[Senate Hearing 110-525]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-525
FROM CANDIDATES TO CHANGE MAKERS:
RECRUITING AND HIRING THE NEXT GENERATION
OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 8, 2008
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-085 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware TED STEVENS, Alaska
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN WARNER, Virginia
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Thomas Richards, Professional Staff Member
Jennifer A. Hemingway. Minority Staff Director
Jessica Nagasako, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Akaka................................................ 1
Senator Voinovich............................................ 2
WITNESSES
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Robert N. Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 5
Angela Bailey, Deputy Associate Director for Talent and Capacity
Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel Management.................... 7
John Crum, Ph.D., Acting Director, Office of Policy and
Evaluation, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board................ 9
James F. McDermott, Director, Office of Human Resources, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 11
John Gage, National President, American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO............................................. 23
Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union................................................ 25
Dan Solomon, Chief Executive Officer, Virilion, Inc.............. 27
Max Stier, President and Chief Executive Officer, Partnership for
Public Service................................................. 29
Donna Mathews, Principal, Federal Sector Programs, Hewitt
Associates LLC................................................. 31
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Bailey, Angela:
Testimony.................................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Crum, John, Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Gage, John:
Testimony.................................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Goldenkoff, Robert N.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Kelley, Colleen M.:
Testimony.................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Mathews, Donna:
Testimony.................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 102
McDermott, James F.:
Testimony.................................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Solomon, Dan:
Testimony.................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 89
Stier, Max:
Testimony.................................................... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 92
APPENDIX
Background....................................................... 120
Copies of job applications submitted for the Record by Senator
Voinovich...................................................... 126
Post-Hearing Questions for the Record submitted from:
Ms. Bailey................................................... 132
Mr. Crum..................................................... 142
Mr. McDermott................................................ 148
FROM CANDIDATES TO CHANGE MAKERS:
RECRUITING AND HIRING THE NEXT
GENERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce,
and the District of Columbia,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Akaka and Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. This hearing will come to order.
Again, I want to thank you for joining us to discuss the
Federal hiring process and how agencies can improve the way
they recruit and evaluate the next generation of Federal
employees. We would like at this point in time, to look at the
21 Century Federal workforce and look at it in terms of what we
can do to make the recruitment and hiring process better.
Today, we are in a crisis. The hiring system is broken.
Every day talented people interested in Federal service are
turned away at the door. Too many Federal agencies have built
entry barriers for younger workers; invested too little in
human resources professionals; done too little to recruit the
right candidates; and invented an evaluation process that
discourages qualified candidates. As a result, high-quality
candidates are abandoning the Federal Government.
The Federal Government has become the employer of the most
persistent. The Office of Personnel Management estimates that
30 percent of the Federal workforce--approximately 600,000
employees--will retire in the next 5 years. Agencies have an
opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity is to hire the
next generation of highly talented and dedicated employees. The
challenge is how to fix the recruitment and hiring process that
is outdated and broken.
Senator Voinovich and I have been working on this, and he
is a champion of moving this along as well.
OPM is responsible for rating agencies on their human
capital activities, which includes hiring practices. Agencies
receive a red, yellow, or green rating depending on their
improvement and success. Yet agencies receive green ratings for
human capital, despite the fact that the hiring process is
failing.
For example, Federal agencies still require applicants to
answer knowledge, skills, and ability questions. Applicants are
given 500 to 5,000 characters per answer to respond to many,
often redundant, questions. According to the Merit Systems
Protection Board report entitled ``Attracting the Next
Generation: A Look at Federal Entry-Level New Hires,'' the two
greatest obstacles new hires faced were the length and
complexity of the process. In the private sector, employers
only require a resume and cover letter. Applying to the Federal
Government should be just as easy.
The problem is not Congress. Since 2002, Congress has given
agencies the flexibilities they need: Agencies no longer must
rely on the rule of three; they can use category ratings; and
they can get direct hire authority from OPM. However, in many
cases Federal agencies are not using these authorities.
The competitive process is not the problem. The notion that
merit system principles and veterans' preference are barriers
to hiring is wrong. These are good management practices.
Agencies need to adapt, just as the private sector has, to the
culture of the next generation of Federal workers. For example,
agencies should use new media marketing tools to attract young
people into Federal service. Candidate-friendly applications
that welcome cover letters and resumes should be implemented.
Candidates should receive timely and informative feedback. And
more pipelines into colleges and technical schools need to be
developed to recruit candidates with diverse backgrounds.
The Federal Government is the largest employer in the
United States. Federal service is a noble profession. This
week--Public Service Recognition Week--we celebrate those men
and women who make a commitment to serve their government in
the military or civilian corps. In honoring these employees, we
have an opportunity to recruit the next generation by
highlighting inspiring Federal careers. Good people attract
more good people. However, the positive impact of this week
will not help agencies recruit if they continue to use outdated
hiring practices.
I look forward to hearing about the efforts being made by
OPM to address this issue and recommendations from other
witnesses to improve recruitment and hiring at Federal
agencies.
Now I would like to ask our Ranking Member for his
statement. Senator Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We really
appreciate your calling today's hearing, ``From Candidates to
Change Makers: Recruiting and Hiring the Next Generation of
Federal Employees.'' That is a pretty good title.
Holding this hearing during Public Service Recognition Week
is appropriate given our need to thank the men and women who
serve our Nation through their service as Federal employees.
When we discuss hiring, we discuss a process that affects
every individual employed by the government today. Making the
right hiring decisions affects the current workforce's ability
to continue doing their jobs. It also is the same process these
employees must go through when pursuing new opportunities
within the government, including promotions.
Additionally, we need to convey to the thousands of men and
women at all stages of their career that the Federal Government
is more than just an employer, but a place where Americans can
utilize and grow their skills in service to their Nation,
making a difference to their Nation and their fellow man.
As the old cliche goes, you never get a second chance to
make a first appearance. You need to convey to those Americans
that the Federal Government wants them. If we do not, someone
else will.
We know the challenges confronting the Federal Government.
This Subcommittee has focused its attention on understanding
and addressing those challenges for the past 9 years. We have
discussed for years the human capital crisis that will ensue
when the baby-boom generation begins retirement, and that has
already begun.
Mr. Chairman, that era is here. The baby boomers are
retiring. At the same time, the needs and demands on government
continue to grow. OPM itself has identified certain areas of
critical hiring importance: Air traffic controllers, Border
Patrol officers, engineers, food inspectors, human resources
specialists, nurses, visa examiners, patent examiners,
scientists, veterinarians, accountants, and acquisition
professionals. In addition, the Partnership for Public Service
has estimated that over the next 2 years, the government will
need to hire 193,000 new people to fill mission-critical jobs
in fields such as security, public health, accounting and
budget, engineering and sciences, and program management.
Over and over, we hear of the problems in the Federal
hiring process: It takes too long, it is too burdensome, and so
forth. The quality of technology has improved, but our
processes have not. Just yesterday, Stephen Barr of the
Washington Post hosted an online chat in which dozens of
individuals wrote in expressing their frustrations with the
process. I hear this at home constantly from people. They want
to work for the Federal Government, but how do you get into the
system?
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has a real image
problem if this is the message conveyed to the American people
about what it actually takes to come to work for the Federal
Government. And I would like to just show you an example. I
found three job postings or human resource professionals.
The first I found on the website for the Washington Post,
and you can see clearly there are two pages, and it asks
interested applicants to submit their resumes via e-mail. So it
has got the basic, what the job is about, and asks them to
submit their resume via e-mail.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The copies of applicants submitted by Senator Voinovich appears
in the Appendix on page 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second is a position at Google, which was ranked by
Fortune Magazine as the Best Place to Work. Again, the initial
requirement of applicants is to submit a resume and cover
letter.
And, last, if there is an opening in the Federal
Government, it asks for the same information, then proceeds to
ask applicants to write narrative answers to eight additional
questions.
Mr. Chairman, if I were looking for a job, I would be happy
to write my cover letters and e-mail my resume to those two
companies that I first mentioned on the charts. I do not know
that I would have the time or patience to sit down and write
letters to eight different questions for my initial application
for a position. It just does not make any sense.
Certainly there is a place for this or similar assessment
of applicants in the hiring process, but down the road, after
you have been through the initial application, then you get
into all this other stuff. But I am not convinced it is
necessary to subject every applicant to this process. This does
not say ``welcome'' to any prospective candidate. It does not
say ``Uncle Sam Wants You.'' This does nothing to dispel any
preconceived notions that the Federal Government is nothing but
a bureaucratic system that who in the world would want to go to
work for.
Too often we have heard that processes exist for what I
believe to be unacceptable reasons, such as ``That is the way
it has always been done.'' But to be an employer of choice, the
government must understand what the competition is doing and
adapt to the changing environment. How can we expect employees
to lead change if they are first shown the government's
inability to respond to what job seekers deserve and expect?
Mr. Chairman, I believe the current statute provides the
Federal Government ample flexibility and opportunity for the
human resources professionals to utilize a flexible and more
dynamic hiring process if there was just the will and the
desire to do things differently. And I just want to say this is
very critical. We have been working, as Senator Akaka said, as
a team for about 8 years to try and give more flexibility to
the Federal Government so that we could recruit and retain and
reward good people. The competition is very keen today.
Everybody has a human capital crisis right across the board.
And if the Federal Government is going to get the best and the
brightest, we have got to adapt to what the competition is out
there. And the competition makes it a lot easier to bring
people on board, and that is what we need to do right now if we
expect to provide the kind of services that the American people
demand from us so that we have the right people with the right
knowledge and skills at the right place at the right time.
Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. You
can tell we are of the same mind. We have been working together
on this, and I just want you to know we need your help to try
to improve the system. That is what we are all about.
And so I would like to introduce our first panel: Robert
Goldenkoff, Director of Strategic Issues, GAO, Government
Accountability Office; Angela Bailey, Deputy Associate
Director, Talent and Capacity Policy Center of the Strategic
Human Resource Policy Division, Office of Personnel Management;
John Crum, Acting Director, Office of Policy and Evaluation,
Merit Systems Protection Board; and James McDermott, Chief
Human Capital Officer, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As you know, our Subcommittee rules require that all
witnesses be sworn in, and so I ask you to please stand and
raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony
you are about to give the Subcommittee is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Goldenkoff. I do.
Ms. Bailey. I do.
Mr. Crum. I do.
Mr. McDermott. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, could I just make one
comment before the witnesses----
Senator Akaka. Before you do, let me note for the record
that our witnesses answered in the affirmative.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to say that I am glad that
Mr. McDermott is here, and I would like to say, Mr. McDermott,
that we worked very hard to provide flexibilities to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission because we anticipated some of
the challenges that you would have. And I am glad that you are
here today because I think you are going to portray what we
could do in other agencies if we put our minds to it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Akaka. Well, thank you, Senator Voinovich.
Before we begin, I want to remind you that although your
oral statement is limited to 5 minutes, your full written
statements will be included in the record.
Mr. Goldenkoff, will you please proceed with your
statement?
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT N. GOLDENKOFF,\1\ DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC
ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Goldenkoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Voinovich. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be
here today to discuss recruiting and hiring the next generation
of Federal employees. I would like to commend the Subcommittee
for timing this hearing to coincide with Public Service
Recognition Week, which honors the employees at all levels of
government who proudly serve our Nation and make life better
for all of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff appears in the
Appendix on page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this week, I visited the exhibits that Federal
agencies have set up on The Mall to celebrate the contributions
of their employees, and the importance of hiring a top-notch
Civil Service employee was abundantly clear. From health care
to homeland defense, Federal agencies are on the front lines of
issues that have profound implications for our future economic
growth, our standard of living, and our national security. The
public has come to expect and needs a high-performing and
responsive Federal workforce. However, as you know, the
government is facing a looming retirement wave which could
leave agencies with critical leadership and skill gaps.
Restoring this talent could be a challenge as the Federal
hiring process is cumbersome and often falls short of the needs
of agencies and applicants, as we have just discussed.
As requested, my testimony today will focus first on the
challenges Federal agencies have faced in recruiting and hiring
talented employees; second, the progress that has been made to
date in addressing these challenges; and, third, additional
actions that are needed to further strengthen the government's
recruiting and hiring efforts.
Importantly, in my remarks this morning, I want to stress
the following: Although a number of challenges still need to be
addressed, in many ways the Federal Government is well
positioned to hire the people it needs to carry out its diverse
roles and responsibilities. Federal employment offers
intangible rewards such as interesting work and opportunities
to make a difference in the lives of others, as well as a
variety of tangible benefits and work-life flexibilities that
many job seekers look for in an employer.
Turning first to recruiting and hiring challenges facing
Federal agencies, as you know, studies by us and others have
pointed to such problems as passive recruitment strategies,
unclear job vacancy announcements, and imprecise candidate
assessment tools. These problems put the Federal Government at
a competitive disadvantage when acquiring talent. The good
news, however, is that in recent years, Congress, OPM, and
agencies have taken a number of steps to improve the employment
process. For example, as we have already mentioned, Congress
has provided agencies with hiring flexibilities that could help
agencies streamline their hiring processes and give agencies
more latitude in selecting from among qualified job candidates.
And for its part, OPM has, among other actions, sponsored job
fairs across the country and has placed various tools on its
website to help agencies improve and refine their hiring
procedures.
Likewise, individual agencies have taken steps to meet
their specific recruiting and hiring needs. For example, NASA
has recruited workers with critical skills through a
combination of techniques that have included improved
compensation and benefits packages. While these actions are all
positive trends, our past work has found that additional
efforts are needed in four key areas: Strategic human capital
planning, diversity management, existing flexibilities, and
OPM's leadership.
First and foremost, Federal agencies will have to bolster
their efforts in strategic human capital planning to ensure
they have employees with the skills and competencies necessary
to achieve their current goals as well as their future mission.
With respect to diversity management, to ensure that
agencies are reaching out to diverse pools of talent, agencies
must consider active recruitment strategies, such as widening
the selection of schools from which they recruit. This can
include, for example, more aggressive outreach to historically
black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions,
and women's college.
A third area for improvement is the appropriate use of
human capital flexibilities. Although agencies have various
flexibilities at their disposal to help them recruit and retain
talent, agencies do not always make effective use of them.
A fourth area in need of greater attention is OPM
leadership. OPM must continue to assist--and, as appropriate,
require building of infrastructures within agencies needed to
implement and sustain human capital reforms.
In summary, OPM and agencies have made progress in
addressing many of the impediments to effective recruitment and
hiring, but still, as I have discussed today, more can and must
be done. With sustained and committed leadership, innovation,
and planning on the part of Congress, OPM, and agencies, the
Federal Government can brand itself as an employer of choice
and successfully compete in the labor market for its fair share
of the Nation's best and brightest individuals.
Mr. Chairman and Senator Voinovich, this concludes my
prepared statement, and I would be happy to respond to any
questions you may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Goldenkoff.
Ms. Bailey, please proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF ANGELA BAILEY,\1\ DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
TALENT AND CAPACITY POLICY, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Ms. Bailey. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Akaka,
Senator Voinovich, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you
for this opportunity to highlight, during Public Service
Recognition Week, the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM)
mission to ensure the Federal Government has an effective
civilian workforce--a workforce that draws on the strength of
America's rich diversity of talent. In pursuing our mission,
OPM must balance the needs of our agencies and job applicants
with merit system principles and veterans' preference. We also
are mindful of the responsibilities assigned to OPM under the
President's Management Agenda concerning strategic management
of human capital, and we are very appreciative of all of the
work done by this Subcommittee over the last several years to
provide needed flexibilities that are helping to improve
Federal recruitment efforts and the overall Federal hiring
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Bailey appears in the Appendix on
page 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the President's human resources advisor, OPM Director
Linda Springer fully understands the importance of recruiting
and employing the next generation of Federal workers.
OPM has expanded our efforts to reach out across the
country to encourage Americans to join Federal service. We have
used television ads to promote public service; we are
highlighting our compensation and benefits packages; and we are
promoting our telework and family-friendly policies, which are
geared to the preferences and expectations of today's job
seeker.
To help agencies better address their hiring needs at both
ends of the employment spectrum, OPM developed a legislative
proposal that would allow agencies--without coming to OPM for
approval--to rehire annuitants on a part-time and/or time-
limited basis under certain conditions, without a salary
offset. These experienced workers, with their institutional
knowledge, can help the next generation of employees integrate
into an agency's workforce by serving as mentors and knowledge
management facilitators, thus providing a seamless transition
from generation to generation.
OPM would particularly like to thank Senators Collins,
Warner, and you, sir, Senator Voinovich, for their introduction
of this proposal as S. 2003. We also appreciate the support for
this proposal from the President of the Partnership for Public
Service who is testifying on the next panel.
In addition to the above, I would like to address three
specific areas in which OPM is leading the way to improve the
recruitment and employment of the next generation of Federal
employees: The hiring process, job announcements for entry-
level positions, and selection methods for the Senior Executive
Service.
We are well aware that the Federal hiring system has
evolved over many years into a cumbersome process and hiring
takes far too long. There are few of us who do not have a story
to tell that illustrates frustration with the Federal hiring
process, whether it is our own, a friend's, or a neighbor's.
Under the leadership of Deputy Director Howard Weizmann, we
have expanded these efforts by partnering with several agency
Chief Human Capital Officers to launch a new, holistic, and
systemic view of the hiring process. In the past, we took a
much narrower view of the process and tried to ``fix''
individual pieces rather than look at all of the components and
their interrelatedness. By July we will have the results of our
pilot efforts and will publish in September a government-wide
standard for the hiring process, along with a ``how to'' guide
that includes successful practices such as those mentioned by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for the hiring process along
with successful templates, which I will discuss later, and
scripts for communicating with applicants.
As a subset of this initiative, we also are streamlining
our job announcements and creating templates that agencies may
use when advertising for entry-level positions. OPM is working
with the Federal Acquisition Institute to design a job
announcement for the acquisition community and has managed to
streamline that announcement by reducing the verbiage by 75
percent. It also advertises up front two of the most important
issues of concern to new professionals: Pay and benefits.
Moving to our executive corps, in concert with several
agencies, OPM will pilot two separate methods for executive
selection starting this June. One alternative in the pilot will
be a more streamlined selection method that focuses on an
individual's accomplishments as identified through the current
executive competencies. The other alternative in the pilot will
allow candidates to apply for Senior Executive Service (SES)
positions by providing only their resume. This method is
specifically designed to attract seasoned executives whose
resumes clearly demonstrate the extent of their experience and
accomplishments.
If anything, OPM believes that these efforts will prove
that it is possible to challenge difficult and esoteric
processes and, more importantly, create solutions that do not
compromise our principles. Public service is a noble calling,
and we look forward to working with you to inspire a new
generation to join public service.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions you and other Members may have.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Bailey.
Dr. Crum, will you proceed with your statement?
TESTIMONY OF JOHN CRUM, PH.D.,\1\ ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
POLICY AND EVALUATION, U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
Mr. Crum. Good morning, Chairman Akaka and Senator
Voinovich. Thank you for the opportunity today to testify
regarding the challenges to recruiting and hiring applicants
for Federal jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Crum appears in the Appendix on
page 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) conducts
independent studies of the Federal Civil Service system to
determine if the workforce is managed under the merit system
principles and free from prohibited personnel practices. We
have identified a set of key challenges the government faces in
recruiting and selecting the next generation of Federal
employees, which I will discuss. I will also discuss efforts
undertaken by the Office of Personnel Management and several
other Federal agencies to address these challenges.
Our studies have shown that there are four primary barriers
that often prevent qualified applicants from seeking employment
with the Federal Government. These include: The length of the
process, the complexity of the process, the use of ineffective
candidate assessment tools, and an absence of an effective
marketing strategy.
First, with respect to the hiring process, research
conducted by the MSPB has shown that it is not uncommon for
successful applicants to wait 5 months or more to receive job
offers. Of course, the longer the process takes, the more
applicant attrition is likely to occur.
A second barrier is the complexity of the process.
Decentralization of the hiring process has added to the
complexity because there is no standard application and there
are no uniform assessment processes. Applicants must submit
different applications and other required forms to each agency
with which they seek employment.
A third issue of concern regarding the Federal Government's
ability to hire a high-quality workforce is how Federal
employers assess the relative qualifications of job applicants.
The assessment tools many agencies use are simply not effective
predictors of success on the job.
Finally, the Federal Government often fails to market
itself effectively as an employer of choice. MSPB's research
shows that Federal vacancy announcements are often poorly
written, difficult to understand, and filled with jargon and
unnecessary information. Consequently, many announcements
actually discourage potential applicants from applying for
Federal jobs.
The Office of Personnel Management has attempted to address
these challenges in a variety of ways. OPM has worked with
agencies to improve the timeliness of the process. OPM has also
instituted new hiring flexibilities, such as category rating,
and developed new hiring authorities, including the Federal
Career Intern Program, and authorized direct hiring authority
as needed by agencies. OPM has also instituted a 45-day hiring
model and is working with agencies to achieve this goal.
OPM has also worked to improve Federal vacancy
announcements. This has included working with agencies to
develop a job announcement template for use in conjunction with
the USAJOBS website that is more streamlined and user friendly.
OPM has also been working on the development of standard job
announcements for a set of occupations that cut across
agencies. Finally, OPM is working with the Chief Human Capital
Officer Council to identify additional hiring reforms that will
speed the process and protect merit.
A number of other Federal agencies have demonstrated that
it is possible for the government to effectively compete for
talent. Our 2004 report, ``Managing Federal Recruitment:
Issues, Insights, and Illustrations,'' cited a number of
interesting practices that improved agencies' ability to
recruit and hire qualified candidates. For example, a former
Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service led
recruitment events at his alma mater. These efforts conveyed
his commitment to effective recruitment and made a positive
impression on candidates. Another agency, the Government
Accountability Office, assigns senior executives and a
recruiting team to targeted colleges and universities. The
Social Security Administration built an agency-wide marketing
campaign around a single tag line and targets marketing
materials to specific needs and audiences. These organizations
have made recruitment an organizational priority, allocated the
resources necessary for it, and employed proactive and creative
approaches in their recruitment strategies.
Similarly, at the MSPB we have attempted to streamline and
improve our own hiring practices. This included revising our
vacancy announcements, implementing category rating, and using
a multiple hurdle assessment approach that did away with
lengthy knowledge, skills, and ability write-ups.
MSPB offers the following recommendations to guide reform
and improve the Federal hiring process:
First, agencies should manage hiring as a critical business
process, not an administrative function that is relegated to
the human resources staff. This means integrating discussions
of hiring needs, methods, and outcomes into the agency's
business planning processes.
Second, agencies should evaluate their own internal hiring
practices to identify barriers to high-quality, timely, and
cost-effective hiring decisions. Agencies will probably be
surprised to see that many of the barriers they face are self-
imposed.
Third, we recommend that agencies, with the assistance of
OPM, employ rigorous assessment strategies that emphasize
selection quality, not just cost and speed. In particular,
agencies should use assessment instruments that have a
relatively good ability to predict future performance.
Finally, we recommended that agencies implement sound
marketing practices and better recruitment strategies, improve
their vacancy announcements, and communicate more effectively
with applicants. These reforms may well encourage applicants to
await a final decision rather than abandon the Federal job
search in favor of employment elsewhere.
This concludes my statement today, and again, I thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear this morning, and I
am happy to respond to questions from you or Senator Voinovich.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Dr. Crum.
Now we proceed to Mr. McDermott for your statement.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES F. McDERMOTT,\1\ DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF HUMAN
RESOURCES, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. McDermott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Voinovich. I am glad to be here to talk about NRC's hiring
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. McDermott appears in the Appendix
on page 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the fall of 2005, Chairman Nils Diaz and I met with
Senator Voinovich to talk about our plans to increase the
agency's size to handle the new work coming our way. And
Senator Voinovich asked me could I hire 350 people in that
year. Well, historically NRC was hiring about 220 people per
year, so to the mild displeasure of Chairman Diaz, I said,
``Three hundred? Probably. Three hundred and fifty would be a
stretch.'' But in the end, we hired 371 people in that fiscal
year for a net gain of 175 in the staff.
The next year, we hired 441 people and gained a net of 216,
and this year, we are on the way to more than 400 hires and
will hit our target of 200 net gain this year. Forty-five
people will start at NRC next Monday.
I think there are four key factors that have made our
hiring program successful. The first is the mission. Protecting
the public and the environment is a challenge that attracks a
broad range of individuals. Its mission resonates with the
young and with the not so young. About half the people we hired
in fiscal year 2007 were over the age of 40.
What we have done is improve the way we highlight the value
of the mission and the value of a career at NRC. We spend a lot
of money to upgrade our ads, our displays, and our videos to
try and tell a compelling story about a consistent message:
Make our mission yours.
The second big key to our success is management commitment
and support. Chairman Klein introduces himself as my chief
recruiter, claims he works for me. He does. He is constantly
setting off my BlackBerry with buzzes about ``I found this
resume,'' ``Talk to this person,'' things like that. The other
Commissioners participate, and it carries right down through
the staff. We have managers who are passionate about recruiting
people. They get involved at the recruitment events. They
follow up afterwards with candidates and prospects. And they
push the mechanisms in the agency to get the job offer out.
They say, ``Hey, where is the offer to this young person I
talked to at the campus?'' This commitment is not lost on the
candidates, who recognize that investing in people is a real
top priority at the NRC.
My third factor in NRC's recruitment strategy is maximum
use of the hiring flexibilities. We routinely offer recruitment
bonuses, flexible work schedules, AND teleworking
opportunities. And for mid- and late-career candidates, the
Federal Health Benefits Program, which includes guaranteed
health benefits coverage in retirement, is an absolutely huge
attractor.
The Energy Policy Act--thank you very much--of 2005 gave us
some particularly useful tools. We can cover housing and
transportation expenses for cooperative education students
during their work periods at NRC. This has made it economically
feasible for students from outside the metropolitan area to
come and work at NRC during work periods or during the summers.
The act also provided us the authority to waive the pension-
salary offset when you are hiring retirees either to meet
sudden critical skill needs or for short-term knowledge
transfer efforts to mitigate the loss of critical skills
through retirement.
The fourth key that we use is our reputation as a great
place to work. We highlight our rankings in the surveys and
being cited as a best diversity company, and one result of this
employee-friendly culture is we have about 3,000 recruiters in
the agency. They talk to their colleagues and former associates
about what a good place NRC is to work, and that word of mouth
is a top source of good, quality candidates. Personally, I got
both of the jobs I got in the Federal Government by word of
mouth, not by the vacancy announcement process.
But, obviously, our program is still a work in progress. We
are working hard with OPM to improve the end-to-end hiring
process. We have completed one and we are engaged in two other
Lean Six Sigma reviews to identify ways to improve our cycle
times, and we have established targets, and we have got them in
our operating plans. And we are working with OPM and others to
try and share this stuff with the government at large so the
government becomes an employer of choice.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you. I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. McDermott.
Let me read to you, the panel, what a few people wrote this
week on the Washington Post Federal Diary online discussion in
response to articles on the Federal hiring process.
One person said, ``The biggest problem with Federal hiring
is that it is too slow. There are many who would make great
public servants who do not even apply because the government
has that reputation.''
Another person said, ``I decided not to apply for other
Federal jobs. Not worth the effort.''
Yet another said, ``For private sector jobs, you send a
resume, references, and a cover letter. For government jobs,
you fill out endless forms, and if you miss one, you are out.''
You all represent agencies with recruitment and hiring
programs. Do you think applicants say the same about your
agency, what I just mentioned? What do you think we can do
about this? That is the question.
Let me begin with Mr. Goldenkoff.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, I think as we have discussed, the
hiring process definitely needs to be streamlined. It is too
paper-based, it is very cumbersome. When I think of all the
thousands and thousands of applicants who apply for Federal
employment each year, one person comes to mind, and that is my
daughter and what would attract her to the Federal Government.
And basically there are so many other opportunities out there
in the private sector, and I think that she would be turned
off, and I know she is already turned off, by just the thought
of this daunting process as we saw earlier with those displays.
So that is one thing, simplifying the process.
Another factor that agencies would need to consider is
being much more aggressive on college campuses and elsewhere in
their recruiting. The Government Accountability Office, for
example, goes out and establishes long-term relationships with
colleges and universities. There is a lead recruiting team for
each of about 27 national schools and about 15 target
universities that we have included because they have high
concentrations of minority students. Each team is led by a
senior executive, and they are expected to go out there and
establish relationships with the students, with the faculty,
and the administrators.
The point to all this is that we just do not go out to the
schools when we have something to sell, when we need people. We
go out there, we teach classes, we serve on panels, and that is
very effective. What it does is it brands your organization as
a good place to work.
So those are two approaches right there: Simplifying the
process and more aggressive outreach.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Goldenkoff. Ms. Bailey.
Ms. Bailey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To add to what the
gentleman had mentioned, I also believe that one of the things
that we can do that I had mentioned in my testimony is the idea
of streamlining the job announcements themselves. As you
demonstrated, where you had eight pages for a job announcement,
it is very possible to take those down to where it is at least
three to four pages of things that are very direct, hit up
front on those key issues that are important to prospective
employees--for example, pay--and do not talk to it in terms of
GS-5, GS-7, because no one has a clue what that means. So we
need to go after and we need to be very clear on what the
salary is exactly that an employee can expect.
With regard to our benefits, we have a wealth of benefits.
We need to advertise those because what I think most of the
studies that GAO and MSPB have shown is that it is not always
about the pay. A lot of times what people are actually looking
for has to do with our flexible work schedules, our
teleworking, our ability to work in different locations,
whether it is Guam for the United States Navy or it is with the
NRC here in the Washington, DC area.
So there is a wide range of things that we can do to
actually get up front, market who we are, be very specific
about that, and then talk in much more plain language with
regard to what it is that we are looking for, whether it is
knowledge, skills, and abilities.
We kind of beat ourselves up occasionally over the idea of
assessing employees. Should we do it up front or should we do
it in a more hurdled approach? I think that both of them have
merit, and we could probably argue those points on both sides.
But whichever method that we choose, we have to be very
cognizant of the fact that the very baseline of our merit
system principles is that our selections will be based solely
on the ability, the skills, and the knowledge of individuals
when we make those kinds of selections.
We have to be very clear in our ability to balance both the
assessment of those individuals without making it look like it
is such an arduous process.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Dr. Crum.
Mr. Crum. Yes, I would say the first thing we need to do is
have agencies look more closely at themselves and what they are
doing. Oftentimes, I think that they have developed processes
that they continue to use because they have always done it that
way, instead of reviewing what they are doing to see whether
they can be done better.
In many agencies that we have looked at, management is not
taking its recruiting and selection as seriously as they
should. They get people, but do they get the best people? They
do not really know. Their processes are, again,
institutionalized and oftentimes turned over to human resources
staffs without sufficient involvement with management.
Our view is that management--this is a key objective of
management--is to create a workforce for both today and for
tomorrow, not just look at who we can get in at the moment but,
in fact, build that workforce of the future. So I think
agencies have to, in fact, review their processes and see
whether there are ways in which they can do it better. I think
that there are.
I think another issue is one of applying for jobs across
agencies. Right now every time a person submits an application
for a job in one agency, that application is not usually
transferable to another job in a different agency. They will
have to resubmit a new application, fill out new KSAs, in fact,
be involved in a very long process that is frequently off-
putting. So I think that having a facility to submit at least a
basic application for common jobs across agencies would be a
big help.
Additionally, as Ms. Bailey mentions, I think we could do a
better job of marketing ourselves. We do have an awful lot to
offer. Right now we have very passive recruitment strategies.
We either rely on people who are in the agencies to tell us
about what they do or tell their friends about what they do, or
we rely on USAJOBS. We have so much to offer that if we could
reach people with the fact that we have a chance to make a
difference in people's lives, that we have interesting
missions, that we have benefits, I think we could, in fact,
entice many more people to apply for Federal jobs.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. McDermott.
Mr. McDermott. Well, I would say that in regard to a lot of
the processes, our best boast is we are no worse than anybody
else. But what we trade on is getting the managers involved.
Take the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. We send a big
team--we blitz them. We have done that every year since 2000,
and we take eight or nine people down there, half of them
senior executives who really model what a career with NRC could
be. It pays off. And then I tell them, ``You are here to sell
on Friday and screen on Saturday.''
So we market--actually, we get in about Wednesday. We talk
to them, we get them all lined up, we get the best and
brightest. Then we screen them. We sit in a room. I am sitting
at a typewriter in the room, and if I get a nod from the
interviewer, I am writing an offer letter. And we say,
``Here.'' And we do not talk about Grade 5 or 7. We say, ``This
is a good life. Come to work for us and in 3 or 4 years you
will be making $80,000 a year.'' That is an offer letter that
Mom and Dad are real happy to see when they take it home.
These things work for us, and we think that if we sell and
then if we are smart and get the right people doing the
screening, we can do things a lot faster.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. McDermott.
What I will do is ask my Ranking Member for his questions,
and I will come back to a second round. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Mr. McDermott, I am tickled
that those flexibilities we enacted in the 2005 Policy Act
really have made a difference for the NRC. I was just telling
one of the young ladies behind me, I said, ``Doesn't that
really make you feel good?'' [Laughter.]
Mr. McDermott. It makes me feel good.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Bailey, you have been with OPM for
how long?
Ms. Bailey. Six months, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Is this the first time you have
testified?
Ms. Bailey. Yes, it is, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. Well, you are probably pretty nervous, I
suspect. You did a good job with your opening statement, by the
way.
Ms. Bailey. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. And I have to say that at the end of
your testimony, the suggestions that you are making to effect
change seem to be very good. The real issue is whether or not
you can actually get them done.
Why has it taken so long for OPM to address this issue?
Ms. Bailey. Senator, we have been trying to fix the hiring
process for the last 10 to 15 years. I think that a lot of very
good initiatives have been done over the years. The 45-day
model is a good start at that. Using the scorecard method with
the agencies and drawing attention to their human capital
practices is another good area that we have started.
Under Deputy Director Weizmann, one of the things that when
he first came on board that we talked about is the fact that
what we need to look at, though, is we need to look at the
hiring process as an end-to-end thing.
Senator Voinovich. When did Deputy Director Howard Weizmann
start his work?
Ms. Bailey. In July 2007.
Senator Voinovich. OK.
Ms. Bailey. When I then came on board, we sat down and we
had a discussion about it because the issue that was very
important to him was this charge that we needed to fix the
hiring process. And from my years of experience in the
operating world out in the field, not at the policy
headquarters level, there are a lot of things that you can see
when you are out in the operating area that you can see the
policy drives much of what we do within the operations area.
The discussion centered around the fact that what we had to
look at the hiring process we had to look at the root causes of
what was causing some of these issues and go after those root
causes. Because it is not always about a new hiring authority
or a new automated tool. Sometimes it goes back to basic
staffing and recruiting. Sometimes it goes back to having basic
commitment from top senior leadership that they are actually
going to see themselves as the agency's recruiter, and it is
not simply something that is thrown over the shelf to a GS-7 HR
specialist.
So in looking at that, we said it starts with workforce
planning. Quite frankly, if the agencies--and we are at an
agency as well.
Senator Voinovich. I hate to interrupt you, but----
Ms. Bailey. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich [continuing]. The first thing you ought
to do is get back to us on your plan. One of the things that is
a concern to me right now, Senator Akaka, is we are getting
toward the end of the current Administration.
Ms. Bailey. OK.
Senator Voinovich. It takes a while to get things done. I
know that. The first thing I would do is straighten out OPM's
internal application process. OPM ought to be able to do that
in a very short period of time. There are some good models
being discussed here. I would encourage you to look at the
forms they are using, and come up with a new form for OPM. OPM
is supposed to be the lead personnel management agency, and its
application stinks. So OPM ought to straighten that one out in
the beginning, and hopefully in the process of doing that the
agency could share that reform with some of the other agencies
that have the same type of challenges. There are some good role
models here. You do not have to hire a consultant. Go talk to
Mr. McDermott. Talk to Mr. Crum. Go over to the General
Accountability Office and get them in a room. Get a hold of
your CHCO Council people. Have they been bothering with this or
talking about it at all?
Ms. Bailey. Absolutely, yes.
Senator Voinovich. What have they done?
Ms. Bailey. The Chief Human Capital Officers are
intricately involved in the entire hiring process, and they
also are working with us on the streamlining of the templates.
We deliberately chose to go after working with the Chief
Financial Officer Council to address the accountant and
accounting technician, and our next initiative that we are
working on right now is with the Federal Acquisition Institute
to go after the acquisition community, because what there is is
a need for us to work within the communities of interest, not
just within the HR communities. So in collaboration with the
Chief Human Capital Officers and the communities such as
acquisition, we are able to take this and put forth one face to
the applicants to be America's buyer as the acquisition
community sees themselves.
So there is a tremendous effort going on right now to
collaborate together with the different communities, to pull
together and create one face to these applicants.
Senator Voinovich. When?
Ms. Bailey. We are doing that right now, and actually we
have the template finished. It is in the clearance process. We
plan to have that implemented by July 1. We also are going to
work with the acquisition community to create a centralized
register to address, as Dr. Crum has said, this idea of every
time you apply for a job, you have to apply for it under a
different method. So, by July 1, we are going to roll out with
the acquisition community the idea of a centralized register.
You apply for one job. You get to pick the location. You can
pick the agencies that you are interested in. And then we will
issue those registers.
The other thing that we are looking at is this whole idea
of assessment. We also are going to work with the acquisition
community to create a streamlined assessment that directly goes
after the competencies that the acquisition community is
interested in rather than a one-size-fits-all approach so that
we can eliminate this need for agencies to think that you have
to do both an assessment exam and then turn around and address
what we call the KSAs.
We are collaborating with both the human resources
professionals and with those communities to say this is your
field, this is your expertise. Work with us so that we can come
up with exactly what it is that you want to do to assess and be
able to predict the successful outcome of that applicant.
Senator Voinovich. Are you a Civil Service employee?
Ms. Bailey. Yes, I am.
Senator Voinovich. That means that you will be around to
continue to push to reform this process.
Ms. Bailey. Yes, I am leading this project that I am
referring to.
Senator Voinovich. Have you been working with Mr. Stier,
President, Partnership for Public Service, who is going to
testify on the next panel?
Ms. Bailey. Yes, actually, we are working with him. We also
are working with the Corporate Leadership Council. We are
working with MSPB. So we are working with a host of people, and
to be honest, we are also working with ordinary citizens, I
mean literally going out and asking them, showing them these
job announcements that are egregious and saying to them,
``Would you apply for this job?'' The answer is, ``No.'' ``All
right. Let's talk about what it is that we can do to write this
in plain language.'' Because when an HR specialist looks at it,
what looks like plain language to me is not plain language to a
21-year-old junior in college.
And so by working with private citizens and pulling
together all the different information that we have, we are
able to, I think, come up with something that is----
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a
written strategic plan on what OPM is going to do in order to
meet the goal that Ms. Bailey has talked about today----
Ms. Bailey. OK.
Senator Voinovich. Within that plan, I would like to know
what are the things that OPM is going to do in order to achieve
success and some idea of timing so that Senator Akaka and I can
sit down and look at the total picture. Maybe you can come in
to see us or talk with our staff. I would like to monitor what
OPM is doing so that it actually gets done what it claims to
want to accomplish and also identify any impediments where
maybe we can provide some kind of blocking in order to make it
happen.
Ms. Bailey. OK.
Senator Voinovich. I have to tell you there is an urgency
here. This has got to get done. OPM's plan cannot just meander
down the stream until next year and hope something is going to
get done. We have to get on this right away.
Ms. Bailey. I agree, Senator Voinovich. We will do that.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
He is correct. We are going to be pushing this, and we look
forward to your help in bringing this about.
Let me ask this of Ms. Bailey and of Mr. McDermott. Most
private employers only require applicants to submit a resume
and cover letter to apply for a position, yet Federal agencies
still use the complicated KSAs--knowledge, skills, and
abilities--questionnaire to evaluate candidates. Why aren't
Federal agencies using resumes and cover letters to evaluate
candidates? Ms. Bailey.
Ms. Bailey. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I just would like to
read very quickly from the merit system principles because I
think it sets the stage and puts some of this into context for
all of us.
``Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from
appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a workforce from
all segments of society, and selection and advancement should
be determined solely on the basis of relative ability,
knowledge, and skills after fair and open competition, which
assures that all receive equal opportunity.''
I think what we have done over the years is we have kind of
misinterpreted that perhaps a bit to say that somehow there is
a requirement then for potential employees to have to literally
address every single knowledge, skills, and abilities that we
are looking for.
The new approach that we are taking with these templates
and with what we are working with the Chief Human Capital
Officers on is we have a requirement to list the knowledge that
we are looking for and the skills that we are looking for and
the ability. I mean, even the Washington Post position that was
demonstrated by Senator Voinovich's staff, even in there they
address the qualifications, what they are looking for: That an
individual would possess oral and written communication skills,
for example.
So we cannot lose sight of the fact that we have an
obligation to tell people what we are looking for, what exactly
we are looking for, but we do not have a requirement to then
make them write everything--write it out in pages and pages of
dialogue. There are many methods for assessing employees and
assessing whether or not they have those knowledge, skills, and
abilities, and a resume is one way of doing so.
At the agency I worked at before with the Department of
Defense, we did away with this idea of KSAs 7 years ago, and we
use resumes only. It was an automated system. It came in and it
did a word search. And there are some pitfalls with that, too,
in that if you do not do your resume well and sometimes with
the younger generation or even any generation, they struggle
with how to do a good resume.
I think that seasoned executives have that down pat, but a
college student sometimes struggles with what exactly he needs
to put on a resume.
So as a result of that, what we found is that we needed to
balance this idea of using expediency--a resume only--with the
idea that at some point in time we also have to have the
ability to assess whether or not in particular a GS-15 at a
leadership position, do they really have the knowledge that we
are looking for, or the skills or the abilities, to lead
someone. So we went back and we reinstituted having them
address four or five basic questions in that regard. That,
coupled with structured interviews or having other interview
panels that were diverse, actually led us to having better
selections of our leadership positions.
The notion that there should be no reason for us to assess
employees concerns me just a little bit in that there has to
again be a balance between being able to provide up front to
employees exactly what it is that you are looking for, and then
being able on the tail end to assess whether or not those
individuals had that.
The military has one of the most advanced and sophisticated
assessment processes in the world. It is 225 questions with
eight different sections. It takes hours to complete. In doing
research on this whole idea of templates and how best to
assess, I went in and I applied at Panera Bread, so if this
does not work out, I will maybe be doing that. [Laughter.]
But, anyhow, I went into Panera Bread, and I applied for
that, and believe it or not, you do an application up front,
which, yes, even asked for my Social Security number and
everything else. It was a five-page application, and it ended
with a 212-question questionnaire for me to fill out in order
to work at Panera Bread to see if I was a right fit for them.
And so sometimes what concerns me, Mr. Chairman, is that in
our quest to simplify all of this, if we want to do assessments
that are important enough for the military and for some of the
private sector, I want to make sure that those that are coming
in to serve the public, which is what we do as Federal
employees, that we have some method of also assessing them in
such a way as to ensure that they, too, are a right fit within
the Federal Government.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. McDermott.
Mr. McDermott. Well, part of the problem is we have been
seduced by technology. We thought the computer will make the
judgments that need to be made to make sure we hire the right
person. That is not true. That is not going to happen.
The other thing we do is we write everything for the trial.
It is very defensive. We practically require a legal brief from
the applicant to prove that they are going to be the best
qualified. We have got to not do that.
Our newest Commissioner, Kristine Svinicki, asked me, she
said, ``I need a staff. How are you going to get me staff?'' I
said, ``I am going to ask them for a one-page resume and a
cover letter that says, `Dear Commissioner: Here is what I
could do for you.''' Stop. She said, ``That ought to work.''
And I said to myself that should work for every job that we are
filling. We need to simplify this stuff.
And at the NRC, I am working to make this change. There are
a lot of things we do to make selections that we should have
done in the assessment phase, not at the selection phase. Let's
talk to people. That is really how you find out. There are two
things I say: Talk to them and figure out whether they are good
or not, and then use the probationary period when you are
hiring a new employee, because you are not really going to know
until you put them to work and see how well they work. So use
it. And if they are good, they are good. Great. If they are
not, bye-bye. That is how we should proceed in my view.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Now this question is for the
panel. OPM has said that 85 percent of Federal agencies have
met the 45-day model for hiring new employees. However,
according to a recent MSPB report, applicants still complain
about the lengthy process it takes to get hired.
How long does it really take to hire a Federal employee
from the date a vacancy is announced, an announcement is made
and is posted? And if it is long, why does it take so long? Mr.
Goldenkoff.
Mr. Goldenkoff. Well, I think part of the answer to why
there seems to be a disconnect between this 45-day hiring model
and the perceptions of applicants is what the 45-day time
period measures and what the applicants are expecting. The 45-
day time period, in my understanding, is from when the
announcement closes to when an offer is made. But the
applicants, what they care about is when they actually come on
board. And the vacancy announcement could have been open for
months. So from that perspective, it is a much longer time
frame, so I think that in developing these hiring models, the
hiring models need to get in sync with the expectations of the
applicants. So I think that would explain that disconnect.
As far as how long it should take, I can only speak for my
own agency where the vacancy announcement is open for several
weeks. There is a first paper cut, and those who make that
initial cut come in for job interviews, and we talk to them
face to face. So rather than applying these lengthy KSAs, we
have already established the competencies that make a
successful GAO employee. It is critical thinking. It is
writing. It is oral communication skills.
So then, in the course of the interview, we ask questions
that get at those competencies. We just hired a bunch of summer
interns back in March. I know in some cases for people that I
interviewed, we called them up the next day to make job offers.
Senator Akaka. Yes. Let me add another question to this,
and that is whether you have any recommendations about speeding
up this process. Ms. Bailey.
Ms. Bailey. We are actually working with the Chief Human
Capital Officers to develop this and look at it from end to
end. You are absolutely right. The 45-day model is a nice
start, but it is not truthful. And for employees, for potential
applicants, what they are looking at is exactly as Mr.
Goldenkoff has said, is that they are looking at when do they
actually report on board. So it needs to be from the point that
you drop the recruitment into the pipeline and then follow it
the whole way through.
The other thing that we need to do is improve the
communications to the applicants. We fail at that mostly in
that we use, again, as Mr. McDermott said, we are using
automation to do some of that rather than to reach out to the
applicant and say to them, ``Here is exactly what to expect. If
you are applying for this job within the Department of Homeland
Security, Defense, or wherever, you can expect 30 to 45 days
for your security background investigation. It is very
important to us, because you are protecting the borders of the
United States, that you meet certain qualifications within that
regard.''
So some of this is just managing people's expectations. If
I knew exactly how long it was going to take and you hit the
mark on that, then I can plan my life around it. It is the
inability of--or it is the surprise of not really ever knowing
when you are going to get back to me that is the issue at hand.
So part of the effort that we have with OPM that we are co-
leading with the CHCO Council is to make sure that we establish
a government-wide standard that talks about what exactly it is
from end to end, not talking anymore about the 45-day model,
but from end to end what can you expect, and what should
agencies hire within that? We are looking at around 80 days
right now for the government-wide standard from end to end, and
that includes the security and the suitability process of this
as well.
The other government-wide standard is the communications
standard. We have to establish that agencies provide some type
of communications to applicants.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Crum.
Mr. Crum. First of all, the 45-day standard is 45 business
days. That is not necessarily meaningful to applicants because
that translates to 63 real days for them. So it is 2 months for
them, not really a month and a half.
When we ask people who have recently taken Federal jobs how
long the right amount of time would be, two-thirds of them said
about 2 months. So, again, if they are kept informed, 2 months
seems to be a reasonable time, if we can meet that. When we
asked the people, again, who came on board with us, we found
that really only about 35 to 40 percent of them were, in fact,
hired within that time frame. That illustrates to me that it
can be done, but it often is not done, that, in fact, the
process often does take longer even though it could be quicker.
There are a lot of the reasons, I think, for the fact that
it takes as long as it does. One main reason is because of a
lack of management commitment to do things more quickly. What
we have heard from all of the panel is that when there is
management involvement and emphasis, things can be done
quickly. Things can be done and prepared in advance that
sometimes are not. For instance, crediting plans may not be
developed until applicants have already applied for jobs. This
wastes time. Management may not schedule interviews except at
their convenience rather than in a timely way that meets the
needs of applicants. So a lot of the scheduling of things can
be better controlled, I think, by the agencies, should they
choose to do so. But it requires that sort of management
commitment to make that difference.
All the while I have to echo the other point that I made
earlier: It is critically important that we keep applicants
informed of their status. We lose, I think, a lot of people
because it is a black hole to them. Applications come in, they
do not know what happens.
What we hear is that people are willing to take 2 months if
they know where they are in the process, if they know they are
being considered. When they do not know, even 2 months seems
like a very long time.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. McDermott.
Mr. McDermott. Well, I should say that I have been working
with Angie and Howie Weizmann because I need things--there are
things I can learn from them. They are finding out good stuff.
I have a little system. We call it ``Rats,'' because it rats
out managers. It says, ``Where is the ball right now on this
particular hiring case?'' And I find out that the biggest
place, is awaiting a management decision on the selection. So I
get apoplectic, and I start pounding on people and say, ``Come
on.''
We used to use an awful lot of panels where I didn't think
we needed a panel. I just needed a good reviewer of the case.
So I would ask myself, ``Who really wants to hire this person?
Who needs the person?'' That is the person that I would appoint
to be the reviewing official. Funny how fast it got done then,
and it did not get delayed and delayed.
The other thing, everybody has to get the equivalent of a
secret, or an L clearance, to get in the door at NRC. That is
sort of the pig and the python problem. The pig used to be at
the front end of the python, and OPM--thank you very much--has
fixed it. They are getting the investigations back to us in a
pretty timely fashion now. The pig has moved down the python,
and I am yelling at my security people, ``You need to hire more
adjudicators.'' When I am desperate, I say, ``Would you go to
that bookcase? I know that in that stack of files you have got
one already back on so-and-so that I need today. So please pull
that one and adjudicate it.'' An hour later, I get the word
they are cleared, they are fine, bring them on.
We have to deal with all the applicants that way because--
now, I do not have a problem with the college kids because I am
hiring them, if I am smart, in November and December, and they
are coming to work in May or June. I have enough problem to
take care of that. But the mid-career person? They are not
going to wait forever for the job. I have got to move them
faster. So put them at the top of the pile. Those are the
things we worry about.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much. I just want to be
clear, before I call on Senator Voinovich for other questions,
that I am not suggesting that candidates should not be
assessed. We need to break down barriers that deter candidates
from applying, and I thank you folks for your responses.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions.
I think you have done a good job. I think we should let these
folks go and get to the next panel.
Senator Akaka. Well, I do have more questions, and I will
submit them for the record. And I want to really thank you for
your responses. It has been helpful, and we look forward to
continuing to work with you and look for the best ways of
improving the process. So let me thank our first panel very
much.
Senator Voinovich. May I just ask one question.
Senator Akaka. Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. How long do you need to get the
strategic plan in our hands?
Ms. Bailey. Is 2 weeks OK?
Senator Voinovich. That is fine. And if you cannot do it,
then I would like you to call and say why you have not been
able to do it. OK?
Ms. Bailey. I will, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Bailey. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Well, again, thank you very much to our
first panel. I will be calling up panel two. Thank you.
We are happy to have our second panel here: John Gage, who
is the National President, American Federation of Government
Employees; Colleen Kelley, National President, National
Treasury Employees Union; Dan Solomon, Chief Executive Officer,
Virilion, Incorporated; Max Stier, President, Partnership for
Public Service; and Donna Mathews, Principal, Federal Sector
Programs, Hewitt Associates LLC.
Our Subcommittee rules, as you know, require that the
witnesses testify under oath, so will you please rise and raise
your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you
are about to give the Subcommittee is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Gage. I do.
Ms. Kelley. I do.
Mr. Solomon. I do.
Mr. Stier. I do.
Ms. Mathews. I do.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Let it be noted in the record that the witnesses answered
in the affirmative. Let me also remind you that although your
oral statement is limited to 5 minutes, your full statement
will be included in the record.
Mr. Gage, will you please proceed with your statement?
TESTIMONY JOHN GAGE,\1\ NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Mr. Gage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify here today on the question of overcoming obstacles to
the hiring of the next generation of Federal employees. It is
important to remember that, despite notions to the contrary,
the private sector's hiring methods are neither instantaneous
nor trouble-free. In addition, while the Federal Government has
some problems in its hiring practices, it is not the bumbling
caricature it is so often portrayed to be. Moreover, we do not
believe that the problems with Federal hiring are caused by
adherence to the merit system and veterans' preference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Gage appears in the Appendix on
page 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hiring the next generation of Federal employees is a
serious undertaking. Those charged with the task have a legal
and social responsibility to conduct hiring in the most open
and fair way possible, and the plain fact is that openness and
fairness take a little time. Federal agencies must honor
veterans' preference. Internal candidates who were selected
into career ladder positions must be given the opportunities
they have been promised. Background checks and security
clearances have to be conducted. Education and prior employment
must be verified. Working for a Federal agency is not the same
as working at a pizza parlor, and it takes time to make sure an
applicant meets the standards and requirements our society
expects the Federal Government to uphold.
Another explanation for the slowness in Federal hiring is
the fact that agency personnel offices have often been
decimated. There are too few hiring personnel to handle the
duties in the most expeditious way. Hiring more Federal
employees to work in agency human resources offices would
obviously speed up the hiring process. The application process
could also be streamlined without sacrificing the high
standards of the merit system. Many prospective employees point
to the lengthy sections of employment applications that require
them to describe in great detail their ``knowledge, skills, and
abilities.'' Some suggest that only those who pass an initial
level of scrutiny be invited to fill out those forms. If that
procedural reform were adopted, those asked to reveal their
``knowledge, skills, and abilities'' would at least know that
they had successfully navigated the first hurdle in their quest
for Federal employment and may perhaps be somewhat less
resentful of the task.
The Federal Workplace Flexibilities Act of 2006 enabled
agencies to entice both internal job candidates and candidates
who were not yet Federal employees with large bonuses equal to
as much as 100 percent of salary for recruitment, retention,
relocation, and promises of help with student loan repayment.
But not only has there been no funding for those flexibilities,
the Administration has been at war with its own workforce on
issues ranging from pay to outsourcing to collective bargaining
to politicizing what should be absolutely apolitical government
work.
The Administration's pay policies have hurt both
recruitment and retention. For the General Schedule and the
Federal Wage System, the Administration has proposed
insultingly low pay adjustments in every annual budget. Without
Congressional intervention, the real inflation-adjusted value
of the Federal paycheck would have fallen considerably over the
last 7 years. In addition, there has been a constant drumbeat
of Administration complaint that the employees who received
Federal pay raises did nothing to deserve a salary adjustment
beyond surviving the ``passage of time.'' They argue that a new
system based upon a supervisor's opinion of each employee's
performance was needed. Yet in the two agencies where the Bush
Administration obtained authority to do, the impact has been
even worse. In addition to low morale in numerous large
agencies documented by the OPM's biennial Human Capital Survey,
the prospect of a corrupt and highly politicized pay-for-
performance system has prompted many to plan to retire or
transfer as soon as the new pay system is imposed upon them.
Although much emphasis is placed upon external candidates
for Federal jobs, the retention of current employees should
also be a priority because they often make the best candidates
for Federal job openings. The Federal Government's policies
should encourage the employees in whom it has already invested
to look for career development possibilities within the
government rather than outside it.
And every time I see or hear an advertisement on radio or
television for the military, I wonder why Federal agencies are
not permitted to do the same thing for civilian Federal
employment. The commercials for the Army, Navy, and Marines are
compelling, professionally produced, and placed on the air at
times when they are likely to have the greatest impact. I have
no doubt that these advertisements have contributed greatly to
the military's ability to recruit even in a time of war. In
contrast, Federal agencies are limited to using relatively
inexpensive media and placing their on-air advertisements at
inauspicious times, with predictable results.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I heard a lot today that I
think our union can get behind, and I would like to say that
for AFGE, some of the ideas I have heard are good, and we would
certainly like to be part of the solution rather than the
problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Gage.
Ms. Kelley, will you please proceed with your statement?
TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY,\1\ NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Ms. Kelley. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka and Ranking
Member Voinovich. I appreciate the opportunity to be before you
today to review the challenges to recruiting and hiring
candidates for Federal Government jobs and to offer some
recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley appears in the Appendix on
page 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because we have had no comprehensive approach to hiring in
the government since the PACE exam was thrown out in 1979,
agencies have been tinkering with ways to attract and hire new
employees. Unfortunately, that tinkering has often resulted in
a narrow applicant pool and the end of what should be fair and
open competition for Federal jobs. MSPB has found that between
2001 and 2004, competitive examining was used for only 29
percent of total hires. I will address this first problem in
greater detail.
One of the tools that agencies increasingly rely on is the
Federal Career Intern Program. This FCIP was originally
intended to be a special focus hiring tool, aimed at providing
structured, 2-year training and development ``internships.''
FCIP is now the hiring authority of choice in many agencies in
the Federal Government.
Since 2002, Customs and Border Protection has hired all of
its officers under this program. For fiscal year 2005 and 2006,
that is close to 5,000 employees. The IRS now fills positions
such as revenue officer and revenue agents using the FCIP, and
the FDIC has begun filling most entry-level positions using
FCIP. We believe that FCIP rules give agencies excessively
broad discretion to depart from the carefully designed and
statutorily mandated competitive examination and selection
requirements for the Federal Civil Service. Vacancy
announcements do not have to be posted under FCIP. Veterans'
preference rights are diminished under FCIP, and agencies have
discretion to make selection decisions without following rating
and ranking processes or merit promotion plans. These misnamed
``interns'' are hired into the accepted service, creating a de
facto 2- or 3-year probationary period instead of the standard
1-year probationary period for entry-level positions in the
competitive service.
In addition, although the Homeland Security Act contained
changes from using the rule of three to what they call
``category hiring,'' Homeland Security hardly uses this. As do
most agencies, they ignore it. Instead, they are relying on the
FCIP, which MSPB studies have shown can narrow the applicant
pool and create the perception of ``unfair, arbitrary, or
inequitable treatment.''
One of the most frustrating things I hear is that if only
management had more flexibility, they could recruit and retain
employees much easier. It is frustrating to me because there
are already flexibilities available to managers that they
rarely use, including recruitment and retention bonuses,
student loan repayment programs, telework, and flexitime. With
greater use of these flexibilities, I believe we can attract
more workers. I understand that in many cases, agency budgets
have been slashed so significantly that there is no money for
these flexibilities. Maybe we need to consider mandating that
funds be allocated to these accounts so that they can really be
used
In addition to hiring policies, we need to focus on how to
retain good employees. Currently, Federal workers see their
jobs threatened by contracting-out competitions, with money
needlessly spent proving they can do their jobs efficiently;
they see a continual assault on their benefits, paying more for
less every year; and they feel that although they work in the
Federal Government because they want to make a difference,
often management does not respect that or their dedication.
The Department of Homeland Security recently released its
annual workforce survey. The employees of Homeland Security
overwhelmingly believe in what they do and regard it as an
important part of our Nation's safety. Unfortunately, that is
about the only good news in the survey. Just 30 percent of
Customs and Border Protection employees responded that they
were satisfied with their involvement in workplace decisions.
Only 27.1 percent believe their leaders generate high levels of
motivation and commitment. At TSA, only 20 percent of employees
believe that promotions are based on merit. Only 22 percent of
TSA employees felt that creativity and innovation are rewarded,
Our transportation security officers at our airports are
subject to most of the human resource management flexibilities
this Administration often points to as advancing the
recruitment and retention of a high-quality workforce. Those
``flexibilities'' at TSA have resulted in one of the most
egregious personnel systems in the government. With management
given a free rein, promotion rules are unknown, bonus points
are distributed by favoritism, scheduling is at the whim of
management, and you can be fired and told to go home for the
slightest infraction or maybe without even knowing why.
Grievances, filed in accordance with their internal grievance
rules, sit stacked on a desk. All this and the lowest pay in
the government, the lowest morale, and the highest attrition
rate and injury rate. TSA is no showcase for anything except
the worst-case scenario when the merit system is not followed.
I believe we have it in our power to fix these problems. I
think that OPM has to take a leadership role with the agencies.
In addition, we believe that OPM needs to step up to its
marketing and outreach to workers of all age groups. We would
like to see a blueprint put together and funded by Congress for
younger workers that would include TV ads, college campus
tours, and job fairs. We need a comprehensive plan to increase
the odds that the Federal Government can attract the best and
the brightest that this country has to offer. The Federal
Government's missions will be complicated in the years ahead.
We need to attract and retain a workforce that will meet these
challenges, and NTEU also stands ready to work with OPM and
with Congress to put in place systems that will ensure that the
Federal Government becomes the employer of the future.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Kelley.
Good to have you, Dan Solomon. Please give your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DAN SOLOMON,\1\ CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VIRILION,
INC
Mr. Solomon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Voinovich.
I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify today. I
have been asked to present my views regarding how Federal
agencies can improve their recruitment to be more friendly to
those between the ages of 25 and 35 years old through new media
techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Solomon appears in the Appendix
on page 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the outset, let me state my deep admiration for those
who serve the public through their Federal service. Personally,
I have been honored to hold civilian positions in all three
branches of government. I learned a great deal from those
professional experiences and hope that my efforts were
beneficial to those I served.
Also let me express my appreciation for those who have
primary responsibility for recruiting younger people for
Federal service. Younger people are a difficult group to reach
and engage.
I will not take the Subcommittee's time to recount the
substantial research that shows the shift in media consumption
patterns, especially among those 25 to 35 years old, away from
television to online. And online, these people have a vast
array of outlets and activities presented to them--causing the
audience to be highly fragmented. And it is this rapidly
changing and increasingly rich media landscape that makes the
recruiters' job even more difficult.
That said this new media environment gives government
agencies a greater opportunity to reach people who are in the
process of looking for new career opportunities and to reach
people without geographic limitations. Bottom line: People are
looking for jobs are online and the government needs to be
there to attract the best.
Government recruiters should be encouraged to deploy the
appropriate new media techniques at each stage of a job search
or career change: When a person might be exploring Federal
service, when they are considering different options, and when
they are actually making the employment decision.
The Internet is now the most frequented place to look for a
job. According to a survey conducted by the Conference Board
and TNS, nearly three-quarters of workers who looked for a job
between January and September of last year did so online. But
it is no easy task for government recruiters to decide where to
go online to attract job seekers and career changers.
Search engines, such as Google and Yahoo!, are the on-ramp
online for most people. If one types in ``Federal jobs'' into a
search engine, USAJOBS--the government's official job site--
comes up prominently. But the challenge for recruiters is how
to reach those who are not specifically looking for a Federal
job.
There are over 50,000 job boards online in this country.
These include sites that are affiliated with newspapers,
independent career sites, geographic specific sites, and niche
sites run by professional associations and industry groups.
Where to post and how to use these sites is a challenge for
government recruiters.
Social networking sites, such as LinkedIn and those
sponsored by alumni groups, are increasingly popular for job
hunting. According to a survey done by SelectMinds and reported
in eMarketer, nearly three-quarters of GenYers said they viewed
these networks as very important, compared with 66 percent for
those between 30 and 39 and 61 percent of workers over the age
of 40. The challenge for the government recruiter is to
appropriately participate in these communities to attract the
attention of talented people.
The Federal recruiter also needs to use online techniques
to support their more traditional efforts offline. Offline
efforts are, in fact, important to attracting people's
attention. According to a 2007 study, in-person networking was
used by 40 percent of the people to find jobs, and university
career centers were used by 37 percent of college students. And
according to the previously mentioned Conference Board study,
more than one-half of job seekers said they networked through
friends and colleagues.
In this regard, Federal recruiters need to be recruiters--
actively following up on possible leads they have generated
through their own networking efforts by the systematic use of
e-mail. Over time, these techniques in the Federal recruiters'
arsenal will include the use of mobile devices.
The Federal recruiters also need to use new media
techniques to reach the people who might influence the career
decisions of the 25- and 35-year-olds offline--particularly
their parents and their friends. Sometimes the primary audience
is not the job seeker themselves. This will take creativity,
but needs to be an important focus.
One thing is certain: The career of a Federal recruiter is
certain to change, and I encourage the Subcommittee to look not
just at what agencies can do to improve their communication
efforts and their processes, but also to help the recruiters
themselves improve their skills and expertise. For the
government to ultimately attract talented people, Federal
recruiters need to embrace the online world and convey an
excitement about public service.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Solomon. Mr. Stier.
TESTIMONY OF MAX STIER,\1\ PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stier. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Senator Voinovich,
for inviting me here, and more importantly, thank you for
focusing on this vital issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Stier appears in the Appendix on
page 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I could take a step back and give a sense of what I see
as the overall problem: I agree with OPM this is an end-to-end
issue. You have three big buckets.
First, the talent market is unaware of the opportunities
that exist in government service. They simply do not think
about it. It is not on their radar screen. And our data shows
that is true for young talent as well as more experienced
talent.
Second, as this hearing has been hearing a lot about, the
hiring process is broken, and more on that in a bit.
But third, and equally important, once talent arrives in
government, it is not managed in a way either to keep it or to
ensure that it gives of its discretionary energy. So we need to
work on all three buckets in order to ultimately get the end
result of better performance from government.
Your work is already making a very big difference. You
heard a little bit about that from the first panel. I also
wanted to focus on another example, and that is in the area of
student loan repayment. That is a new barrier to entry for
talent coming into government, for younger folks in particular,
and it is an increasing burden as the cost of college and
graduate education goes up. The student loan repayment
authority that the government has is very important, and you
see its use is increasing dramatically, from a standing start
of nothing in 2002, 16 agencies using it for $3 million and 690
employees being helped, to 2006 in which you had 34 agencies
and nearly 6,000 employees being helped to the tune of $36
million.
Now, clearly, more can be done. It is very powerful. Our
data shows that it actually works, and we need to see more
resources being put into it. But the point here is your work
already is making a real difference.
You also have a number of items in the pipeline that are
very important, including your work on the Chief Management
Officer, Senator Akaka, your Federal Supervisor Training Act,
GOFEDS legislation, and many other things.
I want, however, to pull out three specific recommendations
to highlight from my written testimony. There are a lot of
others in there, but I will focus on those three for the
remaining time of my statement.
First, I think we need to rethink that hiring process,
again, from the applicant perspective and envision a bill of
rights, an applicant bill of rights for how they should be
treated through that hiring process. It needs to be clear. Two,
they need to understand the value of the jobs and why they
should be interested in them. It should be easy. Your point
about going to a resume, I think, is exactly right. You do not
need the KSAs. It needs to be transparent. Three, You need to
know where you are in the process. If FedEx and UPS can do that
with a package, government ought to be able to do that with
someone in the hiring process. And, four, it needs to be
timely, and it needs to be done in a time frame that is not
going to chase away a lot of talent.
Those I believe are the four elements of what the applicant
bill of rights ought to be, and it is something that the
government needs to commit to doing and that you can hold the
government accountable for.
Now, we also can't lose sight of the assessment process,
which is not part of the applicant experience, and right now,
by and large, the government assessment process is broken. And
if you hire quickly or slowly, it doesn't much matter if at the
end of the day you hire poorly. And so that is something that
we need to make sure we keep an eye on.
Second, we need improved metrics. Now, how are we going to
ensure that the applicant bill of rights is actually taking
place? Well, we need to measure it in a transparent way. It
needs to be public information so we really do understand how
long it takes. We need to give people an understanding of where
they are in the process. You can do that through applicant
interviews. You can do that through what I think is going to be
absolutely vital on the assessment process, which is
identifying a metric for whether we are getting the right
talent. If you really want to make sure that agencies are
better managing this process, measure them and make those
measurements transparent and available to you and to the public
more broadly.
I also think we need to reinforce the work you have already
done around employee surveys, which are quite vital, and I
think we can improve the legislation such that it is done
centrally on an annual basis rather than the current process,
which is biennial and each agency doing it on those off years.
Third, is the transition. We have heard some very important
things out of OPM, work that they are doing right now. We all
know that the typical cycle in government is for things to
either slow down or stop and then be reinvented when the next
folks come in. And I think that this Subcommittee has a very
important role in ensuring at least three things around the
transition process:
One, that the good management work that is being done right
now gets carried on, and is absolutely important that we simply
do not see either a slowdown of work or a reinvention of things
that do not need to be reinvented.
Two, we need to ensure that we are selecting the right
talent for, in particular, the management positions that are
going to be politically appointed, but more generally, that all
political appointees that have management responsibilities have
management capacity.
And, three, we need to focus on ensuring that whoever is
selected for those political jobs is actually prepared to work
effectively in this environment. And there is a lot of work
that needs to be done, and that means that they have to be
prepared to understand how the system works, what the
management challenges are, and how it is that they can actually
engage and work with the career workforce in a way to solve
these problems that all of us believe need to be solved.
So thank you very much again for this opportunity. I look
forward to working with you going forward.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Stier.
Now we will hear from Ms. Mathews.
TESTIMONY OF DONNA MATHEWS,\1\ PRINCIPAL, FEDERAL SECTOR
PROGRAMS, HEWITT ASSOCIATES LLC
Ms. Mathews. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Senator
Voinovich. Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today
to talk about this important issue and how leading companies
approach recruitment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Mathews appears in the Appendix
on page 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you have heard a lot of the other panel members say
today, it is expected that the next 5 to 10 years are likely
going to be the most difficult recruiting environment in
history: One, because we are faced with a shrinking workforce.
It is estimated that by the year 2010 there will be 10 million
more jobs than workers. Two, the workforce is becoming and will
continue to increasingly become more virtual. Three, the
workforce will become more diverse even than it is today. The
global competition for talent will continue to increase. And,
last, when it comes to the recruiting process itself, each of
the individual stakeholders' needs are going to continue to
change as we move forward into the future.
So if organizations do not address these challenges, their
results will include mediocre hires, long hiring cycles, higher
than expected costs, low retention rates, and a negative impact
on the organization's employment brand.
Hewitt has worked with many large, private sector
organizations over the years, and we have found that there are
a lot of effective processes that can be put in place to make
for a successful recruiting process. There is no silver bullet,
however, but successful organizations do have four themes going
for them.
First, these organizations make talent acquisition the
lifeblood of their success. As Mr. McDermott said, their
leaders are very heavily involved. They become recruiters for
the organization, and they continually are talking about the
mission of the organization and what kind of people they need
and the results they need for the organization.
The second theme is a clearly articulated employment brand.
We think a lot about a company's brand to the market, but this
is the company's brand to its employees. It is a unique message
from the employer to its employee base reinforcing the
commitment that that employer makes to the employees. It is
used to guide all decisions around the human capital programs.
And companies that have these employment brands--and not
everybody does--have reported an increase in not only employee
retention, but also employee engagement, which results
ultimately in improved business results.
The third aspect that leading organizations focus on is
creating the process, this end-to-end process that you have
heard a lot about today. The first thing they do is from a
business perspective they develop workforce plans. Basically,
they look at the business results that they desire, and they
figure out what kind of talent they are going to need for the
next 3 to 5 years to get to those desired business results.
They focus on sourcing in a lot of different ways, and that
is changing, again, as we move forward into the future. They
actually do sourcing campaigns like employee referral programs,
vendor relationships, and even people that are in the job--that
are seeking jobs today, they will use those as sourcing
opportunities also. They target diversity groups, university
alumni, veterans returning to the workforce, stay-at-home moms.
They even target people that have left the organization maybe
in good favor that might want to come back.
And then there is the talent assessment process, which,
again, you have heard a lot about today, but they look beyond
just the job requirements and the current capability of the
candidate to what future potential and what role could this
candidate play for the organization. They are really looking
for elusive, sort of ``hungry'' quality--the people who are
always unsatisfied with the status quo, their achievements to
date, and willing to out-work and out-hustle the competitors.
And they have a formal onboarding and orientation process,
and the companies that do this successfully are not viewing the
orientation as a 1-day event. It is an ongoing process, and
senior leaders are very involved and very visible. They measure
the performance, especially in the first year, but in an
ongoing way, in a very formal way. And they have the courage to
deploy people in the best jobs for those individuals.
Finally, they use a lot of technology. They use technology
for the entire recruiting process, and, again, technology does
not fix broken practices, but it does speed up the process and
helps employers measure the effectiveness. So as we know,
employees are the lifeblood of the organization and how an
organization recruits, who it recruits, the accountabilities in
place in the process all have a dramatic impact on the
business, whether it is public or private.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Mathews.
You all have been listening to the first panel respond to
concerns about the need to address better recruitment, length
of hiring process, complicated requirements, and a lack of
communication. I want to ask each of you what you think of the
first panel's recommendations and recommendations on how to
improve the hiring programs. So let me start with Mr. Gage.
Mr. Gage. I think I agree with a lot of them, I especially
like Mr. McDermott, who said if you want to get it done, get
the operational manager who has to have the employee, get him
involved in that process. And it is interesting because in
internal promotions it is this operational manager in most
cases who will make those selections. But it seems that
external hiring, it will be an HR person that might do that. So
I thought that was very interesting.
But I think both of you are on the right road here. It is
practicalities, assure the fairness, but speed it up through
abandoning the KSAs, for instance, which are really a mess. I
do not think there is any way you really can write
qualifications for the job down to bathroom breaks and expect
someone to come in and try to meet those.
So I think your emphasis on real practical approaches is
the way to go, and I thought I heard some during the first
panel.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Ms. Kelley.
Ms. Kelley. It was very good to hear NRC talk about how
they have used the flexibilities that they were given and that
they have put them to good use for the success of the agency. I
wish there were more agencies that were doing that. For the
most part, what I see agencies doing is having more
flexibilities but not using them. So that was good news, and I
hope others would follow suit.
What I think has to happen is there has to be leadership
from OPM, and we heard Ms. Bailey talk a lot about that, about
what they are doing. And while I take that as very good news, I
do have to say I was a little bit struck when you were asking
her who all they were working with, and she had a very long
list. They are working with the Chief Human Capital Officer
Council and the Partnership for Public Service and GAO and the
agencies and the communities. She never mentioned the unions,
and I can tell you that on this subject they are not working
with the unions.
It reminded me, actually, that late last week we received
an invitation from OPM to attend a briefing they were holding
yesterday on hiring. And I thought that was pretty interesting
considering this hearing today. So we would have gone to the
briefing anyway, so NTEU went to the briefing, and what we were
told at the briefing was that OPM is going to publish a booklet
of best practices, as they see it. They are going to publish
this booklet in September on hiring, and we offered and
requested to be involved in the process to provide input. And
we were told no, that they were not interested in our input,
that they were going to issue the booklet, and that they would
send us a copy when they issued it in September.
So while I would like to see OPM play a leadership role on
this and take a leadership role, I would surely ask that they
ensure that they have everyone involved in the conversation
that should be. And I know that both you, Mr. Chairman, and
Senator Voinovich would say that the unions should be in that
conversation. And I hope the message from OPM changes on this.
Senator Akaka. Thank you, Ms. Kelley. Mr. Solomon.
Mr. Solomon. Yes, I was impressed by the testimony relating
to the value and the importance of management passion rather
than just systems and processes, because at the end of the day
it has to be the human beings that are passionate about what
they do that will convey it externally. So I like that.
In terms of the OPM, I thought it was slightly misplaced in
terms of that the objectives seemed to be internal
collaboration and that all the bases were being touched and the
voices of the applicant were not at that table, not active in
seeing the value and making sure that the value of the process
was used focused, applicant focused, rather than just meeting
the needs of the internal stakeholders.
And, finally, what I thought was somewhat missed by all the
presenters was that they focused on the efficiencies of the
hiring process rather than what is needed in the actual
recruitment process to get people's attention to become
interested. It seems that much of the focus of the attention is
that once somebody is at the Federal Government's door, how do
we process them and take advantage of their interest, rather
than or in addition to--and this goes back to the three
buckets--in addition to focusing on the period of time and the
effort that it is going to take to even get people to consider
the Federal Government in the first place, and especially
people between the ages of 25 and 35, who have demands in their
lives, who have responsibility, who are probably looking for a
career change and looking for a different type of opportunity.
How to get those people's attention is, I think, and needs to
be as much of a focus as making sure that the hiring process
itself is efficient.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Stier.
Mr. Stier. Mr. Chairman, I concur with everything that has
been said already. The one thing that I would just focus on is
the fact that it has been a very long time that the hiring
process and some of these issues has been noted as an issue,
and yet we still find it to be a problem. And so what I would
suggest, if we were to focus on a single item that would help
generate change, it would be transparency and metrics, or
metrics that provide transparency, because you will find
examples that are terrific, like at NRC. You will find examples
of agencies that meet the 45-day hiring model. But unless it is
transparent for all agencies, we will not know where the
problems are. They will not feel the heat of public shame as
well as public accolades for good behavior, and that is what we
need to see happen. We need to make sure that these processes,
the consequence of these processes are being understood and the
information is available. And I think that would provide a very
important prod to see movement. A lot of this is about
implementation more than anything else. Lots of good ideas,
there are plenty of those, but getting things done, that is the
rarity.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Ms. Mathews.
Ms. Mathews. It sounds like the NRC is doing a really good
job in a lot of different areas, and I want to commend them for
that. But one of the things that I think they are doing that a
lot of the other agencies and organizations really need to
focus on is that they are defining up front what kind of
employment experience or career a person is going to have with
the NRC.
So if you think about it, I mean, why should somebody come
work for the government? You really need to define that and
actually market that. So somebody coming out of college, some
mid-career person, why should they choose the government over
Google or over Microsoft? So defining sort of that brand for
the government and what is in it for them actually is probably
the first step, and then having the end-to-end process. Again,
it is not about the processes as much as selling what the
potential candidates are going to get out of this career with
the government.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
In the interest of time, let me then ask my Ranking Member
for his questions.
Senator Voinovich. Is there a human capital crisis out
there?
Ms. Mathews. Absolutely.
Mr. Stier. Yes.
Mr. Gage. Yes.
Mr. Solomon. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. And Ms. Kelley and Mr. Gage both feel
that way about the Federal Government. You have a lot of your
members at or nearing retirement.
Ms. Kelley. I think there is a crisis today, and I think it
will get worse in the future unless things change.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Gage, you questioned why it is that
the Federal Government does advertising for the armed services
and nothing for the civilian workforce in the Federal
Government. I would like all of the panelists' opinion on
whether or not you think that we should ramp up an advertising
campaign about the opportunities that one has through work with
the Federal Government. I know that, Mr. Stier, you advertise
at the college campuses, but I do not think there is enough of
an appreciation currently with the public about the
opportunities that one has to come to work for the Federal
Government.
Mr. Gage. I do not see how it could possibly hurt, and I
think it might correct a lot of things very quickly, certainly
getting the proper applicant pool. I think the Federal
Government still in this day and age has a real draw to not
only students coming out of college, but also people in mid-
careers. There is something about working for the government.
There is a steadiness to it. There are predictable benefits,
certainly in health care as well as in still a defined
retirement benefit, which I think--plus the great work that
government agencies do in showing a career in that agency, as
one of the gentlemen mentioned, from the NRC, I think is
something that would really increase the applicant pool and
really let people know what they are getting into ahead of
time.
Ms. Kelley. I would think it would help also, and I guess
it depends on whether or not college students today watch a lot
of TV, whether or not they catch the ads, but maybe their
parents and their siblings would to call their attention to it.
But I think it needs to be in a combination with other things,
including the job fairs and being out on the campuses. I mean,
I will use myself as an example.
When I joined the IRS as a revenue agent--and it was many
years ago, more years than I want reflected in the
Congressional record, but I did that because they came to my
college campus. I had never once considered a job with the
Federal Government. I knew nothing about it. So it was not that
I considered it and was not interested. I just did not have any
information until they came there, and they talked to me, and
they gave me information, they answered my questions. And that
is where I got the application, and that is where I filled it
out.
I think that is what a lot of college students are looking
for today, is unless they know specifically what they want to
do in the next 5 years of their life, they are looking for what
their options are. And I think it runs the whole gamut, from
the TV ads to the face to face out there on the college
campuses.
Mr. Solomon. I think the simple answer is yes, especially
for those who are between the ages of 25 to 35. It seems from
the people who are testifying that a lot of attention is paid
to people just entering the workforce rather than people who
are experienced and seeking an alternative place to learn more
and to apply their skills or to have career advancement. And it
may be people who do not want to spend their entire career with
the Federal Government but are willing to commit a period of
years. And I think that the promotion needs to not just be
traditional advertising, but to also unleash the recruiter to
actually participate in the conversation somehow in the social
media about the job opportunities and the career opportunities,
and also encourage people who are actually doing the work to be
actively engaged in recruitment, to talk to their neighbors, to
use their online communities, to talk about the benefits of
their job.
I know in the private sector everyone in my office is part
of the recruiting team. It is not an office down the hall. It
is not left to somebody else's budget. It is something that
everyone actively does, and that is why we are successful.
Mr. Stier. Senator, there is no doubt that this is very
important, and our research shows that. We have done research
on university campuses, and I would add that the only market
research I am aware of shows only about 11 percent of college
juniors and seniors feel they are reasonably well informed
about government opportunities.
It is the same case for older Americans, too. It is simply
not on their radar screen. The good news is when they are told
about the opportunities, they are very interested in them. They
simply do not know about them, and filling that information gap
is something that can be done.
I would add, however, that it needs to be viewed, again, as
part of this holistic system. So simply attracting a huge wave
of new folks in, while very important, is going to run into a
problem if the hiring process is unable to deal with them, and
instead it might reinforce a stereotype of government being
overly bureaucratic.
I would also say that the Federal Government's own capacity
to recruit effectively needs to be built up as well. So as an
example--the military is a great example. They have done the
market research to understand how to attract the talent they
need. But they also understand what exact talent they do need,
and they know how to measure for what talent they are trying to
receive. They know how much it is going to cost to train that
talent. They invest in retaining that talent, and those are all
processes that need to take place.
We have done this research. We know the baseline, what
needs to take place on university campuses. We know that
relationships need to be created. By and large, it is
transactional right now. Agencies go out when they think they
need to hire someone.
Senator Voinovich. You talk about the military, and they
have got the big budget, all that money we pour into the
Federal budget for the armed services. You are on the college
campuses. Do you observe that these agencies have been given
the wherewithal to hire the people to do the jobs that are out
there? And do they have quality human capital officers working
in the various agencies that get it?
Mr. Stier. It is no and no, and they need more. There are
other noes as well. They do not have the resources that are
being dedicated to effectively recruit. They do not have the
personnel to actually manage the process right. They do not
have the leadership commitment because, again, as you heard
from Mr. Solomon, the reality is the only way this worked is if
the leadership cares about the talent that they are trying to
recruit and develop, and they have to see that as a priority.
I would point to, as one example, GAO where they assign
their senior managers who are responsible for relationships
with different universities. They are held accountable. Their
performance reviews include whether or not that talent is
coming from those campuses and whether that talent is
succeeding in GAO. And that is very important. So they have a
commitment to make sure they get the right talent in and that
that talent actually succeeds. And that is absolutely vital.
The point here is that almost on any issue you will find
agencies that are doing the right thing in some places, but, by
and large, you will find that they are doing the wrong things
in most places. And so the challenge here is how you ensure
that those right practices are being adopted by a broader set
of agencies. It will take more resources. It is going to take
more than that.
Ms. Mathews. I would expand on that just briefly. The
leadership has to care. They also have to know. They have to
know what talent they need, and if you are going to do more
advertising, you have to know what messages to deliver to the
different generations of people that you are trying to attract.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we
did when we created the CHCO Council and elevated human capital
was to try and get agencies to start paying attention to
succession planning and transition. I wonder how many of them
are really engaged in such activity today. The Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), never contained anything
about the personnel that you needed to get the job done in the
agencies. In spite of all the work that we have done, how many
of these agencies are actually looking at what they need for
the future? You have to first know what you need. Once you
realize what you need, then you can go out and recruit a
highly-skilled workforce. Any comment?
Mr. Stier. You are right. And, Senator, I think you are
asking questions--and this is my point about the data. You are
asking a lot of very good questions, and you should have that
information available to you. And, again, you cannot ask for
too much information, but I think there are a set of questions
that you reasonably asked that should be answerable on a
regular basis so that you can hold agencies accountable.
There is no doubt that the human resource function needs a
significant investment in government, writ large. The actual
head count is down something like 20 percent, but more
importantly, the actual competencies that are needed are simply
not represented today, and they are disappearing. And you can
see that both among the senior leadership as well as within the
ranks. You need to see a very substantial investment take place
there in order to have the expertise to help the whole
government and agencies individually get to where they need to
go.
Mr. Solomon. And I would like to add that I think although
more resources are needed, you do so in the context of defined
measurements that the Congress will hold the Executive Branch
accountable for. You need to make your own job easier, not just
bring stories to the fore, as Mr. Stier has said, but match it
together with some accountability towards very certain
objectives.
Ms. Kelley. And I would also add that this whole issue of
resources is often part of the problem with the agencies,
whether it is about hiring or defining what work they want to
do. I think it was Ms. Mathews who said that an agency has to
decide what work they want done and then what staff they need
to get that done and then to have a plan in place to go and
hire that staff.
Well, that works, unless you have an annual budget process
that often results in appropriations bills not being passed for
3 or 4 months into the year, which severely impacts an agency's
ability to do that. So they are really doing it in reverse.
They need to know how much money they have so they know how
many they can hire. Then they define what work they can get
done with the staff that they have.
And to that I would add that OMB prevents agencies from
requesting the staffing that they need, for the personnel they
need to get the job done. Every year we go through this annual
budget process with agencies defining what they need, and then
OMB adjusts the request and does not let them move forward with
the budget request that they need. And then, like I said,
invariably then it is 3, 4, 5 months into the budget year
anyway. And I talk to agencies that we represent every day of
every year, and they tell me that they cannot move forward with
their hiring plans until they know what their budget is,
because we are in a CR or some other situation.
So there are very real problems that are compounded by all
the things we talked about, about the application process. But
it really is a lot more than that.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much.
Senator Akaka. Well, I want to thank Senator Voinovich for
his questions, and we are right on time. There is a signal that
there are votes being called. We were expecting it at noon. But
I want to tell you that we heard many good recommendations
today on ways agencies can improve recruitment and hiring. We
have heard from our second panel on their thoughts and
recommendations as to what can and should happen.
Agencies must make reforming the recruitment and hiring
process a top priority, and some of you have indicated that the
Congress needs to also take a step in the direction of working
with agencies for some of these strategies to be put in place.
The future of the Federal workforce, of course, is depending on
this, and we are looking for answers.
The hearing record will remain open for one week for
Members to submit additional statements or questions. Senator
Voinovich and I have been, as he mentioned, working on this for
several years. We will continue to do so, and we may be taking
some harder steps than we have had in the past because you have
offered some recommendations that can help us do that. Of
course, we are doing this for the Federal workforce. We want it
to be the best in the country.
So thank you very much for being part of this, and we look
forward to working with you. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3085.118