[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 47 (Friday, March 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9507-9510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5477]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Agriculture Department; Alternative Personnel Management System; 
Demonstration Project

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice of amendment of the Department of Agriculture 
demonstration project plan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action provides for changes in the final project plan 
published March 9, 1990, to modify the list of experimental and 
comparison sites under the project. The project was originally 
conceived to test an alternative to the traditional recruiting and 
hiring system in an anticipated tight labor market as described in 
Workforce 2000 and Civil Service 2000. This change provides the 
opportunity to test these flexibilities in a downsizing environment 
with a more than adequate high-quality labor market even though there 
are occasional shortages of qualified candidates.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Jenkins, (202) 720-0515, at 
the Department of Agriculture; Joan Jorgenson, (202) 606-1315, at the 
Office of Personnel Management.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 9, 1990, the Office of Personnel 
Management published in the Federal Register (55 FR 9062) the final 
plan to demonstrate an alternative personnel management system at the 
Department of Agriculture under chapter 47 of title 5, U.S.C. The 
purpose of this demonstration project is to develop and evaluate a 
recruitment and selection program for new hires that is flexible and 
responsive to local recruitment needs and which will facilitate the 
attainment of a quality workforce reflective of society.
    In support of this goal, the following project objectives have been 
identified:
    (1) Increase the flexibility and responsiveness of the recruitment 
and hiring system.
    (2) Increase the reliability of the decision to grant career tenure 
for employees in scientific positions. These objectives will be 
realized through the following interventions:
    (a) Decentralize the decision to authorize direct hire in shortage 
categories.
    (b) Implement an alternative candidate assessment method which uses 
categorical grouping instead of numeric score.
    (c) Provide the option of awarding monetary incentives for 
recruitment purposes.
    (d) Provide the option of reimbursing relocation travel and 
transportation expenses beyond those currently authorized for travel to 
first post of duty.
    (e) Increase automation of examining process.
    (f) Extend the 1-year probationary period to 3 years for employees 
in scientific positions. The demonstration covers up to 5,000 newly 
hired employees, at any given time, at over 140 locations within the 
Forest Service and Agricultural Research Service of the Department of 
Agriculture. Covered employees represent all occupational groups and 
grade levels (excluding the Senior Executive Service) at the project 
sites.
    The list of approximately 210 experimental and comparison sites of 
the Agricultural Research Service and Forest Service are identified in 
the March 9, 1990, Federal Register (55 FR 9062). The comparison sites 
for both agencies will be included as experimental sites. With the 
addition of the sites, project participation will still not exceed the 
statutory limit of 5,000 employees at any given time. Anyone wishing 
more information may telephone the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Office of Personnel Management.

James B. King,
Director.

Project Plan Modification

    The project plan which appeared in the Federal Register on March 9, 
1990 (55 FR 9062) is hereby modified to include the comparison sites as 
experimental sites for the Agricultural Research Service and Forest 
Service.
    Appendix B is changed to include all sites as experimental.

Agricultural Research Service

Experimental Sites

Aberdeen, ID
Akron, CO
Albany, CA
All Hawaiian Islands
Ames/Ankeny, IA
Athens, GA
Auburn, AL
Baton Rouge, LA
Beaumont, TX
Beckley, WV
Beltsville, MD
Boise, ID
Booneville, AR
Boston, MA
Bozeman, MT
Brawley, CA
Brookings, SD
Brooksville, FL
Brownwood, TX
Burns, OR
Bushland, TX
Byron, GA
Canal Point, FL
Charleston, SC
Cheyenne, WY
Clay Center, NE
Clemson, SC
College Station, TX
Columbia, MO
Columbus, OH
Corvallis, OR
Coshocton, OH

[[Page 9508]]

Davis, CA
Dawson, GA
Dubois, ID
Durant, OK
East Grand Forks, MN
East Lansing, MI
El Reno, OK
Fargo, ND
Fayettville, AR
Florence, SC
Frederick, MD
Fresno, CA
Fort Collins, CO
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Gainesville, FL
Geneva, NY
Grand Forks, ND
Greenbelt, MD
Griffin, GA
Houma, LA
Houston, TX
Ithaca, NY
Jackson, TN
Kearneysville, WV
Kerrville, TX
Kimberly, ID
Lane, OK
Laramie, WY
Las Cruces, NM
Lincoln, NE
Logan, UT
Lubbock, TX
Madison, WI
Mandan, ND
Manhattan, KS
Mayaquez, PR
Miami, FL
Miles City, MT
Mississippi State, MS
Morris, MN
Newark, DE
New Orlenas, LA
Orient Point, NY
Orlando, FL
Orono, ME
Oxford, MS
Pendleton, OR
Peoria, IL
Phoenix, AZ
Pine Bluff, AR
Poplarville, MS
Pincess Anne, MD
Prosser, WA
Pullman, WA
Raleigh, NC
Reno, NV
Riverside, CA
Salinas, CA
San Francisco, CA
Shafter, CA
Sidney, MT
St. Paul, MN
St. Croix, VI
Stillwater, OK
Stoneville, MS
Stuttgart, AR
Temple, TX
Tifton, GA
Tucson, AZ
Tuxtla, MX
University Park, PA
Urbana, IL
Washington, DC
Watkinsville, GA
Wenatchee, WA
Weslaco, TX
West Lafayette, IN
Winter Haven, FL
Woodward, OK
Wooster, OH
Wyndmoor, PA
Yakima, WA

Forest Service

Experimental Sites

Region 1:
    Bitterroot NF
    Clearwater NF
    Custer NF
    Flathead NF
    Gallatin NF (serves Beaverhead, Deerlodge, Lewis & Clark)
    Helena NF
    Idaho Panhandle NF
    Kootenai NF
    Lolo NF
    Nez Perce NF
    Regional Office (includes MTDC)
Region 2:
    Arapho-Roosevelt NF
    Bighorn NF
    Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison NF
    Nebraska NF
    Rio Grande NF (includes San Juan NF)
    Routt NF (includes Medicine Bow NF)
    Pike-San Isabel NF
    Shoshone NF
    White River NF
    Regional Office
Region 3:
    Apache/Sitgreave NF
    Carson NF
    Cibola NF
    Coconino NF
    Coronado NF
    Gila NF
    Kaibab NF
    Lincoln NF
    Prescott NF
    Santa Fe NF
    Tonto NF
    Regional Office
Region 4:
    Ashley NF (includes Manti-La Sal NF)
    Boise NF
    Dixie NF
    Fishlake NF
    Payette NF
    Sawtooth NF
    Targhee NF (includes Salmon NF which shares administrative services 
with Bridger-Teton, Caribou, Challis)
    Toiyabe NF (includes Humboldt NF)
    Uinta NF
    Washatch Cache NF (includes the Geometronics Service Center)
    Regional Office and Intermountain Research Station
Region 5:
    Angeles NF
    Cleveland NF
    Eldorado NF
    Inyo NF
    Klamath NF
    Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
    Lassen NF
    Los Padres NF
    Mendocino NF
    Modoc NF
    Plumas NF
    San Bernardino NF
    Sequoia NF
    Shata-Trinity NF
    Sierra NF
    Six Rivers NF
    Stanislaus NF
    Tahoe NF
    Regional Office, San Francisco, CA
Region 6:
    Colville NF
    Deschutes NF (includes Ochoco NF, Malheur NF, PNW Bend Lab)
    Fremont NF
    Gifford-Pinchot NF
    Mt Baker-Snoqualmie NF (includes PNW Seattle Lab)
    Mt. Hood NF (includes CRGNSA)
    Okanogan NF
    Olympic NF(includes PNW Olympia Lab)
    Rogue River NF
    Siuslaw NF (includes Corvallis Lab)
    Umatilla NF
    Umpqua NF
    Wallowa-Whitman NF (includes LaGrande Lab)
    Wenatchee NF (includes Wenatchee Lab)
    Willamette NF
    Winema NF
    Regional Office (includes PNW headquarters and Portland Lab)
Region 8:
    National forests in Alabama
    Caribbean NF (includes International Institute of Tropical 
Forestry)
    Chattahoochee & Oconee NF
    Cherokee NF
    Daniel Boone NF
    National Forest in Florida
    Francis Marion & Sumter NF's
    George Washington and Jefferson NF's
    Kisatchie NF
    National Forests in Mississippi
    Ouachita NF
    Ozark-St. Francis NF
    National Forest in Texas
    Regional Office
Region 9:
    Alleghany NF
    Chequamegon NF
    Chippewa NF
    Green Mountain and Finger Lakes NF
    
[[Page 9509]]

    Hiawatha NF
    Hoosier NF
    Huron-Manistee NF
    Mark Twain NF
    Monogahela NF
    Nicolet NF
    Ottawa NF
    Shawnee NF
    Superior NF
    Wayne NF
    White Mountain NF
    Regional Office
Region 10:
    Chugach NF
    Tongass NF: Chatham Area, Ketchikan Area, and Stikine Area
    Regional Office
Washington Office
Research Units:
    Forest Products Lab
    Intermountain Station/R-4 Regional Office
    North Central Station
    Northeast Station/Area
    Pacific Northwest Station Headquarters/R-6 Regional Office
    Pacific Southwest Station
    Rocky Mountain Station (includes Arapahoe and Roosevelt NF)
    Southern Research Station (includes National Forests in North 
Carolina)

Evaluation Plan

Purpose

    The purpose of the evaluation is to comply with the requirement 
that the demonstration project be evaluated in terms of the impact of 
project results against stated objectives as well as to determine 
whether or not permanent changes in law and/or regulation should be 
considered or proposed. The original evaluation plan was published in 
the Federal Register notice dated March 9, 1990 (55 FR 9062). This 
evaluation plan has been modified to evaluate the demonstration project 
during the extension period. Since the original plan was rigorous in 
nature over the 5-year period of the demonstration project, the 
Department of Agriculture and the Office of Personnel Management agreed 
that the evaluation plan under the extension period take a more focused 
and streamlined approach. Table 1 shows the model which will be used to 
complete the analysis.

Methodology

    The evaluation will be conducted by the National Agricultural 
Statistics Service (NASS). NASS will evaluate the measures from the 
data sources cited in Table 1. Longitudinal comparisons of measures 
within the Agricultural Research Service and Forest Service will be 
made as well as comparisons to other Department of Agriculture agencies 
and Governmentwide measures where applicable. One of the key 
interventions to be evaluated is the application of automation to the 
examining process. This application is currently in the developmental 
phase and may include both internal and external automated systems.

                             TABLE 1.--EXPECTED EFFECTS, MEASURES, AND DATA SOURCES                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Constraint                             Measures                            Data sources            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair representation of protected      Hiring rates of veterans by type vs.  Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). 
 groups will not be adversely          nonveterans.                                                             
 affected.                                                                                                      
                                      Hiring rates by gender, race, and     CPDF.                               
                                       national origin and disability.                                          
                                      Relative frequency of requests to     ARS/FS Headquarters.                
                                       pass over veterans.                  Personnel Office.                   
                                      # veterans through this process       CPDF.                               
                                       compared to hiring through VRA and                                       
                                       other noncompetitive processes.                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objective 1: Increase the flexibility and responsiveness of the recruitment and hiring system.                  
Interventions:                                                                                                  
(a) Decentralize the decision to authorize direct hiring in shortage categories.                                
(b) Implement an alternative candidate assessment method using categorical grouping instead of numeric score.   
(c) Provide the option of awarding monetary incentives for recruiting purposes.                                 
(d) Provide the option of reimbursing relocation travel and transportation expenses, beyond those currently     
  authorized for travel to first post of duty.                                                                  
(e) Increase automation of examining process.                                                                   


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Hypotheses                             Measures                            Data sources            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Managers will perceive the new     Managers' perceptions...............  Survey/Focus Groups.                
 system as more responsive to local                                                                             
 recruitment needs.                                                                                             
B. Managers will be more satisfied    Managers' attitudes.................  Survey/Focus Groups.                
 with the new recruitment and hiring                                                                            
 system than with traditional system.                                                                           
C. Under the experimental employee    Elapsed time from closing of          Built into automation system.       
 intake process, managers will         announcement to issuance of                                              
 receive certificates more quickly     certificate.                                                             
 than under the traditional system.                                                                             
D. Increased automation improves      Managers' attitudes.................  Survey/Focus Groups.                
 managers' (and applicants')                                                                                    
 satisfaction.                                                                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objective 2: Increase the reliability of the decision to grant career tenure for employees in scientific        
  positions.                                                                                                    
Interventions:                                                                                                  
(f) Extend the 1-year probationary period to 3 years for employees in scientific positions.                     


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Hypothesis                             Measures                            Data sources            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Managers will have more            Managers' attitudes.................  Survey/Focus Groups.                
 confidence in career tenure                                                                                    
 decisions with an extended                                                                                     
 probationary period.                                                                                           


[[Page 9510]]


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Overall Project Expectations                                          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Hypothesis                             Measures                            Data sources            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Supervisory responsibility and     Managers' perceptions...............  Survey/Focus Groups.                
 accountability for the integrity as                                                                            
 well as the success of the                                                                                     
 recruitment and hiring program will                                                                            
 increase.                                                                                                      
B. Total operating costs for          Administrative costs for recruitment  Budget Data.                        
 recruitment and hiring will not       and hiring.                                                              
 increase.                                                                                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 96-5477 Filed 3-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M