Human Capital: Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies'	 
Hiring Processes (30-MAY-03, GAO-03-450).			 
                                                                 
Improving the federal hiring process is critical, as the number  
of new hires is expected to increase substantially. Federal	 
agencies are responsible for their hiring processes, but must	 
generally comply with applicable Office of Personnel Management  
(OPM) rules and regulations. Congressional requesters asked GAO  
to identify federal hiring obstacles, provide examples of	 
innovative hiring practices, and identify opportunities for	 
improvement. To address these issues, GAO interviewed the human  
resources directors in 24 largest departments and agencies,	 
analyzed the hiring practices of five federal executive branch	 
agencies, and reviewed OPM's role in the hiring process.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-450 					        
    ACCNO:   A07025						        
  TITLE:     Human Capital: Opportunities to Improve Executive	      
Agencies' Hiring Processes					 
     DATE:   05/30/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Federal agencies					 
	     Hiring policies					 
	     Labor force					 
	     Personnel recruiting				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-450

                                       A

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2003 HUMAN CAPITAL Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies* Hiring
Processes

GAO- 03- 450

Letter 1 Results in Brief 3 Background 7 Federal Hiring Is a Lengthy,
Cumbersome Process 11 OPM*s Role and Performance in the Federal Hiring
Process 27 Conclusions 28 Recommendations for Executive Action 29 Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation 29

Appendixes

Appendix I: Federal Hiring Using the Competitive Service or the Excepted
Service 32

Appendix II: Description of Category Rating Project Carried Out by the
Agricultural Research Service and the Forest Service 34

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35

Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management 38

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense 44

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 51 Tables Table 1:
Hiring Problems and Actions Under Way 4

Table 2: Fiscal Year 2002 New Hires by Department 10 Table 3: Survey
Responses from 24 HR Directors 37

Figures Figure 1: Total New Federal Hires from Fiscal Years 1990 through
2002 2

Figure 2: Typical Steps for Filling Vacancies through the Competitive
Examining Process 8

Abbreviations

ACWA Administrative Careers with America ARS Agricultural Research Service
DOD Department of Defense FS Forest Service HR human resources MSPB Merit
Systems Protection Board NAPA National Academy of Public Administration
OPM Office of Personnel Management PACE Professional and Administrative
Career Exam SES Senior Executive Service USGS U. S. Geological Survey

This is a work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
materials separately from GAO*s product.

May 30, 2003 Let er t Congressional Requesters

A high performance organization needs a dynamic, results- oriented
workforce with the requisite talents, multidisciplinary knowledge, and
upto- date skills to ensure that it is equipped to accomplish its mission
and achieve its goals. To acquire such a workforce and replace the huge
cohort of federal employees eligible for retirement within the next 5- 10
years demands that agencies have effective hiring processes so that they
can compete for talented people in a highly competitive job market.
Governmentwide, the number of federal new hires was about 50,000 a year in
the mid- 1990s, when many agencies were downsizing, but totaled more than
143,000 in fiscal year 2002. 1 The annual number of new hires could easily
increase to more than 150,000 as agencies take actions to address the
security needs arising from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
and to fill vacancies created by the large number of employees expected to
retire over the next few years. The fiscal year 2003 budget called for an
additional 27,000 full- time equivalent civilian positions in the
Executive

Branch over fiscal year 2002. Since 1996, the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) has delegated to federal executive branch agencies the
authority to perform almost all hiring- related tasks; individual federal
agencies control the way virtually all new hires are brought into their
organizations. 2 Generally, people are hired into competitive service
positions, excepted service positions, or the Senior Executive Service. As
shown in figure 1, the majority of federal hiring is for competitive
service positions, and most are filled through the competitive examination
process, which is governed by statutes and OPM regulations. In fiscal year
2001, about 72 percent (75,000 of the 104,000) of jobs that were filled
were staffed using competitive service hiring authorities. In fiscal year
2002, with the increased excepted service hiring of the Transportation
Security Administration, the percentage of

competitive service hires dropped to 52 percent (74,000 of 143,000). 1
Much of the increase in federal new hires in 2002 was due to the hiring of
baggage screeners and other personnel in the new Transportation Security
Administration. 2 This report discusses the hiring of new employees into
the federal government and focuses on the competitive service hiring
process. Agencies can also fill vacant positions using the merit promotion
process within their agency or through transfers from other agencies.

Figure 1: Total New Federal Hires from Fiscal Years 1990 through 2002
150,000

New hires 120,000

90,000 60,000 30,000

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Excepted service Competitive service Source: OPM Central Personnel Data
File.

Note: Data are for new permanent full- and part- time hires based on
information from OPM.

While recognizing the need for flexibility in hiring employees, the
federal government seeks to ensure that appointments comply with the
cornerstone of federal hiring* the merit principles. The examination
process is one of the processes intended to ensure that merit principles
are complied with and includes notifying the public that the government
will accept applications for employment and assessing applicants* relative
competencies or knowledge, skills, and abilities against job- related
criteria to identify the most qualified candidates. The applicants for
competitive service positions must generally compete against each other
through the competitive examination process.

In response to your requests, 3 the objectives of this report are to 
identify major factors that hamper or delay the federal hiring process;

3 This report was also done at the request of the Honorable Fred Thompson,
former Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.

 provide examples of innovative practices used by our selected agencies
to improve their hiring processes; and

 identify opportunities for OPM, agencies, and others to improve the
federal hiring process.

To address these issues, we interviewed and surveyed the human resources
(HR) directors in the federal government*s 24 largest departments and
agencies. In addition to reviewing our own previous work, we reviewed
several studies of federal hiring by OPM, the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB), the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA),

and others. In addition, we further analyzed the hiring practices of five
executive branch agencies that had taken steps to improve their hiring
processes: the Department of Agriculture*s Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) and Forest Service (FS), the Department of the Army (Army), the

U. S. Census Bureau (Census), and U. S Geological Survey (USGS). 4 We also
reviewed OPM*s role in the hiring process and collected and analyzed data
from OPM*s Central Personnel Data File on the use of various hiring
authorities. (See app. III for details on our scope and methodology.)

Results in Brief There is widespread recognition that the current federal
hiring process all too often does not meet the needs of agencies in
achieving their missions, managers in filling positions with the right
talent, and applicants for a timely, efficient, transparent, and merit-
based process. Numerous studies over the past decade by OPM, MSPB, NAPA,
the Partnership for Public Service, the National Commission on the Public
Service, and GAO have noted problems with the federal hiring process.
Nearly all of the federal HR directors from the 24 major federal
departments and agencies reported that it takes too long to hire quality
employees. Specifically, 21 of these HR directors said that the time- to-
hire was a moderate to great problem. According to data compiled by OPM,
the estimated time to typically fill a

competitive service position was more than 3 months with some HR directors
citing examples of hiring delays exceeding 6 months. OPM and others have
recognized that nearly all parts of the lengthy

competitive hiring process are cumbersome and ineffective. Agencies have
the primary responsibility for streamlining and automating their hiring 4
We have also taken a number of actions to improve our hiring process,
including strengthening our recruitment effort and automating our
application and ranking process.

processes, but OPM also plays an important role in providing leadership
and oversight of the merit- based employment system and helping agencies
meet their hiring challenges. Both the agencies we studied and OPM have
recognized that the hiring system needs improvement and have taken a
number of actions. Table 1 below summarizes the key problems with the
federal hiring process that we, OPM, and others have identified, and what
actions are being taken to address them.

Table 1: Hiring Problems and Actions Under Way The problem Actions under
way

Defining a job and determining the appropriate pay is OPM has revised the
classification standards for several job series, complicated by the
classification processes and standards,

including health care professions and law enforcement, to make them which
are outdated and not applicable to the jobs and work clearer and more
relevant to current job duties and responsibilities. OPM of today.

points out that this is only a partial solution noting that the
classification standards and process need to be reformed. Unclear,
unfriendly job announcements cause confusion, OPM has initiated an
interagency project to modernize federal job vacancy delay hiring, and
serve as poor recruiting tools. announcements, including providing
guidance to agencies to enhance

announcements. OPM is seeking contractor support for its USAJOBS Web site
to make it easier and quicker for people to find federal jobs and to
enhance the site*s *eye- catching* appeal.

A key assessment tool for evaluating applicants for Luevano OPM*s
strategic plan states that by fiscal year 2005 governmentwide hiring
Consent Decree a positions and related hiring programs is

selections are to be based on improved assessment tools. ineffective.
Manual processes, including the convening of panels and

Automating the hiring process can improve hiring timeliness and
efficiency. the manual rating and ranking of applicants to determine USGS
automated its hiring function resulting in a reduction of processing best-
qualified applicants, are time consuming. time, a reduction of 1,800 staff
days of work, and an exponential increase in the number of applicants.
Census also developed an automated hiring system for three critical
occupations. In addition, OPM has developed an automated staffing system,
USA Staffing, which can be purchased by federal agencies.

Numerical rating and ranking and the *rule of three* b limit Congress
passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that authorized the choice of
applicants. agencies to use category rating in lieu of numerical rating
and adherence to the *rule of three.* Category rating was determined to be
effective in a demonstration project conducted by the ARS and FS. OPM is
currently drafting guidance implementing this new flexibility.

Source: GAO.

a The Luevano consent decree is a 1981 agreement that settled a lawsuit
alleging that a written test, Professional and Administrative Careers
Examination (PACE), had an adverse impact on African Americans and
Hispanics. See Luevano v. Campbell, 93 F. R. D. 68 (D. D. C. 1981). The
consent decree called for the elimination of PACE and required replacing
it with alternative examinations. Eventually, OPM developed the
Administrative Careers with America examination. The consent decree also
established two special hiring programs, Outstanding Scholar and
Bilingual/ Bicultural, for limited use in filling former PACE positions. b
5 U. S. C. S: 3318( a) requires the selecting official to select from
among the top three ranked candidates available for appointment* this is
the rule of three.

The importance of OPM*s success in its hiring initiatives is underscored
by the results to our survey in October 2002, where HR directors had mixed
views on whether OPM helped or hindered their agencies* hiring processes.

A little less than half thought that OPM helped the hiring process. Many
thought that OPM neither helped nor hindered the process and a few thought
OPM hindered their hiring efforts. HR directors said that OPM needed to be
a more active resource and enhance its role as a *clearinghouse* of
information while providing more guidance and better expertise to
agencies. This included assisting agencies in evaluating their internal
hiring processes as well as completing more comprehensive evaluations of
governmentwide hiring. As a part of this process, some agencies explained
that OPM needed to provide information and *best practices* associated
with automating the hiring process. They said it is also important that
OPM address key hiring obstacles, including job classification, job
announcements, manually rating candidates, and assessment tools,
especially those tools associated with hiring for the more than 100 entry-
level occupations covered by the Luevano Consent Decree.

More specifically, OPM*s efforts will be most effective to the extent to
which they help transform agency hiring practices from process focused to
mission- focused hiring tools that are more closely integrated into
agencies* strategic plans. Accordingly, as a part of its overall hiring
initiative, we recommend that OPM

 study how to improve, streamline, and reform the classification process;
 continue to assist agencies in making job announcements and Web

postings more user friendly and effective;  assist agencies in automating
their hiring processes;  develop and help agencies develop improved
hiring assessment tools; and

 review the effectiveness of the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/
Bicultural Luevano Consent Decree hiring authorities.

OPM and the Department of Defense (DOD) provided written comments on a
draft of this report, which are reprinted in appendices IV and V. USGS,
Census, FS, and ARS provided technical comments that have been
incorporated into the report.

OPM generally agreed with the conclusions and recommendations in the
report. However, OPM expressed several concerns with our methodology. It
believed the section on the classification and position description

process could be misleading because the majority of jobs are filled
without this step. We agree, but note that the more important problem with
the classification process is that inaccurate position descriptions and
related pay determinations that result from the job classification could
hamper efforts to fill the positions with the right employees. OPM also
believed that our draft missed an opportunity to hold agencies more
accountable for their hiring processes. Throughout the draft, we note that
agencies are primarily responsible for their hiring processes and provide
concrete

examples of what some agencies have done to improve their processes. OPM
also provided several examples of actions it is taking to improve the
hiring process. Finally, OPM questioned our methodology of meeting with
agency HR directors to assess how well OPM is assisting agencies in
improving their hiring processes. It believes that chief operating
officers would provide a better perspective of agency recruiting and
retention issues. While we agree these officials could provide some added
overall perspective about the results of the hiring process, agency HR
directors better understand and are responsible for their agencies* hiring
processes.

DOD noted several areas where it believed that OPM needed to do much more
to address governmentwide hiring problems. We agree that OPM should do
more to improve governmentwide hiring and include several recommendations
to OPM.

Background The cornerstone of federal hiring is its merit basis. Congress
has retained the principle of appointment by merit throughout its various
amendments

and compilations of civil service laws. In enacting the Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978, Congress reiterated the importance of merit in hiring
by including a merit principle, which requires that *[ r] ecruitment
should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an
endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and
selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of
relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition
which assures that

all receive equal opportunity.* 5 OPM is responsible for ensuring that the
personnel management functions it delegates to agencies are conducted in
accordance with merit principles and the standards it has established for
conducting those functions. 6 In January 1996, OPM delegated examining
authority, acting under the authority of Public Law 104- 52, to federal
agencies for virtually all positions in the competitive service. The
delegated

examining authority requires agencies to conduct competitive examinations
that comply with merit system principles, other personnelrelated laws, and
regulations as set forth in OPM*s Delegated Examining Operations Handbook.

Even though the majority of the civilian workforce obtained positions
through the open competitive service examination process, 7 certain
positions are in the excepted service and are excepted from the
competitive examination process.

The competitive hiring process, which is described in more detail in
appendix I, is shown in figure 2.

5 5 U. S. C. 2301 S: (b)( 1). 6 5 U. S. C. S: 1104. 7 Agencies may also
fill vacant positions with current government employees through
competitive merit promotion. The process is less complicated than
competitive examination of outside hires because neither the rule of three
that limits selection to the top three candidates nor veterans preference
apply to merit promotions. Also, applicants are not ranked on the basis of
their numerical scores. Merit promotion job certificates include all of

the candidates determined to be among the best qualified, and managers can
select from any of those candidates.

Figure 2: Typical Steps for Filling Vacancies through the Competitive
Examining Process

Human capital office/ Delegated examining unit job manager

Define job and set pay, Prepare public notice qualifications

and job vacancy Receive applications and assessment

announcement

Electronically

criteria By mail

In person

Writes position description

Complies with OPM and establishes job

content requirements. classification (occupation)

Complies with OPM

Determines procedures for and pay grade level.

open/ closing dates. accepting and

Conducts job analysis:

Complies with OPM's documenting timely,

Identifies job's important minimum open

complete, and roles, functions, and

periods. preference- eligible

tasks.

Posts announcement applications.

Develops weighted on USAJOBS,

criteria to evaluate the governmentwide

relative competencies, automated

and knowledge, skills, employment

and abilities of applicants. information system.

Writes crediting or rating plan for making consistent and job related
determinations about the relative qualifications of applicants for a
position.

Source: GAO.

Selecting official Human capital office Screen for eligibility

Rate and rank Bring new hire

and minimum qualified candidates Candidate selection on board
qualification

standards

Convenes rating/

Conducts interviews.

U. S. citizenship and ranking panels.

Makes job offer. basic OPM educational

Checks references.

Applies criteria in and work experience

crediting or rating

Makes selection from top qualifications standards.

plan to make three available candidates

consistent, job- related (may choose not to

Conducts determinations on

select anyone). pre- employment checks

relative merits of

Veterans may and security clearances.

applicants. not be passed over for

Brings new hire

Applies veterans* nonveterans without on board.

preference. justification and OPM

Prepares a numerically approval.

ranked list of the * Category rating will permit

eligible candidates. selection of anyone in

Sends a list of at least best qualified category

three candidates to (except where veteran's

selecting official. preference applies). * Homeland Security Act

of 2002 permits category rating.

102 days average

The number of new hires increased substantially since the mid- 1990s*
increasing from about 50, 000 employees in 1996 to over 143,000 employees
in 2002. Hiring in the mid- 1990s declined because many agencies were
downsizing and did not need to fill positions. With the slowdown in
downsizing and the increasing numbers of personnel retiring, agencies are
increasingly hiring new employees. Prior to fiscal year 2002, about
onethird of all hires were hired by DOD. In 2002, the largest federal
hirer was the Department of Transportation, primarily the Transportation
Security Administration. 8 Table 2 shows total new hires by department in
fiscal year

2002.

Tabl e 2: Fiscal Year 2002 New Hires by Department Competitive

Excepted Agency service service Tot al

Department of Transportation 1,041 42,872 43,913

DOD 24, 969 12,372 37,341

Department of the Treasury 16, 924 943 17,867

Department of Veterans Affairs 6,399 3,994 10,393

Department of Justice 6,956 1,122 8,078

Department of Agriculture 4,327 1,161 5,488

Department of Health and Human Services 3,072 925 3,997

Department of the Interior 2,184 953 3,137

Social Security Administration 1,572 1,485 3,057

Department of Commerce 2,032 526 2,558

All others 4,753 2,550 7,303 Tot al 74, 229 68,903 143, 132

Source: OPM Central Personnel Data File.

The federal government*s hiring is expected to continue to increase. In
2003, the President*s budget called for approximately 27,000 additional
fulltime equivalent federal civilian workers in the executive branch. This
follows a 36, 000 increase in full time equivalent positions in fiscal
year 2002.

8 Since March 1, 2003, the Transportation Security Administration is part
of the Department of Homeland Security.

Federal Hiring Is a It is widely recognized both within government and the
private sector that

Lengthy, Cumbersome the federal hiring process is lengthy and cumbersome
and hampers

agencies* ability to hire the people they need to achieve their agency
goals Process

and missions. Numerous studies over the past decade by OPM, MSPB, NAPA,
the Partnership for Public Service, the National Commission on the Public
Service, and GAO have noted problems with the federal hiring process. Our
October 2002 survey of HR directors at 24 major departments

and agencies indicated that 21 of 24 said that the time needed to fill
positions in their agencies was a moderate to very great problem.
Moreover, directors at 13 of those agencies reported that the time to hire
was a great to very great problem. Our October 2001 survey showed that 22
directors reported that time to hire was a moderate to great problem.
Nearly all (22 of 24) of the HR directors we met with said the lengthy and

cumbersome hiring process is a major factor that affects or increases the
time needed to fill positions.

HR directors cited problems with the lengthy hiring process. For example,
an HR director of a major federal department noted that thousands of
applicants had responded to nationwide openings for a critical occupation
at a number of locations. However, because it took so long to manually
process the applications, only 1 in 20 of the applicants were still
interested in the job when notified that they had been selected. Another
HR director noted that many managers, supervisors, and job applicants do
not understand the rules and procedures governing federal employment. She
said that because of the lack of expertise and complicated process, the
agency often loses out in competition with the private sector because of
its inability to make timely job offers. Another HR director told us that
a significant factor that hampers hiring is the paperwork- intensive
hiring process that continues from application, rating and ranking of
applicants and production of best qualified lists, through to the *17
forms* that a new hire must complete before being brought onboard.
Although, as noted above, nearly all HR directors and others note that the

time to hire is too long for most federal hires. Comprehensive department
or governmentwide data are not available; however, in fiscal year 2002,
OPM compiled and analyzed data on time- to- hire and found that it
typically

took 102 days for agencies to fill a vacancy using the competitive
process. OPM defined the time to hire time frame as the time between when
the request to hire or fill a position was received in the HR office to
the appointment of an applicant to the position. Additional time might be
needed for a manager to obtain approval for the requested hiring action at

the beginning of the process or for the new employee to receive a security
clearance at the end of the process. Other organizations have noted
problems with the lengthy cumbersome federal hiring process.  In July
2002, NAPA reported that federal *hiring remains a slow and

tedious process.* The report noted that *Many managers are attempting to
rebuild a pipeline of entry level employees in this very competitive labor
market, yet current hiring methods do not keep pace with the private
sector.* 9  In September 2002, MSPB said that the federal hiring process
has a

number of key problems including *overly complex and ineffective hiring
authorities* and *inadequate, time- consuming assessment procedures.* 10

 In November 2002, OPM in its strategic plan for 2002 through 2007
stated, * There is a general perception that our hiring process takes too
long and may not provide well- qualified candidates.* 11  In January
2003, the National Commission on the Public Service said,

*Recruitment to federal jobs is heavily burdened by ancient and illogical
procedures that vastly complicate the application process and limit the
hiring flexibility of individual managers.* 12 9 National Academy of
Public Administration, Summary of Human Resources Management Research for
the National Commission on the Public Service (Washington, D. C.: July
2002). 10 U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making the Public Service
Work: Recommendations for Change (Washington, D. C.: September 2002). 11
U. S. Office of Personnel Management, Strategic Plan 2002- 2007
(Washington, D. C.: November 2002). 12 National Commission on the Public
Service, Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing the Federal Government
for the 21 st Century (Washington, D. C.: January 2003).

Not only does the current hiring process not serve agencies and managers
well as they seek to obtain the right people with the right skills, but
applicants can be dissuaded from public service by the complex and lengthy
process. According to a poll commissioned by the Partnership for Public
Service, *many people view the process of seeking federal employment as a
daunting one. Three- quarters of non- federal workers say making the
application process quicker and simpler would be an effective way of
attracting talented workers to government.* 13

As many of these and other studies have noted, and as many HR directors
noted in our interviews, nearly all parts of the competitive hiring
process hamper effective and efficient federal hiring. Key problem areas
include the following.

 Outdated and cumbersome procedures to define a job and set the pay are
not applicable to the jobs and work of today.

 Unclear, unfriendly job announcements cause confusion, delay hiring, and
serve as poor recruiting tools.  A key assessment tool and hiring
programs used for several entry- level

positions are ineffective.  Convening panels and the manual rating and
ranking of applicants to

determine best- qualified applicants is time- consuming.  Numerical
rating and ranking and the *rule of three* limit the choice of applicants
and are viewed as ineffective. 14

OPM and the agencies we studied have taken steps to address some of these
hiring obstacles. Specifically, five agencies we examined* USGS, Army,
Census, ARS, and FS* took systematic and comprehensive approaches that
helped to transform their process- oriented hiring systems to ones that
are focused on meeting their agencies* goals and missions. The 13 Hart-
Teeter Research, The Unanswered Call to Pubic Service: Americans*
Attitudes Before and After September 11 th (Washington, D. C.: October
2001).

14 As previously discussed, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 now permits
category rating that expands the number of applicants that an agency
official may choose from when filling a position. That rating approach
should make the rating process less complex and time consuming than the
numerical rating and ranking process.

USGS approach was to focus on automating its hiring process for all of its
occupations, except research Senior Executive Service positions, in order
to reduce hiring time, increase the number of applicants, and better serve
its internal and external customers. Army*s approach was a data- driven
approach* Army developed automated tools to identify weaknesses in its
hiring process and identified an approach to overcome them, including
automation. Census*s approach, in reaction to the need to quickly hire 500
specialists for the 2000 Census, was to work with OPM to jointly develop
an automated hiring system for three mission- critical occupations and
later to

work toward integrating hiring for all its occupations into its parent
organization*s automated hiring system. And, as discussed later, OPM also
identified hiring improvements as a critical goal in its strategic plan
and has a multi- faceted hiring initiative under way. ARS and FS
implemented a pilot project that demonstrated a more effective way to rate
and rank candidates for positions.

The following sections describe each of these problems in more detail and
discuss some specific actions under way by agencies and OPM to begin to
address the problem.

Process of Defining the Job

The Problem and Determining Pay Is Complex and Antiquated

The process of defining a job and determining pay is complex and
antiquated, according to HR directors and experts. Defining the job and
setting pay must be based on federal job classification standards, which
are set forth in the Classification Act of 1949. 15 The classification
process and

standard job classifications were generally developed decades ago when
typical jobs were more narrowly defined and in many cases, were clerical
or administrative. However, today*s knowledge- based organizations* jobs
require a much broader array of tasks that may cross over the narrow and

rigid boundaries of job classifications. The federal job classification
process not only delays the hiring process, but more important, the
resulting job classifications and related pay might not match the actual
duties of the job. This mismatch can hamper efforts to fill the positions
with the right employees.

15 5 U. S. C. S: 5101- 5115.

Once management decides to fill a vacant position, or create a new
position, the HR office is called upon to see if a position description
exists. If a position description does not exist or is not accurate for
the vacant position, a position description must be completed. Such a
description documents the major duties, responsibilities, and
organizational relationships of a job and includes, among others, the
knowledge required for the position, supervisory controls, complexity and
nature of the assignment, and the scope and effect of the work.

Once the job description is complete, the job is classified by matching
the duties and responsibilities to the General Schedule requirements. The
Classification Act of 1949 provides a plan for classifying positions and
sets out 15 grade levels. The law expresses these grade levels in terms of
the difficulty and level of responsibility for a specific position. OPM
develops standards that must be consistent with the principles in the
Classification Act of 1949. The classification system categorizes jobs or
positions

according to the kind of work done, the level of difficulty and
responsibility, and the qualifications required for the position, and
serves as a building block to determine the pay for the position. Today*s
knowledgebased organizations* jobs require a much broader array of tasks
that may cross over the narrow and rigid boundaries of job classification
standards and make it difficult to fit the job appropriately into one of
the over 400 occupations. According to a recent OPM study, a key problem
with classification is that, under present rules, characteristics such as
workload, quality of work, and results are not classification factors. 16
As reported in a January 2003 report of the National Commission on the

Public Service, OPM*s director has noted that *continued reliance on this
antiquated system is comparable to insisting that today*s offices use
carbon paper and manual type writers.* 17 Furthermore, NAPA in its July
2002 report for the National Commission on the Public Service concluded
that classification and compensation systems must be based on work and

16 U. S. Office of Personnel Management, A Fresh Start for Federal Pay:
The Case for Modernization (Washington, D. C.: April 2002). 17 National
Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business for America:
Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21 st Century (Washington, D.
C.: January 2003).

performance rather than position. 18 The NAPA panel recommendations
included abolishing the General Schedule and developing a modern system
for defining and valuing work, which could help to make the hiring process
more results- oriented and efficient. The National Commission on the
Public Service recommended that operating agencies need more flexible
personnel management systems. The commission recommended abolishing the
General Schedule and as a default position, recommended a broadband system
under which the 15 pay grades and salary ranges would be consolidated into
six to eight broad bands with relatively wide salary ranges. 19 Actions
Under Way Some agencies have automated the complicated classification
process to

reduce the time it takes to carry out this task. For example, the Army
created a centralized database that gives Army HR managers access to
active position descriptions and position- related information to help
with the classification process. In addition, OPM has revised the
standards for several job series, including health care professions and
law enforcement, to make them clearer and more applicable to the current
duties and

responsibilities of the occupations. But such steps are only partial
solutions to the classification issue. OPM points out that the
classification standards and process need to be reformed. Changes to the
Classification Act of 1949 are needed to make fundamental changes to how
jobs are defined and pay is set. Specifically, OPM believes that the time
may have come for substantive reform that brings the era of the General
Schedule

classification system to a close. OPM recognizes the need to maintain the
General Schedule in the absence of an alternative and well- managed
transition to any new system. 20

18 National Academy of Public Administration, Summary of Human Resource
Management for the National Commission on the Public Service (Washington,
D. C.: July 2002). 19 National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent
Business for America * Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21 st
Century (Washington, D. C.: January 2003). 20 U. S. Office of Personnel
Management, A Fresh Start for Federal Pay: The Case for Modernization
(Washington, D. C.: April 2002).

Job Vacancy Announcement

The Problem

Content Cited as Hampering the Hiring Process

Several HR directors we interviewed for this study cited the content of
job announcements as a factor that hampered or delayed the hiring process.
These HR directors noted that job announcements are frequently
incomprehensible and make it difficult for applicants to determine what
the jobs require, and therefore do not serve as effective recruiting
tools. A February 2000 MSPB study stated that federal job announcements
generally appeared to be written for people already employed by the
government and that the use of jargon and acronyms is a common problem. 21
The study noted that some announcements were lengthy, difficult to read
on- line, and only gave brief or vague descriptions of the

duties to be performed. Vague job descriptions make it difficult for
applicants to describe how their knowledge, skills, and abilities are
related to the job. MSPB also noted that almost no announcements included
information on retirement and other benefits, such as vacation time and
medical and health insurance, which might entice people to apply. The

study recommended that OPM and agencies improve how vacancy announcements
are posted on the Internet. The report said making them more visually
appealing, informative, and easy to navigate could also make announcements
more effective as a recruiting tool. In a December 2002

report on federal vacancy announcements, MSPB reported that its review of
the quality of 100 vacancy announcements posted on USAJOBS indicated that
53 percent were poor, 2 percent were good, while 45 percent were judged
acceptable. 22 The problems in the vacancy announcements included poor
organization and readability, unclear job titles and duties, vague or
restrictive qualification standards, and the use of negative language or
tone that might deter many qualified candidates.

Actions Under Way

Both agencies and OPM are taking some steps to address this problem. For
example, the Department of Health and Human Services rewrote one of its
typical vacancy announcements for budget analysts to make it more
understandable and appealing to applicants outside the government.

21 U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Competing for Federal Jobs * Job
Search Experiences of New Hires (Washington, D. C.: February 2000). 22 U.
S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Help Wanted: A Review of Federal
Vacancy Announcements (Washington, D. C.: December 2002).

Instead of the typical language such as *incumbent is responsible for
monitoring the results of budget execution and formulation input from six
regional budget offices in coordination with the controller,* the
announcement*s language began with *For the energetic individual who wants
a challenging career with growth and advancement opportunities, we have
positions available that will challenge to you to grow and learn

[and are on] the cutting edge of the nation*s health and human service
policy and provide vital information and support required by our policy
makers.* In addition, the job announcement was posted on a private sector
job search site and in The Washington Post employment section. This
approach garnered more than 100 qualified applicants per position,
compared to 20 qualified applicants per position under the traditional

announcements on USAJOBS Web site. 23 To address unclear job
announcements, OPM has initiated an interagency project to modernize
federal job vacancy announcements, including providing guidance to
agencies to enhance announcements, and instituting a multiprong approach
to using e- government technology to assist job seekers and employees
governmentwide. Specifically, OPM has improved the Web site to strengthen
the job search engine, rewritten the USAJOBS by Phone system to improve
speech recognition, and redesigned the way

vacancy announcements appear on the Web site. Currently, OPM is seeking
contractor support for its USAJOBS to make it easier and quicker for
people to find federal jobs and to enhance the site*s *eye- catching*
appeal.

Key Assessment Tool and

The Problem

Related Hiring Programs Are Ineffective

Several HR directors and human capital experts have found problems with
candidate assessment tools, particularly those associated with filling
entrylevel professional and administrative occupations covered by the
Luevano Consent Decree of 1981. In addition, both OPM and MSPB noted in
studies that there is a need to develop new assessment tools for
occupations and higher- grade levels that are not covered by the Luevano
decree that are more efficient and valid predictors of future job
performance. Primary responsibility for developing assessment tools rests
with the agencies, but frequently agencies do not have the expertise or
resources to develop them. In addition to problems found with assessment
tools, two hiring

23 Government Executive, Hire Power (Washington, D. C.: February 2002).

authorities set forth in the Luevano Consent Decree *Outstanding Scholar
and Bilingual/ Bicultural* may not be merit based.

Several HR directors we met with and a NAPA study found that the
Administrative Careers with America (ACWA) self- rating schedule
examination procedure that is currently used to competitively fill most
positions covered by the Luevano decree was cumbersome, delayed hiring,
and often did not provide quality candidates. The Luevano decree called
for eliminating the use of the Professional and Administrative Career Exam
(PACE) and required replacing it with alternative examination

procedures. 24 The ACWA exam, which was developed by OPM for Luevano
positions, was generally administered by OPM to applicants. Agencies
entered into reimbursable contracts with OPM to receive lists of
candidates who passed the exam. OPM has now delegated authority to
administer the

ACWA exam to agencies* delegated examining units. 25 In addition, some
exams have been developed to replace ACWA for a few occupations.

Agency managers criticized the ACWA examination because they said it is
not merit based, according to a NAPA study. 26 The ACWA rating- schedule
examination contains 157 multiple- choice questions that distinguish among
qualified applicants on the basis of their self- rated education and life

experience, rather than on their relative knowledge, skills, and abilities
for the vacant position. 27 The study reported that agencies said the ACWA
examination is not relevant to specific jobs and occupations and therefore
does not result in lists of *qualified individuals * solely on the basis
of relative ability, knowledge, and skill** a key merit systems principle.

24 PACE which was used to fill entry- level positions at the GS- 5 and GS-
7 level for over 100 professional and administrative occupations, was
found to have an adverse impact on African Americans and Hispanics.

25 In addition to the ACWA exam, OPM has developed separate alternative
examination procedures for a number of positions covered by the Luevano
decree. In its comments on a draft of this report, DOD noted that
administration of the ACWA exam was not delegated to agencies until
October 2002 and that the authority cannot be redelegated to components.

26 National Academy of Public Administration, Entry- Level Hiring and
Development for the 21 st Century: Professional and Administrative
Positions (Washington, D. C.: November 1999).

27 There also is a written ACWA exam that was developed prior to the
multiple choice exam.

Consequently, many agencies reported that the primary reason they did not
use the ACWA test was their past experience with the quality of the
candidates. In a more recent study, NAPA recommended that the ACWA
examination system be terminated and agencies be permitted to hire for
professional and administrative occupations using techniques that are
proven more operationally efficient and effective in meeting diversity
shortfalls. 28 Also, MSPB recommended that OPM develop new assessment

tools for the occupations covered under the Luevano Consent Decree. 29 HR
directors and other officials illustrated numerous problems with the ACWA
exam. For example, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Human Resources
at the Social Security Administration said that the ACWA examination
process used for its mainstream entry- level positions* claims
representative, computer specialist, criminal investigator, and regional
support position* covered by the Luevano Consent Decree is cumbersome,
bureaucratic, and labor intensive. In another example, officials of a
major military installation said that recruiting accountants and financial
managers was hampered by the ACWA examination. They noted that managers
believed the test was not an effective screen to identify quality
candidates* a theme consistent with the NAPA study. They also

pointed out that applicants were *turned off* to federal employment by the
lack of relevance of many of the exam questions to the specific jobs for
which they were applying.

Agencies cited the Outstanding Scholar program as a quick way to hire
quality college graduates for positions covered by the Luevano decree. The
Outstanding Scholar program and Bilingual/ Bicultural program were

authorized by the Luevano Consent Decree as supplemental tools to
competitive examination. These programs were aimed at addressing the under
representation of African- Americans and Hispanics in the workplace. Many
HR directors and officials viewed the Outstanding Scholar program as a way
to hire quality candidates without getting involved in the complexities of
the OPM examination process.

28 National Academy of Public Administration, Summary of Human Resources
Management Research for the National Commission on the Public Service
(Washington, D. C.: July 2002).

29 U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making the Public Service Work *
Recommendations for Change.

However, OPM and MSPB have commented that this is an inappropriate use of
the authority. This hiring authority uses both baccalaureate grade point
average and class standing as eligibility criteria for appointment. This
authority allows candidates who meet the eligibility criteria to be
directly appointed without competition and operates without regard to
veterans* preference or the rule of three (see discussion about the rule
of three and veterans* preference later is this report). MSPB has noted,
however, that eligibility criteria based on grade point average and class
rank are highly questionable as valid predictors of future job performance
and that they unnecessarily deny employment consideration to a large
segment of the applicant pool who meet basic job qualification
requirements.

MSPB also has concerns about the Bilingual/ Bicultural program because it
permits the hiring of individuals who need not be the best qualified and
avoids veterans* preference. This hiring program permits an agency to
directly hire an applicant who obtained a passing examination score,
without further regard to rank, when the position should be filled by an
incumbent with bilingual or bicultural skills and the applicant has the
requisite skills. MSPB has also recommended abolishing both the
Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/ Bicultural programs because other
competitive hiring methods have been more effective in hiring minorities
and because they are not merit based.

For positions that are not covered by the Luevano Consent Decree, agencies
typically examine candidates by rating and ranking them based on their
experience, training, and education, rather than testing them. MSPB noted
that the government*s interest is not well served if agencies do not have
the resources and expertise to make high quality case examining
determinations. According to MSPB, agencies use of computer- based
assessments is increasing. MSPB notes this has implications for OPM

because the validity of computer- based assessments and ranking is
critical to ensuring that hiring is based solely on merit. 30 Computer-
based assessments would also have implications for category rating systems
that are now permitted by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

In general, both OPM and MSPB are concerned about the validity of
assessment tools for all occupations and advocate that agencies improve
their assessment instruments. Under a largely decentralized approach,

30 U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Assessing Federal Job- Seekers in
a Delegated Examining Environment (Washington, D. C: December 2001).

agencies* delegated examining units make decisions on which assessment
tools or methods to use and on the development of new assessment tools.
However, experts have noted that that there has been a lack of specialized
experience in many agencies to develop and maintain valid, effective

applicant assessment methodologies. OPM told us that because of budget
constraints, it has spent more of its resources on services for which
agencies are willing to pay rather than on providing tools that it might
have believed to be more valuable, like assessment instruments. OPM also
noted that many agencies do not have the technical expertise, funding, or
time to develop valid assessment tools. MSPB concluded in a recent report

that OPM is a logical organization to which agencies should be able to
turn for help in developing valid assessment tools and systems, but is not
funded to provide that assistance except on a reimbursable basis. 31
Actions Under Way

OPM recognizes that it must do more to improve assessment tools. In its
fiscal year 2003 performance plan, OPM included a strategic objective
that, by fiscal year 2005, governmentwide hiring selections are to be
based on comprehensive assessment tools that assess the full range of
competencies needed to perform the jobs of the future.

Manual Processes Are Time

The Problem

Consuming and Paperwork Intensive

A key problem noted by many HR directors is that much of the hiring
process is done manually. Among the most frequently cited factors that
hampered or delayed hiring were the logistics of convening assessment
panels and the time- consuming process of manually rating and ranking job
applicants. Twelve agency HR directors we interviewed commented that
manually rating and ranking candidates, or the panel process, was a
significant cause of delay in hiring. In addition, time- consuming and
paperwork- intensive record keeping is needed to document the rationale of
assessment panel ratings. Prior to assessing applicants based on their
relative merits, agencies must

conduct a screening process to determine if applicants meet eligibility
requirements (e. g. are U. S. citizens) and the basic or minimum education
or

31 U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Assessing Federal Job- Seekers in
a Delegated Examining Environment.

work experience qualifications that OPM established for such a position.
In a manual hiring system, staff members would have to review all the
applications and document why an applicant did or did not meet minimum
qualifications. If there are a large number of applicants, carrying out
this process can be time consuming. Once the applicants* eligibility is
determined, agencies typically undertake

a labor- intensive effort to establish and convene assessment panels and
manually rate and rank the candidates based on their relative merits.
According to one of the HR directors we met with, the logistics of setting
up an assessment panel meeting makes for long delays in the hiring
process, in some cases up to 1 month. Some of the delay is due to

assembling the appropriate managers and subject matter experts,
coordinating their availability, and factoring in the exigencies of other
demands and travel time. Once the panel is formed, the panel sorts through
all of the applicants* paperwork, assesses the applicants, and determines
a numerical score for each applicant by rating the education and
experience described by the applicant against the evaluation criteria in
the crediting

plan for the position. At this point, any applicable veterans* preference
points are added to the applicants* score. As mentioned previously, the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 permits an agency to use a category rating
system that might make assessing candidates less complex and time
consuming.

Automation has the potential to streamline operations by electronically
rating and ranking applicants, or placing them in quality categories,
eliminating the need to form assessment panels, and greatly reducing the
paperwork burden associated with manual assessments. An automated

system creates an easily assessable audit trail so that managers and HR
staffs could document their decisions. In addition, an automated system
could electronically determine if an applicant met the basic
qualifications and electronically notify the applicant of his or her
eligibility for the job for which he or she applied.

Actions Under Way

Nineteen of the 24 agency HR directors we met with said they had automated
or planned to automate at least a portion of their hiring processes. Some
of these agencies have automated or planned to automate the rating and
ranking processes. Agencies have used private vendors or have contracted
to use OPM*s USA Staffing automated hiring package.

USGS automated its hiring system and estimated that it cut hiring time
from the close of a job announcement to issuing a job certificate from 30
to 60 days to under 7 days. USGS*s automated system is a computerized
employment application processing system, which automates many of the
functions and tasks of the competitive examination process. It
electronically prescreens applicants and rates and ranks applicants
according to specified job- related criteria. This also eliminates the
need to convene rating and ranking panels and reduces the paperwork and
administrative burden associated with documenting manual rating and
ranking. The system also electronically refers the job certificate to the
selecting official who has the rating and ranking data, resumes, and other

information on his or her desktop, an improvement in efficiency.
Furthermore, it makes recruiting data available on- line to authorized
staff members. Applicant benefits include user- friendly on- line
application and timely feedback on the status of applications. NAPA
chronicled the success of USGS*s automated system in a 2001 report. The
report notes that 1 year after being implemented, *it is clear that the
program is a huge success.* 32 The report lays out the successes based on
USGS information

to include a significant reduction of processing time a reduction of 1,800
staff days of work, and a nearly tenfold increase in the number of
applicants for many of its announcements.

Census also automated its hiring process. The impetus for Census to change
from its manual hiring system to the automated system for its occupations
covering the majority of its ongoing hiring needs* information technology
specialist, statistician, and mathematical statistician* was a large
number or positions (500 positions) and urgent hiring needed for the

2000 Census. 33 The agency put together a team of managers, human resource
staff, and programmers and worked with OPM to automate hiring for these
three occupations. In 1998, Census automated their hiring system through
OPM for the three occupations. Under this system, OPM posts continuously
open vacancy announcements for multiple grade levels. As part of a
contract with Census, OPM receives the applications and maintains an
inventory of applicants on its system and can rate and rank the applicants
and generate a job certificate for Census within 3 days of the

request for a certificate. Since there is no closing date for job 32
National Academy of Public Administration, The Quest for Talent:
Recruitment Strategies for Federal Agencies (Washington, D. C.: 2001). 33
These 500 positions were professional in nature and not part of the
temporary enumerator workforce hired for the 2000 Census.

announcements, many phases of the typical federal hiring process have been
completed in advance of a Census request for a certificate. Census
managers provide quality- ranking factors to OPM when they request a job
certificate. In addition, Census managers have electronic access to
information on the applicants because OPM updates Census*s database daily.
Census officials told us that additional applicant information collected
by recruiters on college campuses provides managers pertinent skill data,
which could eliminate personal interviews. Census estimated that time to
hire declined from 3 to 4 months to a week or less. For other occupations,
Census continues to use its manual competitive examination hiring process
to hire people from outside the government.

The Rule of Three Limits

The Problem

Managers* Choice of Quality Candidates

One of the largest obstacles to the federal hiring process mentioned in
our interviews with HR directors was the rule of three. Specifically, 15
of the 24 HR directors we met with raised concerns about the negative
impact of the

rule of three on hiring. Once the panel has rated and ranked the
candidates and applied applicable veterans* preference points, the panel
refers a sufficient number of candidates to permit the appointing officer
to consider three candidates that are available for appointment. The
selecting official is required to select from among the top three ranked
candidates

available for appointment* this is the rule of three. 34 If a candidate
with veterans* preference is on the list, the selecting official cannot
pass over the veteran and select a lower ranking candidate without
veterans* preference unless the selecting official*s objection to hiring
the veteran is sustained by OPM. 35 The Homeland Security Act of 2002,
enacted in November 2002, now permits agencies governmentwide to use
category rating in lieu of numerical ranking and adherence to the rule of
three. 36 OPM currently is drafting implementing guidance for this
provision. A

more complete description of category ranking is included in appendix II.
It will be important for agencies to adopt category ranking to improve
their hiring processes.

34 5 U. S. C. S: 3318( a). 35 5 U. S. C. S: 3318( b). 36 Section 1312( a)(
2) of Pub. L. No. 107- 296 (Nov. 25, 2002).

Choosing from among the top three candidates is problematic for a variety
of reasons. MSPB noted in its study on the rule of three that *the
examination procedures underpinning this hiring rule vary in their ability
to

make fine distinctions among candidates.* Further, veterans* preference
points are added to the imprecise numerical score generated through the
panel*s examination process, which can result in veterans being ranked
among the top three candidates. The result can be several candidates with
the exact same score. When more than three candidates have the same

score, examining offices may need to break the tie, usually by electing
three of the candidates at random. Since current assessment tools cannot
make fine distinctions between applicants, encouraging selection from as
many qualified candidates as is reasonable enhances merit- based hiring.
The MSPB conducted an in- depth study of the rule of three and its
interaction with veterans* preference. 37 MSPB concluded that given the
limits of the examining process to predict

future job performance, the curb on the number of candidates from which
managers may select does not represent good hiring policy. It also noted
that the rule of three*s original purpose was to provide choices.

For several years, federal human capital experts said that categorical
rating or grouping could provide an alternative to the rule of three
methods and expand the number of candidates that a selecting official
could choose from while protecting veterans* preference. Both NAPA and
MSPB supported abolishing numerical ranking and the rule of three and
replacing them with category rating that would allow officials to select
among candidates that were placed in a high- quality category. However,
candidates with veterans* preference placed in the high- quality category
would be hired before candidates without veterans* preference. OPM also

supported allowing agencies to use category rating in lieu of numerical
ranking and the rule of three. Actions Under Way

The Department of Agriculture*s ARS and FS tested and implemented category
rating in lieu of numerical ranking and the rule of three under an OPM
demonstration project. The final 5- year evaluation of the project showed
that (1) the number of candidates per job announcement

37 U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Rule of Three in Federal
Hiring: Boon or Bane? (Washington, D. C.: December 1995).

increased, (2) more candidates were referred to managers for selection,
(3) hiring speed increased, and (4) there was greater satisfaction with
the hiring process among managers. On average, there were from 60 percent
(ARS) to 70 percent (FS) more applicants available for consideration under
the demonstration project quality grouping procedure than under the
standard rule of three and numerical ranking. A higher percentage of
veterans were hired in the ARS and about the same percentage of veterans

were hired by the FS compared with using the rule of three process.
Specifically, at ARS 16.3 percent of all hires were veterans using
categorical ranking, while just 9.5 percent were veterans using the rule
of three. At ARS, the average length of time to hire was about 25 days
quicker than at comparison sites. At FS, the time to hire was quicker, but
the difference was not significantly different. Appendix II contains more
information on the categorical ranking project carried out by the ARS and
FS.

As noted previously, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, enacted in
November 2002, included a governmentwide provision that OPM or an agency
to which OPM has delegated examining authority may establish category
rating systems for evaluating applicants for positions in the competitive
service. Under this provision a selecting official can select anyone
placed in the top category. However, a candidate with veterans* preference
who is placed in the top category could not be passed over by a selecting
official unless objection to hiring the veteran is sustained by OPM. OPM
is currently drafting guidance to implement this new flexibility.

OPM*s Role and OPM has recognized that the hiring system needs improvement
and, as

Performance in the pointed out earlier in this report, is taking a number
of actions to address

governmentwide hiring challenges. OPM*s current strategic plan includes a
Federal Hiring Process

major objective to *Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the
Federal hiring process and make Federal employment attractive to high-
quality applicants of diverse backgrounds.* To meet this objective, OPM
has identified a number of strategies, including reducing regulatory
burdens that hamper hiring, increasing recruitment through e- government
initiatives, and identifying other governmentwide solutions to improve the
hiring process. In addition, last spring OPM announced a hiring initiative
that is designed to create momentum for success, build the image of public
service, and fix the hiring process. A number of actions have already
taken place in the first wave. In July 2002, OPM announced the development
of a hiring preferred practices guide and asked agencies to contribute
examples of how they had optimized existing hiring flexibilities. Also,
last summer

OPM held the government*s first *virtual job fair* for information

technology workers that demonstrated that critically needed staff could be
hired effectively and efficiently. OPM said that in the coming months it
will identify other projects and proposals that will address systemic
problems associated with the hiring process. It will include deploying
competencybased qualifications, improving entry- level hiring, and
updating and modernizing exam scoring policy.

Our survey of HR directors in the fall of 2001 and then again in the fall
of 2002 showed mixed views on whether OPM helped or hindered the hiring
process in their agencies. Specifically in 2001, 13 thought OPM helped, 5
thought OPM neither helped nor hindered, and 5 thought OPM hindered their
hiring processes. In 2002, 9 thought OPM helped, 9 thought OPM neither
helped nor hindered, and four thought OPM hindered the processes. Details
of our survey are included in appendix III.

HR directors we talked with identified other actions that OPM took to help
their departments or agencies improve their hiring processes. These
processes included delegation of examination authority, providing human
capital expertise, and providing the USAJOBS and USA Staffing programs.
The HR directors also identified areas in which OPM could take a more

active role. Foremost, agencies said that OPM needed to be a more
proactive resource and enhance its role as a *clearinghouse* of
information and provide more guidance and better expertise to agencies.
Agencies explained that OPM needed to provide information and *best
practices* associated with automating the hiring process. They also noted
that OPM could do more to address key obstacles in the hiring process,
including outdated classification standards and inadequate assessment
tools. Conclusions Improving the federal hiring process is critical as the
number of new hires

is expected to increase substantially to address the security needs
arising from the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001, and to replace
the large number of employees expected to retire over the next few years.
Agencies are responsible for maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness
of their hiring processes within the current statutory and regulatory
framework. Steps toward a higher- level hiring system include using a
data- driven approach to identify hiring barriers and ways to overcome
them. A key

step includes automating the hiring process, which may drive efficiency
and reduce the administrative and paperwork burden. Innovative and best
practices of model agencies need to be made available to other agencies in
order to facilitate the transformation of agency hiring practices from
compliance based to one focused on the agencies* missions. While many

improvements to hiring processes can be made by agencies themselves, OPM
has recognized that it needs to do more to address some key governmentwide
problems.

Recommendations for OPM*s hiring initiatives are moving in the direction
that will help agencies

Executive Action improve their hiring processes. OPM can assist agencies
by helping the agencies to improve and streamline their hiring processes
by taking a

comprehensive and strategic approach. Consistent with its current efforts
to improve the federal hiring process, OPM needs to take a number of
specific actions to strengthen federal hiring. Accordingly, as a part of
its

overall hiring initiative, we recommend that OPM  study how to simplify,
streamline, and reform the classification process;  assist agencies in
automating their hiring processes;  continue to assist agencies in making
job announcements and Web

postings more user friendly and effective;  develop and help agencies
develop improved hiring assessment tools; and

 review the effectiveness of the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/
Bicultural Luevano Consent Decree hiring authorities.

Agency Comments and OPM and DOD provided written comments on a draft of
this report. Our Evaluation

Technical comments were provided orally by USGS and via email by Census,
ARS, and FS. These technical comments have been incorporated into the
report.

OPM generally agreed with the conclusions and recommendations in the
report. However, OPM expressed several concerns with our methodology. It
believes the section on the classification and position description
process could be misleading because the majority of jobs are filled
without

this step. We agree, but note that the more important problem with the
classification process is that inaccurate position descriptions and
related pay determinations that result from the job classification could
hamper efforts to fill the positions with the right employees. OPM also
believed that our draft missed an opportunity to hold agencies more
accountable for

their hiring processes. Throughout the draft, we note that agencies are
primarily responsible for their hiring processes and provide concrete
examples of what some agencies have done to improve their processes. OPM
also provides several examples of actions it is taking to improve the
hiring process. Finally, OPM questioned our methodology of meeting with
agency HR directors to assess how well OPM is assisting agencies in
improving their hiring processes. It believes that chief operating
officers would provide a better perspective of agency recruiting and
retention issues. While we agree these officials could provide perspective
about the results of the hiring process, agency HR directors better
understand and are responsible for their agencies* hiring processes.

DOD noted several areas where it believed that OPM needed to do much more
to address governmentwide hiring problems. We agree that OPM should do
more to improve governmentwide hiring and include several recommendations
to OPM.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
its date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Chair,
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Chairman, House Committee on
Government Reform, the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service and
Agency

Organization, House Government Reform. We will also send copies to the
Director of OPM, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Commerce, the
Secretary of Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http//: www. gao. gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact Edward
Stephenson or me on (202) 512- 6806. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix VI.

J. Christopher Mihm Director, Strategic Issues

List of Requesters

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Governmental Affairs United States Senate The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka
Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget
and International Security Committee on Governmental Affairs United States
Senate

The Honorable George V. Voinovich Chairman The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia Committee
on Governmental Affairs United States Senate The Honorable Thad Cochran
United States Senate The Honorable Danny K. Davis Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization Committee on
Government Reform House of Representatives

The Honorable Dave Weldon, M. D. House of Representatives

Appendi xes Federal Hiring Using the Competitive Service

Appendi I x or the Excepted Service Federal civil service employees, other
than those in the Senior Executive Service (SES) are employed in either
the competitive service, 5 U. S. C. S: 2102( a), or the excepted service,
5 U. S. C. S: 2103( a). 1 The competitive service examination process is
one of the processes intended to ensure that agencies* hiring activities
comply with merit principles. This includes notifying the public that the
government will accept applications for a job, screening applications
against minimum qualification standards, and assessing applicants*
relative competencies or knowledge, skills, and abilities against job-
related criteria to identify the most qualified applicants. Federal
agencies typically examine or assess candidates by rating and ranking them
based on of their experience, training, and education, rather than by
testing them. 2 Except as noted before, Title 5 of the U. S. Code requires
federal examining

offices to give job applicants numerical scores and refer candidates for
employment to selecting officials based on their scores. Higher scores
theoretically represent greater merit and thus improve candidates*
employment opportunities. In addition, veterans* preference requires
augmenting scores of certain individuals because of military service
performed by them or members of their families. 3 The rule of three
requires managers to select from among the top three numerically ranked
candidates available for appointment. 4 However, if a candidate with
veterans* preference is among the top three candidates, the manager cannot
pass over the veteran and select a lower ranked candidate without
veterans* preference unless the selecting official*s objection to hiring
the

1 Positions may be excepted from the competitive service by statute, by
the President, or by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 5 C. F. R.
S: 213.101. OPM may except positions from the competitive service when it
determines that appointments into such positions through competitive
examination are not practicable. 5 C. F. R. S: 6.1( a). Excepted
appointments can be under either Schedule A (e. g., chaplain and attorney
positions), Schedule B (e. g. Student Career Experience Program and SES
candidate development program positions), or Schedule C (political
appointee positions). 5 C. F. R. Part 213, Subpart C.

2 Agencies use written tests to assess certain outside candidates. The
most important written tests are used for hiring into two groups: (1) GS-
2, 3, and 4 entry- level clerks and technical positions, and (2) GS- 5 and
GS- 7 professional and administrative positions covered by the Luevano
Consent Decree. GS refers to General Schedule, which is the basic
classification and compensation system for white- collar occupations in
the federal government.

3 5 U. S. C. S: 3309. 4 5 U. S. C. S: 3318( a).

veteran is sustained by the Office Of Personnel Management (OPM). 5
Ensuring that these objectives are met involves several basic steps and
the preparation of extensive supporting documentation. Soon agencies will
have greater flexibility under the competitive service examination process
with the option of using category ranking. The Homeland Security Act of
2002, enacted on November 25, 2002, has a governmentwide provision that
will now permit agencies to establish category rating systems for
evaluating applicants by placing them in two or more quality categories
based on merit. 6 The rule of three does not apply, and selecting
officials can select anyone placed in a best- qualified category. However,
if a candidate with veterans* preference is placed in a bestqualified

category, the veteran cannot be passed over and must be selected unless
the selecting official*s objection to hiring the veteran is sustained by
OPM. OPM is currently drafting guidance to implement this legislation.

5 5 U. S. C. S: 3318( b). 6 Section 1312( a)( 2) of Pub. L. No. 107- 296
(Nov. 25, 2002).

Description of Category Rating Project Carried Out by the Agricultural
Research

Appendi I I x Service and the Forest Service A Department of Agriculture
demonstration project carried out by the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) and the Forest Service (FS) demonstrated that category rating, or
quality grouping, can provide managers with a larger pool of applicants
from which to choose than numerical ranking and the rule of three, while
protecting veterans* preference. ARS and FS believed that the rule of
three hampered their ability to hire the people they needed. From 1990 to
1998, ARS and FS carried out the U. S. Department of Agriculture Personnel
Management Demonstration Project, authorized by the Office of Personnel
Management

(OPM). 1 The purpose of the project was to develop a recruitment and
selection program for new hires that was flexible and responsive to local
recruitment needs. This was the first demonstration project testing a
comprehensive simplification of the hiring system for both blue and
whitecollar federal employees. The project tested the use of category
rating as an alternative hiring

process. Instead of numerical rating and ranking that required selection
from the highest three scorers under the rule of three, under category
rating applicants meeting minimum qualification standards are placed in
one of two groups (quality and eligible) on the basis of their education,
experience, and ability. All candidates in the quality group are available
for selection; however, if the quality group contains a veteran, the
veteran must be hired unless an objection to hiring the veteran is
sustained. If the number of candidates falling into the quality group is
inadequate, applicants from the eligible group can also be referred to the
manager for

selection. As noted before, evaluations of this demonstration project
showed it to be effective. Because there was no mechanism in current law
to make a demonstration project permanent, innovations that were tested
successfully in demonstration projects could not be implemented
permanently in the testing agency unless authorized by Congress in special
legislation. The demonstration project at the Department of Agriculture
was made permanent through legislation in October 1998. 2 1 OPM is
authorized to waive civil service laws and regulations to permit agencies
to test

alternative personnel management approaches. 5 U. S. C. S: 4703. 2 Section
749 of Pub. L. No. 105- 277 (Oct. 21, 1998).

Appendi I I I x Objectives, Scope, and Methodology As agreed with the
requesters and in accordance with discussions with their offices, the
objectives of this study were to  identify major factors that hamper or
delay the federal hiring process;  provide examples of innovative
practices or approaches used by

selected agencies to improve their hiring processes and have the potential
to be adapted by other agencies; and  identify opportunities for the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM),

agencies, and others to improve the federal hiring process. We reviewed
the practices associated with how the government hires people from outside
the government for competitive service positions, including entry- level
and higher graded General Schedule positions. We focused our work on the
competitive examination process used to fill those

positions because that is usually the way that most agencies bring people
into their organizations. In addition, we obtained information on special
hiring authorities that are frequently used to hire people for entry-
level positions and that may supplement the competitive examination hiring
process. We did not review in detail how the government fills positions

through merit promotions with people who are already employed by the
federal government.

To identify major factors that hamper or delay the competitive hiring
process, we first reviewed our prior work and extant literature on federal
hiring. We also interviewed experts and obtained their studies at

 the U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a federal agency that
hears and decides civil service cases, reviews OPM regulations, and
conducts studies of the federal government*s merit system;

 the National Academy of Public Administration, an independent
nonpartisan, nonprofit, congressionally chartered organization that
assists federal, state, and local governments in improving their

performance;  the National Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan
organization dedicated to revitalizing the public service; and  OPM, the
federal government*s human resources (HR) agency.

We used experts* findings or observations to augment information we
obtained from federal agencies and incorporated them into our report as
appropriate. We then reviewed the pertinent laws, Code of Federal
Regulations and OPM*s Delegated Examining Operations Handbook that governs
the competitive examination hiring process in order to describe how the
hiring process works and to later describe what agency human resource
directors and studies identified as steps, processes, or regulatory
requirements that hampered or delayed hiring. In addition, we reviewed
data on hiring contained in OPM*s Central Personnel Data File.

Next we gathered information on our three objectives by conducting
semistructured interviews with the HR directors of the 24 largest federal
departments and agencies. The interviews were conducted from September
through December 2001. The open- ended questions were categorized and
coded and entered into a database we created. Responses to closed
questions on how significant a problem time to hire was were also entered
into our database. At least two staff reviewers collectively coded the
responses from each of the 24 interviews, and the coding was verified when
entered into the database.

In addition to these interviews with HR directors, we conducted brief
surveys of these 24 directors in both the fall of 2001 and fall of 2002. 1
All 24 HR directors responded to both surveys. During the period between
the 2001 and 2002 surveys, 16 of the 24 individuals left their positions.

The results of each of these surveys are shown in table 3. 1 These surveys
were conducted in conjunction with our work on personnel flexibilities.
Our work on flexibilities resulted in two reports: Human Capital:
Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in Managing Their
Workforces (GAO- 03- 2, Dec. 6, 2002)

and Human Capital: OPM Can Better Assist Agencies in Using Personnel
Flexibilities (GAO- 03- 428, May 9, 2003, restricted until June 9, 2003.)

Tabl e 3: Survey Responses from 24 HR Directors Question Response Fall
2001 Fall 2002

To what extent is the time Little or no extent 0 0 needed to fill a
position, or Some extent 2 3 *hiring time,* a problem within your
department /agency?

Moderate extent 7 8 Great extent 13 10 Very great extent 2 3 No basis to
judge/ NA 0 0 Overall, would you say that

Greatly hindered 0 2 OPM has helped or hindered Somewhat hindered 5 2 the
hiring process in your department/ agency?

Neither helped nor hindered 5 9 Somewhat helped 11 7 Greatly helped 2 2 No
basis to judge/ NA 1 2 Source: GAO.

In order to provide examples of innovative practices or approaches used by
selected agencies to improve their hiring processes and that have the
potential to be adapted by other agencies, we conducted a second phase of
interviews at five selected agencies from February through November 2002:
Department of Agriculture*s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Forest
Service (FS), U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), U. S. Census Bureau
(Census), and Department of the Army (Army). We selected those agencies
based on interviews with HR directors across government and discussions
with HR experts who noted that these agencies had taken actions to improve
their hiring practices.

We assessed the role that OPM has played in the hiring process through
interviews with HR directors at the 24 largest departments or agencies,
experts at MSPB and OPM, and by reviewing expert studies and other
information. We provided a draft of this report to OPM, DOD, Census, ARS,
FS, and USGS for review and comment. Their responses and comments are
discussed at the end of the report. We did our review in Washington D. C.,
from June 2001 through January 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

Comments from the Office of Personnel

Appendi V I x Management Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the
report text appear at the end of this appendix. See comment 1. See comment
2.

See comment 3. See comment 4.

See comment 5.

See comment 6.

The following are GAO*s comments on the Office of Personnel Management*s
(OPM) letter dated May 6, 2003.

GAO Comments 1. OPM questioned our methodology of meeting with agency
human resources (HR) directors to assess how well OPM is assisting
agencies

in improving their hiring processes. OPM believes that chief operating
officers would provide a better perspective of agency recruiting and
retention issues. While we agree these officials could provide perspective
about the results of the hiring process, agency HR directors better
understand and are responsible for their agency hiring process and most
directly interact with OPM. Agency HR directors are therefore in an
excellent position to speak to federal hiring issues and OPM*s leadership.

2. OPM said it was unclear why we identified the five hiring problem areas
and also that the quality of hires was not identified as an issue. We
identified these areas based on our discussions with human capital and
other officials across government and in our review of studies by the

Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Academy of Public
Administration. Our assessment of these problems considered the impact on
the quality of hires. For example, we note in our discussion of the
federal job classification process that it not only delays the hiring
process for those positions requiring the development of job

descriptions, but more important, the resulting job classification and
related pay might not match the actual duties of the job. This mismatch
can hamper efforts to fill the position with the right employee. We also

note that the automated process at the U. S. Geological Survey increased
the number of applicants* which increases the likelihood of filling a
position with the right person. Finally, in our discussion of the

use of the Administrative Careers with America (ACWA) test we note
managers* concerns with the quality of candidates who were referred based
on the test results. The recommendation to address this issue was
primarily based on the fact that, according to managers, the test was not
referring quality candidates.

3. OPM said that our conclusions about the classification process could be
misleading. For example, it believes the section on the classification and
position description process could be misleading because the majority of
jobs are filled without this step. We agree, but note that the more
important problem with the classification process is that the existing
inaccurate position description and related pay that resulted

from the job classification could hamper efforts to fill the position with
the right employee. OPM also said that although it agreed that the grade
level definitions that underpin the entire classification system are
decades old, it has taken steps to revise position classification
standards. We note in our report that OPM has and is continuing to revise
position standards, but point out that the basic system needs revision.
This position is not inconsistent with OPM*s and others* views of
classification. OPM*s white paper on pay notes a key problem with
classification is that, under present rules, characteristics such as

workload, quality of work, and results are not classification factors. OPM
and others conclude that the classification system needs basic revision.

4. OPM points out in its comments that it has taken several steps to
assist agencies in improving their vacancy announcements. We recognized
many of these actions in our actions under way section and have

augmented the section to further outline OPM*s positive steps. 5. OPM had
some concerns about our comments about the ACWA test.

We noted that managers were critical of the ACWA exam because it was not
merit based and it measures life experiences rather than knowledge,
skills, and abilities. OPM says the ACWA exam was specifically developed
to measure competencies critical to the success of the relevant
occupations. We should point out that the ACWA exam is used for more than
100 different occupations. Agency managers we met with and several studies
have pointed out that the test does not refer quality candidates. Even
though OPM in its comments defends the ACWA exam, it agreed that the test
needs to be reevaluated. We recommend that OPM help agencies improve all
applicant assessment

tools. 6. OPM said that the report misses an opportunity to hold agencies
more

accountable for the cumbersome hiring process. Throughout the report, we
point out that agencies are primarily responsible for improving their
hiring processes and include several examples how the agencies we studied
in detail took steps to improve various aspects of their hiring processes.
These steps could be taken by agencies without

any action by OPM. Several of our recommendations to OPM call for actions
to assist agencies in addressing their hiring problems.

Appendi V x Comments from the Department of Defense Note: GAO comments
supplementing those in the report text appear at the end of this appendix.

See comment 1. See comment 2.

See comment 3.

See comment 4. See comment 3. See comment 5. See comment 6. See comment 7.
See comment 8.

See comment 9. See comment 10. See comment 11. See comments 3 and 9.

The following are GAO*s comments on the Department of Defense*s (DOD)
letter dated April 14, 2003.

GAO Comments 1. We have clarified that our report only discusses new hires
to the federal government, particularly focusing on the competitive
service hiring

process. We note that agencies can also fill positions through the
internal merit selection process and other intergovernmental methods.

2. The statement that agencies have the primary responsibility for their
hiring processes is a fact. Our report outlines several actions that the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has taken to address many hiring
problems. We agree that OPM could do more and have made several
recommendations that address that conclusion.

3. DOD noted the lack of progress by OPM in addressing the job
classification system and applicant assessment tools. We agree that OPM
needs to do more and have included recommendations in that regard. It
should be noted that agencies have the primary responsibility to address
their hiring problems. Although some problems, such as the job
classification system, are outside the control of agencies, others, such
as development of assessment tools is within the responsibility and
control of the agency. The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has
pointed out that while agencies have the responsibility to develop
assessment tools they often do not have the resources to do so. In
addition, DOD said that implementing an automated hiring system

like the one we describe at the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) would take
up to a decade because DOD is so large and diverse. DOD explains that
converting from knowledge, skills, and abilities, to competencies takes a
considerable amount of work. Although, USGS officials and we believe, and
an independent study indicates that the specific USGS automated system has
been successful, we are not endorsing a specific method of automation. Our
larger point on this section is that automation can assist agencies with
their hiring processes.

4. It is correct that we did not attempt to compare procedures and time
lines for hiring before and after OPM delegated examining authority to
agencies in 1996. Such a comparison probably would yield little value to
today*s discussion of hiring challenges.

5. DOD says the classification system has been studied from every angle
without producing significant results and that more study is not needed.
We believe that more analysis is needed to determine exactly how to either
revise the classification system or develop an entirely new approach to
determining job descriptions and pay determinations.

6. DOD asked that we explain why the number of new hires has increased
since the mid- 1990s. We have added text to the report that explains that
hiring in the mid- 1990s declined because many agencies were downsizing
and did not need to fill positions. We also added that with the slowdown
in downsizing and the increasing number of employees retiring, agencies
are increasingly hiring new employees.

7. Our draft report had noted that DOD did not respond to our fall 2002
survey of human resources (HR) directors. DOD explained that it responded
to our survey of HR directors in November 2002. However, we did not
receive itd response until April 2003. We have now included

DOD*s response in our analysis of the 2002 HR director responses. 8. DOD
points out that OPM has not taken any significant action to

address problems related to the Luevano Consent Decree. We agree that the
problems with the Luevano Consent Decree need to be addressed and have
made a recommendation to OPM to review the effectiveness of the
Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/ Bicultural Luevano Consent Decree
hiring authorities.

9. DOD notes that examining for Administrative Careers with America (ACWA)
positions was not delegated to agencies until October 2002 and that the
authority cannot be redelegated to components. We have added this
information to our report.

10. DOD noted that we did not analyze the planned actions in OPM*s
strategic plan. In several areas, we have outlined actions that OPM is
currently taking to address some of the hiring challenges, including some
areas specific to actions indicated in OPM*s strategic plan.

11. DOD notes that our report credits OPM with developing new guidance in
several human capital areas with no indication of the involvement of
agencies. OPM has explained that one of the vehicles it has used to
involve agencies is the Human Resources Management Council, an interagency
organization of federal HR directors. It should be noted that the recently
enacted Homeland Security Act of 2002 establishes an

Interagency Chief Human Capital Officer Council, which could replace the
Human Resources Management Council.

Appendi VI x GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contacts J.
Christopher Mihm or Edward Stephenson, (202) 512- 6806 Acknowledgments In
addition to the persons named above, John Ripper, Tom Beall, Ridge

Bowman, Christopher Booms, Karin Fangman, Fig Gungor, Donna Miller, Greg
Wilmoth, and Kimberly Young made key contributions to this report.

(450034)

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

There is widespread recognition that the current federal hiring process
all too often does not meet the needs of agencies in achieving their
missions, managers in filling positions with the right talent, and
applicants for a timely, efficient, transparent, and merit- based process.
Numerous studies over the past decade have noted problems with the federal
hiring process. Nearly all of the federal human resource directors from
the 24 largest federal agencies told us that it takes too long to hire
quality employees. According to data compiled by OPM,

the estimated time to fill a competitive service position was typically
more than 3 months, with some human resources directors citing examples of
hiring delays exceeding 6 months. The competitive hiring process is
hampered by inefficient or ineffective practices, including defining a
vacant job and pay that is bound by narrow federal classification
standards, unclear job announcements, the quality of certain applicant
assessment tools, time- consuming panels to evaluate applicants, and the
*rule of three* that limits selecting managers choice of candidates.
Equally important, agencies need to develop their hiring systems

using a strategic and results- oriented approach. GAO studied five
agencies that human capital experts identified as having taken steps to
improve parts of the hiring process* the U. S. Geological Survey, the
Department of the Army, the U. S. Census Bureau, and the Department of
Agriculture*s Agricultural Research Service and Forest Service. Some of
these practices might help agencies across government improve their hiring
processes. OPM recognizes that the federal hiring process needs reform and
has a major initiative to study the federal hiring process. OPM*s efforts
will be most effective to the extent to which they help transform agency
hiring practices from process focused to mission- focused hiring tools
that are more closely integrated into agencies strategic plans.

Total Federal New Hires, 1990* 2002 0 30,000

60,000 90,000

120,000 150,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Source: OPM Central Personnel Data File.

New hires

Improving the federal hiring process is critical, as the number of new
hires is expected to increase

substantially. Federal agencies are responsible for their hiring
processes, but must generally comply with applicable Office of Personnel
Management (OPM)

rules and regulations. Congressional requesters asked GAO to identify
federal hiring obstacles, provide examples of innovative hiring practices,
and identify opportunities for improvement. To address these

issues, GAO interviewed the human resources directors in 24 largest
departments and agencies, analyzed the hiring practices of five federal
executive branch agencies,

and reviewed OPM*s role in the hiring process. As a part of its ongoing
efforts to improve federal human capital

management, OPM needs to reform the classification process, assist
agencies in automating their hiring processes, develop and help agencies
develop improved hiring

assessment tools; and review the effectiveness of selected hiring
authorities.

OPM and the agencies we studied provided comments on a draft of this
report. OPM generally agreed with the conclusions and

recommendations. The report was revised to reflect the agency comments.

HUMAN CAPITAL

Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies* Hiring Processes www. gao.
gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 450. To view the full report, including
the scope

and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact J.
Christopher Mihm at (202) 512- 6806 or mihmj@ gao. gov. Highlights of GAO-
03- 450, a report to

congressional requesters.

May 2003

Page i GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Contents

Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 1 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process United States General
Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

Page 1 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

A

Page 2 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 3 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 4 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 5 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 6 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 7 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 8 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 9 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 10 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 11 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 12 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 13 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 14 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 15 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 16 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 17 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 18 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 19 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 20 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 21 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 22 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 23 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 24 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 25 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 26 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 27 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 28 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 29 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 30 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 31 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 32 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix I

Appendix I Federal Hiring Using the Competitive Service or the Excepted
Service

Page 33 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 34 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix II

Page 35 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix III

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 36 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 37 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 38 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix IV

Appendix IV Comments from the Office of Personnel Management

Page 39 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix IV Comments from the Office of Personnel Management

Page 40 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix IV Comments from the Office of Personnel Management

Page 41 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix IV Comments from the Office of Personnel Management

Page 42 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix IV Comments from the Office of Personnel Management

Page 43 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 44 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix V

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 45 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 46 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 47 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 48 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 49 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 50 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Page 51 GAO- 03- 450 The Federal Hiring Process

Appendix VI

GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good
government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity,
and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this

list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select *Subscribe to
GAO Mailing Lists* under *Order GAO Products* heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax:
(202) 512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202)
512- 4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid

GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***