Office of Personnel Management
Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress in Internal Human Capital Capacity Gao ID: GAO-08-11 October 31, 2007Given the importance of the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) role in managing the nation's federal workforce, GAO assessed OPM's internal capacity for human capital management. This report--the third in the series--extends prior work and (1) looks at the extent to which OPM has addressed key internal human capital management issues identified by examining employee responses to the 2004 and 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) and (2) has strategies in place to ensure it has the mission critical talent it needs to meet current and future strategic goals. To address our objectives, GAO analyzed 2004 and 2006 FHCS results, summaries of OPM employee focus groups, and analyzed OPM strategic and human capital planning documents.
OPM has taken positive actions to address specific concerns raised by employees and managers in the 2004 and 2006 FHCS responses. OPM conducted employee focus groups to understand factors contributing to the low 2004 survey scores and took actions, such as trying to improve communication throughout the agency. The 2006 survey results showed improvement in the area of leadership, with mixed results in the performance culture and accountability area, and continued concern in the talent management area. Without the responses from the investigative service employees who transferred from the Department of Defense in early 2005, OPM's 2006 FHCS results would have been, in many cases, significantly more positive than in 2004. The perceptions of the investigative service employees, however, will need continued attention. OPM has strategies in place, such as workforce and succession management plans, that are aligned with selected leading practices relevant to the agency's capacity to fulfill its strategic goals. For example, OPM's top leadership is involved in these efforts, and the agency has assessed gaps in numbers and competencies and created gap closure plans for its mission critical and leadership workforce. OPM lacks, however, a well-documented agencywide evaluation process of some of its workforce planning efforts. In particular, OPM's implementation of division-level training plans could make it difficult for the agency to identify and address reasons for shortfalls in meeting its talent management goals. In a relatively short time, there will also be a Presidential transition, and well-documented processes can help to ensure a seamless transition that builds on the current momentum.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-11, Office of Personnel Management: Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress in Internal Human Capital Capacity
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-11
entitled 'Office of Personnel Management: Opportunities Exist to Build
on Recent Progress in Internal Human Capital Capacity' which was
released on November 1, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2007:
office of personnel management:
Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress in Internal Human
Capital Capacity:
Office of Personnel Management:
GAO-08-11:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-11, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Given the importance of the Office of Personnel Management‘s (OPM) role
in managing the nation‘s federal workforce, GAO assessed OPM‘s internal
capacity for human capital management. This report”the third in the
series”extends prior work and (1) looks at the extent to which OPM has
addressed key internal human capital management issues identified by
examining employee responses to the 2004 and 2006 Federal Human Capital
Survey (FHCS) and (2) has strategies in place to ensure it has the
mission critical talent it needs to meet current and future strategic
goals. To address our objectives, GAO analyzed 2004 and 2006 FHCS
results, summaries of OPM employee focus groups, and analyzed OPM
strategic and human capital planning documents.
What GAO Found:
OPM has taken positive actions to address specific concerns raised by
employees and managers in the 2004 and 2006 FHCS responses. OPM
conducted employee focus groups to understand factors contributing to
the low 2004 survey scores and took actions, such as trying to improve
communication throughout the agency. The 2006 survey results showed
improvement in the area of leadership, with mixed results in the
performance culture and accountability area, and continued concern in
the talent management area. Without the responses from the
investigative service employees who transferred from the Department of
Defense in early 2005, OPM‘s 2006 FHCS results would have been, in many
cases, significantly more positive than in 2004. The perceptions of the
investigative service employees, however, will need continued
attention.
Figure: OPM's FHCS Ranking out of 36 Agencies:
This figure is a chart showing OPM's FHCS ranking out of 36 agencies.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of OPM information.
[End of figure]
OPM has strategies in place, such as workforce and succession
management plans, that are aligned with selected leading practices
relevant to the agency‘s capacity to fulfill its strategic goals. For
example, OPM‘s top leadership is involved in these efforts, and the
agency has assessed gaps in numbers and competencies and created gap
closure plans for its mission critical and leadership workforce.
OPM lacks, however, a well-documented agencywide evaluation process of
some of its workforce planning efforts. In particular, OPM‘s
implementation of division-level training plans could make it difficult
for the agency to identify and address reasons for shortfalls in
meeting its talent management goals. In a relatively short time, there
will also be a Presidential transition, and well-documented processes
can help to ensure a seamless transition that builds on the current
momentum.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Director of OPM institute a documented process
to ensure an agencywide perspective on workforce and succession
efforts, including funding, implementation, and evaluation. In
commenting on the report, the Director of OPM agreed with our
recommendation, adding that the insights and recommendation provided in
the report will be useful in shaping both ongoing and planned human
capital initiatives within OPM.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on [hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-11]. For more
information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-6806 or
mihmj@gao.gov
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
OPM 2006 Survey Results Show Improvement in Employees' Perceptions of
Leadership: Challenges Exist in Talent Management and Perceptions of
DOD Investigative Service Transfers:
OPM's Workforce and Succession Plans Align with Selected Leading
Practices, but the Agency Lacks a Well-Documented Process of Evaluation
of Some of These Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Selected Survey Questions and Data on the Federal Human
Capital Survey:
Appendix III: OPM Succession Planning Position Profile--Annotated with
Instructions:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: OPM's FHCS Ranking out of 36 Agencies:
Figure 2: OPM's Organizational Structure:
Figure 3: OPM Responses to Selected Leadership Questions in 2004 and
2006:
Figure 4: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Managers
Communicating the Goals and Priorities of the Organization in 2004 and
2006:
Figure 5: OPM Responses to Selected Performance Culture and
Accountability Questions for 2004 and 2006:
Figure 6: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Selected Performance
Culture and Accountability Questions in 2006:
Figure 7: OPM Responses to Selected Talent Management Questions for
2004 and 2006:
Figure 8: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Selected Talent
Management Questions in 2006:
Figure 9: Sequence of Selected 2004 and 2006 FHCS Actions Taken by OPM:
Figure 10: OPM's Workforce Planning for Mission Critical Occupations:
Figure 11: OPM's Succession Management Planning:
Figure 12: OPM's Workforce Planning for Leadership Incumbents:
Abbreviations:
CHCMS:Center for Human Capital Management Services:
CHCO: Chief Human Capital Officer:
CIO: Chief Information Officer:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DSS: Defense Security Services:
EEO: equal employment opportunity:
EHRI: Enterprise Human Resources Initiative:
ERB: executive resources board:
FHCS: Federal Human Capital Survey:
FISD: Federal Investigative Services Division:
GS: General Schedule:
HCAAF: Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework:
HCLMSA: Human Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability:
HC Plan: A Plan for the Strategic Management of OPM's Human Capital:
HR: human resources:
HRLOB: Human Resources Line of Business:
HRM: human resources management:
HRPS: Human Resources Products and Services:
IDP: individual development plan:
MCAT: Management Competency Assessment Tool:
MCO: mission critical occupation:
MSD: Management Services Division:
OCFO: Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
PMA: President's Management Agenda:
SES: Senior Executive Service:
SHRP: Strategic Human Resources Policy:
TAG: training advisory group:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 31, 2007:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has a vital role to play in
ensuring agencies are making strategic human capital management a
priority. In addition, OPM has an important operational responsibility
to work with federal departments and agencies to ensure that human
capital reforms, such as performance management systems, are providing
employees with fair and transparent results and meaningful
opportunities to enhance communication and improve individual and
organizational performance. These strategic and operational human
capital management challenges also exist within OPM, and as OPM's role
in the federal government continues to evolve, its workforce must be
structured to tackle these challenges.
We have previously reported that OPM has made commendable efforts
toward transforming itself to being a more effective leader of
governmentwide human capital reform, but that it can build upon that
progress by addressing challenges that remain.[Footnote 1] For example,
OPM's own workforce, through the Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS),
has expressed concerns about the agency's ability to recruit and
develop employees with the skills necessary to achieve its mission
objectives. Further, the executive branch agencies have pointed to
problems in receiving timely and accurate human capital guidance and
advice from OPM. In addition, OPM has undergone significant changes in
the last few years including the expansion of its agency functions in
the area of personnel security investigations. In early 2005, the
agency's workforce grew by approximately 40 percent when more than
1,500 security clearance employees transferred from Defense Security
Services (DSS), a Department of Defense (DOD) agency, to the OPM
investigative services division.
Given the importance of OPM's key role and these challenges, you asked
us to assess the extent to which OPM has the capacity to lead and
implement governmentwide human capital reform. In addition to the June
2006 testimony on OPM's internal capacity for leading human capital
reform,[Footnote 2] we issued a report in January 2007 that
specifically identified lessons that could be learned from OPM's
efforts to lead and implement the senior executive performance-based
pay system and other human capital initiatives that can be applied to
ongoing and future human capital reform efforts.[Footnote 3] For this
report, the third in the series, we determined the extent to which OPM
(1) has addressed key internal human capital management issues
identified by examining employee responses to the 2004 and 2006 FHCS,
and (2) has strategies in place to ensure it has the mission critical
talent it needs to meet current and future strategic goals.
To address our first objective, we analyzed OPM's 2004 and 2006 FHCS
results related to key issues of leadership, performance culture and
accountability, and talent management to determine whether OPM has made
progress in addressing areas of concern from the 2004 survey. We also
analyzed OPM's 2006 survey results to identify any new challenges to
OPM's strategic human capital management. To address our second
objective, we reviewed OPM's strategic and human capital planning
documents and analyzed the extent to which OPM adheres to selected
strategic workforce planning practices and principles relevant to OPM's
capacity to fulfill its strategic goals. For example, we reviewed OPM's
analyses identifying critical skills and competencies and related gaps
and determined the extent to which they aligned with OPM's strategic
and operational plan. We focused primarily on examining Senior
Executive Service (SES) positions and positions from the two OPM
divisions with the most responsibility for working with federal
departments and agencies to assist them with their human capital
efforts: the Strategic Human Resources Policy (SHRP) and the Human
Capital Leadership and Merit System Accountability (HCLMSA) divisions.
We also had discussions with and obtained other pertinent documentation
from officials at OPM at their headquarters in Washington, D.C. In
addition, we reviewed academic literature and prior GAO reports about
succession and workforce planning.
We conducted our review in Washington, D.C., from December 2006 through
August 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Detailed information on our scope and methodology appears in
appendix I.
Results in Brief:
OPM's 2006 FHCS results, including the DOD investigative service
transfers, showed strong improvement in OPM employees' perceptions of
leadership, mixed results in the performance culture and accountability
area, and a continuing concern in the area of talent management. For
example, there was an 8 percentage point increase from 2004 to 2006 in
response to "my organization's leaders maintain high standards of
honesty and integrity," while in the area of talent management, OPM
declined 5 percentage points from 2004 to 2006 in response to employees
reporting satisfaction with the training they received. As illustrated
in figure 1, however, without the responses from the DOD investigative
service transfers, OPM's 2006 FHCS ranking would have been
substantially higher than its 2004 ranking.
Figure 1: OPM's FHCS Ranking out of 36 Agencies:
This figure is a chart showing OPM's FHCS ranking out of 36 agencies.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of OPM information.
[End of figure]
The less positive[Footnote 4] responses of the DOD investigative
service transfers on key questions point to areas where OPM will need
to continue to focus its attention. For example, without DOD transfers,
the OPM 2006 response to "I have a high level of respect for my
organization's senior leaders" would have been 14 percentage points
higher than 2004 results for the same question. OPM conducted a series
of employee focus groups to understand factors contributing to its low
scores on the 2004 FHCS and to gather employee ideas for addressing top
priority improvement areas. The agency then developed action plans and
took various steps in response to the employee focus groups, such as
conducting Web casts from the Director and generating e-mail
communications on internal organizational changes. Across the agency,
in response to the 2006 survey results, OPM reviewed and updated the
first set of action plans by incorporating changes as needed to address
areas of new and continuing concern to OPM employees.
OPM's workforce and succession plans are consistent with selected
leading practices and principles relevant to its capacity to fulfill
its strategic goals. The agency lacks, however, a well-documented
process for agencywide evaluation of some of its workforce planning
implementation efforts, particularly training and development. OPM's
leadership is involved in the organization's succession and workforce
planning through its executive resources board (ERB), which serves as
the advisory and review body for all major leadership management
policies and programs. In addition, OPM has assessed gaps in numbers
and competencies and created gap closure plans for its mission critical
and leadership workforce, with competency assessments showing overall
improvement with few remaining deficiencies. By operating at the
division level without a well-documented agencywide evaluation process,
however, OPM's top leadership may be missing opportunities to identify,
and address, weaknesses in its workforce planning and succession
efforts. For example, it was not evident that OPM can identify whether
it is optimizing its investment in training and development by making
the appropriate level of investment and prioritizing funding across
divisions so that it addresses the most important needs first. In
addition, in a relatively short time, there will be a Presidential
transition, and well-documented processes can help to ensure a seamless
transition that can build on the current momentum.
This report contains a recommendation to the Director of OPM to
institute a documented process for its top leadership to monitor
workforce and succession efforts carried out at the division level, to
help ensure an agencywide perspective on workforce and succession
funding, implementation, and evaluation.
In its written comments on a draft of this report, the Director of OPM
agreed with our recommendation, adding that the insights and
recommendation provided in the report will be useful in shaping both
ongoing and planned human capital management initiatives within OPM.
Background:
OPM manages the federal government's human capital and is responsible
for helping agencies shape their human capital management systems and
holding them accountable for effective human capital management
practices. Title 5 of the U.S. Code, which provides for the effective
management of the civil service, describes OPM's mission and
responsibilities. OPM is also responsible for administering retirement,
health benefits, and other insurance services to government employees,
annuitants, and beneficiaries.
During the past several years, OPM has undergone significant changes.
The entire agency was restructured in fiscal year 2003, which included
steps such as eliminating redundant operations and organizational
layers. As mentioned previously, in early 2005, OPM's workforce
expanded by approximately 40 percent when more than 1,500 security
clearance employees transferred from DSS. Several months later, OPM
experienced a change in top leadership, with the appointment of a new
agency director in May 2005. In addition to making organizational
changes, OPM has recast a number of its mission objectives. As we
previously reported, OPM is continuing to transform itself from less of
a rulemaker, enforcer, and independent agent to more of a consultant,
toolmaker, and strategic partner in leading and supporting executive
branch agencies' human capital management systems.[Footnote 5] OPM has
also played a role in the design and implementation of new human
capital systems at the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense and
has exerted greater human capital leadership through its Human Capital
Scorecard of the President's Management Agenda (PMA).
OPM is responsible for helping other federal departments and agencies
with strategic human capital management, while serving as a model for
managing its own workforce. SHRP and HCLMSA are the two OPM divisions
with the most responsibility for working with federal departments and
agencies to assist them with making their human capital efforts more
effective. SHRP designs, develops, and implements human capital
policies and programs. SHRP's objective is to make sure federal
agencies understand human capital policy and correctly apply it. For
example, SHRP counsels agencies on how to apply policy to their
performance appraisal, employee development, labor-management
relations, information technology, and workforce planning programs.
HCLMSA serves as the strategic leader of the governmentwide effort to
transform human capital management so that agencies are held
accountable for managing their workforces effectively, efficiently, and
in accordance with merit principles. This division provides advice and
assistance in all areas of staffing and human capital management, such
as workforce restructuring and assistance in recruiting. While SHRP
focuses on developing human capital policy, HCLMSA's responsibilities
deal primarily with the implementation of that policy. The Management
Services Division (MSD), headed by the senior executive who also serves
as the agency's Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), is responsible for
providing human capital management services to the agency. MSD houses
the Center for Human Capital Management Services (CHCMS), which is
responsible for coordinating much of OPM's internal strategic human
capital planning, including workforce and leadership succession
management efforts. This group is also responsible for supporting the
agency in recruitment, hiring, and other day-to-day human capital
management activities. Figure 2 shows OPM's organizational structure.
Figure 2: OPM's Organizational Structure:
This figure is a chart showing OPM's organizational structure.
[See PDF for image]
Source: OPM.
[End of figure]
One of OPM's efforts has been to conduct the FHCS biennially to measure
employees' perceptions on whether conditions characterizing successful
organizations are present in their agencies. OPM uses the FHCS in the
Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF) as one
source of information for evaluating agency success in creating a
better working environment for their employees.[Footnote 6] OPM
analyzes the FHCS results for itself and each agency with the four
indices of the HCAAF: Leadership and Knowledge Management, Results-
Oriented Performance Culture, Talent Management, and Job Satisfaction.
A performance agreement at OPM showed the agency had a goal of being in
the top half of agencies surveyed for 2006 and being in the top 5 of
government rankings for 2008. The FHCS data are also used to rank
agencies and subcomponents on a "Best Places to Work" index score,
which measures employee satisfaction. The Partnership for Public
Service and the Institute for Study of Public Policy Implementation
produce the best places to work rankings.[Footnote 7] More than 220,000
federal employees responded to the most recent survey in 2006, with a
governmentwide response rate of 57 percent. The survey participation
rate within OPM was 80 percent.
In 2006 testimony, we reported that OPM's 2004 survey results could be
summarized as reflecting employees' concerns about perceptions of
leadership; talent management; customer focus, communication, and
collaboration; and performance culture and accountability.[Footnote 8]
We identified these four key areas as critical for human capital
development in order for OPM to continue to transform itself into a
more effective leader of governmentwide human capital reform. The areas
differ slightly from the four HCAAF indices and represent a somewhat
different grouping of survey items than the indices. For example, we
included three questions that were asked relating to talent management:
(1) the skill level in my work unit has improved over the past year;
(2) I have sufficient resources to get my job done; and (3)
supervisors/team leaders provide employees with constructive
suggestions to improve their job performance. For this report, we did
not include customer focus, communication, and collaboration because
the number of survey items we included in that area decreased to one
question from 2004 to 2006, making the data no longer significant.
OPM 2006 Survey Results Show Improvement in Employees' Perceptions of
Leadership: Challenges Exist in Talent Management and Perceptions of
DOD Investigative Service Transfers:
Compared to its 2004 results, OPM's 2006 FHCS results indicate strong
improvement in employee perceptions on key questions relating to
leadership, mixed results in performance culture and accountability,
and continuing challenges in talent management. Additionally, OPM's
2006 survey results show that the investigative service transfers from
DOD, who joined the agency in 2005, were less positive than the rest of
OPM's 2006 responses and negatively affected OPM's overall results. As
a response to a decrease in positive 2004 FHCS responses within OPM,
the agency used survey results and focus groups to develop action plans
to address areas of employee concerns. In response to the 2006 survey
results, OPM reviewed and updated the first set of action plans by
incorporating changes as needed to address areas of concern to OPM
employees.
OPM's 2006 FHCS Leadership Responses Show Strong Improvement:
Top leadership in agencies across the federal government must provide
the committed attention needed to address human capital and related
organizational transformation issues. In 2006, OPM experienced a
positive increase in employee perceptions of questions relating to
leadership compared to 2004 FHCS responses. Four questions out of the
top 10 questions having the largest increase in positive responses from
2004 to 2006 were related to leadership. For example, there was an 8
percentage point increase for both "satisfaction with information
received from management" and "my organization's leaders maintain high
standards of honesty and integrity," as displayed in figure 3.[Footnote
9]
Figure 3: OPM Responses to Selected Leadership Questions in 2004 and
2006:
This figure is a bar chart showing OPM responses to selected leadership
questions in 2004 and 2006.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
[End of figure]
The positive response increase for leadership questions from 2004 to
2006 represents a major improvement for the agency and a decreasing gap
between OPM and the rest of government. OPM was significantly higher
than the rest of government on three of eight leadership questions. For
example, on the question "Managers communicate the goals and priorities
of the organization," OPM was 11 percentage points higher than the rest
of government and 15 percentage points higher than OPM's 2004 results,
as shown in figure 4[Footnote 10]. Additionally, on the HCAAF index for
Leadership and Knowledge Management, OPM's ranking improved from 28th
in 2004 to 19th in 2006, out of 36 ranked agencies.
Figure 4: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Managers
Communicating the Goals and Priorities of the Organization in 2004 and
2006:
This figure is a chart showing OPM and the rest of government responses
to managers communicating the goals and priorities of the organization
on 2004 and 2006.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
[End of figure]
For questions relating to leadership, however, OPM's 2006 results
continue to show a larger gap between SES and General Schedule (GS)-
level employees than the difference found in the rest of government
results. We reported previously that OPM's 2004 FHCS results and the
follow-up focus group discussions implied that information did not
cascade effectively from the top leadership throughout the
organization, and we identified a gap in perception between OPM's SES
and GS-level employees, particularly relating to questions on
leadership.[Footnote 11] In 2006, this gap persists between SES and GS-
level employees. For example, in both 2004 and 2006 OPM's SES responses
were substantially more positive than non-SES responses for the
statement "I have a high level of respect for my organization's senior
leaders." While OPM has taken steps to address the lack of overall and
cross-divisional communication and issues related to employee views of
senior management, this gap between SES and GS-level response remains a
challenge.
Finally, the significant leadership changes that occurred at OPM since
the 2004 FHCS survey may have affected the perspectives of employees
regarding leadership questions. A new director began a term at the
agency in May 2005 and, according to OPM, about half of the senior
leadership started after OPM administered the 2004 survey.
Additionally, actions taken beginning in May 2006 in response to the
2004 survey results, such as Web casts and e-mail communications from
the Director regarding internal changes, were intended to lead to
positive 2006 FHCS responses to leadership questions.
2006 FHCS Performance Culture and Accountability Responses Show Mixed
Results:
Effective performance management systems can drive organizational
transformation by encouraging individuals to focus on their roles and
responsibilities to help achieve organizational outcomes. We reported
in 2006 that OPM's executive performance management system aligns the
performance expectations of OPM's top leaders with the goals of the
organization.[Footnote 12] In addition, we reported that OPM could
build upon its positive results for some of its performance-related
questions to address performance culture concerns, one of the three
areas examined in the focus groups. Similar to the 2004 results, OPM's
2006 results relating to performance culture and accountability showed
some mixed areas of strength that could be maximized and areas of
weakness to be addressed.
Of the 12 questions we identified as relating to performance culture
and accountability, OPM's results for three questions in 2006
demonstrated substantial improvement compared to 2004 results and two
questions dropped significantly from 2004 to 2006. Figure 5 shows the
questions that substantially improved. OPM's highest positive increase
from 2004 to 2006 was a 17 percentage point increase in response to
"managers review and evaluate the organization's progress toward
meeting its goals and objectives." OPM also saw a more positive
response to "I am held accountable for achieving results." Questions
that dropped significantly involved employees feeling encouraged to
come up with new and better ways of doing things and performance
appraisals being a fair reflection of performance.
Figure 5: OPM Responses to Selected Performance Culture and
Accountability Questions for 2004 and 2006:
This figure is a chart showing OPM responses to selected performance
culture and accountability questions for 2004 and 2006.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OMP data.
[End of figure]
On the performance accountability questions that saw a large positive
increase at OPM from 2004 to 2006, OPM was significantly higher than
the rest of government. In addition, OPM's ranking on the HCAAF index
for Performance Culture increased from 29th in 2004 to 25th in 2006.
OPM, however, remains among the bottom half of the 36th ranked agencies
in this area. Of the performance culture and accountability questions,
OPM responded significantly lower than the rest of government on five
questions. Two of these questions dealt with creativity and innovation
in the workplace, as displayed in figure 6. These mixed results
indicate that while OPM has seen and can build upon the positive
increases on some performance culture and accountability questions,
room for improvement still exists in this area at the agency.
Figure 6: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Selected Performance
Culture and Accountability Questions in 2006:
The figure is a chart showing OPM and rest of government responses to
selected performance culture and accountability questions in 2006.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
[End of figure]
2006 FHCS Talent Management Responses Show Challenges Persist:
OPM's 2006 FHCS responses indicate that talent management concerns
continue among employees at the agency. Of the nine questions we
identified as relating to talent management, OPM showed a decline on
seven questions from 2004 to 2006. The largest decline from 2004 to
2006 was a 5 percentage point drop from 48 to 43 percent of OPM
employees reporting satisfaction with the training received for their
present job. Figure 7 shows the decline in two talent-management
related questions. Training was a specific area of concern for OPM's
SES, who reported an 8 percentage point decrease in satisfaction with
their training and a 13 percentage point decrease in support for "the
skills in my work unit have improved in the past year." We have
previously highlighted talent management as an area of concern and
noted that OPM's ability to lead and oversee human capital management
could be affected by its internal capacity and ability to maintain an
effective leadership team, as well as an effective workforce.[Footnote
13]
Figure 7: OPM Responses to Selected Talent Management Questions for
2004 and 2006:
This is a figure showing OPM responses to selected talent management
questions for 2004 and 2006.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
[End of figure]
In addition, in the 2006 survey, OPM was significantly lower than the
rest of government on five of the nine questions we identified as
relating to talent management. For example, OPM was 11 percentage
points lower than the rest of government for "the workforce has the job-
relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish organizational
goals." Additionally, only 39 percent of OPM employees said that their
training needs were assessed, compared to 51 percent of the rest of
government, as displayed in figure 8. Further, OPM's ranking decreased
from 28th to 31st out of 36 agencies on the HCAAF index for Talent
Management in 2006.
Figure 8: OPM and Rest of Government Responses to Selected Talent
Management Questions in 2006:
This figure is a chart showing OPM and rest of government responses to
selected talent management questions in 2006.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
[End of figure]
DOD Investigative Service Transfers' Survey Results Show Need for
Special Attention to Those Employees:
Without DOD transfers, results for just under half of the 2006 survey
questions relating to leadership, performance culture and
accountability, and talent management would have been higher by 5
percentage points or more. In fact, all but 1of the 29 questions
relating to leadership, performance culture and accountability, and
talent management that we identified would have been more positive
without DOD transfers. Moreover, OPM reported those employees who
participated in both the 2004 and 2006 surveys rated the agency higher
on almost every item on the survey in 2006. OPM's FHCS agency ranking
would have increased dramatically from 26th to 11th place without the
DOD transfers. OPM would have seen the greatest increase in those
questions relating to leadership, with six of the eight questions we
identified as relating to leadership having a 14 to 16 percentage point
increase from 2004 to 2006. For example, without DOD transfers, OPM
2006 response to "I have a high level of respect for my organization's
senior leaders" would have been 14 percentage points higher than 2004
results. The question that would not have been more positive addressed
talent management, suggesting that talent management is a salient issue
for OPM, regardless of the transfers. In addition, DOD transfers gave
more neutral responses on several questions, particularly those
relating to performance culture and accountability and equal employment
issues, indicating a lack of perspective rather than a negative
response. Given that the DOD transfers had more neutral responses to
these questions, this suggests that OPM may have an opportunity to help
shape the perspectives of its new transfers on these issues. Selected
survey questions and data from the 2004 and 2006 surveys appear in
appendix II.
OPM Addressed Human Capital Issues through 2004 and 2006 FHCS Action
Plans:
Figure 9 shows a sequence of selected actions OPM took regarding the
2004 and 2006 FHCS and the accompanying internal OPM action plans.
Figure 9: Sequence of Selected 2004 and 2006 FHCS Actions Taken by OPM:
This figure is a timeline showing a sequence of selected 2004 and 2006
FHCS actions taken by OPM.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of OPM information.
[End of figure]
To address a decrease in positive responses to the 2004 FHCS, OPM hired
a contractor to conduct a series of OPM employee focus groups. The
purpose of the groups was to understand the factors contributing to the
2004 responses and report employee ideas for addressing top priority
improvement areas. Employees were randomly selected to participate in
33 focus groups with participants from all major divisions,
headquarters and the field, employees and supervisors, and major
installations. The results of the 2004 FHCS and the responses of the
focus groups showed that OPM employees were most concerned with
leadership and leadership's ability to deal with staff about policies
and performance. Employees preferred OPM to have more open
communication to address inadequate planning and excessive supervision.
Employees identified additional problem areas for OPM including lack of
management support, inadequate training for supervisors and managers on
performance culture and accountability, and lack of senior executive
interest in and respect for employees.
OPM required each division to develop specific action plans to address
the critical issues raised by employees in both the survey results and
the focus groups. In December 2005 and January 2006, the CHCMS met with
each associate director and their management team to present their
individual results and discuss the next steps in the process. OPM also
held a half-day planning meeting with a cross-section of OPM divisions
and office representatives to develop an OPM-wide action plan. As an
example of activities based on the 2004 survey action plans, OPM has
attempted to improve communication throughout the agency by initiating
visits to its field locations, creating an e-mail mail box where
employees can make suggestions on more efficient and effective ways of
doing business, and holding employee meetings. Additionally, to address
employee concerns about communication with senior leaders, OPM
established brown bag lunches with the Director and a process in all
divisions to solicit employee input on various initiatives and set
aside "open door" time for employees to speak with their managers.
After release of the results of the 2006 FHCS, OPM reviewed and updated
the first set of action plans responding to the 2004 survey by
incorporating changes as needed to address new and continuing areas of
concern to OPM employees. OPM's analysis of the data included (1)
comparisons between responses in 2004 and 2006 agencywide and
governmentwide, (2) comparisons of results by organizational
components, (3) a review of responses between headquarters and field
locations, and (4) a review of the responses comparing supervisory and
nonsupervisory employees. OPM believed responses to eight questions on
the 2006 FHCS improved based on their previous actions for issue areas
dealing with leadership. OPM identified that the areas reflecting the
lowest positive response rates centered in large part around
performance culture areas; for example, promotions based on merit,
employee empowerment, and awards. OPM also found that the responses
from the field employees were lower than the responses from
headquarters employees, where some questions had significant
differences ranging from 10 to 20 percentage points lower.
In response to the survey results, OPM updated five actions from the
action plans responding to the 2004 survey and developed five new
actions for the action plans responding to the 2006 survey. In terms of
leadership, OPM carried over two actions from the first set of action
plans because of the positive response from employees: using OPM's
Intranet for up-to-date information sharing throughout the organization
and using the Director's formal and informal communication methods,
such as brown bag meetings, field site visits, and Web casts. One area
of concern for employees of OPM was employee empowerment. To address
this issue, OPM indicated that it would continue to work on delegating
authorities to the lowest appropriate level and involving employees in
decisions to increase internal approval and coordination to streamline
organizational processes. In addition, in OPM's recently developed
action plans, 5 out of 10 actions will address talent management. For
example, OPM will be implementing the core curriculum for supervisory
training that was developed because of the first set of action plans.
OPM officials said the supervisory training program was funded in May
2007 and implementation started in July 2007. Additionally, OPM
developed four new actions to deal with training and development: (1)
administering performance management training for all employees, (2)
developing individual development plans (IDP), (3) creating electronic
access to training opportunities, and (4) implementing an internal
rotation professional development program.
Each division and office analyzed their organization-specific results
to reflect the 2006 responses of their employees in order to update
their previous action plans. SHRP, for example, had each of its center
leaders meet with employees to discuss the survey results and held a
divisional town hall meeting to talk about the results and answer any
questions the employees had. HCLMSA used a new interactive
communication tool to involve employees and management in resolving
issues and capitalizing on strengths identified by the 2006 FHCS
results. HCLMSA focused on 38 questions where the positive results were
less than 65 percent; from these questions, 3 to 5 questions were
consensually determined as key discussion areas and included in the
division's current action plans. OPM also plans to develop
communications plans to ensure field locations receive the same
information as headquarters on a timely basis.[Footnote 14]
The investigative services division, which includes the DOD transfer
employees, also developed action plans in response to the 2006 FHCS.
For example, in response to employees' concerns with their personal
work experience, through early September 2007, 428 Federal
Investigative Service Division (FISD) employees had participated in
detail assignments within FISD, assignments outside of FISD but within
OPM, and assignments to other agencies to gain additional program
knowledge. OPM will conduct an agencywide employee survey in October
2007, and OPM officials said they believe these survey results will
show significant improvement for FISD.
After OPM assessed the survey results and the Director approved the
action plans, the agency notified its employees about how it will
address the responses and will post information on OPM's Intranet with
continual progress updates. Additionally, CHCMS officials said they
will monitor the action plans quarterly and report findings to the
Director in an effort to build a positive and productive work climate
where all employees and managers feel valued and appreciated.
OPM's Workforce and Succession Plans Align with Selected Leading
Practices, but the Agency Lacks a Well-Documented Process of Evaluation
of Some of These Efforts:
OPM's workforce and succession plans are consistent with selected
strategic workforce planning practices and principles relevant to OPM's
capacity to fulfill its strategic goals. OPM's top leadership is
engaged in workforce and succession planning efforts, and OPM has
assessed competency gaps and created gap closure plans for its mission
critical and leadership workforce. The agency, however, operates some
of these division-level efforts without a well-documented process for
evaluation agencywide. For example, it was not evident how OPM is able
to identify the appropriate level of investment in training and
development and to prioritize funding so that it addresses the most
important training needs first.
OPM's Top Leaders are Involved in Workforce and Succession Planning:
We have previously reported that efforts to address important
organizational issues, such as strategic workforce planning, are most
likely to succeed if agencies' top program and human capital leaders
set the overall direction, pace, tone, and goals from the beginning of
the effort.[Footnote 15] We have also noted that effective succession
planning and management programs have the support and commitment of
their organizations' top leadership, and that the demonstrated
commitment of top leaders is perhaps the single most important element
of successful management. In particular, reinforcing leadership support
by assigning responsibility for succession efforts, and holding
executives accountable for succession planning in performance plans,
are effective strategies for ensuring the active participation of
leadership.
One of OPM's vehicles for involving top leadership in its workforce and
succession planning efforts is its ERB. Chaired by OPM's Chief of
Staff, the ERB serves as the advisory and review body for all major
leadership management policies and programs related to the SES
specifically, and management and leadership in general. Among other
responsibilities, the ERB is charged with executive/leadership
succession planning and workforce planning; executive/leadership
staffing management; and executive, managerial, and leadership
development management. ERB membership consists of all of OPM's
associate directors, including the associate director who also serves
as the agency's CHCO, along with the chief financial officer, the
general counsel, and the deputy associate director for CHCMS. The ERB
meets weekly and provides CHCMS, OPM's internal human resources
management group, with direction on key workforce and succession
planning decisions, among other things.
According to a CHCMS official, the ERB helps to set the direction for
the agency's succession planning and workforce planning efforts. At
least annually, the ERB meets with CHCMS staff and division management
to review all of the succession planning position profile sheets,
templates that the agency uses to try to capture the leadership skills
needed for it to meet its strategic and operational goals and
objectives both currently and in the future. The ERB looks at the
description of potential successors identified and, according to the
CHCMS official, will sometimes override the supervisor's position
profile assessments based on their "big-picture" knowledge of
agencywide human capital resources. The ERB also works with CHCMS to
identify opportunities for economies of scale in addressing training
and development needs that cut across divisions. For example, CHCMS and
the ERB jointly proposed the establishment of a new supervisory
training curriculum for all OPM managers and supervisors. This
curriculum intends to address several agencywide training and
development needs, such as strengthening performance management skills,
closing leadership competency gaps, and addressing issues that emerged
in the 2004 FHCS results. As a result, the Director of OPM approved
funding for this agencywide initiative, which OPM is now implementing
as part of the action plans to address the 2006 FHCS results.
In addition to leveraging the ERB to engage its leadership with
workforce and succession planning, OPM also made explicit its CHCO's
accountability for succession planning. In the CHCO's 2006 Performance
Agreement, OPM charged the CHCO with the responsibility of having
agencywide, written succession plans in place by October 2006. OPM also
held other members of OPM's executive management team accountable via
their 2006 performance agreements for general workforce and succession
planning efforts. In his 2007 executive performance agreement, the CHCO
is accountable for implementing leadership and succession-related
training and development initiatives. For example, the CHCO is
responsible for implementing the supervisory training for all managers
described above. This training curriculum includes courses intended to
address leadership competencies, which include performance management
and interpersonal skills training.
OPM Has Aligned Its Workforce and Succession Plans with Its Strategic
Goals:
According to OPM's HCAAF standards, an agency should align its human
capital management strategies, including workforce planning, with its
mission, goals, and organizational objectives and integrate them into
its strategic plans, performance plans, and budgets. We have similarly
reported that it is critically important to align an organization's
human capital program with its current and emerging mission and
programmatic goals.[Footnote 16] In its most recently published A Plan
for the Strategic Management of OPM's Human Capital (HC Plan), OPM
links its human capital planning to its current 5-year, agencywide
Strategic and Operational Plan.[Footnote 17] The HC Plan explicitly
notes the relationship between OPM's agencywide mission and its
workforce, recognizing that OPM's overall success in achieving its
mission objectives is dependent on a strategic focus on its own talent
and human capital needs.
OPM charges each of its divisions with linking their workforce analysis
and competency needs to their business initiatives. For example, the
SHRP division has designated the design of a modern compensation system
as a key business initiative. Accordingly, SHRP identifies (1)
activities related to the initiative (working with internal and
external stakeholders, drafting and implementing legislation, etc.);
(2) the occupations that constitute its mission critical workforce (HR
policy specialist, actuary, etc); (3) the number of mission critical
staff needed; and (4) the general and technical competencies that are
important for its mission critical workforce (oral communication,
creative thinking, problem solving, etc.) Each of OPM's divisions
contribute a similar written section to the agencywide HC Plan to
represent how OPM links the identification of its mission critical
occupations and key competencies to its business initiatives. The
diagram in figure 10 depicts the steps in OPM's workforce planning
process.
Figure 10: OPM's Workforce Planning for Mission Critical Occupations:
This figure is a chart showing OPM's workforce planning for mission
critical occupations.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OPM information.
[End of figure]
OPM's Corporate Leadership Succession Management Plan describes that
the key goal of its succession plan is to ensure the availability of
diverse individuals with the necessary competencies to fill key
leadership positions so the agency can meet its short-and long-term
goals, regardless of turnover. The succession plan also notes that the
agency needs leaders with a mix of specific skills in order to meet the
goals and objectives laid out in its 5-year Strategic and Operational
Plan. Similar in its approach to workforce planning, OPM charges its
divisions with the responsibility for carrying out the individual-
level, position-based elements of its succession planning process.
The diagram in figure 11 depicts the steps in OPM's succession
management planning process that focus on analyzing the succession risk
and developing an internal leadership pipeline for each individual
leadership position.
Figure 11: OPM's Succession Management Planning:
This figure is a chart showing OPM's succession management planning.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO presentation of OPM information.
[End of figure]
OPM requires the direct supervisor of each executive, manager, and
supervisor to complete a succession planning position profile template
for these employees. (See appendix III for a copy of the succession
planning position profile template.) The succession planning position
profile sheets include the supervisor's judgment of risk factors such
as the likelihood that the incumbent will leave; an identification of
key general and technical competencies needed for the position; a
determination of the "readiness" of internal candidates, those that are
ready immediately, within 1 to 2 years, or within 3 to 5 years; and
other items. OPM uses these quantitative and qualitative assessments to
develop succession management objectives, performance goals, and action
plans to help ensure that OPM has a robust candidate pool to replace
leadership incumbents as needed. Our review of 93 of approximately 330
succession planning position profile documents showed that nearly all
of the sampled documents had been updated within the past
year.[Footnote 18] Our review also confirmed that all of these included
an estimation of the prospective successor pool for at least 5 years
out, with two citing the need to begin developing the candidate
pipeline at least 10 years in advance. An official in CHCMS explained
OPM intends that the profile sheets will serve as a built-in mechanism
requiring management to think about leadership positions and how they
may need to change. For example, some of the SHRP profile sheets
illustrate sensitivity to the changing environment in relation to
future recruitment efforts: "internally and short term, outlook is
quite positive; however, as agency human resource program
responsibilities continue to restructure, streamline and consolidate
into more generalist and consultative roles, the potential candidate
pool of detail oriented technically proficient staffing experts will
decline."
While some aspects of the succession planning position profile sheets
demonstrate a forward-looking approach to development and recruitment
efforts, the extent to which OPM is identifying key competencies for
leadership positions based on anticipated long-term changes in mission
and objectives is not evident. In reviewing OPM's instructions for
completing the position profile sheets, we found no guidance stating
that supervisors are to identify key competencies for these leadership
positions according to current and anticipated future requirements.
OPM Has Assessed Gaps in Numbers and Competencies and Created Gap
Closure Plans for Its Mission Critical and Leadership Workforce:
We have previously reported that an agency needs to define the critical
skills and competencies that it will require in the future to meet its
strategic program goals and then develop strategies to address gaps and
human capital conditions in critical skills and competencies.[Footnote
19] With regard to leadership positions, it is important to emphasize
developmental or "stretch" assignments for high-potential employees in
addition to formal training, in order to strengthen skills and
competencies and broaden experience. Consistent with these workforce
and succession planning principles, OPM has undertaken a number of
workforce assessments and has developed gap closure plans, which
include a mix of training and developmental assignments, to address
current and projected deficiencies in mission critical and leadership
positions.
Competency Assessments Conducted:
According to its current HC Plan, as of June 2006, 62 percent of OPM's
5,194 employees were in mission critical occupations.[Footnote 20] OPM
has several division-level and centralized strategies to assess the
competencies of its mission critical occupations. OPM conducted
agencywide skills assessments in 2001 and 2003 and more recent
assessments in targeted mission critical occupations such as
information technology and human resources management (HRM).
In 2006, HCLMSA focused competency assessment and gap closure efforts
on the mission critical occupation of accountability auditor. During
the same year, CHCMS conducted a competency assessment of its HRM
specialists, using a competency model developed by the CHCO Council in
cooperation with OPM.[Footnote 21] In the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2006, SHRP, HCLMSA, and the Human Resources Products and Services
(HRPS) divisions assessed their human resources specialists. OPM
reassessed these specialists using the CHCO Council HRM competency
model in May 2007. All of these assessments looked for gaps in both
competency levels and numbers of mission critical incumbents.
To determine the competency levels for both its current and prospective
leadership, OPM looks at both individual leadership positions and
general leadership skills. As described in figure 11, in looking ahead
to its future leadership, OPM uses qualitative data to assess potential
gaps in its leadership pipeline, using the succession planning position
profiles. As part of this individual, position-based planning process,
the direct supervisor of every subordinate executive, manager, and
supervisor describes the key competencies needed for a particular
position and the number of potential internal successors for the
leadership position, and produces an estimate of when these candidates
will be ready to assume the leadership responsibilities in question.
The supervisor describes the training and development opportunities
needed to address any gaps and to prepare the pool of prospective
candidates to assume the leadership position. From these individual
analyses, OPM derives a measure it refers to as a "bench-strength
index," which counts the number of internal candidates that are ready
to replace a single incumbent, when it becomes necessary.
In addition to assessing its in-house leadership pipeline and external
prospects for each individual leadership position, OPM looks at the
competency levels of its current leadership corps. Figure 12 depicts
the steps in OPM's workforce planning process that focus on assessing
the competencies of the agency's current leadership incumbents and
developing and implementing plans to close gaps as needed.
Figure 12: OPM's Workforce Planning for Leadership Incumbents:
This figure is a chart showing OPM's workforce planning for leadership
incumbents.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OPM information.
[End of figure]
The agency most recently conducted a formal competency assessment of
its 376 incumbent leaders in fiscal year 2006, using an online survey
completed by the supervisors of all subordinate executives, managers,
and supervisors. OPM uses these data to make a determination of the
extent to which its current leadership cadre meets the desired
proficiency levels for competencies required in their positions. In
early 2007, OPM launched the Management Competency Assessment Tool
(MCAT), a governmentwide, Web-based instrument for assessing the skill
levels of managers, supervisors, team leaders, and others in key
leadership and performance management competencies. OPM has been using
the MCAT internally for its agencywide leadership competency
assessments. The agency used this tool to conduct a reassessment of
skills gaps among these 376 leadership positions in July 2007.
Competency Assessments Show Overall Improvement with Some Gaps
Remaining:
Based on the results of agencywide skills assessments conducted in 2001
and 2003, OPM reports that it has made at least some improvement to
employee proficiency levels in 96 percent of its mission critical
competencies, and has eliminated gaps in 64 percent of these
competencies. OPM's current HC Plan includes an initiative to conduct
an agencywide skills reassessment to continue to monitor its gap
closure progress.
Regarding its organizational leadership cadre, OPM recently reported
positive results. The only priority competency gap common across
supervisory, managerial, and executive leadership positions was in the
area of interpersonal skills, which are critical to the agency's
increased focus on performance management, consultancy, and other
strategic initiatives. OPM has also calculated turnover risk and
overall succession risk for leadership positions based on information
captured in the succession planning position profile sheets. These
indicate that while 30 percent of the current leadership is at high
risk for turnover, only 3 percent are high risk for overall succession
purposes, since the expectation is that OPM can identify suitable
candidates from within or outside the agency. In terms of its
leadership candidate pipeline, the succession planning position profile
sheets indicated that as of August 2006, all but 11 of the 376
leadership positions met OPM's bench-strength goal of having a minimum
2:1 ratio of ready-now candidates for each incumbent. More recently, an
OPM official confirmed that the agency had reduced this number even
further, with only 8 positions considered by the agency to be at high-
risk for succession management purposes due to weak bench strength.
On the division level, OPM's most recent competency assessment and gap
analysis completed in 2006 for employees in the GS-201 HR specialist
mission critical occupation in SHRP and HRPS identified few gaps among
employees in this occupational group. Only the competency area of
knowledge of agency business emerged as a high-priority gap, based on
factors such as the gap's impact on OPM's ability to accomplish mission
objectives, size of the gap, and level of difficulty in closing the gap
through development of internal employees or recruitment from external
sources. Specifically, OPM set a target to increase by more than double
the number of HR specialist staff at the advanced proficiency level,
from 39 to 87. OPM's strategy to accomplish this goal was to provide
training and developmental opportunities to increase the expertise of
current staff, while building a pipeline of HR specialists at the
awareness and basic levels of proficiency from a pool of external
hires. In May 2007, OPM readministered the competency assessment of the
SHRP and HRPS GS-201 employees, using the CHCO Council HRM Competency
Model, to determine the extent to which gap closure efforts over the
past year resulted in higher competency proficiency levels. The results
of OPM's assessment indicated that it had surpassed its goals by moving
the HR specialists to, or beyond, the targeted proficiency levels.
SHRP's Mission Critical Workforce:
In addition to its emphasis on the HRM Competency Model as it relates
to GS-201 series employees, SHRP has reported on all of the elements of
its mission critical workforce, which include actuaries, statisticians,
and psychologists, along with HR specialists. In the HC Plan, SHRP
notes that its mission critical employees exhibit strengths in the
areas of technical competence, oral communication, and problem solving.
It describes areas of particular challenge in the fields of creative
thinking and reasoning. Further, SHRP is looking ahead to identify a
potential future competency gap in written communication, particularly
related to writing policy. SHRP plans to address competency gaps in the
areas of written communication, creative thinking, and reasoning by
incorporating these competencies into the selection processes for new
staff and by providing appropriate developmental opportunities to
current staff.
In an interview with SHRP's Associate Director about the division's
mission critical workforce, she noted that recruitment and retention
for the division would continue to present underlying challenges. She
said that SHRP would be trying to recruit employees with the same types
of skills other federal government agencies would increasingly need,
requiring those with excellent written, analytical, and technical
abilities as well as capable leaders. Some positions in SHRP are
particularly difficult to fill with the caliber of talent the division
needs. For example, the Associate Director explained that it was hard
to recruit mid-level actuaries and statisticians from outside OPM
because often these individuals, while possessing adequate technical
skills, do not know and understand the mission and workings of OPM. In
addition, recruiting an employee with actuarial skills and management
experience is very difficult given the salary that individuals with
those skills can command in the private sector. She did note that SHRP
does a lot of recruiting based on its mission; individuals want to come
to OPM to be part of some of the largest human capital programs in the
world. In terms of retention, the Associate Director said that the SHRP
division loses a number of employees to other federal agencies because
these agencies view the division's employees as potential assets to
their human capital offices. For example, she said the division's
classification employees along with those in employee and labor
relations are highly sought after. She noted that she makes limited use
of recruitment and retention bonuses because of funding issues, but she
finds the intern hiring flexibilities useful.
HCLMSA's Mission Critical Workforce:
OPM has also been focusing on competency assessments and gap closure
strategies for its HCLMSA division GS-201 HR specialists, who serve as
human capital officers and other HR specialists, directly supporting
the PMA human capital initiative.[Footnote 22] Based on external
stakeholder input, as well as through internal assessments, HCLMSA
chose to set a higher proficiency level target for its HR specialists
in the areas of technical competence and client engagement. For
example, we have noted that, based on interviews with the federal
workforce community, OPM needed a greater emphasis on providing
consultative and technical expertise to its agency customers.[Footnote
23] HCLMSA's leadership took this type of external feedback into
consideration when setting the goal to significantly increase the
percentage of human capital officers and HR specialists who are at
least at the advanced proficiency level in both the technical
competence and client engagement competency areas. OPM has recently
reported that, based on its readministration of the competency
assessment of HCLMSA's GS-201 employees in June 2007, the division
surpassed its competency goals in the advanced/expert proficiency
levels. The division fell short of its goal for the number of HR
specialists at the intermediate level of proficiency, which OPM
attributes to an overall attrition in the number of HR specialists.
Although OPM was able to replace the three human capital officers that
left during the reporting year, it could only recruit one HR specialist
to replace the four that left. As of June 2007, this represented a net
loss of three employees with an overall HCLMSA staff reduction of 6
percent.
In the HC Plan, HCLMSA also describes additional initiatives and
actions related to its mission critical workforce planning. It noted
that recruitment, training, and development efforts have reduced
competency gaps that existed in 2004 and described the establishment of
a training advisory group (TAG) in fiscal year 2005 made up of members
who represent each mission critical role in HCLMSA. In 2007 and beyond,
HCLMSA, with TAG's assistance, plans to continue to provide staff
development opportunities to ensure employees in mission critical roles
possess all the strategic competencies needed to achieve goals and
accomplish the mission.
In an interview on HCLMSA's mission critical workforce, the division's
Associate Director said the biggest recruitment challenge for HCLMSA is
finding the right people with the right skills, and the most important
aspect of retention is maintaining a positive organizational culture.
He said the HCLMSA division is organized into two almost completely
separate functions--human capital management and merit systems
accountability--which require somewhat different skills. He explained
that the human capital side of HCLMSA faces a conundrum because the
division loses employees to other agencies, which is good for the
larger federal human capital community, but difficult for the division.
On the other hand, he said that because HCLMSA's human capital focus is
not as technical as the compliance side, when he needs to recruit
employees, he is able to successfully hire individuals from the private
sector. The Associate Director said that he sees recruitment as an
ongoing process, and he believes that an important part of his job is
to always be recruiting for current or future positions. In terms of
retention, he noted that a critical component of retention is having a
good organizational culture, which often depends on better
communication.
Gap Closure Plans:
OPM has a number of gap closure plans in place. For example, to
specifically address the leadership competency gap in the area of
interpersonal skills, OPM has instituted a requirement that each
supervisor, manager, and executive work with their supervisor to
develop a supervisory training plan. Each individual plan identifies
mandatory and elective training reflecting the specific needs of the
individual and addressing any gaps in the target area of interpersonal
skills. To support the goal of closing the interpersonal skills gap,
OPM has developed an agencywide supervisory training curriculum that
includes a mix of classroom and Web-based course such as "Interpersonal
Skills," "Front Line Leadership," and "Dealing with Poor Performers."
In addition to agencywide and division-level gap closure plans, the
position-based succession planning position profiles for each
executive, manager, and supervisor include an action plan to prepare
the pool of potential internal successors. Plans may include training,
professional conferences, developmental assignments, and other
opportunities. OPM officials said that any profile that indicates that
a corporate leadership position is at high risk for succession
management requires an aggressive plan of action to address how the
agency will reduce the risk rating.
In addition, OPM recently implemented a pilot program for closing
potential succession gaps. In early spring of 2007, it launched a
knowledge transfer pilot in its Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO) to formalize the process for capturing institutional knowledge.
According to OPM, knowledge transfer is a way to capture critical
information necessary to perform program responsibilities and ensure
that knowledge is not lost due to personnel changes, such as
retirements, new work assignments, or temporary absences. The pilot
process begins with an advance set of questions sent to an interviewee,
followed by a structured interview on topics such as duties performed
by the incumbent, the incumbent's internal and external contacts,
statutory requirements of the work, and required training and skills
needed. The goal of the interview is to be able to provide the
incumbent's current supervisor and successor with information necessary
to continue to carry out work activities. The OCFO is also working on
incorporating into the pilot a database to track where incumbents'
important electronic and paper files and records are located. According
to an OCFO official, while OPM is still evaluating the pilot, it has
been well received and it is likely that it will be expanded in the
future.
OPM Lacks a Well-Documented Process of Evaluation for Some of Its
Workforce and Succession Planning Efforts, Particularly Its Investment
in Training and Development:
We have reported on the importance of evaluating the contribution that
workforce plans make to strategic results in order to measure the
effectiveness of an agency's workforce plan and to help ensure that the
strategies work as intended.[Footnote 24] This involves two activities:
determining (1) how well the agency implemented its workforce plan and
(2) the contribution that the implementation made toward achieving
programmatic goals. For example, a workforce plan can include measures
that indicate whether the agency executed its hiring, training, or
retention strategies as intended and achieved the goals for these
strategies, and how these initiatives changed the workforce's skills
and competencies. With regard to training and development, which are
key to each of the OPM gap closure plans we reviewed, we have reported
that front-end analysis can help ensure that agencies are not
initiating these efforts in an uncoordinated manner, but rather that
they are strategically focusing their training efforts on improving
performance to achieve the agency's goals.[Footnote 25]
A CHCMS official representing OPM on its workforce and succession
planning process reported that the agency's plans are largely developed
at the division level and are periodically evaluated by the ERB and the
agency director. The official noted that these reviews are informal and
are not documented or summarized in agency-level status reports. He
further explained that OPM provides agency-level workforce analysis
data, such as trends in hiring and turnover, to division heads and
other top executives at least annually as part of the PMA reporting
process. In addition, the official noted that, while there is no formal
process for periodically distributing division-level workforce analysis
reports, OPM can generate these data on demand and agency leaders and
division heads can request this information at any time as the need
arises. However, OPM had difficulty providing us with some of its key
workforce analysis indicators, which OPM officials explained was
partially due to technical difficulties with the reporting system.
Regarding OPM's training and development efforts, in its January 2004
comments on our report on designing training and development, OPM noted
that it had increased the role of its CHCO to serve as an advisor to
the Director on overall employee training and development initiatives
and programs, as well as the establishment of the agency's training
budget.[Footnote 26] OPM viewed this move as a strategic approach to
better position the agency to prioritize its training needs and
forecast funds to support those needs. OPM has also recognized the
importance of bringing a perspective to training and development
activities, particularly with regard to prioritizing among training
needs and forecasting funds to support those needs. More recently, OPM
acknowledged the importance of tracking training and development
investments when it announced a requirement that agencies must begin
regularly submitting data on the cost and amount of training they
provide their employees.[Footnote 27] Specifically, OPM now requires
agencies to report, among other items, the names of employees receiving
training; the title of the classes; the start and end dates; the
facility where courses were offered, such as a government agency or
university; the number of hours; cost; travel costs; and category, such
as leadership development. An OPM official said that the HCLMSA
division would monitor data and work with agencies to ensure they are
using training dollars for succession planning and to fill critical
skills gaps, as well as to improve performance management. In September
2006, OPM also issued a guide for collection and management of training
information that emphasizes that agencies must manage and collect
training information in support of mission objectives and strategic
goals and must properly evaluate training to ensure it provides
meaningful contributions to agency results.[Footnote 28]
When we asked for management reports or a similar means for OPM's top
management to track information on training activity, however, CHCMS
was unable to provide us with this information. OPM's budget office
provided aggregated annual training expenditures through its accounting
system, but had no accompanying information on, for example, how many
employees had received training or the type of training or professional
development completed. When we requested status reports on training and
development activity, program completion rates, or other examples of
indicators of how implementation is progressing, an OPM official
explained that this was not tracked at the agency level. An OPM
official explained that while the agency has improved its training and
development tracking, he anticipates being able to do better in the
coming year. OPM had expected that its management would be able to use
the Enterprise Human Resources Initiative (EHRI) data warehouse to
generate information on training activity and expenditures as early as
a year ago. While CHCMS had begun tracking training instances for OPM
employees in its human resources data system by December 2006, OPM was
dependent on the General Services Administration to build the interface
to allow transmission of those data to the EHRI data warehouse. The
interface to allow transmission of the data to EHRI was completed in
July 2007.
In addition to gathering data on measures such as participant number
and program costs, we have reported that agencies also need credible
information to evaluate how training and development programs affect
organizational capacity. Agencies should work toward demonstrating
their training and development programs' value in providing future
talent by identifying outcome-oriented measures and evaluating the
extent to which these programs enhance their organizations'
capacity.[Footnote 29]
In terms of OPM's allocation of training resources, an OPM budget
official explained that as a rule of thumb, the agency budgets no more
than 2 percent of its salary and benefit levels, and that more
recently, it has held training expenditures to less than 1 percent. He
further explained that a reallocation of internal funds to OPM's
retirement systems modernization project resulted in a 5 percent
decline of agencywide spending on discretionary activities, leaving a
25 percent cut to the less than 1 percent allocation for fiscal year
2007 training activities. In addition to other reductions within the
agency, OPM may make similar cuts to the fiscal year 2008 training
budget. Although a CHCMS official told us that OPM is increasing its
use of in-house training and development opportunities such as job
shadowing and mentoring programs, which he believes can be more
effective than outside training, we were unable to ascertain OPM's full
investment in internal training and development programs since the
budget tracking information does not include indirect costs. As we
mentioned previously, however, survey results show that OPM employees
are not satisfied with their training and addressing this concern is a
focus of OPM's 2006 FHCS action plans. An OPM budget official noted
that the agency is moving to a strategic budget process. Beginning with
the fiscal year 2009 budget, OPM is requiring that internal budget
requests, such as those for training and development and other
succession management activities, be linked explicitly to OPM's
agencywide strategic objectives.
It is also not evident how OPM is able to identify the appropriate
level of investment in training and development and to optimize funding
so that it addresses the most important needs first with its
individual, position-based succession planning. The direct supervisor
of the incumbent executive, manager, or supervisor completes the
individual action plans for the training and development of the
successor candidate pool. Although the ERB provides oversight for this
process, an OPM official explained that division-level management is
responsible for making decisions concerning if and how to invest
resources across most of the training and development needs identified
in the position profile sheets.
Conclusions:
OPM is making progress in addressing issues indicated by the employee
responses to both the 2004 and 2006 FHCS, with initiatives underway to
attempt to build a positive and productive work climate in the agency.
During the past year, OPM has taken positive actions to address
specific concerns raised by employees and managers in the surveys, such
as placing more emphasis on information sharing with employees at all
levels on the strategic goals and objectives of the agency. This should
help employees and managers enhance individual and organizational
performance. It is also important to acknowledge that OPM's 2006 FHCS
results, without the DOD investigative service transfers, would have
been, in many cases, significantly more positive than in 2004. The
responses from the investigative services division, however, are an
area of concern that OPM will need to continue to focus attention on.
OPM also has strategic workforce and succession management plans in
place that adhere to selected leading practices, and the agency has
undertaken several initiatives to address human capital problems
identified and to build on recognized strengths. As previously noted,
OPM has implemented an innovative knowledge transfer pilot and is
launching an agencywide individual development plan program, a
professional development program, and supervisory training plans that
include a curriculum intended to improve interpersonal skills,
performance management, and other key competencies needed for a
successful management environment. With its new approach to strategic
budgeting for fiscal year 2009, OPM is also making strides in linking
budget and program implementation information to its strategic goals,
to aid its management in making decisions on workforce and succession
management investments. OPM's CHCMS division also expects to monitor
training implementation and expenditures more closely as it expands its
use of the EHRI system in the coming year.
Even though OPM has acknowledged the importance of an agencywide
perspective on workforce and succession planning and implementation
with the establishment of the ERB and by pointing to an increased role
for its CHCO, the agency has not documented well the coordination of
some of these division-level activities. In a relatively short time
there will be a Presidential transition, and well-documented processes
can help to ensure a seamless transition that builds on the current
momentum. Without a well-documented process in place for OPM's top
leadership to review and monitor progress made at the division level,
there is also a risk that the agencywide approach to strategic human
capital management could be diminished. For example, OPM lacks
information on direct and indirect costs of its training and
development programs. Because these actions are essential to OPM's gap
closure strategy for its mission critical workforce and succession
management efforts, it is vital to the success of these efforts that
the agency invests in training and development wisely. Without an
agencywide view of how training investments relate to the agency's
overall mission and strategic objectives, OPM may have difficulty
understanding reasons for shortfalls in meeting its talent management
goals and cannot effectively make a business case for prioritizing one
set of training activities over another, which is increasingly
important given tightening budget constraints.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To help OPM continue down its path of improvement with regard to
internal capacity for strategic human capital management, we recommend
that the Director of OPM institute a documented process for OPM's top
leadership to monitor workforce and succession efforts carried out at
the division level, to help ensure an agencywide perspective on
workforce and succession funding, implementation, and evaluation. For
example, OPM could document and report on how training and development
budget requests are reviewed by agency's corporate leaders--such as the
Chief Human Capital Officer or other decision makers in a position to
identify the appropriate level of investment in training and
development efforts across divisions--so that funding is prioritized
according to the greatest needs relative to the agency's overall
mission and objectives.
Agency Comments:
In written comments on a draft of this report, reprinted in appendix
IV, the Director of OPM agreed with our recommendation and acknowledged
that its work must sustain and build upon its current momentum in
addressing strategic and operational human capital challenges. The
Director also noted that the insights and recommendation provided in
the report will be useful in shaping both ongoing and planned human
capital management initiatives within the agency.
We are sending copies of this report to the Director of OPM and
appropriate congressional committees. We will also provide copies to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
J. Christopher Mihm:
Managing Director, Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of our review were to:
* determine the extent to which the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) has addressed key internal human capital management issues
identified by examining employee responses to the 2004 and 2006 Federal
Human Capital Surveys (FHCS) and:
* determine the extent to which OPM has strategies in place to ensure
it has the mission critical talent it needs to meet current and future
strategic goals.
To address these objectives, we analyzed OPM's 2004 and 2006 FHCS
results and summaries of its 2005 focus groups related to the key areas
of leadership, performance culture and accountability, and talent
management to determine whether OPM has made progress in addressing
areas of concern from the 2004 survey. We identified these key areas as
critical for human capital development in order for OPM to continue to
transform itself to being a more effective leader of governmentwide
human capital reform. The areas differ slightly from the four Human
Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF) indices and
represent a somewhat different grouping of survey items than the
indices. We also analyzed OPM's 2006 survey results to identify any new
challenges to OPM's strategic human capital management. In analyzing
the data, we performed significance tests with corrections for
multiple, simultaneous comparisons. Not all comparisons of 2004 and
2006 results were made because some questions were dropped from the
2004 survey and not included in the 2006 survey. We combined responses
(for example, strongly agree and agree) to calculate the overall
positive response of OPM employees, and we combined responses (for
example, strongly disagree and disagree) to calculate the overall
negative response of OPM employees. After an examination of documents
detailing the survey methodology, we found the survey data to be
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
To address our second objective, we obtained key strategic and human
capital planning documents and analyzed the extent to which OPM adheres
to selected strategic workforce planning practices and principles
relevant to OPM's capacity to fulfill its strategic goals. We focused
primarily on examining Senior Executive Service (SES) positions and
positions from the two OPM divisions with the most responsibility for
working with federal departments and agencies to assist them
effectively with their human capital efforts: the Strategic Human
Resources Policy (SHRP) and the Human Capital Leadership and Merit
System Accountability (HCLMSA) divisions. We obtained and analyzed
strategic, human capital, workforce, succession, and training and
development plans along with executive performance contracts. We
reviewed individual succession planning position profile sheets for all
supervisors, managers, and executives in SHRP and HCLMSA, along with
all career SES incumbents throughout the agency except those from the
Office of the Inspector General.
We also had discussions with and obtained other pertinent documentation
from OPM officials at their headquarters in Washington, D.C. We
conducted interviews with key officials at OPM to discuss workforce
planning and succession planning, and we met with the associate
directors of SHRP and HCLMSA. In addition, we reviewed OPM's own
guidance to executive branch agencies such as the HCAAF, along with
prior GAO work on leading practices in succession and workforce
planning. The scope of our work did not include independent evaluation
or verification of the effectiveness of the workforce and succession
management planning used at OPM, including any performance results that
OPM attributed to specific practices or aspects of its action plans.
We conducted our review in Washington, D.C., from December 2006 through
August 2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Selected Survey Questions and Data on the Federal Human
Capital Survey:
Table: Selected Survey Questions and Data on the Federal Human Capital
Survey:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: OPM Succession Planning Position Profile--Annotated with
Instructions:
Figure: OPM Succession Planning Position Profile--Annotated with
Instructions:
This figure is a copy of OPM succession planning position profile with
annotated instructions.
[See PDF for image]
Source: OPM.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management:
United States Office Of Personnel Management:
Washington, DC 20415:
October 24, 2007:
The Honorable David Walker:
Comptroller General:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Walker:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in response to the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled Office of
Personnel Management: Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress
in Internal Human Capital Capacity (GAO-08-11).
As reflected in the report, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) has invested considerable effort in developing and executing
strategies that help ensure the Agency has the talent needed to meet
our current and future strategic goals, and those efforts are paying
off. The advancements we have made in the areas of workforce planning,
succession planning, alignment of our human capital to mission and
goals, competency analysis and gap closure, and addressing employee
concerns raised in the Federal Human Capital Survey results, have
materially contributed to the Agency's ability to acquire and sustain
the human capital capacity necessary to deliver our important mission.
While our progress and accomplishments to date are noteworthy, we
acknowledge that our work must be ongoing and we must sustain and build
upon our current momentum in addressing strategic and operational human
capital challenges. We appreciate the insights and recommendations
provided in the report, as these will be useful in shaping both ongoing
and planned human capital management initiatives within the Agency.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Linda M. Springer:
Director:
Our mission is to ensure the Federal Government has an effective
civilian workforce. [hyperlink, http://www.usajobs.gov]
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report
were William Doherty, Assistant Director; Ami Ballenger; Laura Miller
Craig; Judith Kordahl; and Katherine Hudson Walker. In addition,
Barbara Hills; Donna Miller; Beverly Ross; and John Smale provided key
assistance.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Office of Personnel Management: OPM Is Taking Steps to
Strengthen Its Internal Capacity for Leading Human Capital Reform, GAO-
06-861T (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2006).
[2] GAO-06-861T.
[3] GAO, Office of Personnel Management: Key Lessons Learned to Date
for Strengthening Capacity to Lead and Implement Human Capital Reforms,
GAO-07-90 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 19, 2007).
[4] A positive response is calculated by combining the top two response
categories, e.g., strongly agree and agree, and a negative response is
calculated by combining the bottom two response categories, e.g.,
strongly disagree and disagree.
[5] GAO-06-861T.
[6] The HCAAF is a framework that OPM has developed to help agencies
develop and implement effective human capital management systems and
improve their human capital management practices. The HCAAF fuses
strategic human capital management to merit system principles and other
civil service laws, rules, and regulations.
[7] The Partnership for Public Service and the Institute for Study of
Public Policy Implementation created a statistical model to transform
raw FHCS data into specific measures of workplace satisfaction.
[8] GAO-06-861T.
[9] The differences calculated before rounding may not match figure 3
differences.
[10] The differences calculated before rounding may not match figure 4
differences.
[11] GAO-06-861T.
[12] GAO-06-861T.
[13] GAO-06-861T.
[14] The largest field population is in the investigative services
division.
[15] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic
Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).
[16] GAO-04-39.
[17] OPM's current A Plan for the Strategic Management of OPM's Human
Capital covers the fiscal years 2006-2007; the Strategic and
Operational Plan covers 2006-2010; and its most recently published
Corporate Leadership Succession Management Plan is dated August 2006.
[18] An OPM official said the 93 profile sheets represent the career
SES positions from all divisions, except the Office of the Director,
and the supervisors and managers from HCLMSA and SHRP.
[19] GAO-04-39.
[20] According to OPM's HC Plan, mission critical occupations directly
and substantially impact mission attainment (as defined in OPM's
strategic and operational goals) and: (1) are difficult to fill, and/or
require specialized knowledge/skills; (2) have a recognized need for a
knowledge transfer management plan and/or succession plan; and (3)
merit targeted resources for recruitment, retention, and knowledge
management.
[21] The work of HRM specialists ranges across policy development,
consultation, and agency outreach, and operational recruitment and
staffing activities.
[22] Human capital officers serve as OPM liaisons to each executive
branch agency.
[23] GAO-06-861T.
[24] GAO-04-39.
[25] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-03-893G (Washington,
D.C.: July 2003).
[26] GAO, Human Capital: Selected Agencies' Experiences and Lessons
Learned in Designing Training and Development Programs, GAO-04-291
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004).
[27] 71 Fed. Reg. 28545, May 17, 2006.
[28] Office of Personnel Management, Guide for Collection and
Management of Training Information (Washington, D.C.: September 2006).
[29] GAO, Human Capital: Selected Agencies Have Opportunities to
Enhance Existing Succession Planning and Management Efforts, GAO-05-585
(Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by 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. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, DC 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548:
