Human Capital
Additional Collaboration Between OPM and Agencies Is Key to Improved Federal Hiring Gao ID: GAO-04-797 June 7, 2004Improving the federal hiring process is critical given the increasing number of new hires expected in the next few years. Congress asked GAO to report on the (1) status of recent efforts to help improve the federal hiring process and (2) extent to which federal agencies are using two new hiring flexibilities--category rating and direct-hire authority. Category rating permits an agency to select any job candidate placed in a best-qualified category. Direct-hire authority allows an agency to appoint individuals to positions without adherence to certain competitive examination requirements when there is a severe shortage of qualified candidates or a critical hiring need.
Congress, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and agencies have recognized that federal hiring has needed reform, and they have undertaken various efforts to do so. In particular, Congress has provided agencies with additional hiring flexibilities, OPM has taken significant steps to modernize job vacancy announcements and develop the government's recruiting Web site, and most agencies are continuing to automate parts of their hiring processes. Still, problems remain with a job classification process that many view as antiquated, and there is a need for improved tools to assess the qualifications of job candidates. On the basis of our survey of members of the interagency Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council, agencies appear to be making limited use of two new hiring flexibilities that could help agencies in expediting and controlling their hiring processes. Frequently cited barriers to using the new hiring flexibilities included (1) the lack of OPM guidance for using the flexibilities, (2) the lack of agency policies and procedures for using the flexibilities, (3) the lack of flexibility in OPM rules and regulations, and (4) concern about possible inconsistencies in the implementation of the flexibilities within the department or agency. The federal government is now facing one of the most transformational changes to the civil service in half a century. Today's challenge is to define the appropriate roles and day-to-day working relationships for OPM and individual agencies as they collaborate on developing innovative and more effective hiring systems.
GAO-04-797, Human Capital: Additional Collaboration Between OPM and Agencies Is Key to Improved Federal Hiring
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-797
entitled 'Human Capital: Additional Collaboration Between OPM and
Agencies Is Key to Improved Federal Hiring' which was released on June
07, 2004.
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 the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization,
Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives:
June 2004:
HUMAN CAPITAL:
Additional Collaboration Between OPM and Agencies Is Key to Improved
Federal Hiring:
GAO-04-797:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-797, a report to the Subcommittee on Civil
Service and Agency Organization, Committee on Government Reform, House
of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Improving the federal hiring process is critical given the increasing
number of new hires expected in the next few years. The subcommittee
asked GAO to report on the (1) status of recent efforts to help improve
the federal hiring process and (2) extent to which federal agencies
are using two new hiring flexibilities”category rating and direct-hire
authority. Category rating permits an agency to select any job
candidate placed in a best-qualified category. Direct-hire authority
allows an agency to appoint individuals to positions without adherence
to certain competitive examination requirements when there is a severe
shortage of qualified candidates or a critical hiring need.
What GAO Found:
Congress, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and agencies have
recognized that federal hiring has needed reform, and they have
undertaken various efforts to do so. In particular, Congress has
provided agencies with additional hiring flexibilities, OPM has taken
significant steps to modernize job vacancy announcements and develop
the government‘s recruiting Web site, and most agencies are continuing
to automate parts of their hiring processes. Still, problems remain
with a job classification process that many view as antiquated, and
there is a need for improved tools to assess the qualifications of job
candidates.
On the basis of our survey of members of the interagency Chief Human
Capital Officers (CHCO) Council, agencies appear to be making limited
use of two new hiring flexibilities that could help agencies in
expediting and controlling their hiring processes (see figure below).
Frequently cited barriers to using the new hiring flexibilities
included (1) the lack of OPM guidance for using the flexibilities, (2)
the lack of agency policies and procedures for using the
flexibilities, (3) the lack of flexibility in OPM rules and
regulations, and (4) concern about possible inconsistencies in the
implementation of the flexibilities within the department or agency.
Extent of Use of New Hiring Flexibilities:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The federal government is now facing one of the most transformational
changes to the civil service in half a century. Today‘s challenge is
to define the appropriate roles and day-to-day working relationships
for OPM and individual agencies as they collaborate on developing
innovative and more effective hiring systems.
What GAO Recommends:
Last year, GAO made specific recommendations that OPM work with and
through the CHCO Council to help agencies better use human capital
flexibilities. This includes efforts to improve hiring processes. GAO
is thus not making additional recommendations at this time.
In comments on a draft of this report, OPM said that agencies must make
fixing the hiring process a priority. OPM also expressed concerns
about our survey of CHCOs. We disagreed with OPM‘s contention that
such officials are not knowledgeable enough to respond to our survey.
Where appropriate, the report was revised to reflect OPM‘s comments.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-797.
To view the full product, 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]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Previous Work by GAO and Others Has Identified Key Problem Areas in the
Competitive Hiring Process:
OPM and Agencies Are Taking Steps to Improve the Hiring Process:
Agencies Appear to Be Making Limited Use of New Hiring Flexibilities:
Conclusions:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members of the Chief
Human Capital Officers Council:
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Acknowledgments:
Tables Tables:
Table 1: New Federal Hires by Department or Agency for Fiscal Year
2003:
Table 2: Governmentwide and Agency-Specific Direct-Hire Authorities
Issued by OPM (June 2003 to Present):
Figures:
Figure 1: Typical Steps for Filling Competitive Selection Vacancies:
Figure 2: CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Extent to Which Their
Agencies Are Using Category Rating:
Figure 3: CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Most Significant
Barriers Preventing or Hindering Their Agencies' Use of Category
Rating:
Figure 4: CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Extent to Which Their
Agencies Are Using Direct Hire:
Figure 5: CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Most Significant
Barriers Preventing or Hindering Their Agencies' Use of Direct Hire:
Letter June 7, 2004:
The Honorable Jo Ann Davis:
Chairwoman:
The Honorable Danny K. Davis:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
High-performance organizations need dynamic, results-oriented
workforces with the requisite knowledge and up-to-date skills to
accomplish their missions and achieve their goals. To acquire such
workforces, federal agencies must have effective hiring processes so
that they can compete for talented people in a highly competitive job
market. Improving the federal hiring process is critical given the
increasing number of new hires expected in the next few years. In
fiscal year 2003, the executive branch hired nearly 95,000 new
employees. Yet, there is widespread recognition that the 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.
In May 2003, we issued a report on several key problems in the federal
hiring process.[Footnote 1] To help address these problems, we
recommended that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) take
additional actions to assist agencies in strengthening the federal
hiring process. We also reported that agencies must take responsibility
for maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of their hiring
processes within the current statutory and regulatory framework. You
asked us to follow up on this report and provide information on (1) the
status of recent efforts to help improve the federal hiring process and
(2) the extent to which federal agencies are using new hiring
flexibilities contained in the Homeland Security Act of 2002--category
rating and direct-hire authority.[Footnote 2]
To respond to these follow-up issues, we interviewed officials from OPM
and the interagency Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council. We
also administered a questionnaire to the 23 agency members serving on
the CHCO Council, and all but one responded.[Footnote 3] In addition,
we collected and reviewed OPM documents related to the federal hiring
process, and we reviewed data from OPM's central database of
governmentwide personnel information. We conducted our work in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See
app. I for additional information on our objectives, scope, and
methodology and app. II for the complete results of our CHCO Council
survey.):
Results in Brief:
Congress, OPM, and agencies recognize that federal hiring has needed
reform, and they have undertaken various efforts to do so. In
particular, Congress has provided agencies with additional hiring
flexibilities, OPM has taken significant steps to modernize job vacancy
announcements and develop the government's recruiting Web site, and
most agencies are continuing to automate parts of their hiring
processes. Still, problems remain with the job classification process
regarded by many as antiquated, and there is a need for improved tools
to assess the qualifications of job candidates. In addition, despite
agency officials' past calls for hiring reform, agencies appear to be
making limited use of hiring flexibilities enacted by Congress and
implemented by OPM almost a year ago that could help agencies in
expediting and controlling the hiring process.
OPM and agencies are continuing to address the problems with the key
parts of the federal hiring process we identified in our May 2003
report. Significant issues and actions being taken include the
following.
* Reforming the classification system. In our May 2003 report on
hiring, we reported that many regard the standards and process for
defining a job and determining pay in the federal government as a key
hiring problem because they are inflexible, outdated, and not
applicable to the jobs of today. OPM has revised the classification
standards of several job series to make them clearer and more relevant
to current job duties and responsibilities. In addition, as part of the
effort to create a new personnel system for the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), OPM is working with DHS to create broad pay bands for
the department in place of the 15-grade job classification system that
is required for much of the rest of the federal civil service. OPM told
us that its ability to more effectively reform the classification
process is limited under current law and that legislation is needed to
modify the current restrictive classification process for the majority
of federal agencies. Fifteen of the 22 CHCO Council members responding
to our survey reported that either OPM (10 respondents) or Congress (5
respondents) should take the lead on reforming the classification
process, rather than the agencies themselves.
* Improving job announcements and Web postings. In our May 2003 report,
we noted that the lack of clear and appealing content in federal job
announcements could hamper or delay the hiring process. OPM has
continued to move forward on its interagency project to modernize
federal job vacancy announcements, including providing guidance to
agencies to improve announcements. In addition, OPM continues to
collaborate with agencies in implementing Recruitment One-Stop, an
electronic government initiative that includes the USAJOBS Web site
(www.usajobs.opm.gov) to assist applicants in finding employment with
the federal government. All 22 of the CHCO Council members responding
to our survey reported that their agencies had made efforts to improve
their job announcements and Web postings. In narrative responses to our
survey, a CHCO Council member representing a major department said, for
example, that the USAJOBS Web site is an excellent source for posting
vacancies and attracting candidates. Another said that the Recruitment
One-Stop initiative was very timely in developing a single automated
application for job candidates.
* Automating hiring processes. In our May 2003 report, we conveyed that
manual processes for rating and ranking job candidates are time
consuming and delay the federal hiring process. OPM provides to
agencies on a contract or fee-for-services basis an automated hiring
system, USA Staffing, which is a Web-enabled software program that
automates the steps of the hiring process. According to OPM, over 40
federal organizations have contracted with OPM to use USA Staffing.
Other federal agencies have relied on private vendors to automate their
hiring processes. Twenty-one of the 22 CHCO Council members responding
to our survey reported that their agencies had made efforts to automate
significant parts of their hiring processes.
* Improving candidate assessment tools. We concluded in our May 2003
report that key candidate assessment tools used in the federal hiring
process can be ineffective. We especially noted some of the challenges
of assessment tools and special hiring programs used for occupations
covered by the Luevano consent decree.[Footnote 4] Although OPM
officials said that they monitor the use of assessment tools related to
positions covered under the Luevano consent decree, they have not
reevaluated these assessments tools. OPM officials told us, however,
that they have provided assessment tools or helped develop new
assessment tools related to various occupations for several agencies on
a fee-for-service basis. Although OPM officials acknowledged that
assessment tools in general need to be reviewed, they also noted that
it is each agency's responsibility to determine what tools it needs to
assess job candidates. The OPM officials also said that if agencies do
not want to develop their own assessment tools, then they could request
that OPM help develop such tools under the reimbursable service program
that OPM operates. Twenty-one of the 22 CHCO Council members responding
to our survey reported that their agencies had made efforts to improve
their hiring assessment tools.
Agencies appear to be making limited use of two new personnel
flexibilities created by Congress in November 2002 and implemented by
OPM in June 2003--category rating and direct-hire authority. Data on
the actual use of these new flexibilities are not readily available,
but most CHCOs responding to our survey indicated that their agencies
are making little or no use of either flexibility--a view confirmed by
OPM officials based on their contacts with agencies. The limited use of
category rating is somewhat unexpected given the views of human
resources directors we interviewed 2 years ago. As noted in our May
2003 report, many agency human resources directors indicated that the
antiquated method of ranking and referring candidates was one of the
key obstacles in the hiring process. Category rating was authorized to
address those concerns. In our survey of CHCO Council members, 21 of
the 22 respondents cited at least one barrier that they said prevented
or hindered their agencies from using or making greater use of the new
hiring flexibilities. Although no one specific barrier was cited by a
majority of survey respondents for either of the two new hiring
flexibilities, frequently cited barriers included (1) the lack of OPM
guidance for using the flexibilities, (2) the lack of agency policies
and procedures for using the flexibilities, (3) the lack of flexibility
in OPM rules and regulations, and (4) concern about possible
inconsistencies in the implementation of the flexibilities within the
department or agency.
In a separate report we issued in May 2003 on the use of human capital
flexibilities, we recommended that OPM work with and through the new
CHCO Council to more thoroughly research, compile, and analyze
information on the effective and innovative use of human capital
flexibilities and more fully serve as a clearinghouse in sharing and
distributing information.[Footnote 5] We noted that sharing information
about when, where, and how the broad range of flexibilities is being
used, and should be used, could help agencies meet their human capital
management challenges. As we recently testified, OPM and agencies need
to continue to work together to improve the hiring process, and the
CHCO Council should be a key vehicle for this needed
collaboration.[Footnote 6] To accomplish this effort, agencies need to
provide OPM with timely and comprehensive information about their
experiences in using various approaches and flexibilities to improve
their hiring processes. OPM--working through the CHCO Council--can, in
turn, help accomplish this effort by serving as a facilitator in the
collection and exchange of information about agencies' effective
practices and successful approaches to improved hiring.
The federal government is now facing one of the most transformational
changes to the civil service in half a century, which is reflected in
the new personnel systems for DHS and the Department of Defense (DOD)
and in new hiring flexibilities provided to all agencies. Today's
challenge is to define the appropriate roles and day-to-day working
relationships for OPM and individual agencies as they collaborate on
developing innovative and more effective hiring systems. Moreover,
human capital expertise within the agencies must be up to the challenge
for this transformation to be successful and enduring.
The Director of OPM provided written comments on a draft of this
report, which are reprinted in appendix III. In her written comments,
the OPM Director said that OPM has done much to assist agencies to
improve hiring and increase agency officials' knowledge about hiring
flexibilities available to them, and she highlighted various examples
of OPM's efforts in this regard. She also stressed that agencies must
rise to the challenge, provide consistent leadership at the senior
level, take advantage of the training opportunities offered by OPM, and
make fixing the hiring process a priority. The OPM Director also
commented that the report "appears to rely upon perceptions that are
not consistent with the facts." In technical comments, OPM explained
that this concern related to the reporting of various narrative
responses from our survey of CHCO Council members. We disagreed with
OPM's contention that such officials are not knowledgeable enough to
comment on the issues we raised in our questionnaire. Additional
information on OPM's comments and our evaluation of those comments is
presented at the end of this report. Where appropriate, we made changes
to the report to address the comments we received.
Background:
Federal civil service employees, other than those in the Senior
Executive Service, are employed in either the competitive service or
the excepted service.[Footnote 7] The competitive service examination
process is one of the processes intended to ensure that agencies'
hiring activities comply with merit principles. In January 1996, OPM
delegated examining authority to federal agencies for virtually all
positions in the competitive service. Under delegated examining
authority, agencies 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. 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.
The federal hiring process involves 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. Figure 1 shows the typical steps for filling vacancies
through the competitive examining process.
Figure 1: Typical Steps for Filling Competitive Selection Vacancies:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 contained new hiring flexibilities
that could help agencies in expediting and controlling their hiring
processes--category rating and direct-hire authority. Category rating
is an alternative rating and selection procedure that can expand the
pool of qualified job candidates from which agency managers may select.
Under this procedure, an agency manager can select any job candidate
placed in a best-qualified category rather than being limited to three
candidates under the "rule of three." Direct-hire authority allows an
agency to appoint individuals to positions without adherence to certain
competitive examination requirements when OPM determines that there is
a severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need.
Specifically, when making appointments under the newly authorized
direct-hire authority, agencies still are required to provide public
notice of the job vacancies and screen all applicants to ensure that
they meet the basic qualification requirements of the position;
however, agencies are not required to numerically rate and rank
candidates nor apply the rule of three or veterans' preference.
The act also established a CHCO position in 24 federal agencies to
advise and assist the head of each agency and other agency officials in
their strategic human capital management efforts.[Footnote 8]
Additionally, the act created a CHCO Council to advise and coordinate
these activities among the agencies. In accordance with the act,
members of the CHCO Council include the Director of OPM, the Deputy
Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
the CHCOs from executive departments, and additional agency members
designated by the OPM Director. The functions of the CHCO Council are
to offer advice and coordinate agencies' activities concerning
modernization of human resources systems, improving the quality of
human resources information, and giving concerted attention to
legislation affecting human resources operations. The CHCO Council
currently has five subcommittees that help carry out its work,
including a subcommittee on the hiring process.[Footnote 9] The purpose
of the hiring subcommittee is to identify actions it or the CHCO
Council could take to improve recruiting and hiring in the federal
government.
Since the mid-1990s, the number of new federal hires increased
considerably--increasing from about 50,000 employees in 1996 to over
143,000 employees in 2002. Federal hiring in the mid-1990s declined
because many agencies were downsizing and did not need to fill
positions. Increasingly, agencies began hiring new employees,
particularly because of a slowdown in downsizing and growing numbers of
employees retiring. In fiscal year 2003, the largest federal hirer was
DOD, which brought on board more than one-third of all hires. The
number of federal hires decreased in 2003 over 2002, which was
primarily because of the hiring of nearly 35,000 airport screeners in
2002 into the newly created Transportation Security Administration.
Table 1 shows the number of new federal hires by department or agency
for fiscal year 2003.
Table 1: New Federal Hires by Department or Agency for Fiscal Year
2003:
Department or agency: Department of Defense;
Competitive service: 22,764;
Excepted service: 12,525;
Total: 35,289.
Department or agency: Department of Veterans Affairs;
Competitive service: 8,910;
Excepted service: 5,902;
Total: 14,812.
Department or agency: Department of the Treasury;
Competitive service: 8,038;
Excepted service: 527;
Total: 8,565.
Department or agency: Department of Homeland Security;
Competitive service: 4,220;
Excepted service: 1,636;
Total: 5,856.
Department or agency: Department of Justice;
Competitive service: 4,739;
Excepted service: 1,010;
Total: 5,749.
Department or agency: Department of Agriculture;
Competitive service: 3,505;
Excepted service: 847;
Total: 4,352.
Department or agency: Social Security Administration;
Competitive service: 1,897;
Excepted service: 2,411;
Total: 4,308.
Department or agency: Department of Transportation;
Competitive service: 499;
Excepted service: 2,284;
Total: 2,783.
Department or agency: Department of Interior;
Competitive service: 1,818;
Excepted service: 688;
Total: 2,506.
Department or agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Competitive service: 1,761;
Excepted service: 722;
Total: 2,483.
Department or agency: Department of Commerce;
Competitive service: 1,255;
Excepted service: 226;
Total: 1,481.
Department or agency: All others;
Competitive service: 4,166;
Excepted service: 2,640;
Total: 6,806.
Total;
Competitive service: 63,572;
Excepted service: 31,418;
Total: 94,990.
Source: OPM Central Personnel Data File.
[End of table]
Previous Work by GAO and Others Has Identified Key Problem Areas in the
Competitive Hiring Process:
Within government and the private sector, it has been widely recognized
that the federal hiring process is lengthy and cumbersome and hampers
agencies' ability to hire the high-quality people they need to achieve
their agency goals and missions. Numerous studies and research over the
past decade by OPM, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), the Partnership for
Public Service, the National Commission on the Public Service, and GAO
have noted concerns and problems with the federal hiring process, as
the following examples illustrate.
* In October 2001, the Partnership for Public Service released the
results of a poll it had commissioned that found "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 10]
* 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 11]
* 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 12]
* 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 13]
* 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 14]
Our May 2003 report on federal hiring summarized these concerns and
added further evidence to confirm many of the problems and issues that
have been identified over the past decade. As many of these and other
studies have noted, and as many human resources directors pointed out
in our prior interviews, nearly all parts of the competitive hiring
process hamper effective and efficient federal hiring. Key problem
areas identified in our May 2003 report included 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.
As noted previously, our prior work surveying human resources
directors, along with the work of others, indicated that the time-to-
hire is too long for most federal hires. Comprehensive department or
governmentwide data on time-to-hire are often not available; however,
in fiscal year 2002, OPM compiled and analyzed data on time-to-hire and
found that it typically took on average about 102 days for agencies to
fill a vacancy using the competitive process. At that time, OPM
measured time-to-hire from the period between when the request to hire
or fill a position was received in the human resources 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. OPM officials told us
that better data are not available on time-to-hire and that they are
surveying federal agencies to assess how to gather systematic data on
time-to-hire.
OPM and Agencies Are Taking Steps to Improve the Hiring Process:
OPM and agencies are continuing to focus on the problems with the
federal hiring process we identified in our May 2003 report. OPM has
taken actions to address federal hiring across the board and for
specific parts of the hiring process. For example, in February of this
year, the Director of OPM issued a memorandum to the CHCOs of federal
agencies offering 10 ways that agencies can immediately improve their
hiring processes using authorities they already possess. Steps outlined
in this memo include fully engaging the agency's human resources staff
and offering recruiting incentives such as recruitment bonuses,
relocation expenses, and student loan repayments. In addition, to
encourage agencies to improve their hiring processes, OPM is urging
agencies to implement a new 45-day hiring model, which measures the
time-to-hire period from the date the vacancy announcement closes to
the date a job offer is extended. OPM officials said they would work
closely with agencies to deploy all appropriate flexibilities to meet
this goal. According to OPM, agencies will be scored under the Human
Capital Initiative of the President's Management Agenda on their
progress toward reducing time-to-hire. In addition, OPM is
administering a survey of CHCOs on agency hiring practices to identify
opportunities to use the flexibilities strategically, eliminate
remaining outmoded practices, and generally expedite the hiring
process.
OPM and agencies have also taken actions to address various key parts
of the federal hiring process. These parts, which are discussed in this
section, include reforming the classification system, improving job
announcements and Web postings, automating hiring processes, and
improving candidate assessment tools. Our May 2003 report on federal
hiring outlined recommendations to OPM dealing with these key parts of
the hiring process. While OPM has placed concerted attention on three
of these key parts of the hiring process, focused attention and action
by OPM to improve assessment tools, as we recommended in our May 2003
report, could further help agencies in identifying the best candidates
for federal jobs.
Reforming the Classification System Could Better Facilitate Filling
Positions with the Right Employees:
We previously reported the conclusion of many that the standards and
process for defining a job and determining pay in the federal
government are a key hiring problem because they are inflexible,
outdated, and not applicable to the jobs of today. The classification
system is intended to categorize jobs or positions according to the
kind of work done, the level of difficulty and responsibility, and the
qualifications required for the position, and is to serve as a building
block to determine the pay for the position. Generally, defining a job
and setting pay in the federal government must be based on standards in
the Classification Act of 1949, which sets out 15 grade levels of the
General Schedule (GS) expressed in terms of the difficulty and level of
responsibility for each specific position.[Footnote 15] The federal
classification process and standard job classifications were generally
developed decades ago when typical jobs were more narrowly defined and
often clerical or administrative in nature. However, jobs in today's
knowledge-based organizations often 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 federal occupations. According
to a recent OPM study, a key problem with federal job classification is
that, under present rules, characteristics such as workload, quality of
work, and results are not classification factors that can affect the
overall level of basic pay for a position.[Footnote 16] Given this
limitation, the resulting job classifications and related pay might
hamper efforts to fill the positions with the right employees.
Our May 2003 report noted some actions that OPM and agencies had taken
to address the federal job classification process. For example, we
reported that some agencies had automated their complicated
classification processes to reduce the time it takes to carry out this
task. The Department of the Army, for instance, created a centralized
database that gives human resources managers at Army access to active
position descriptions and position-related information to help in
classifying jobs. In addition, we noted that OPM had 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. At that time, OPM pointed
out that the classification standards and process needed to be reformed
and that changes to the Classification Act of 1949 were needed to make
fundamental changes to how jobs are defined and pay is set. Our report
noted, however, that OPM recognized the need to maintain the GS system
in the absence of an alternative and well-managed transition to a new
system.
In our May 2003 report, we also recommended that OPM study how to
improve, streamline, and reform the classification process. In response
to our questions about the status of OPM's actions on this
recommendation, OPM said that it has recently taken several actions to
address the job classification process. OPM stated that most
classification standards are being issued as "job family" standards,
which OPM said allows it to study related occupations together to
identify both commonalities and differences. OPM also said that it is
working closely with agencies to ensure that classification standards
reflect the current nature of federal work. OPM noted, for example,
that it is working with a number of agencies to develop a new job
family standard for administrative work in the occupational series
covering investigative work. In addition, OPM said that it is exploring
an integrated approach to classification and qualification standards.
By integrating these two functions into a single occupational standard,
OPM hopes to make more clear the link between the work conducted in an
occupation, the competencies required to perform that work, and the
requirements that individuals must demonstrate to be placed into these
positions. OPM believes an integrated approach for classification and
qualifications standards will improve the quality of the federal
workforce through competency-based qualifications that identify the
full range needed for successful job performance. This new approach
thus could better enable federal agencies to hire the right person at
the right time.
OPM also recently collaborated with DHS to help reform its personnel
system. The Homeland Security Act, which created DHS, provided it with
significant flexibility to design a modern human capital system.
Specifically, DHS may deviate from the classification and most pay rate
requirements contained in Title 5 of the U.S. Code.[Footnote 17] Under
proposed regulations, DHS would create broad pay bands for much of the
department in place of the 15-grade GS system now in place for much of
the civil service. Several OPM-sponsored demonstration projects over
the past 20 years have demonstrated the efficacy of pay banding systems
that were similar to the system being proposed by DHS.[Footnote 18]
Last September, we reported that DHS's process for designing its new
human capital system involved significant collaboration with OPM and
generally reflected the important elements of a successful
transformation, including effective communication and employee
involvement.[Footnote 19] A new OPM initiative is to collaborate with
DOD as that department also develops and implements its new personnel
system--the National Security Personnel System.[Footnote 20] In
testimony earlier this year, we stressed that DOD could benefit from
employing a collaborative and inclusive process similar to that used by
DHS.[Footnote 21]
Additionally, in April 2004, OPM released a draft publication entitled
OPM's Guiding Principles for Civil Service Transformation, which, as
its title suggests, proposes a set of principles for reshaping the
civil service system.[Footnote 22] In this draft document, OPM states
that the modernization of the federal job classification process should
begin with governmentwide legislation that mirrors the flexibilities
provided to DHS and DOD. OPM also indicates that reform in the areas of
pay and performance management systems should be a top priority, and
that if agencies governmentwide do not receive reforms similar to those
that DHS and DOD have received in this area, agencies risk being at a
competitive disadvantage in recruiting a talented workforce.
Furthermore, OPM's draft document suggests that there is no need for
further testing of pay-for-performance approaches in the federal
government and that it is now time to extend the DHS and DOD pay-for-
performance frameworks to other agencies that are ready to modernize
their human resources systems.
Views of the CHCO Council Members:
In our April 2004 survey of the members of the CHCO Council, 13 of the
22 respondents said that they were aware of efforts that OPM has made
to reform the federal classification process (see app. II for further
information). In narrative responses to our survey questions relating
to job classification, one CHCO Council member representing a large
department, for example, recognized OPM's work to develop job family
standards. Conversely, a Council member representing an independent
agency said he was not aware of any significant OPM-led reforms related
to classification. For those respondents who said they were aware of
any OPM efforts to reform the classification process, we also asked
about the extent to which OPM's efforts had helped their agencies and
about their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with such OPM
efforts and related proposals. In narrative responses to our survey
questions, a CHCO Council member representing a large department said,
for example, that OPM had relinquished any responsibility for reforming
the process and that it has been up to Congress to legislate reforms
for specific agencies. Another respondent said that OPM is making
modest progress to change the classification process within the purview
of its authority but that changes to existing law are necessary for
real reform to occur.
We also asked the CHCO Council members for their views about who should
currently take the lead in furthering reform of the classification
process in the federal government. Fifteen of the 22 CHCO Council
members responding to our survey reported that either OPM (10
respondents) or Congress (5 respondents) should take the lead on
reforming the classification process, rather than the agencies
themselves. In narrative responses to our survey questions, one Council
member representing a major department said, for example, that CHCOs
should be closely involved in this effort and that OPM's efforts could
be improved with the input and shared responsibility of the agencies.
Another respondent encouraged Congress to pass legislation granting
other agencies still under Title 5 rules a comparable degree of
flexibility to that provided to DHS, DOD, and other agencies given
authority for personnel reform. Another Council member representing a
department suggested that any reform effort on the part of OPM or
others should focus on linking true classification reform and pay for
performance. Another respondent said that an independent group or task
force should take the lead in furthering reform of the classification
process.
Status of Our Prior Recommendation to OPM:
OPM has implemented the recommendation that we made in last year's
report for OPM to study how to improve, streamline, and reform the
classification process. The draft Guiding Principles for Civil Service
Transformation document released by OPM in April lays out some
significant proposals for changes to the civil service system, which
encompasses issues related to job classification. OPM told us that when
drawing conclusions about OPM's efforts to reform the job
classification process, it is important to recognize OPM's limited
latitude under current statute. OPM pointed out that it does not have
the option of accommodating the persistent broadening of work levels
that has occurred in organizations throughout the post-industrial
workplace by establishing standards that reflect fewer, broader levels
of work. OPM has noted that its ability to more effectively reform the
classification process is limited under current law and that
legislation is needed to modify the current restrictive classification
process for the majority of federal agencies. OPM officials said that
they must maintain the 15-grade GS system and make it possible for
agencies to classify their GS positions reliably according to law in as
straightforward a manner as possible.
Improved Job Announcements and Web Postings Can Serve as Better
Recruiting Tools:
In our May 2003 report, we noted that the lack of clear and appealing
content in federal job announcements can hamper or delay the hiring
process. During the work for that report, our interviews with several
agency human resources directors revealed that federal 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. We cited reports[Footnote 23] from
MSPB that said vacancy announcements often 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. MSPB also said that some job
announcements were lengthy and difficult to read online, contained
jargon and acronyms, and appeared to be written for people already
employed by the government. MSPB further noted that many of the
announcements it reviewed did not include information on retirement and
other benefits, such as vacation time and medical and health insurance,
which might entice people to apply. As we pointed out in our previous
report, making vacancy announcements more visually appealing,
informative, and easy to access and navigate could make them much more
effective as recruiting tools.
Prior to the issuance of our last report on federal hiring, OPM had
initiated some actions to help make job announcements easier to access
and understand. OPM initiated an interagency project to modernize
federal job vacancy announcements, including providing guidance to
agencies to improve announcements. OPM also worked to obtain contractor
support to enhance its USAJOBS Web site with the goals of making it
easier and quicker for people to find federal jobs and enhancing the
site's "eye-catching" appeal. This effort is part of the Recruitment
One-Stop initiative, which, as the name implies, would provide a one-
stop Web site for federal job seekers by implementing a single
application point that includes vacancy information, job application
submission, application status tracking, employment eligibility
screening, and applicant database mining.
More recently, OPM also has taken additional steps to make job
announcements and Web postings more user friendly and effective. In
August 2003, OPM revamped the USAJOBS Web site to feature a quicker
job-search engine, sorting capabilities, and accessibility for disabled
users. Other new features included allowing applicants to create and
save application letters and store up to five resumes online as well as
making posted resumes searchable by agency recruiters. In an effort to
centralize and streamline the process, OPM had also originally proposed
to have executive branch agencies shut down their agency-unique job
search engines and resume builders. This raised concerns by competing
private vendors offering their own recruitment and hiring software to
agencies. According to OPM, in response to these concerns, it informed
agencies that they were free to adopt any online recruiting and hiring
system they wish as long as the system eventually was integrated with
the governmentwide online recruitment system.[Footnote 24]
In March, we reported on the progress of various electronic government
initiatives, including the OPM-led Recruitment One-Stop
initiative.[Footnote 25] We noted OPM's goal to increase customer
satisfaction with the federal application process through Recruitment
One-Stop. According to OPM, the customer satisfaction rating[Footnote
26] for the USAJOBS Web site had increased from a score of 68 on
December 15, 2003, to a score 75.5 as of May 14, 2004. We also reported
that a resume-mining tool to identify candidates had been implemented
as part of the Web site but the tool had not been widely used to date.
OPM told us that the addition of the resume-mining tool was one of many
recent changes to the USAJOBS Web site and OPM had not yet fully
trained agencies on the use of this tool. Nevertheless, according to
OPM, since launching the new USAJOBS technology in August 2003, more
than 500,000 new resumes have been created and over 325,000 of the
resumes are searchable. OPM reported that anecdotal information
received from agencies using the resume-mining tool was very
encouraging. For example, one agency reported to OPM that it had
identified excellent job candidates using the resume-mining tool and
had recently hired an employee using this feature.
Views of the CHCO Council Members:
In our April 2004 survey of the members of the CHCO Council, all of the
22 respondents said that their agencies had made efforts to improve
their job announcements and Web postings. Our survey also asked the
CHCO Council members about the extent to which OPM had assisted their
agencies in improving job announcements and Web postings and their
level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app.
II for further information). In narrative responses to our survey
questions on improving job announcements and Web postings, a CHCO
Council member representing a major department said, for example, that
the USAJOBS Web site is an excellent source for posting vacancies and
attracting candidates. Another respondent said that the Recruitment
One-Stop initiative was very timely in developing a single automated
application for job candidates. Another commented that OPM has
encouraged agency participation in revamping the vacancy announcement
text and in usability testing of the Recruitment One-Stop site. A
Council member representing a major department added that OPM's
continued support is needed in providing guidance and templates to
agencies on streamlined, easy-to-understand language for job postings.
Overall, more survey respondents reported some degree of satisfaction
with OPM's assistance in improving job announcements and Web postings
than on any other part of the hiring process that we surveyed.
Status of Our Prior Recommendation to OPM:
OPM has implemented the recommendation that we made in last year's
report for OPM to continue to assist agencies in making job
announcements and Web postings more user friendly and effective. OPM's
efforts in this area are demonstrated by the CHCO Council members'
relative level of satisfaction with OPM's assistance in improving job
announcements and Web postings compared to other parts of the hiring
process that we surveyed. Nonetheless, OPM told us that agencies
themselves have the front-line responsibility for improving the content
of their own job announcements. OPM suggested that agencies assign an
individual to review and modify their job announcements to make their
postings understandable and more interesting to potential job
candidates.
Automation Could Help to Streamline Agencies' Hiring Processes:
In our May 2003 report, we reported that manual processes for rating
and ranking candidates are time consuming and delay the federal hiring
process. Prior to assessing applicants based on their relative merits,
agencies must conduct a screening process to determine if applicants
meet eligibility requirements (such as U.S. citizenship) and the basic
or minimum education or work experience qualifications that OPM
established for such a position. As we reported, in a manual hiring
system, human resources staff would have to review all the applications
and document why an applicant did or did not meet minimum
qualifications. If there is a large number of applicants, carrying out
this process can be time consuming. We also pointed out that once the
applicants' eligibilities are 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.
Some of the delay in convening the assessment panels is due to
assembling the appropriate managers and subject matter experts,
coordinating their availability, and factoring in the exigencies of
other demands. Once 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.
The use of automation for agency hiring processes has various potential
benefits, including eliminating the need for volumes of paper records,
allowing fewer individuals to review and process job applications, and
reducing the overall time-to-hire. Automation can facilitate almost
every step of the federal hiring process. For example, an automated
hiring system could electronically determine if an applicant met the
basic qualifications and electronically provide timely notification to
the applicant of the status of his or her application. Automation could
also streamline the process by electronically rating and ranking
applicants, or placing them in quality categories, eliminating the need
to form panels to assess the applicants. In addition, automated systems
typically create records of actions taken so that managers and human
capital staff can easily document their decisions related to hiring.
Nonetheless, agencies need to recognize the importance of careful
planning and implementation when automating their hiring processes. As
we have previously reported, agencies should first validate their
requirements and look at reengineering their administrative processes
before developing any information systems to support their
processes.[Footnote 27]
In our May 2003 report, we related that OPM had taken some actions to
help agencies automate and streamline their hiring processes. OPM
developed an automated hiring system, called USA Staffing, which
federal agencies may purchase from OPM. USA Staffing is a Web-enabled
software program that automates the steps of the hiring process,
including recruitment, assessment, referral, and applicant
notification. Beginning in September of 2000, OPM invited human
resources officials from federal agencies to OPM-sponsored USA Staffing
demonstrations, where human resources officials could learn about the
advantages of using USA Staffing. According to OPM, over 40 federal
organizations have contracted with OPM to use USA Staffing. Other
federal agencies have relied on private vendors to automate their
hiring processes.
Views of the CHCO Council Members:
In our April 2004 survey of the members of the CHCO Council, 21 of 22
respondents said that their agencies had made efforts to automate
significant parts of their hiring processes. For those responding that
they had made such efforts, we also asked about the extent to which OPM
had assisted their agencies in automating their hiring processes and
their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance
(see app. II for further information). In narrative responses to our
survey questions about automating hiring processes, one Council member
representing a cabinet-level department concurred with OPM's current
approach to support third-party vendors who can provide robust and
streamlined rating and ranking systems that complement and supplement
the Recruitment One-Stop. Another Council member said that current OPM
policy or regulations that impede the automation of the federal hiring
process should be streamlined and simplified for both the applicant and
human resources practitioner. Other comments included the following.
* Individual departments and agencies should manage the automation
process themselves, even though not all agencies have comparable
information technology (IT) infrastructures.
* Agencies should decide how to best accomplish automation of their
hiring processes instead of forcing integration into one system.
* OPM and the departments and agencies have a shared responsibility for
automation of hiring processes.
Status of Our Prior Recommendation to OPM:
OPM has implemented the recommendation that we made in last year's
report for OPM to assist agencies in automating their hiring processes.
OPM has continued to promote the use of automated systems, including
USA Staffing and customer systems to meet agency needs. OPM's efforts
in this area are demonstrated by its work in providing services to over
40 federal organizations that have contracted with OPM to use USA
Staffing. OPM officials said that OPM has developed and would soon
implement a new Web-based version of USA Staffing, which would link and
automate the recruitment, examining, referral, notification, and hiring
processes.
Improved Assessment Tools Could Help Agencies in Identifying the Best
Candidates for Jobs:
In our May 2003 report, we concluded that key candidate assessment
tools used in the federal hiring process can be ineffective. Agencies
can use various approaches to assess job candidates under the federal
merit-based hiring process. These applicant assessment tools include
written and performance tests, manual and automated techniques to
review each applicant's training and experience, as well as
interviewing approaches and reference checks. Using the right
assessment tool, or combination of tools, can assist the agency in
predicting the relative success of each applicant on the job and
selecting the relatively best person for the job.
Our May 2003 report particularly discussed the ineffectiveness of
candidate assessment tools associated with filling occupations covered
by the Luevano consent decree. We noted that the Administrative Careers
with America (ACWA) self-rating examination that is used to
competitively fill most positions covered by the Luevano consent decree
was cumbersome, delayed hiring, and often did not provide quality
candidates. This ACWA rating-schedule examination contains 157
multiple-choice questions that are designed to distinguish among
qualified applicants on the basis of their self-rated education and
life experience. In our May 2003 report, we noted that many agencies
reported that the primary reason they did not use the ACWA examination
was their past experiences with the quality of the candidates. For
positions that are not covered by the Luevano consent decree, agencies
typically examine candidates by rating and ranking them based on
experience, training, and education, instead of administering tests.
Our May 2003 report also discussed the challenges associated with the
special hiring programs established under the consent decree--
Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural. Many agency human
resources officials we interviewed for our May 2003 report said the
Outstanding Scholar program was a quick way to hire high-quality
college graduates for positions covered by the Luevano consent decree
without using the complex OPM examination process. However, OPM and
MSPB have commented that this is an inappropriate use of the authority.
Outstanding Scholar allows candidates who meet the eligibility
criteria--baccalaureate grade point average and class standing--to be
directly appointed without competition. According to MSPB, such
criteria are questionable predictors of future performance, and they
deny consideration to many qualified applicants. For similar reasons,
MSPB also has concerns about the Bilingual/Bicultural program, which
permits agencies to directly hire applicants who obtained a passing
examination score, without further regard to rank, when the position
needs to be filled by an incumbent with bilingual or bicultural skills
and the applicant has the requisite job skills. MSPB has recommended
abolishing both the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural
programs because they are not merit based and because other competitive
hiring methods have been more effective in hiring minorities.
In general, both OPM and MSPB are concerned about the validity of
candidate assessment tools for all occupations and advocate that
agencies improve their assessment instruments. OPM told us that because
of budget constraints, it has only been able to develop assessments on
a reimbursable basis when other agencies provide OPM with the needed
resources. OPM also said that many agencies do not have the technical
expertise, funding, or time to develop valid assessment tools. 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.
Given the problems with these key candidate assessment tools and
special hiring authorities for Luevano-covered positions, we
recommended in our May 2003 report that OPM review the effectiveness of
the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural Luevano consent decree
hiring authorities. As we noted in our report, OPM recognized that it
needed to do more overall to improve candidate 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. Since the
issuance of our report last year, OPM told us that, as part of the
consent decree, it collects data annually on how agencies used the
Outstanding Scholar hiring authority; however, OPM has not reevaluated
assessment tools related to Luevano-covered positions. OPM acknowledged
that assessment tools in general need to be reviewed, but commented
that it is primarily the agency's responsibility to address these
issues and recommended that agencies perhaps form consortia to improve
their assessment tools. OPM officials noted that several agencies, such
as the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs
Service, created their own assessment tools for Luevano
positions.[Footnote 28] OPM officials also said that if agencies do not
want to develop their own assessment tools, then they could request
that OPM help develop such tools under the reimbursable service program
that OPM operates.
In technical comments to our draft report, OPM stated that the ACWA
rating schedules are valid assessments that have been approved by the
Department of Justice and that meet professional and legal requirements
for test development and validation. OPM added that it has efforts
underway to automate the ACWA system as the second phase of its
Recruitment One-Stop initiative. Nonetheless, many agency human
resources officials that we interviewed for our previous work on
federal hiring told us that the ACWA rating schedule was cumbersome,
delayed hiring, and often did not provide quality candidates. Thus,
although the ACWA rating schedule might meet legal and test-development
requirements, it does not appear to effectively meet the needs of many
agency human capital officials in their efforts to readily identify and
quickly hire high-quality job applicants.
Views of the CHCO Council Members:
In our April 2004 survey of the members of the CHCO Council, 21 of the
22 respondents said that their agencies had made efforts to improve
their hiring assessment tools. For those responding that they had made
such efforts, we also asked about the extent to which OPM had assisted
their agencies in developing improved hiring assessment tools and their
level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app.
II for further information). In narrative responses to our survey
questions on improving assessment tools, a Council member representing
a cabinet-level department said, for example, that the department has
used OPM's reimbursable service to develop occupation-specific
assessment tools with good success. A respondent representing another
department said OPM should tackle the ACWA assessment tool for hiring
into occupations covered by the Luevano consent decree, because the
assessment tool places far too much emphasis on experience at the
expense of education and potential. According to another Council
member, departments and agencies are fully competent to procure or
develop assessment tools, and no additional OPM policy or regulation is
necessary for the improvement of such tools. Other members made the
following comments.
* OPM is best positioned to take the lead in improving assessment tools
for jobs that are common across the government.
* OPM should take the lead governmentwide for the development of
improved assessment tools, but agencies should take the lead for their
own agency efforts.
* Both OPM and the departments and agencies have responsibility for
developing assessment tools.
* Although OPM should not mandate specific assessment tools, as the
federal human resources expert, OPM should take a strong role in
providing information, assessments, analyses, and suggestions for
agencies in using automated tools to assess job applicants.
Status of Our Prior Recommendations to OPM:
OPM officials told us that they believe OPM has implemented the
recommendation that we made in last year's report for OPM to develop
and help agencies develop improved hiring assessment tools. OPM
officials also told us that OPM has implemented another recommendation
we made in last year's report for OPM to review the effectiveness of
the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural Luevano consent decree
hiring authorities. Although we agree that OPM has provided assistance
to agencies in improving their candidate assessment tools and has
collected information on agencies' use of the special hiring
authorities, major challenges remain in this area, particularly with
the continued use of the ACWA exam. OPM needs to take further action to
address these recommendations, such as actively working to link up
agencies having similar occupations so that they could potentially form
consortia to develop more reliable and valid tools to assess job
candidates.
Our Prior Recommendation on Enhancing the Use of Human Capital
Flexibilities in the Federal Government:
We have reported that agencies need to streamline and improve their
administrative processes for using flexibilities and review self-
imposed constraints that may be excessively process oriented. In our
December 2002 report on the effective use of human capital
flexibilities, we reported that some of the barriers to effective
strategic human capital management in the federal government do not
stem from law or regulation but are self-imposed by agencies.[Footnote
29] We noted, for example, that the source of these barriers can
sometimes be agencies' lack of understanding on the prerogatives that
they have. Clearly, as we have previously reported, agencies need to
become better informed about the human capital tools and flexibilities
available to them and make better use of them than they have in the
past. Agencies need to learn more about what is being done in the human
capital area by agencies that have taken the initiative--which
approaches have worked, which have not, and what lessons can be drawn
from others' experiences and used to improve their organizations'
approaches to managing their human capital.
This process is where OPM can also play an important role. In a
separate report we issued in May 2003 on how OPM can better assist
agencies in using personnel flexibilities, we recommended that OPM work
with and through the CHCO Council to more thoroughly research, compile,
and analyze information on the effective and innovative use of human
capital flexibilities, including those related to federal
hiring.[Footnote 30] We noted that this should involve more fully
serving as a clearinghouse in sharing and distributing information
about when, where, and how flexibilities are being used, and should be
used, to help agencies meet their human capital management needs. As we
recently testified, OPM and agencies need to continue to work together
to improve the hiring process, and the CHCO:
Council should be a key vehicle for this needed collaboration.[Footnote
31] To accomplish this effort, agencies need to provide OPM with timely
and comprehensive information about their experiences in using various
approaches and flexibilities to improve their hiring processes. OPM--
working through the CHCO Council--can, in turn, help accomplish this
effort by serving as a facilitator in the collection and exchange of
information about agencies' effective practices and successful
approaches to improved hiring.
Agencies Appear to Be Making Limited Use of New Hiring Flexibilities:
On the basis of our interviews with OPM officials and the responses to
our survey of CHCO Council members, federal agencies appear to be
making limited use of category rating and direct-hire authority, two
new hiring flexibilities authorized by the Homeland Security Act of
2002. Data on the actual use of these two hiring flexibilities are not
readily available, partly because of the recency of their
authorization. OPM officials we met with expressed the OPM Director's
frustration that agencies are not attempting to use the flexibilities
that OPM worked to have written into law for agencies' use. Our survey
of CHCO Council members confirmed the view that agencies are not making
extensive use of new flexibilities. Also, 21 of the 22 survey
respondents cited at least one barrier that they said prevented or
hindered their agencies from using or making greater use of the new
hiring flexibilities. Some of the barriers they identified included (1)
the lack of OPM guidance for using the flexibilities, (2) the lack of
agency policies and procedures for using the flexibilities, (3) the
lack of flexibility in OPM rules and regulations, and (4) concern about
possible inconsistencies in the implementation of the flexibilities
within the department or agency. OPM officials said that they believe
the primary reason agencies are not using these new flexibilities is
that agency officials are unfamiliar with them and do not have
sufficient knowledge and skills related to these flexibilities to
maximize their use. OPM officials said that OPM provided agencies with
guidance for using the flexibilities, such as training sessions at
recruitment fairs and procedures in the OPM Delegated Examining
Operations Handbook.
Use of Category Rating Could Provide Agencies with a Larger Pool of
High-Quality Candidates from Which to Select:
Category rating is an alternative rating and selection procedure that
can provide agency managers will a larger pool of qualified job
candidates from which to select than numerical ranking and the rule of
three, while also protecting veterans' preference. Under category
rating, job candidates are assigned to quality categories--such as
"best qualified" or "highly qualified"--following an assessment of
their knowledge and skills against job-related criteria. The names of
all candidates in the highest quality group are then sent to the
selecting official and are available for selection. If the highest
quality group contains a veteran, the veteran must be hired unless an
objection to hiring the veteran is sustained by OPM.[Footnote 32] If
the number of candidates falling into the highest quality group is
inadequate, applicants from the next highest quality group of eligible
candidates can also be referred to the agency manager for selection.
In our May 2003 report on hiring, we pointed out that among several
candidate-assessment-related issues, one of the largest obstacles in
the federal hiring process was the rule of three and numerical rating
system that limited managers' choice of quality candidates. Our report
noted that many of the human resources directors we interviewed from
the 24 largest federal agencies raised concerns that the rule of three
and numerical rating had a negative impact on hiring high-quality
people. Under procedures using the rule of three, once the assessment
panel has rated the candidates, the agency's human resources office
applies applicable veterans' preference points, ranks candidates, and
refers a sufficient number of candidates to permit the selecting
official 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. 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.
Over the past decade, the use of category rating procedures to assess
job applicants was tested in selected agencies through an OPM-sponsored
demonstration project and was generally found to be an effective rating
approach.[Footnote 33] As we noted in our May 2003 report, the
Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and
Forest Service (FS) tested and implemented category rating in lieu of
numerical ranking and the rule of three under such a 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. Also, a higher percentage
of veterans were hired in ARS and about the same percentage of veterans
were hired by FS compared with using the rule of three process. In the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress provided the authority for all
federal agencies to use category rating as an alternative to the rule
of three.
OPM has provided guidance to agencies on the use of category rating
systems to assess job applicants. In June 2003, OPM published interim
regulations for agencies on the use of category rating, and OPM revised
related guidance in its Delegated Examining Operations Handbook for
agencies when using this alternative rating procedure. In addition, OPM
officials told us that in July 2003, OPM provided on-site briefings to
agency program managers, human resources officials, and contractors on
issues related to using category rating procedures. In February 2004,
OPM included this new hiring flexibility in its memorandum to agencies
as one of the top 10 things agencies could do to improve federal
hiring. OPM said it would issue final regulations on the use of
category rating before its interim regulations sunset in June 2004.
Officials said the changes to the final regulations will be editorial
in nature and will not alter the procedures that agencies are to follow
when using this alternative rating system.
Data on agencies' actual use of category rating are not readily
available. The Homeland Security Act requires each agency that
establishes a category rating system to report annually to Congress for
the first 3 years on its experiences, including (1) the number of
employees hired under the system, (2) the impact the system has on
hiring of veterans and minorities, and (3) the way managers were
trained in administration of the system. However, according to OPM, no
agencies have yet reported on their use of such category rating
systems. Moreover, data on agencies' use of category rating are not
maintained in the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), OPM's centralized
database of information on federal civilian employees.
Views of the CHCO Council Members:
Given the lack of available data on the extent to which agencies are
using the newly authorized category rating flexibility, we asked about
this issue in our April 2004 survey of the CHCO Council members. As
shown in figure 2, a majority (13 of 22) of the officials responding to
our survey said that their agencies were using category rating to
"little or no extent." (See app. II for further information on the
survey results.) In narrative responses to our survey questions about
category rating, several respondents said that their agencies were not
using category rating but were considering options, developing
procedures, or establishing pilot programs. For example, a CHCO Council
member responded that his department had developed procedures for
implementing category rating and had included this flexibility as a
tool for implementation in the department's hiring plan for fiscal year
2004. According to this official, category rating will be particularly
useful for those occupations for which the department anticipates
hiring multiple applicants as well as for positions that have highly
specialized experience requirements. Another Council member
representing a cabinet-level department said that the department had
drafted a policy on the use of category rating and was establishing a
program to pilot the use of this hiring flexibility with at least one
occupation. This respondent said that the department's human resources
office was working with other bureaus within the department to identify
a cross-section of occupations for which category rating would be an
appropriate process for rating job applicants.
Figure 2: CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Extent to Which Their
Agencies Are Using Category Rating:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We also surveyed CHCO Council members about the most significant
barriers, if any, preventing or hindering their agencies from using or
making greater use of the newly authorized category rating flexibility
in their hiring processes. Although the responses provided by the
Council members varied (see fig. 3), the most frequently cited barriers
to using category rating were (1) the lack of policies and procedures
within the department or agency for using the flexibility, (2) the lack
of OPM guidance for using the flexibility, (3) a need to reprogram
automated systems to handle the new process, (4) rigid OPM rules and
regulations, and (5) concern about possible inconsistencies in
implementation. In narrative responses to our survey questions about
category rating, a few respondents said that their agencies were not
using or making greater use of category rating because of key
stakeholders' lack of understanding about the application of veterans'
preference and the Luevano consent decree. OPM officials told us that
each agency needs to determine how the applicant's ACWA test points
relate to the "best qualified" quality categories under category
rating. Other comments from CHCOs included the following. One
respondent said that each agency has had to research best practices and
lessons learned prior to implementing this alternative rating system.
Finally, a Council member from a major department said that agencies
need a governmentwide champion to advance the use of category rating in
their hiring processes.
Figure 3: CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Most Significant
Barriers Preventing or Hindering Their Agencies' Use of Category
Rating:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Respondents could select up to three barriers.
[End of figure]
In our survey of CHCO Council members, we also asked about the extent
to which OPM had assisted their agencies in using category rating and
their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance
(see app. II for further information). In narrative responses to our
survey questions about category rating, a CHCO Council member
representing a major department said, for example, that the department
was reluctant to use category rating until OPM provided further
guidance on use of the flexibility. Another Council member noted that
the interim regulations on category rating that OPM issued in June 2003
would expire after 1 year and wanted to know when OPM would publish the
final regulations. Another respondent said that OPM responded to ad hoc
questions related to the technical application of category rating, but
generally defers to the agency to make the final determination. This
respondent suggested that it would be beneficial for OPM to broadly
address technical issues for agencies rather than on an ad hoc basis.
Another respondent commented that additional training on the use of
category rating should be provided to agencies. Another respondent
remarked that unresolved questions around the use of category rating
may be common to all agencies and that OPM should provide additional
implementing guidance in the form of questions and answers.
Use of Direct-Hire Authority Could Speed Hiring for Shortage
Occupations and Critical Needs through New Assessment and Rating
Requirements:
A provision of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides authority
that allows agencies to appoint candidates directly to positions where
OPM determines there is a severe shortage of candidates or a critical
hiring need.[Footnote 34] When making appointments under the newly
authorized direct-hire authority, agencies are not required to
numerically rate and rank applicants nor apply the rule of three or
veterans' preference. However, under these direct-hire appointments,
agencies would still be required to provide public notice of the
vacancies and screen all applicants to ensure that they meet the basic
qualification requirements of the position.
Under OPM's interim regulations, when making determinations to allow
agencies to use direct-hire authority, OPM may decide on its own that a
severe hiring shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need exists,
either governmentwide or in specified agencies, or for one or more
specific occupations, grade levels (or equivalents), or geographic
locations. Alternatively, an agency may, in a written request to OPM,
identify the position or positions for which it believes a severe
shortage or critical hiring need exists. Under OPM's rules, to
demonstrate that a severe shortage of candidates exists for a position
or group of positions, an agency must provide information showing that
it is unable to identify candidates possessing the competencies
required to perform the necessary duties of the position despite
extensive recruitment, extended announcement periods, and the use, as
applicable, of hiring flexibilities such as recruitment and relocation
incentives. To prove that a critical hiring need exists, an agency must
demonstrate that it has a critical need for the position or positions
to meet mission requirements brought about by an exigency such as a
national emergency, threat or potential threat, environmental disaster,
or other unanticipated or unusual events.
As with category rating, OPM has provided agencies with guidance on the
use of direct-hire authority in their hiring processes. In June 2003,
OPM published interim regulations implementing direct-hire authority
and included revised guidance in its Delegated Examining Operations
Handbook. Additionally, OPM covered issues related to using direct-hire
authority in the onsite briefings it provided to agency program
officials, human resources staff, and contractors in July 2003. As with
category rating, OPM said it would issue final regulations on the use
of direct hire before its interim regulations sunset in June 2004.
Officials said the changes to the final regulations will be editorial
in nature and will not alter the criteria in determining whether there
is a severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need.
Since the issuance of its June 2003 interim regulations on the use of
direct-hire authority, OPM has approved three governmentwide direct-
hire authorities and seven agency-specific direct-hire authorities (see
table 2). The three governmentwide authorities allow all federal
agencies to use direct-hire procedures for specific medical
occupations, information security positions, and jobs requiring fluency
in Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages related to ongoing
reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The OPM-approved agency-specific
authorities to use direct hire cover a range of occupations, grade
levels, and locations at six agencies, such as veterinarians and
related positions at the Department of Agriculture principally to
address mad cow disease. OPM officials informed us that they had not
formally declined any agency requests for direct-hire authority since
the interim regulations were issued in June 2003. However, they did
point out that they had not approved all of the occupations that
Agriculture had requested for direct hire.
Table 2: Governmentwide and Agency-Specific Direct-Hire Authorities
Issued by OPM (June 2003 to Present):
Governmentwide direct-hire authorities issued: Medical occupations;
* All grade levels at all locations for the following:
Diagnostic Radiologic Technologist (GS-0647);
Medical Officer (GS-0602);
Nurse (GS-610, GS-620);
Pharmacist (GS-0660);
Governmentwide direct-hire authorities issued: Information security
positions;
* Information Technology Management (Information Security) GS-2210,
grade levels GS-9 and above at all locations;
Governmentwide direct-hire authorities issued: Iraqi Reconstruction
Efforts positions;
* Jobs that require fluency in Arabic or other related Middle Eastern
languages. Various Wage Grade and GS positions at all locations;
Agency-specific direct-hire authorities issued: Securities and Exchange
Commission;
* Grade levels GS-9 and above at all locations for the following
occupations:
Accountants (GS- 0510);
Economists (GS-0110);
Securities Compliance Examiners (GS- 1831);
* Information Technology Specialist (GS-2210) positions at grade
levels 9 and above in the Office of Information Technology;
Agency-specific direct-hire authorities issued: Department of
Agriculture;
* All locations for the following occupations:
Veterinary Medical Officer (GS-0701, grades 9 through 13);
Animal Health Technician (GS-0704, grades 2 through 10);
Plant Protection and Quarantine Officer (GS-0436, grades 5 through 13);
Plant Protection and Quarantine Aid/Technician (GS-0421, grades 2
through 7);
General Biological Science (GS-0401, grades 9 through 13);
Biological Science Technician (GS-0404, grades 2 through 7);
Microbiologist (GS- 0403, grades 9 through 13);
Entomologist (GS-0414, grades 9 through 13);
Botanist (GS-0430, grades 9 through 13);
Plant Pathologist, GS- 0434 (grades 9 through 13);
Ecologist (GS-0408, grades 9 through 13);
Chemist (GS-1320, grades 9 through 13);
Agency-specific direct-hire authorities issued: Department of Energy;
* Substation Operator positions (BB-5407) at Bonneville Power
Administration;
Agency-specific direct-hire authorities issued: Office of Federal
Housing Enterprise Oversight;
* Accountant and Examiner positions in the Washington, D.C., area;
Agency-specific direct-hire authorities issued: Department of Justice;
* Information Technology Specialist (GS-2210) positions at grade
levels 9 and above in the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and
Obscenity Section and Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section;
Agency-specific direct-hire authorities issued: Department of Health
and Human Services;
* Certain critical positions in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services responsible for implementing the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.
Source: OPM.
[End of table]
While the Homeland Security Act requires agencies to report to Congress
on their use of category rating, the act does not require agencies to
report to Congress on their use of direct hire. However, agencies are
required to report to OPM on the use of direct hire for inclusion in
OPM's centralized personnel database. OPM reported that its review of
data in the CPDF indicated that as of December 31, 2003, fewer than 50
individuals had been hired under the new direct-hire authority. It is
possible that when new personnel authority codes are added to personnel
actions reported by agencies for the CPDF, there could be a lag in
personnel officials' use of the new code and as a result the actual use
of the authority may be underreported.
The use of direct-hire authority was also listed in the OPM Director's
February 2004 memorandum to agency CHCOs as one of the top 10 things
agencies can do to improve hiring. In the memo, the OPM Director urged
agencies to look at their hiring plans, identify opportunities to use
direct hire based on the standards in the regulations, and, if
appropriate, ask OPM for the authority to use it. The memo also
suggested that agencies consider using direct-hire authority at one of
the federal job fairs that OPM was then sponsoring across the country.
The memo noted that OPM officials were somewhat surprised by how few
agencies had contacted OPM to request authority to use direct-hire
procedures.
Views of the CHCO Council Members:
Given the lack of available data on the extent to which agencies are
using the new direct-hire authority, we asked about this issue in our
April 2004 survey of the CHCO Council members. As shown in figure 4, a
majority (17 of 22) of the officials responding to our survey said that
their agencies were using direct hire to "some extent" or to "little or
no extent." (See app. II for further information on the survey
results.) In narrative responses to our survey questions about direct
hire, several respondents stated that their agencies had used direct-
hire authority to fill various medical positions and small numbers of
IT security positions. Several respondents also said that their
agencies had not yet used direct-hire authority but were assessing the
options for doing so. For example, a CHCO Council member representing
an independent agency said that the agency had not thus far decided if
it still had positions in a shortage category and would make such a
determination after completing its workforce analysis and strategic
assessments. A Council member from a cabinet-level department said that
it had determined a need for direct-hire authority for acquisition
specialists and was developing a request to OPM. Another Council member
representing a large department said that the department's components
were aware of the newly authorized direct-hire authority but they had
not yet identified situations for which they would request OPM's
approval to use the authority.
Figure 4: CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Extent to Which Their
Agencies Are Using Direct Hire:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We also surveyed CHCO Council members about the most significant
barriers, if any, preventing or hindering their agencies from using or
making greater use of the newly authorized direct-hire authority in
their hiring processes. Although the responses provided by the Council
members varied (see fig. 5), the most frequently cited barriers to
using direct hire were (1) rigid OPM rules and regulations, (2) concern
about possible inconsistent implementation within the department or
agency, (3) the limited number of occupations for which the authority
could be used, and (4) the lack of policies and procedures within the
agency for using direct hire. In narrative responses to our survey
questions about direct hire, a CHCO Council member representing a large
department said, for example, that recently OPM officials informally
told the department that OPM would likely disapprove a proposed request
for direct-hire authority that the department desired for a specified
occupation, even though at least one other agency had direct-hire
authority for that same occupation. This respondent said that the
specific position is relatively hard to fill and that OPM needs to
relax the criteria it uses to demonstrate a shortage of qualified
applicants. Another Council member representing an independent agency
commented that the governmentwide direct-hire authorities that OPM has
issued cover occupations that are generally not applicable to the
agency or in which the agency has an extremely limited number of
positions. In contrast, a CHCO representing a cabinet-level department
responded that no barriers exist for using direct-hire authority.
Figure 5: CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Most Significant
Barriers Preventing or Hindering Their Agencies' Use of Direct Hire:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Respondents could select up to three barriers.
[End of figure]
In our survey of CHCO Council members, we also asked about the extent
to which OPM had assisted their agencies in using direct hire and their
level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app.
II for further information). In narrative responses to our survey
questions about direct hire, one respondent from a cabinet-level
department said, for example, that the department had attempted to use
direct-hire authority for IT security positions but received
inconsistent guidance on the application of veterans' preference from
OPM. A Council member from a large department said that OPM should
delegate authority to approve direct hire requests to the agencies as
permitted by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. A respondent from a
department said that the department had surveyed its components to
determine if it should petition OPM for direct-hire authority, but that
most of the positions identified to date could not be justified based
on the OPM criteria.
Conclusions:
Congress, OPM, and agencies have recognized the need to improve the
federal hiring process and have initiated numerous efforts to address
key problem areas. Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, agencies
have been given new personnel flexibilities to improve the hiring
process. In addition, DHS and DOD have been given authority to
fundamentally reform their personnel systems, which, if successfully
implemented, could aid in improving their hiring processes. In addition
to these new hiring flexibilities given to agencies, agencies can
address many of their other hiring challenges by applying human capital
tools and flexibilities already available under existing laws and
regulations. Rather than wait for reforms to arrive, agency leaders
need to take the initiative to be more competitive in attracting new
employees with critical skills.
Although the agencies have primary responsibility to improve their
hiring processes, OPM can take additional action. As we noted earlier,
we previously recommended that OPM, working with the CHCO Council,
should serve as a clearinghouse to foster more use of personnel
flexibilities. In the hiring area, OPM could gather, analyze, and
report on when, where, and how agencies are using, or should use,
direct hire and category rating procedures to aid in their hiring
efforts.
The federal government is now facing one of the most transformational
changes to the civil service in half a century, which is reflected in
the new personnel systems for DHS and DOD and in new hiring
flexibilities provided to all agencies. Today's challenge is to define
the appropriate roles and day-to-day working relationships for OPM and
individual agencies as they collaborate on developing innovative and
more effective hiring systems. Moreover, human capital expertise within
the agencies must be up to the challenge for this transformation to be
successful and enduring.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Director of OPM provided written comments on a draft of this
report, which are shown in appendix III. In these written comments, the
OPM Director said that OPM has done much to assist agencies and
increase their knowledge about the hiring flexibilities available to
them. She highlighted, for example, her memoranda to agencies that
contain information and guidance on the use of hiring flexibilities as
well as training that OPM provided to agencies as part of the OPM-
sponsored "Working for America" recruitment fairs. She underscored that
agencies must rise to the challenge, provide consistent leadership at
the senior level, take advantage of the training opportunities offered
by OPM, and make fixing the hiring process a priority.
The OPM Director also commented that the report "appears to rely upon
perceptions that are not consistent with the facts." OPM explained this
concern in additional technical comments that were provided by E-mail.
In these technical comments, OPM raised objections to our use of
narrative responses from our survey of CHCO Council members and
requested that many of these responses be deleted from the final
report. OPM said that in some instances the opinions expressed by the
CHCO Council members made reference to situations or circumstances that
were outside of the respondent's agency or personal knowledge and were
unsubstantiated. However, consistent with OPM's position that agencies
must take greater responsibility for their own hiring processes and
that it has effectively trained agency officials on hiring, it seems to
reason that the CHCOs of these departments and agencies should be in a
position to comment knowledgeably on their agencies' efforts--and OPM's
efforts in assisting them--to improve hiring processes. As noted in the
description of our scope and methodology for this report (see app. I),
the results of our survey represent the views and opinions of the
responding CHCO Council members. In drafting this report, we provided a
full range of narrative responses from CHCO Council members--both
positive and negative--related to OPM's role in helping to improve the
federal hiring process. In our survey to the CHCO Council members (see
app. II), we specifically noted that our report would not identify the
names of individual respondents or their associated departments or
agencies. We took this step to better ensure that we received direct
and candid survey responses. Moreover, we make direct reference to
actions taken and documents produced on federal issues throughout the
draft.
In its technical comments, OPM also offered suggested changes to
clarify various issues related to personnel policy and procedures.
Where appropriate, we made changes to the report to address the
comments we received.
We will send copies to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the
House Committee on Government Reform, the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and other
interested congressional parties. We will also provide copies to the
Director of OPM. In addition, we will make copies available to others
upon request. The report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202)
512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Major contributors to this report are listed
in appendix IV.
Signed by:
J. Christopher Mihm:
Managing Director, Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of this study were to:
* provide information on the status of recent efforts to help improve
the federal hiring process; and:
* determine the extent to which federal agencies are using the new
hiring flexibilities--category rating and direct-hire authority--
authorized by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
This study builds on the information, conclusions, and recommendations
of our report: Human Capital: Opportunities to Improve Executive
Agencies' Hiring Processes (GAO-03-450, May 30, 2003). That report
concluded that the federal hiring process needed improvement and made
recommendations to address problems with the job classification
process, job vacancy announcements and Web postings, manual hiring
processes, and hiring assessment tools.
To respond to the objectives on this engagement, we interviewed
officials from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and members of
the subcommittee on the hiring process of the Chief Human Capital
Officers (CHCO) Council. Specifically, our questions and review
centered on actions being taken to address the hiring problems and
recommendations identified in our May 2003 report, what new hiring
initiatives were underway, and an assessment of the extent to which
agencies are using category rating and direct-hire authority. We also
collected and reviewed OPM documents related to federal hiring.
In addition, we obtained opinions and views on efforts to improve the
federal hiring process as well as agencies' use of new hiring
flexibilities by interviewing human capital experts at the following
organizations.
* The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent,
quasi-judicial agency in the executive branch 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 (NAPA) is an
independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, congressionally charted
organization that assists federal, state, and local governments in
improving their performance.
* The National Partnership for Public Service is a nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization dedicated to revitalizing the public service.
We also conducted a survey of the members of the CHCO Council. The CHCO
Council currently comprises 25 members: the Director of OPM; the Deputy
Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB);
CHCOs from executive branch departments, and other agency CHCOs invited
to join by the OPM Director, who serves as chair of the Council. We
sent our questionnaire to the 23 Council members serving as CHCOs
representing federal departments and agencies; our survey did not
include the Director of OPM or the Deputy Director for Management of
OMB. Specifically, the Council members we surveyed were the CHCOs from
the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy,
Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban
Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation,
Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; and CHCOs from the Central Intelligence
Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, General Services
Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, OPM, Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, and
Social Security Administration. Twenty-two of the 23 Council members
responded to our questionnaire. The CHCO Council member from the
Central Intelligence Agency did not respond to our survey because his
representative said the agency was an excepted service agency and thus
the survey questions were not relevant.
Our survey of the CHCO Council members included questions to help us
address both engagement objectives. For the first objective, we asked
questions about the parts of the hiring process we had identified in
our May 2003 report--specifically, reforming the classification
process, automating hiring processes, improving job announcements and
Web postings, and developing improved hiring assessment tools. For the
second objective, we asked questions about the use of category rating
and direct-hire authority and the possible barriers hindering agencies'
use of these two new hiring flexibilities.
The results of our survey reflect the views and opinions of the
responding CHCO Council members. As noted above for objective one, we
asked the survey recipients if their agencies had made efforts in the
four hiring areas; however, we did not ask respondents to specifically
identify those efforts nor did we conduct other data collection efforts
to verify the nature or extent of such efforts. Similarly, for
objective two related to the use of category rating or direct-hire
authority, we asked the Council members their views about the extent of
use of the two flexibilities.
The questionnaire we used contained 34 questions and was developed from
March through April 2004 by a social science survey specialist and
other individuals knowledgeable about the OPM reforms. The
questionnaire was reviewed by other survey specialists and experts in
the content area and pretested with four government human capital
professionals familiar with the initiatives to develop a questionnaire
that was unambiguous and unbiased. We made changes to the content and
format of the final questionnaire based on the reviews and pretest
results.
The survey was conducted using an Active X-enabled E-mail attachment.
The survey was sent to all agency members of the CHCO Council beginning
on April 15, 2004, and all recipients of our survey replied to our
request for information by May 7, 2004. Respondents were given the
option of returning the survey as an E-mail attachment or printing the
questionnaire and returning it via fax. Data for this study were
entered directly into the instrument by the respondents and converted
into a database for analysis. Appendix II presents a copy of the survey
and the responses of the CHCO Council members to the closed-ended
questions on our survey.
As part of our analysis process, we examined CHCO Council members'
answers in response to questions asking them if they had any additional
comments to make on a specific topic or additional barriers to
identify. We reviewed the additional barriers identified and counted
the number of instances where two or more respondents identified a
similar barrier and included those frequency counts in our report.
Given the broad scope of the questions asking for any additional
comments, we did not perform a similar content analysis of CHCO
responses to those broad questions. However, we included some of those
additional comments by individual CHCOs in this report to illustrate
the diversity of views provided by the CHCOs on these topics.
In addition, we used data from OPM's Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)
to identify the total new hires by federal department and agency for
fiscal year 2003. We also analyzed data from the CPDF in an attempt to
identify the extent to which agencies are using the direct-hire
authority contained in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Data on
agencies' use of category rating is not maintained in the CPDF. As
noted in the body of this report, it is possible that when new
personnel authorities are authorized (any new codes established for the
CPDF), personnel officials might continue to use old codes and
therefore underreport the use of the new authority. With the exception
of the concern just noted, based on previous GAO work, the CPDF data
are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of providing background
information on new hires.[Footnote 35]
We provided a draft of this report to OPM for review and comment. OPM's
comments are shown in appendix III. We did our review in Washington,
D.C., from March 2004 through May 2004 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members of the Chief
Human Capital Officers Council:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR:
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT:
WASHINGTON, DC 20415-1000:
June 1, 2004:
The Honorable David M. Walker:
Comptroller General:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Walker:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to your recent draft
report regarding Federal hiring. The focus of the report, improved
Federal hiring, as you know is a top priority of this Administration
and we commend you on the timeliness of your study, and the additional
interest it will stimulate as OPM continues to drive this issue. The
points offered in this letter are aimed at providing a wider
representation of the efforts currently underway by OPM and our Federal
teammates within the agencies.
We are concerned that the report appears to rely upon perceptions that
are not consistent with the facts. For example, we are working on a
continuous basis with members of the Chief Human Capital Officers
(CHCO) Council to increase their knowledge about the hiring
flexibilities available to them. Since June 2003, we have met with the
CHCO Council on a regular basis to share information and provide
guidance to ensure agencies were fully informed about the newest
flexibilities: category rating systems for competitive examining and
selection and direct-hire authority in circumstances where there is a
severe shortage of qualified candidates or a critical mission need. We
chose the first CHCO Academy session to be a training program on
existing hiring flexibilities. This session was attended by eight of
the twenty-three Chief Human Capital Officers - the CHCO's from the
Departments of Defense, Treasury, State, Justice, and Agriculture, as
well as the General Services Administration, Social Security
Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Since then, in
an effort to fully train all agency CHCO's and their staffs, we have
provided, through a variety of delivery sources, agencies with a number
of additional opportunities to receive information on the use of these
flexibilities. For example, I have issued numerous memoranda which
contain information and guidance on these flexibilities and other ways
to improve Federal hiring. Recently OPM delivered two briefing sessions
on the flexibilities; as part of the OPM-sponsored "Working for
America" recruitment fairs, we delivered advance training to agencies
on how to use the hiring flexibilities, and provided information and
technical assistance on the flexibilities at the events. In addition,
we have presented Professional Development Workshops on workforce
planning which included in-depth training on the flexibilities; and our
Human Capital Desk Officers provide direct, on-going support to the
agencies in all aspects of strategic human capital management including
the effective use of the hiring flexibilities.
As you can see, much has been done by OPM. Nevertheless, we are still
extremely disappointed with the lack of sustained progress in achieving
the broad Government-wide improvements that are required to meet the
needs of agencies and the legitimate expectations of applicants. I am
convinced that the next step to improving Federal hiring is to measure
the time it takes agencies to hire. In that regard, OPM set a target
for the Federal recruitment process in May 2004 by issuing a 45-day
hiring model to agencies that tracks time-to-hire from the date a
vacancy announcement closes to the date an offer is extended. The model
was developed and implemented within OPM and has demonstrated results.
Similar to the proven 30-day SES hiring model issued in 2003, the 45
day model has already begun a dialogue within agencies on how to better
drive results within the area of hiring. Because "what gets measured
gets done," OPM will be exploring ways to advance goals and
measurements within Federal agencies.
Federal agencies must rise to the challenge, take advantage of the
training opportunities offered by OPM, make fixing the hiring process a
priority. and provide consistent leadership at the senior level. We are
hopeful that you will find this information useful in revising your
draft report. Under separate cover staff provided technical edits. Once
again, we thank you for the opportunity to comment, and look forward to
reviewing the revised report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Kay Coles James:
Director:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806:
Acknowledgments:
Major contributors to this report include K. Scott Derrick, Karin
Fangman, Stephanie M. Herrold, Trina Lewis, John Ripper, Edward
Stephenson, and Monica L. Wolford.
(450317):
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Opportunities to
Improve Executive Agencies' Hiring Processes, GAO-03-450 (Washington,
D.C.: May 30, 2003).
[2] Category rating permits an agency manager to select any job
candidate placed in a best-qualified category rather than being limited
to three candidates under the "rule of three." Direct-hire authority
allows an agency to appoint individuals to positions without adherence
to certain competitive examination requirements when there is a severe
shortage of qualified candidates or a critical hiring need. These two
hiring flexibilities are contained in the Chief Human Capital Officers
Act of 2002, Title XIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public
Law 107-296, Nov. 25, 2002.
[3] The CHCO Council member from the Central Intelligence Agency did
not respond to the survey because his representative said the agency
was an excepted service agency and thus the survey questions were not
relevant.
[4] 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. In response to the consent
decree, OPM developed the Administrative Careers with America (ACWA)
examination. The consent decree also established two special hiring
programs, Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural, for limited use
in filling former PACE positions.
[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: OPM Can Better
Assist Agencies in Using Personnel Flexibilities, GAO-03-428
(Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2003).
[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Observations on
Agencies' Implementation of the Chief Human Capital Officers Act, GAO-
04-800T (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2004).
[7] Positions may be excepted from the competitive service by statute,
by the President, or by 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). Examples of excepted service
positions include chaplains, attorneys, and political appointees. 5
C.F.R. Part 213, Subpart C.
[8] The CHCO provisions, along with the hiring flexibilities, are
contained in the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002, Title XIII
of the Homeland Security Act.
[9] The CHCO Council has subcommittees on (1) the hiring process, (2)
performance management, (3) leadership development and succession, (4)
employee conduct and poor performers, and (5) emergency preparedness.
[10] Hart-Teeter Research, The Unanswered Call to Pubic Service:
Americans' Attitudes Before and After September 11th (Washington, D.C.:
October 2001).
[11] National Academy of Public Administration, Summary of Human
Resources Management Research for the National Commission on the Public
Service (Washington, D.C.: July 2002).
[12] U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making the Public Service
Work: Recommendations for Change (Washington, D.C.: September 2002).
[13] U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Strategic Plan 2002-2007
(Washington, D.C.: November 2002).
[14] National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business for
America: Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003).
[15] The GS is the federal government's main pay system for "white-
collar" positions. Each of the 15 grades of the GS are divided into 10
specific pay levels called "steps."
[16] U.S. Office of Personnel Management, A Fresh Start for Federal
Pay: The Case for Modernization (Washington, D.C.: April 2002).
[17] Public Law 107-296, Nov. 25, 2002. Title 5 is the title of the
U.S. Code that stipulates civilian personnel law for much of the
federal civil service.
[18] See our recent report describing several personnel demonstration
projects: U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Implementing
Pay for Performance at Selected Personnel Demonstration Projects, GAO-
04-83 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2004).
[19] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: DHS Personnel
System Design Effort Provides for Collaboration and Employee
Participation, GAO-03-1099 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2003). Also, we
reported on key practices and steps that can help agencies implement
successful transformations in modernizing their human capital policies
in the following reports: Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation
Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669
(Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003); and Highlights of a GAO Forum:
Mergers and Transformations: Lessons Learned for a Department of
Homeland Security and Other Federal Agencies, GAO-03-293SP (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 14, 2002).
[20] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
authorized DOD to establish a new civilian personnel system that is
flexible, contemporary, and consistent with merit system principles.
Public Law 108-136, Nov. 24, 2003.
[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, Department of Defense: Further
Actions Needed to Establish and Implement a Framework for Successful
Financial and Business Management Transformation, GAO-04-551T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2004).
[22] U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Draft: OPM's Guiding
Principles for Civil Service Transformation (Washington, D.C.: April
2004).
[23] U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Competing for Federal Jobs -
Job Search Experiences of New Hires (Washington, D.C.: February 2000);
and Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements (Washington,
D.C.: December 2002).
[24] Concern over OPM's original proposal also generated a restriction
precluding OPM from using its fiscal year 2004 funds to prohibit any
agency from contracting with companies to provide online employment
applications and processing services. Departments of Transportation and
Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L.
No. 108-199, div. F, title VI, § 628, 118 Stat. 349, 356-7 (Jan. 23,
2004).
[25] U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government:
Initiatives Sponsored by the Office of Management and Budget Have Made
Mixed Progress, GAO-04-561T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2004).
[26] The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) rates customer
service with a score of 0 to 100. The satisfaction score for the
USAJOBS Web site is determined using a 90-day average based on Web site
visitors' responses to an online survey. OPM officials stated that
although they have increased customer satisfaction for the Web site,
their intention is to significantly surpass the governmentwide average
score of 71.
[27] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Effective Use of
Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in Managing Their Workforces, GAO-03-
2 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2002).
[28] The Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs
Service are now part of the Department of Homeland Security.
[29] GAO-03-2.
[30] GAO-03-428.
[31] GAO-04-800T.
[32] Compensable veterans with a disability of 10 percent or more who
are rated as eligible "float to the top" of the highest quality group
except in cases involving hiring for professional or scientific
positions at or above grade GS-9.
[33] OPM is authorized to waive civil service laws and regulations to
permit agencies to test alternative personnel management approaches. 5
U.S.C. § 4703.
[34] Section 1312(a)(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (amending
5 U.S.C. 3304). This provision also permits OPM to delegate the
authority to make such determinations under OPM criteria.
[35] U.S. General Accounting Office, OPM's Central Personnel Data File:
Data Appear Sufficiently Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs, GAO/GGD-
98-199 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 1998).
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:
