer Council, which could replace
the Human Resources Management Council.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
J. Christopher Mihm or Edward Stephenson, (202) 512-6806:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the persons named above, John Ripper, Tom Beall, Ridge
Bowman, Christopher Booms, Karin Fangman, Fig Gungor, Donna Miller,
Greg Wilmoth, and Kimberly Young made key contributions to this report.
(450034):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Much of the increase in federal new hires in 2002 was due to the
hiring of baggage screeners and other personnel in the new
Transportation Security Administration.
[2] This report discusses the hiring of new employees into the federal
government and focuses on the competitive service hiring process.
Agencies can also fill vacant positions using the merit promotion
process within their agency or through transfers from other agencies.
[3] This report was also done at the request of the Honorable Fred
Thompson, former Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
[4] We have also taken a number of actions to improve our hiring
process, including strengthening our recruitment effort and automating
our application and ranking process.
[5] 5 U.S.C. 2301 § (b)(1).
[6] 5 U.S.C. § 1104.
[7] Agencies may also fill vacant positions with current government
employees through competitive merit promotion. The process is less
complicated than competitive examination of outside hires because
neither the rule of three that limits selection to the top three
candidates nor veterans preference apply to merit promotions. Also,
applicants are not ranked on the basis of their numerical scores. Merit
promotion job certificates include all of the candidates determined to
be among the best qualified, and managers can select from any of those
candidates.
[8] Since March 1, 2003, the Transportation Security Administration is
part of the Department of Homeland Security.
[9] National Academy of Public Administration, Summary of Human
Resources Management Research for the National Commission on the Public
Service (Washington, D.C.: July 2002).
[10] U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making the Public Service
Work: Recommendations for Change (Washington, D.C.: September 2002).
[11] U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Strategic Plan 2002-2007
(Washington, D.C.: November 2002).
[12] National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business for
America: Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21ST Century
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003).
[13] Hart-Teeter Research, The Unanswered Call to Pubic Service:
Americans' Attitudes Before and After September 11TH (Washington, D.C.:
October 2001).
[14] As previously discussed, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 now
permits category rating that expands the number of applicants that an
agency official may choose from when filling a position. That rating
approach should make the rating process less complex and time consuming
than the numerical rating and ranking process.
[15] 5 U.S.C. § 5101-5115.
[16] U.S. Office of Personnel Management, A Fresh Start for Federal
Pay: The Case for Modernization (Washington, D.C.: April 2002).
[17] National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business for
America: Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21ST Century
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003).
[18] National Academy of Public Administration, Summary of Human
Resource Management for the National Commission on the Public Service
(Washington, D.C.: July 2002).
[19] National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business for
America - Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21ST Century
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003).
[20] U.S. Office of Personnel Management, A Fresh Start for Federal
Pay: The Case for Modernization (Washington, D.C.: April 2002).
[21] U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Competing for Federal Jobs -
Job Search Experiences of New Hires (Washington, D.C.: February 2000).
[22] U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Help Wanted: A Review of
Federal Vacancy Announcements (Washington, D.C.: December 2002).
[23] Government Executive, Hire Power (Washington, D.C.: February
2002).
[24] PACE which was used to fill entry-level positions at the GS-5 and
GS-7 level for over 100 professional and administrative occupations,
was found to have an adverse impact on African Americans and Hispanics.
[25] In addition to the ACWA exam, OPM has developed separate
alternative examination procedures for a number of positions covered by
the Luevano decree. In its comments on a draft of this report, DOD
noted that administration of the ACWA exam was not delegated to
agencies until October 2002 and that the authority cannot be
redelegated to components.
[26] National Academy of Public Administration, Entry-Level Hiring and
Development for the 21STCentury: Professional and Administrative
Positions (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[27] There also is a written ACWA exam that was developed prior to the
multiple choice exam.
[28] National Academy of Public Administration, Summary of Human
Resources Management Research for the National Commission on the Public
Service (Washington, D.C.: July 2002).
[29] U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making the Public Service
Work - Recommendations for Change.
[30] U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Assessing Federal Job-Seekers
in a Delegated Examining Environment (Washington, D.C: December 2001).
[31] U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Assessing Federal Job-Seekers
in a Delegated Examining Environment.
[32] National Academy of Public Administration, The Quest for Talent:
Recruitment Strategies for Federal Agencies (Washington, D.C.: 2001).
[33] These 500 positions were professional in nature and not part of
the temporary enumerator workforce hired for the 2000 Census.
[34] 5 U.S.C. § 3318(a).
[35] 5 U.S.C. § 3318(b).
[36] Section 1312(a)(2) of Pub. L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 2002).
[37] U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Rule of Three in Federal
Hiring: Boon or Bane? (Washington, D.C.: December 1995).
[38] Positions may be excepted from the competitive service by statute,
by the President, or by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 5
C.F.R. § 213.101. OPM may except positions from the competitive service
when it determines that appointments into such positions through
competitive examination are not practicable. 5 C.F.R. § 6.1(a).
Excepted appointments can be under either Schedule A (e.g., chaplain
and attorney positions), Schedule B (e.g. Student Career Experience
Program and SES candidate development program positions), or Schedule C
(political appointee positions). 5 C.F.R. Part 213, Subpart C.
[39] Agencies use written tests to assess certain outside candidates.
The most important written tests are used for hiring into two groups:
(1) GS-2, 3,and 4 entry-level clerks and technical positions, and (2)
GS-5 and GS-7 professional and administrative positions covered by the
Luevano Consent Decree. GS refers to General Schedule, which is the
basic classification and compensation system for white-collar
occupations in the federal government.
[40] 5 U.S.C. § 3309.
[41] 5 U.S.C. § 3318(a).
[42] 5 U.S.C. § 3318(b).
[43] Section 1312(a)(2) of Pub. L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 2002).
[44] OPM is authorized to waive civil service laws and regulations to
permit agencies to test alternative personnel management approaches. 5
U.S.C. § 4703.
[45] Section 749 of Pub. L. No. 105-277 (Oct. 21, 1998).
[46] These surveys were conducted in conjunction with our work on
personnel flexibilities. Our work on flexibilities resulted in two
reports: Human Capital: Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist
Agencies in Managing Their Workforces (GAO-03-2, Dec. 6, 2002) and
Human Capital: OPM Can Better Assist Agencies in Using Personnel
Flexibilities (GAO-03-428, May 9, 2003, restricted until June 9, 2003.)
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
