Human Capital: Additional Collaboration Between OPM and Agencies 
Is Key to Improved Federal Hiring (07-JUN-04, GAO-04-797).	 
                                                                 
Improving the federal hiring process is critical given the	 
increasing number of new hires expected in the next few years.	 
Congress asked GAO to report on the (1) status of recent efforts 
to help improve the federal hiring process and (2) extent to	 
which federal agencies are using two new hiring 		 
flexibilities--category rating and direct-hire authority.	 
Category rating permits an agency to select any job candidate	 
placed in a best-qualified category. Direct-hire authority allows
an agency to appoint individuals to positions without adherence  
to certain competitive examination requirements when there is a  
severe shortage of qualified candidates or a critical hiring	 
need.								 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-797 					        
    ACCNO:   A10372						        
  TITLE:     Human Capital: Additional Collaboration Between OPM and  
Agencies Is Key to Improved Federal Hiring			 
     DATE:   06/07/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Federal employees					 
	     Government information dissemination		 
	     Government job appointments			 
	     Hiring policies					 
	     Human resources utilization			 
	     Job classification 				 
	     Labor force					 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Personnel recruiting				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Web sites						 
	     Personnel qualifications				 

******************************************************************
** 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-04-797

United States General Accounting Office

GAO	Report to the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization,

            Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives

June 2004

HUMAN CAPITAL

  Additional Collaboration Between OPM and Agencies Is Key to Improved Federal
                                     Hiring

                                       a

GAO-04-797

Highlights of GAO-04-797, a report to the Subcommittee on Civil Service
and Agency Organization, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives

Improving the federal hiring process is critical given the increasing
number of new hires expected in the next few years. The subcommittee asked
GAO to report on the (1) status of recent efforts to help improve the
federal hiring process and (2) extent to which federal agencies are using
two new hiring flexibilities- category rating and direct-hire authority.
Category rating permits an agency to select any job candidate placed in a
best-qualified category. Direct-hire authority allows an agency to appoint
individuals to positions without adherence to certain competitive
examination requirements when there is a severe shortage of qualified
candidates or a critical hiring need.

Last year, GAO made specific recommendations that OPM work with and
through the CHCO Council to help agencies better use human capital
flexibilities. This includes efforts to improve hiring processes. GAO is
thus not making additional recommendations at this time.

In comments on a draft of this report, OPM said that agencies must make
fixing the hiring process a priority. OPM also expressed concerns about
our survey of CHCOs. We disagreed with OPM's contention that such
officials are not knowledgeable enough to respond to our survey. Where
appropriate, the report was revised to reflect OPM's comments.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-797.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202)
512-6806 or [email protected].

June 2004

HUMAN CAPITAL

Additional Collaboration Between OPM and Agencies Is Key to Improved Federal
Hiring

Congress, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and agencies have
recognized that federal hiring has needed reform, and they have undertaken
various efforts to do so. In particular, Congress has provided agencies
with additional hiring flexibilities, OPM has taken significant steps to
modernize job vacancy announcements and develop the government's
recruiting Web site, and most agencies are continuing to automate parts of
their hiring processes. Still, problems remain with a job classification
process that many view as antiquated, and there is a need for improved
tools to assess the qualifications of job candidates.

On the basis of our survey of members of the interagency Chief Human
Capital Officers (CHCO) Council, agencies appear to be making limited use
of two new hiring flexibilities that could help agencies in expediting and
controlling their hiring processes (see figure below). Frequently cited
barriers to using the new hiring flexibilities included (1) the lack of
OPM guidance for using the flexibilities, (2) the lack of agency policies
and procedures for using the flexibilities, (3) the lack of flexibility in
OPM rules and regulations, and (4) concern about possible inconsistencies
in the implementation of the flexibilities within the department or
agency.

Extent of Use of New Hiring Flexibilities Number of agencies

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 Little or Some Moderate Great Very great No basis/ no extent extent
extent extent extent not applicable

Category rating

Direct hire

Source: CHCO Council members' responses to GAO questionnaire. The federal
government is now facing one of the most transformational changes to the
civil service in half a century. Today's challenge is to define the
appropriate roles and day-to-day working relationships for OPM and
individual agencies as they collaborate on developing innovative and more
effective hiring systems.

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Previous Work by GAO and Others Has Identified Key Problem

Areas in the Competitive Hiring Process OPM and Agencies Are Taking Steps
to Improve the Hiring Process Agencies Appear to Be Making Limited Use of
New Hiring

Flexibilities Conclusions Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

1 2 6

12

14

30 42 42

Appendixes

Appendix I: Appendix II:

Appendix III: Appendix IV: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members of the Chief Human Capital
Officers Council

Comments from the Office of Personnel Management

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact Acknowledgments 45

49

61

63 63 63

Tables   Table 1: New Federal Hires by Department or Agency for Fiscal 
                                     Year 2003                             11 
              Table 2: Governmentwide and Agency-Specific Direct-Hire     
                         Authorities Issued by OPM (June 2003 to Present)  38 

Figures	Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3:

Figure 4: Figure 5:

Typical Steps for Filling Competitive Selection
Vacancies 8
CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Extent to
Which Their Agencies Are Using Category Rating 34
CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Most
Significant Barriers Preventing or Hindering Their
Agencies' Use of Category Rating 35
CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Extent to
Which Their Agencies Are Using Direct Hire 40
CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Most
Significant Barriers Preventing or Hindering Their
Agencies' Use of Direct Hire 41

Contents

Abbreviations

ACWA Administrative Careers with America
ARS Agricultural Research Service
CHCO Chief Human Capital Officer
CPDF Central Personnel Data File
DOD Department of Defense
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FS Forest Service
GS General Schedule
IT information technology
MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board
NAPA National Academy of Public Administration
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPM Office of Personnel Management
PACE Professional and Administrative Careers Examination

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. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548

June 7, 2004

The Honorable Jo Ann Davis

Chairwoman

The Honorable Danny K. Davis

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization Committee on
Government Reform House of Representatives

High-performance organizations need dynamic, results-oriented workforces
with the requisite knowledge and up-to-date skills to accomplish their
missions and achieve their goals. To acquire such workforces, federal
agencies must have effective hiring processes so that they can compete for
talented people in a highly competitive job market. Improving the federal
hiring process is critical given the increasing number of new hires
expected in the next few years. In fiscal year 2003, the executive branch
hired nearly 95,000 new employees. Yet, there is widespread recognition
that the federal hiring process all too often does not meet the needs of
agencies in achieving their missions, managers in filling positions with
the right talent, and applicants for a timely, efficient, transparent, and
merit-based process.

In May 2003, we issued a report on several key problems in the federal
hiring process.1 To help address these problems, we recommended that the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) take additional actions to assist
agencies in strengthening the federal hiring process. We also reported
that agencies must take responsibility for maximizing the efficiency and
effectiveness of their hiring processes within the current statutory and
regulatory framework. You asked us to follow up on this report and provide
information on (1) the status of recent efforts to help improve the
federal hiring process and (2) the extent to which federal agencies are

1 U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Opportunities to Improve
Executive Agencies' Hiring Processes, GAO-03-450 (Washington, D.C.: May
30, 2003).

using new hiring flexibilities contained in the Homeland Security Act of
2002-category rating and direct-hire authority.2

To respond to these follow-up issues, we interviewed officials from OPM
and the interagency Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council. We also
administered a questionnaire to the 23 agency members serving on the CHCO
Council, and all but one responded.3 In addition, we collected and
reviewed OPM documents related to the federal hiring process, and we
reviewed data from OPM's central database of governmentwide personnel
information. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. (See app. I for additional information on
our objectives, scope, and methodology and app. II for the complete
results of our CHCO Council survey.)

Results in Brief	Congress, OPM, and agencies recognize that federal hiring
has needed reform, and they have undertaken various efforts to do so. In
particular, Congress has provided agencies with additional hiring
flexibilities, OPM has taken significant steps to modernize job vacancy
announcements and develop the government's recruiting Web site, and most
agencies are continuing to automate parts of their hiring processes.
Still, problems remain with the job classification process regarded by
many as antiquated, and there is a need for improved tools to assess the
qualifications of job candidates. In addition, despite agency officials'
past calls for hiring reform, agencies appear to be making limited use of
hiring flexibilities enacted by Congress and implemented by OPM almost a
year ago that could help agencies in expediting and controlling the hiring
process.

OPM and agencies are continuing to address the problems with the key parts
of the federal hiring process we identified in our May 2003 report.
Significant issues and actions being taken include the following.

2 Category rating permits an agency manager to select any job candidate
placed in a bestqualified category rather than being limited to three
candidates under the "rule of three." Direct-hire authority allows an
agency to appoint individuals to positions without adherence to certain
competitive examination requirements when there is a severe shortage of
qualified candidates or a critical hiring need. These two hiring
flexibilities are contained in the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of
2002, Title XIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296,
Nov. 25, 2002.

3 The CHCO Council member from the Central Intelligence Agency did not
respond to the survey because his representative said the agency was an
excepted service agency and thus the survey questions were not relevant.

o 	Reforming the classification system. In our May 2003 report on hiring,
we reported that many regard the standards and process for defining a job
and determining pay in the federal government as a key hiring problem
because they are inflexible, outdated, and not applicable to the jobs of
today. OPM has revised the classification standards of several job series
to make them clearer and more relevant to current job duties and
responsibilities. In addition, as part of the effort to create a new
personnel system for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), OPM is
working with DHS to create broad pay bands for the department in place of
the 15-grade job classification system that is required for much of the
rest of the federal civil service. OPM told us that its ability to more
effectively reform the classification process is limited under current law
and that legislation is needed to modify the current restrictive
classification process for the majority of federal agencies. Fifteen of
the 22 CHCO Council members responding to our survey reported that either
OPM (10 respondents) or Congress (5 respondents) should take the lead on
reforming the classification process, rather than the agencies themselves.

o 	Improving job announcements and Web postings. In our May 2003 report,
we noted that the lack of clear and appealing content in federal job
announcements could hamper or delay the hiring process. OPM has continued
to move forward on its interagency project to modernize federal job
vacancy announcements, including providing guidance to agencies to improve
announcements. In addition, OPM continues to collaborate with agencies in
implementing Recruitment One-Stop, an electronic government initiative
that includes the USAJOBS Web site (www.usajobs.opm.gov) to assist
applicants in finding employment with the federal government. All 22 of
the CHCO Council members responding to our survey reported that their
agencies had made efforts to improve their job announcements and Web
postings. In narrative responses to our survey, a CHCO Council member
representing a major department said, for example, that the USAJOBS Web
site is an excellent source for posting vacancies and attracting
candidates. Another said that the Recruitment One-Stop initiative was very
timely in developing a single automated application for job candidates.

o 	Automating hiring processes. In our May 2003 report, we conveyed that
manual processes for rating and ranking job candidates are time consuming
and delay the federal hiring process. OPM provides to agencies on a
contract or fee-for-services basis an automated hiring system, USA
Staffing, which is a Web-enabled software program that

automates the steps of the hiring process. According to OPM, over 40
federal organizations have contracted with OPM to use USA Staffing. Other
federal agencies have relied on private vendors to automate their hiring
processes. Twenty-one of the 22 CHCO Council members responding to our
survey reported that their agencies had made efforts to automate
significant parts of their hiring processes.

o 	Improving candidate assessment tools. We concluded in our May 2003
report that key candidate assessment tools used in the federal hiring
process can be ineffective. We especially noted some of the challenges of
assessment tools and special hiring programs used for occupations covered
by the Luevano consent decree.4 Although OPM officials said that they
monitor the use of assessment tools related to positions covered under the
Luevano consent decree, they have not reevaluated these assessments tools.
OPM officials told us, however, that they have provided assessment tools
or helped develop new assessment tools related to various occupations for
several agencies on a fee-for-service basis. Although OPM officials
acknowledged that assessment tools in general need to be reviewed, they
also noted that it is each agency's responsibility to determine what tools
it needs to assess job candidates. The OPM officials also said that if
agencies do not want to develop their own assessment tools, then they
could request that OPM help develop such tools under the reimbursable
service program that OPM operates. Twenty-one of the 22 CHCO Council
members responding to our survey reported that their agencies had made
efforts to improve their hiring assessment tools.

Agencies appear to be making limited use of two new personnel
flexibilities created by Congress in November 2002 and implemented by OPM
in June 2003-category rating and direct-hire authority. Data on the actual
use of these new flexibilities are not readily available, but most CHCOs
responding to our survey indicated that their agencies are making little
or no use of either flexibility-a view confirmed by OPM officials based on

4 The Luevano consent decree is a 1981 agreement that settled a lawsuit
alleging that a written test, Professional and Administrative Careers
Examination (PACE), had an adverse impact on African Americans and
Hispanics. See Luevano v. Campbell, 93 F.R.D. 68 (D.D.C. 1981). The
consent decree called for the elimination of PACE and required replacing
it with alternative examinations. In response to the consent decree, OPM
developed the Administrative Careers with America (ACWA) examination. The
consent decree also established two special hiring programs, Outstanding
Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural, for limited use in filling former PACE
positions.

their contacts with agencies. The limited use of category rating is
somewhat unexpected given the views of human resources directors we
interviewed 2 years ago. As noted in our May 2003 report, many agency
human resources directors indicated that the antiquated method of ranking
and referring candidates was one of the key obstacles in the hiring
process. Category rating was authorized to address those concerns. In our
survey of CHCO Council members, 21 of the 22 respondents cited at least
one barrier that they said prevented or hindered their agencies from using
or making greater use of the new hiring flexibilities. Although no one
specific barrier was cited by a majority of survey respondents for either
of the two new hiring flexibilities, frequently cited barriers included
(1) the lack of OPM guidance for using the flexibilities, (2) the lack of
agency policies and procedures for using the flexibilities, (3) the lack
of flexibility in OPM rules and regulations, and (4) concern about
possible inconsistencies in the implementation of the flexibilities within
the department or agency.

In a separate report we issued in May 2003 on the use of human capital
flexibilities, we recommended that OPM work with and through the new CHCO
Council to more thoroughly research, compile, and analyze information on
the effective and innovative use of human capital flexibilities and more
fully serve as a clearinghouse in sharing and distributing information.5
We noted that sharing information about when, where, and how the broad
range of flexibilities is being used, and should be used, could help
agencies meet their human capital management challenges. As we recently
testified, OPM and agencies need to continue to work together to improve
the hiring process, and the CHCO Council should be a key vehicle for this
needed collaboration.6 To accomplish this effort, agencies need to provide
OPM with timely and comprehensive information about their experiences in
using various approaches and flexibilities to improve their hiring
processes. OPM-working through the CHCO Council-can, in turn, help
accomplish this effort by serving as a facilitator in the collection and
exchange of information about agencies' effective practices and successful
approaches to improved hiring.

5 U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: OPM Can Better Assist
Agencies in Using Personnel Flexibilities, GAO-03-428 (Washington, D.C.:
May 9, 2003).

6 U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Observations on Agencies'
Implementation of the Chief Human Capital Officers Act, GAO-04-800T
(Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2004).

The federal government is now facing one of the most transformational
changes to the civil service in half a century, which is reflected in the
new personnel systems for DHS and the Department of Defense (DOD) and in
new hiring flexibilities provided to all agencies. Today's challenge is to
define the appropriate roles and day-to-day working relationships for OPM
and individual agencies as they collaborate on developing innovative and
more effective hiring systems. Moreover, human capital expertise within
the agencies must be up to the challenge for this transformation to be
successful and enduring.

The Director of OPM provided written comments on a draft of this report,
which are reprinted in appendix III. In her written comments, the OPM
Director said that OPM has done much to assist agencies to improve hiring
and increase agency officials' knowledge about hiring flexibilities
available to them, and she highlighted various examples of OPM's efforts
in this regard. She also stressed that agencies must rise to the
challenge, provide consistent leadership at the senior level, take
advantage of the training opportunities offered by OPM, and make fixing
the hiring process a priority. The OPM Director also commented that the
report "appears to rely upon perceptions that are not consistent with the
facts." In technical comments, OPM explained that this concern related to
the reporting of various narrative responses from our survey of CHCO
Council members. We disagreed with OPM's contention that such officials
are not knowledgeable enough to comment on the issues we raised in our
questionnaire. Additional information on OPM's comments and our evaluation
of those comments is presented at the end of this report. Where
appropriate, we made changes to the report to address the comments we
received.

Background	Federal civil service employees, other than those in the Senior
Executive Service, are employed in either the competitive service or the
excepted service.7 The competitive service examination process is one of
the processes intended to ensure that agencies' hiring activities comply
with merit principles. In January 1996, OPM delegated examining authority
to

7 Positions may be excepted from the competitive service by statute, by
the President, or by 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). Examples of excepted service positions include
chaplains, attorneys, and political appointees. 5 C.F.R. Part 213, Subpart
C.

federal agencies for virtually all positions in the competitive service.
Under delegated examining authority, agencies conduct competitive
examinations that comply with merit system principles, other
personnel-related laws, and regulations as set forth in OPM's Delegated
Examining Operations Handbook. OPM is responsible for ensuring that the
personnel management functions it delegates to agencies are conducted in
accordance with merit principles and the standards it has established for
conducting those functions.

The federal hiring process involves notifying the public that the
government will accept applications for a job, screening applications
against minimum qualification standards, and assessing applicants'
relative competencies or knowledge, skills, and abilities against
job-related criteria to identify the most qualified applicants. Federal
agencies typically examine or assess candidates by rating and ranking them
based on of their experience, training, and education, rather than by
testing them. Figure 1 shows the typical steps for filling vacancies
through the competitive examining process.

      Figure 1: Typical Steps for Filling Competitive Selection Vacancies

                                  Source: GAO.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 contained new hiring flexibilities that
could help agencies in expediting and controlling their hiring processes-
category rating and direct-hire authority. Category rating is an
alternative rating and selection procedure that can expand the pool of
qualified job candidates from which agency managers may select. Under this
procedure, an agency manager can select any job candidate placed in a
best-qualified category rather than being limited to three candidates
under the "rule of three." Direct-hire authority allows an agency to
appoint individuals to positions without adherence to certain competitive
examination requirements when OPM determines that there is a severe
shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need. Specifically, when
making appointments under the newly authorized direct-hire authority,
agencies still are required to provide public notice of the job vacancies
and screen all applicants to ensure that they meet the basic qualification
requirements of the position; however, agencies are not required to
numerically rate and rank candidates nor apply the rule of three or
veterans' preference.

The act also established a CHCO position in 24 federal agencies to advise
and assist the head of each agency and other agency officials in their
strategic human capital management efforts.8 Additionally, the act created
a CHCO Council to advise and coordinate these activities among the
agencies. In accordance with the act, members of the CHCO Council include
the Director of OPM, the Deputy Director for Management at the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), the CHCOs from executive departments, and
additional agency members designated by the OPM Director. The functions of
the CHCO Council are to offer advice and coordinate agencies' activities
concerning modernization of human resources systems, improving the quality
of human resources information, and giving concerted attention to
legislation affecting human resources operations. The CHCO Council
currently has five subcommittees that help carry out its work, including a
subcommittee on the hiring process.9 The purpose of the hiring
subcommittee is to identify actions it or the CHCO Council could take to
improve recruiting and hiring in the federal government.

8 The CHCO provisions, along with the hiring flexibilities, are contained
in the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002, Title XIII of the
Homeland Security Act.

9 The CHCO Council has subcommittees on (1) the hiring process, (2)
performance management, (3) leadership development and succession, (4)
employee conduct and poor performers, and (5) emergency preparedness.

Since the mid-1990s, the number of new federal hires increased
considerably-increasing from about 50,000 employees in 1996 to over
143,000 employees in 2002. Federal hiring in the mid-1990s declined
because many agencies were downsizing and did not need to fill positions.
Increasingly, agencies began hiring new employees, particularly because of
a slowdown in downsizing and growing numbers of employees retiring. In
fiscal year 2003, the largest federal hirer was DOD, which brought on
board more than one-third of all hires. The number of federal hires
decreased in 2003 over 2002, which was primarily because of the hiring of
nearly 35,000 airport screeners in 2002 into the newly created
Transportation Security Administration. Table 1 shows the number of new
federal hires by department or agency for fiscal year 2003.

Table 1: New Federal Hires by Department or Agency for Fiscal Year 2003

                                                 Competitive  Excepted 
                            Department or agency      service service   Total 
                           Department of Defense       22,764  12,525  35,289 
                  Department of Veterans Affairs        8,910  5,902   14,812 
                      Department of the Treasury        8,038      527  8,565 
                 Department of Homeland Security        4,220  1,636    5,856 
                           Department of Justice        4,739  1,010    5,749 
                       Department of Agriculture        3,505      847  4,352 
                  Social Security Administration        1,897  2,411    4,308 
                    Department of Transportation          499  2,284    2,783 
                          Department of Interior        1,818      688  2,506 
         Department of Health and Human Services        1,761      722  2,483 
                          Department of Commerce        1,255      226  1,481 
                                      All others        4,166  2,640    6,806 
                                           Total       63,572  31,418  94,990 

                    Source: OPM Central Personnel Data File.

Previous Work by GAO and Others Has Identified Key Problem Areas in the
Competitive Hiring Process

Within government and the private sector, it has been widely recognized
that the federal hiring process is lengthy and cumbersome and hampers
agencies' ability to hire the high-quality people they need to achieve
their agency goals and missions. Numerous studies and research over the
past decade by OPM, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), the Partnership for
Public Service, the National Commission on the Public Service, and GAO
have noted concerns and problems with the federal hiring process, as the
following examples illustrate.

o 	In October 2001, the Partnership for Public Service released the
results of a poll it had commissioned that found "many people view the
process of seeking federal employment as a daunting one. Three-quarters of
non-federal workers say making the application process quicker and simpler
would be an effective way of attracting talented workers to government."10

o 	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."11

o 	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."12

10 Hart-Teeter Research, The Unanswered Call to Pubic Service: Americans'
Attitudes Before and After September 11th (Washington, D.C.: October
2001).

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

12 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Making the Public Service Work:
Recommendations for Change (Washington, D.C.: September 2002).

o 	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."13

o 	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."14

Our May 2003 report on federal hiring summarized these concerns and added
further evidence to confirm many of the problems and issues that have been
identified over the past decade. As many of these and other studies have
noted, and as many human resources directors pointed out in our prior
interviews, nearly all parts of the competitive hiring process hamper
effective and efficient federal hiring. Key problem areas identified in
our May 2003 report included the following.

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

o 	Unclear, unfriendly job announcements cause confusion, delay hiring,
and serve as poor recruiting tools.

o 	A key assessment tool and hiring programs used for several entry-level
positions are ineffective.

o 	Convening panels and the manual rating and ranking of applicants to
determine best-qualified applicants is time-consuming.

o 	Numerical rating and ranking and the "rule of three" limit the choice
of applicants and are viewed as ineffective.

As noted previously, our prior work surveying human resources directors,
along with the work of others, indicated that the time-to-hire is too long
for most federal hires. Comprehensive department or governmentwide data on
time-to-hire are often not available; however, in fiscal year 2002, OPM

13 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Strategic Plan 2002-2007
(Washington, D.C.: November 2002).

14 National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business for America:
Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century (Washington,
D.C.: January 2003).

compiled and analyzed data on time-to-hire and found that it typically
took on average about 102 days for agencies to fill a vacancy using the
competitive process. At that time, OPM measured time-to-hire from the
period between when the request to hire or fill a position was received in
the human resources office to the appointment of an applicant to the
position. Additional time might be needed for a manager to obtain approval
for the requested hiring action at the beginning of the process or for the
new employee to receive a security clearance at the end of the process.
OPM officials told us that better data are not available on time-tohire
and that they are surveying federal agencies to assess how to gather
systematic data on time-to-hire.

OPM and Agencies Are Taking Steps to Improve the Hiring Process

OPM and agencies are continuing to focus on the problems with the federal
hiring process we identified in our May 2003 report. OPM has taken actions
to address federal hiring across the board and for specific parts of the
hiring process. For example, in February of this year, the Director of OPM
issued a memorandum to the CHCOs of federal agencies offering 10 ways that
agencies can immediately improve their hiring processes using authorities
they already possess. Steps outlined in this memo include fully engaging
the agency's human resources staff and offering recruiting incentives such
as recruitment bonuses, relocation expenses, and student loan repayments.
In addition, to encourage agencies to improve their hiring processes, OPM
is urging agencies to implement a new 45-day hiring model, which measures
the time-to-hire period from the date the vacancy announcement closes to
the date a job offer is extended. OPM officials said they would work
closely with agencies to deploy all appropriate flexibilities to meet this
goal. According to OPM, agencies will be scored under the Human Capital
Initiative of the President's Management Agenda on their progress toward
reducing time-to-hire. In addition, OPM is administering a survey of CHCOs
on agency hiring practices to identify opportunities to use the
flexibilities strategically, eliminate remaining outmoded practices, and
generally expedite the hiring process.

OPM and agencies have also taken actions to address various key parts of
the federal hiring process. These parts, which are discussed in this
section, include reforming the classification system, improving job
announcements and Web postings, automating hiring processes, and improving
candidate assessment tools. Our May 2003 report on federal hiring outlined
recommendations to OPM dealing with these key parts of the hiring process.
While OPM has placed concerted attention on three of these key parts of
the hiring process, focused attention and action by OPM to

improve assessment tools, as we recommended in our May 2003 report, could
further help agencies in identifying the best candidates for federal jobs.

Reforming the Classification System Could Better Facilitate Filling
Positions with the Right Employees

We previously reported the conclusion of many that the standards and
process for defining a job and determining pay in the federal government
are a key hiring problem because they are inflexible, outdated, and not
applicable to the jobs of today. The classification system is intended to
categorize jobs or positions according to the kind of work done, the level
of difficulty and responsibility, and the qualifications required for the
position, and is to serve as a building block to determine the pay for the
position. Generally, defining a job and setting pay in the federal
government must be based on standards in the Classification Act of 1949,
which sets out 15 grade levels of the General Schedule (GS) expressed in
terms of the difficulty and level of responsibility for each specific
position.15 The federal classification process and standard job
classifications were generally developed decades ago when typical jobs
were more narrowly defined and often clerical or administrative in nature.
However, jobs in today's knowledge-based organizations often require a
much broader array of tasks that may cross over the narrow and rigid
boundaries of job classification standards and make it difficult to fit
the job appropriately into one of the over 400 federal occupations.
According to a recent OPM study, a key problem with federal job
classification is that, under present rules, characteristics such as
workload, quality of work, and results are not classification factors that
can affect the overall level of basic pay for a position.16 Given this
limitation, the resulting job classifications and related pay might hamper
efforts to fill the positions with the right employees.

Our May 2003 report noted some actions that OPM and agencies had taken to
address the federal job classification process. For example, we reported
that some agencies had automated their complicated classification
processes to reduce the time it takes to carry out this task. The
Department of the Army, for instance, created a centralized database that

15 The GS is the federal government's main pay system for "white-collar"
positions. Each of the 15 grades of the GS are divided into 10 specific
pay levels called "steps."

16 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, A Fresh Start for Federal Pay: The
Case for Modernization (Washington, D.C.: April 2002).

gives human resources managers at Army access to active position
descriptions and position-related information to help in classifying jobs.
In addition, we noted that OPM had revised the classification standards
for several job series, including health care professions and law
enforcement, to make them clearer and more relevant to current job duties
and responsibilities. At that time, OPM pointed out that the
classification standards and process needed to be reformed and that
changes to the Classification Act of 1949 were needed to make fundamental
changes to how jobs are defined and pay is set. Our report noted, however,
that OPM recognized the need to maintain the GS system in the absence of
an alternative and well-managed transition to a new system.

In our May 2003 report, we also recommended that OPM study how to improve,
streamline, and reform the classification process. In response to our
questions about the status of OPM's actions on this recommendation, OPM
said that it has recently taken several actions to address the job
classification process. OPM stated that most classification standards are
being issued as "job family" standards, which OPM said allows it to study
related occupations together to identify both commonalities and
differences. OPM also said that it is working closely with agencies to
ensure that classification standards reflect the current nature of federal
work. OPM noted, for example, that it is working with a number of agencies
to develop a new job family standard for administrative work in the
occupational series covering investigative work. In addition, OPM said
that it is exploring an integrated approach to classification and
qualification standards. By integrating these two functions into a single
occupational standard, OPM hopes to make more clear the link between the
work conducted in an occupation, the competencies required to perform that
work, and the requirements that individuals must demonstrate to be placed
into these positions. OPM believes an integrated approach for
classification and qualifications standards will improve the quality of
the federal workforce through competency-based qualifications that
identify the full range needed for successful job performance. This new
approach thus could better enable federal agencies to hire the right
person at the right time.

OPM also recently collaborated with DHS to help reform its personnel
system. The Homeland Security Act, which created DHS, provided it with
significant flexibility to design a modern human capital system.
Specifically, DHS may deviate from the classification and most pay rate
requirements contained in Title 5 of the U.S. Code.17 Under proposed
regulations, DHS would create broad pay bands for much of the department
in place of the 15-grade GS system now in place for much of the civil
service. Several OPM-sponsored demonstration projects over the past 20
years have demonstrated the efficacy of pay banding systems that were
similar to the system being proposed by DHS.18 Last September, we reported
that DHS's process for designing its new human capital system involved
significant collaboration with OPM and generally reflected the important
elements of a successful transformation, including effective communication
and employee involvement.19 A new OPM initiative is to collaborate with
DOD as that department also develops and implements its new personnel
system-the National Security Personnel System.20 In testimony earlier this
year, we stressed that DOD could benefit from employing a collaborative
and inclusive process similar to that used by DHS.21

17 Public Law 107-296, Nov. 25, 2002. Title 5 is the title of the U.S.
Code that stipulates civilian personnel law for much of the federal civil
service.

18 See our recent report describing several personnel demonstration
projects: U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Implementing Pay
for Performance at Selected Personnel Demonstration Projects, GAO-04-83
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2004).

19 U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: DHS Personnel System
Design Effort Provides for Collaboration and Employee Participation,
GAO-03-1099 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2003). Also, we reported on key
practices and steps that can help agencies implement successful
transformations in modernizing their human capital policies in the
following reports: Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to
Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington,
D.C.: July 2, 2003); and Highlights of a GAO Forum: Mergers and
Transformations: Lessons Learned for a Department of Homeland Security and
Other Federal Agencies, GAO-03-293SP (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2002).

20 The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 authorized
DOD to establish a new civilian personnel system that is flexible,
contemporary, and consistent with merit system principles. Public Law
108-136, Nov. 24, 2003.

21 U.S. General Accounting Office, Department of Defense: Further Actions
Needed to Establish and Implement a Framework for Successful Financial and
Business Management Transformation, GAO-04-551T (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
23, 2004).

Additionally, in April 2004, OPM released a draft publication entitled
OPM's Guiding Principles for Civil Service Transformation, which, as its
title suggests, proposes a set of principles for reshaping the civil
service system.22 In this draft document, OPM states that the
modernization of the federal job classification process should begin with
governmentwide legislation that mirrors the flexibilities provided to DHS
and DOD. OPM also indicates that reform in the areas of pay and
performance management systems should be a top priority, and that if
agencies governmentwide do not receive reforms similar to those that DHS
and DOD have received in this area, agencies risk being at a competitive
disadvantage in recruiting a talented workforce. Furthermore, OPM's draft
document suggests that there is no need for further testing of
pay-for-performance approaches in the federal government and that it is
now time to extend the DHS and DOD pay-for-performance frameworks to other
agencies that are ready to modernize their human resources systems.

Views of the CHCO Council In our April 2004 survey of the members of the
CHCO Council, 13 of the 22

Members	respondents said that they were aware of efforts that OPM has made
to reform the federal classification process (see app. II for further
information). In narrative responses to our survey questions relating to
job classification, one CHCO Council member representing a large
department, for example, recognized OPM's work to develop job family
standards. Conversely, a Council member representing an independent agency
said he was not aware of any significant OPM-led reforms related to
classification. For those respondents who said they were aware of any OPM
efforts to reform the classification process, we also asked about the
extent to which OPM's efforts had helped their agencies and about their
level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with such OPM efforts and related
proposals. In narrative responses to our survey questions, a CHCO Council
member representing a large department said, for example, that OPM had
relinquished any responsibility for reforming the process and that it has
been up to Congress to legislate reforms for specific agencies. Another
respondent said that OPM is making modest progress to change the
classification process within the purview of its authority but that
changes to existing law are necessary for real reform to occur.

We also asked the CHCO Council members for their views about who should
currently take the lead in furthering reform of the classification

22 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Draft: OPM's Guiding Principles
for Civil Service Transformation (Washington, D.C.: April 2004).

process in the federal government. Fifteen of the 22 CHCO Council members
responding to our survey reported that either OPM (10 respondents) or
Congress (5 respondents) should take the lead on reforming the
classification process, rather than the agencies themselves. In narrative
responses to our survey questions, one Council member representing a major
department said, for example, that CHCOs should be closely involved in
this effort and that OPM's efforts could be improved with the input and
shared responsibility of the agencies. Another respondent encouraged
Congress to pass legislation granting other agencies still under Title 5
rules a comparable degree of flexibility to that provided to DHS, DOD, and
other agencies given authority for personnel reform. Another Council
member representing a department suggested that any reform effort on the
part of OPM or others should focus on linking true classification reform
and pay for performance. Another respondent said that an independent group
or task force should take the lead in furthering reform of the
classification process.

Status of Our Prior OPM has implemented the recommendation that we made in
last year's

Recommendation to OPM	report for OPM to study how to improve, streamline,
and reform the classification process. The draft Guiding Principles for
Civil Service Transformation document released by OPM in April lays out
some significant proposals for changes to the civil service system, which
encompasses issues related to job classification. OPM told us that when
drawing conclusions about OPM's efforts to reform the job classification
process, it is important to recognize OPM's limited latitude under current
statute. OPM pointed out that it does not have the option of accommodating
the persistent broadening of work levels that has occurred in
organizations throughout the post-industrial workplace by establishing
standards that reflect fewer, broader levels of work. OPM has noted that
its ability to more effectively reform the classification process is
limited under current law and that legislation is needed to modify the
current restrictive classification process for the majority of federal
agencies. OPM officials said that they must maintain the 15-grade GS
system and make it possible for agencies to classify their GS positions
reliably according to law in as straightforward a manner as possible.

Improved Job Announcements and Web Postings Can Serve as Better Recruiting
Tools

In our May 2003 report, we noted that the lack of clear and appealing
content in federal job announcements can hamper or delay the hiring
process. During the work for that report, our interviews with several
agency human resources directors revealed that federal job announcements
are frequently incomprehensible and make it difficult for applicants to
determine what the jobs require, and therefore do not serve as effective
recruiting tools. We cited reports23 from MSPB that said vacancy
announcements often included poor organization and readability, unclear
job titles and duties, vague or restrictive qualification standards, and
the use of negative language or tone that might deter many qualified
candidates. MSPB also said that some job announcements were lengthy and
difficult to read online, contained jargon and acronyms, and appeared to
be written for people already employed by the government. MSPB further
noted that many of the announcements it reviewed did not include
information on retirement and other benefits, such as vacation time and
medical and health insurance, which might entice people to apply. As we
pointed out in our previous report, making vacancy announcements more
visually appealing, informative, and easy to access and navigate could
make them much more effective as recruiting tools.

Prior to the issuance of our last report on federal hiring, OPM had
initiated some actions to help make job announcements easier to access and
understand. OPM initiated an interagency project to modernize federal job
vacancy announcements, including providing guidance to agencies to improve
announcements. OPM also worked to obtain contractor support to enhance its
USAJOBS Web site with the goals of making it easier and quicker for people
to find federal jobs and enhancing the site's "eyecatching" appeal. This
effort is part of the Recruitment One-Stop initiative, which, as the name
implies, would provide a one-stop Web site for federal job seekers by
implementing a single application point that includes vacancy information,
job application submission, application status tracking, employment
eligibility screening, and applicant database mining.

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

More recently, OPM also has taken additional steps to make job
announcements and Web postings more user friendly and effective. In August
2003, OPM revamped the USAJOBS Web site to feature a quicker job-search
engine, sorting capabilities, and accessibility for disabled users. Other
new features included allowing applicants to create and save application
letters and store up to five resumes online as well as making posted
resumes searchable by agency recruiters. In an effort to centralize and
streamline the process, OPM had also originally proposed to have executive
branch agencies shut down their agency-unique job search engines and
resume builders. This raised concerns by competing private vendors
offering their own recruitment and hiring software to agencies. According
to OPM, in response to these concerns, it informed agencies that they were
free to adopt any online recruiting and hiring system they wish as long as
the system eventually was integrated with the governmentwide online
recruitment system.24

In March, we reported on the progress of various electronic government
initiatives, including the OPM-led Recruitment One-Stop initiative.25 We
noted OPM's goal to increase customer satisfaction with the federal
application process through Recruitment One-Stop. According to OPM, the
customer satisfaction rating26 for the USAJOBS Web site had increased from
a score of 68 on December 15, 2003, to a score 75.5 as of May 14, 2004. We
also reported that a resume-mining tool to identify candidates had been
implemented as part of the Web site but the tool had not been widely used
to date. OPM told us that the addition of the resume-mining tool was one
of many recent changes to the USAJOBS Web site and OPM had not yet fully
trained agencies on the use of this tool. Nevertheless, according to OPM,
since launching the new USAJOBS technology in August 2003, more than

24 Concern over OPM's original proposal also generated a restriction
precluding OPM from using its fiscal year 2004 funds to prohibit any
agency from contracting with companies to provide online employment
applications and processing services. Departments of Transportation and
Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, Pub. L. No.
108-199, div. F, title VI, S: 628, 118 Stat. 349, 356-7 (Jan. 23, 2004).

25 U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Initiatives
Sponsored by the Office of Management and Budget Have Made Mixed Progress,
GAO-04-561T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2004).

26 The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) rates customer service
with a score of 0 to 100. The satisfaction score for the USAJOBS Web site
is determined using a 90-day average based on Web site visitors' responses
to an online survey. OPM officials stated that although they have
increased customer satisfaction for the Web site, their intention is to
significantly surpass the governmentwide average score of 71.

Views of the CHCO Council Members

Status of Our Prior Recommendation to OPM

500,000 new resumes have been created and over 325,000 of the resumes are
searchable. OPM reported that anecdotal information received from agencies
using the resume-mining tool was very encouraging. For example, one agency
reported to OPM that it had identified excellent job candidates using the
resume-mining tool and had recently hired an employee using this feature.

In our April 2004 survey of the members of the CHCO Council, all of the 22
respondents said that their agencies had made efforts to improve their job
announcements and Web postings. Our survey also asked the CHCO Council
members about the extent to which OPM had assisted their agencies in
improving job announcements and Web postings and their level of
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app. II for
further information). In narrative responses to our survey questions on
improving job announcements and Web postings, a CHCO Council member
representing a major department said, for example, that the USAJOBS Web
site is an excellent source for posting vacancies and attracting
candidates. Another respondent said that the Recruitment One-Stop
initiative was very timely in developing a single automated application
for job candidates. Another commented that OPM has encouraged agency
participation in revamping the vacancy announcement text and in usability
testing of the Recruitment One-Stop site. A Council member representing a
major department added that OPM's continued support is needed in providing
guidance and templates to agencies on streamlined, easy-to-understand
language for job postings. Overall, more survey respondents reported some
degree of satisfaction with OPM's assistance in improving job
announcements and Web postings than on any other part of the hiring
process that we surveyed.

OPM has implemented the recommendation that we made in last year's report
for OPM to continue to assist agencies in making job announcements and Web
postings more user friendly and effective. OPM's efforts in this area are
demonstrated by the CHCO Council members' relative level of satisfaction
with OPM's assistance in improving job announcements and Web postings
compared to other parts of the hiring process that we surveyed.
Nonetheless, OPM told us that agencies themselves have the front-line
responsibility for improving the content of their own job announcements.
OPM suggested that agencies assign an individual to review and modify
their job announcements to make their postings understandable and more
interesting to potential job candidates.

Automation Could Help to Streamline Agencies' Hiring Processes

In our May 2003 report, we reported that manual processes for rating and
ranking candidates are time consuming and delay the federal hiring
process. Prior to assessing applicants based on their relative merits,
agencies must conduct a screening process to determine if applicants meet
eligibility requirements (such as U.S. citizenship) and the basic or
minimum education or work experience qualifications that OPM established
for such a position. As we reported, in a manual hiring system, human
resources staff would have to review all the applications and document why
an applicant did or did not meet minimum qualifications. If there is a
large number of applicants, carrying out this process can be time
consuming. We also pointed out that once the applicants' eligibilities are
determined, agencies typically undertake a labor-intensive effort to
establish and convene assessment panels and manually rate and rank the
candidates based on their relative merits. Some of the delay in convening
the assessment panels is due to assembling the appropriate managers and
subject matter experts, coordinating their availability, and factoring in
the exigencies of other demands. Once formed, the panel sorts through all
of the applicants' paperwork, assesses the applicants, and determines a
numerical score for each applicant by rating the education and experience
described by the applicant against the evaluation criteria in the
crediting plan for the position.

The use of automation for agency hiring processes has various potential
benefits, including eliminating the need for volumes of paper records,
allowing fewer individuals to review and process job applications, and
reducing the overall time-to-hire. Automation can facilitate almost every
step of the federal hiring process. For example, an automated hiring
system could electronically determine if an applicant met the basic
qualifications and electronically provide timely notification to the
applicant of the status of his or her application. Automation could also
streamline the process by electronically rating and ranking applicants, or
placing them in quality categories, eliminating the need to form panels to
assess the applicants. In addition, automated systems typically create
records of actions taken so that managers and human capital staff can
easily document their decisions related to hiring. Nonetheless, agencies
need to recognize the importance of careful planning and implementation
when automating their hiring processes. As we have previously reported,

agencies should first validate their requirements and look at
reengineering their administrative processes before developing any
information systems to support their processes.27

In our May 2003 report, we related that OPM had taken some actions to help
agencies automate and streamline their hiring processes. OPM developed an
automated hiring system, called USA Staffing, which federal agencies may
purchase from OPM. USA Staffing is a Web-enabled software program that
automates the steps of the hiring process, including recruitment,
assessment, referral, and applicant notification. Beginning in September
of 2000, OPM invited human resources officials from federal agencies to
OPM-sponsored USA Staffing demonstrations, where human resources officials
could learn about the advantages of using USA Staffing. According to OPM,
over 40 federal organizations have contracted with OPM to use USA
Staffing. Other federal agencies have relied on private vendors to
automate their hiring processes.

Views of the CHCO Council In our April 2004 survey of the members of the
CHCO Council, 21 of 22

Members	respondents said that their agencies had made efforts to automate
significant parts of their hiring processes. For those responding that
they had made such efforts, we also asked about the extent to which OPM
had assisted their agencies in automating their hiring processes and their
level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app. II
for further information). In narrative responses to our survey questions
about automating hiring processes, one Council member representing a
cabinetlevel department concurred with OPM's current approach to support
thirdparty vendors who can provide robust and streamlined rating and
ranking systems that complement and supplement the Recruitment One-Stop.
Another Council member said that current OPM policy or regulations that
impede the automation of the federal hiring process should be streamlined
and simplified for both the applicant and human resources practitioner.
Other comments included the following.

o 	Individual departments and agencies should manage the automation
process themselves, even though not all agencies have comparable
information technology (IT) infrastructures.

27 U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Effective Use of
Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in Managing Their Workforces, GAO-03-2
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2002).

o 	Agencies should decide how to best accomplish automation of their
hiring processes instead of forcing integration into one system.

o 	OPM and the departments and agencies have a shared responsibility for
automation of hiring processes.

Status of Our Prior OPM has implemented the recommendation that we made in
last year's

Recommendation to OPM	report for OPM to assist agencies in automating
their hiring processes. OPM has continued to promote the use of automated
systems, including USA Staffing and customer systems to meet agency needs.
OPM's efforts in this area are demonstrated by its work in providing
services to over 40 federal organizations that have contracted with OPM to
use USA Staffing. OPM officials said that OPM has developed and would soon
implement a new Web-based version of USA Staffing, which would link and
automate the recruitment, examining, referral, notification, and hiring
processes.

Improved Assessment Tools Could Help Agencies in Identifying the Best
Candidates for Jobs

In our May 2003 report, we concluded that key candidate assessment tools
used in the federal hiring process can be ineffective. Agencies can use
various approaches to assess job candidates under the federal merit-based
hiring process. These applicant assessment tools include written and
performance tests, manual and automated techniques to review each
applicant's training and experience, as well as interviewing approaches
and reference checks. Using the right assessment tool, or combination of
tools, can assist the agency in predicting the relative success of each
applicant on the job and selecting the relatively best person for the job.

Our May 2003 report particularly discussed the ineffectiveness of
candidate assessment tools associated with filling occupations covered by
the Luevano consent decree. We noted that the Administrative Careers with
America (ACWA) self-rating examination that is used to competitively fill
most positions covered by the Luevano consent decree was cumbersome,
delayed hiring, and often did not provide quality candidates. This ACWA
rating-schedule examination contains 157 multiple-choice questions that
are designed to distinguish among qualified applicants on the basis of
their self-rated education and life experience. In our May 2003 report, we
noted that many agencies reported that the primary reason they did not use
the ACWA examination was their past experiences with the quality of the
candidates. For positions that are not covered by the Luevano consent
decree, agencies typically examine candidates by rating and ranking them
based on experience, training, and education, instead of administering
tests.

Our May 2003 report also discussed the challenges associated with the
special hiring programs established under the consent decree- Outstanding
Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural. Many agency human resources officials we
interviewed for our May 2003 report said the Outstanding Scholar program
was a quick way to hire high-quality college graduates for positions
covered by the Luevano consent decree without using the complex OPM
examination process. However, OPM and MSPB have commented that this is an
inappropriate use of the authority. Outstanding Scholar allows candidates
who meet the eligibility criteria- baccalaureate grade point average and
class standing-to be directly appointed without competition. According to
MSPB, such criteria are questionable predictors of future performance, and
they deny consideration to many qualified applicants. For similar reasons,
MSPB also has concerns about the Bilingual/Bicultural program, which
permits agencies to directly hire applicants who obtained a passing
examination score, without further regard to rank, when the position needs
to be filled by an incumbent with bilingual or bicultural skills and the
applicant has the requisite job skills. MSPB has recommended abolishing
both the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural programs because
they are not merit based and because other competitive hiring methods have
been more effective in hiring minorities.

In general, both OPM and MSPB are concerned about the validity of
candidate assessment tools for all occupations and advocate that agencies
improve their assessment instruments. OPM told us that because of budget
constraints, it has only been able to develop assessments on a
reimbursable basis when other agencies provide OPM with the needed
resources. OPM also said that many agencies do not have the technical
expertise, funding, or time to develop valid assessment tools. MSPB noted
that the government's interest is not well served if agencies do not have
the resources and expertise to make high-quality case examining
determinations.

Given the problems with these key candidate assessment tools and special
hiring authorities for Luevano-covered positions, we recommended in our
May 2003 report that OPM review the effectiveness of the Outstanding
Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural Luevano consent decree hiring
authorities. As we noted in our report, OPM recognized that it needed to
do more overall to improve candidate assessment tools. In its fiscal year
2003 performance plan, OPM included a strategic objective that, by fiscal
year 2005, governmentwide hiring selections are to be based on
comprehensive assessment tools that assess the full range of competencies
needed to perform the jobs of the future. Since the issuance of our report
last year, OPM told us that, as part of the consent decree, it collects
data annually on how agencies used the Outstanding Scholar hiring
authority; however, OPM has not reevaluated assessment tools related to
Luevano-covered positions. OPM acknowledged that assessment tools in
general need to be reviewed, but commented that it is primarily the
agency's responsibility to address these issues and recommended that
agencies perhaps form consortia to improve their assessment tools. OPM
officials noted that several agencies, such as the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service, created their own
assessment tools for Luevano positions.28 OPM officials also said that if
agencies do not want to develop their own assessment tools, then they
could request that OPM help develop such tools under the reimbursable
service program that OPM operates.

In technical comments to our draft report, OPM stated that the ACWA rating
schedules are valid assessments that have been approved by the Department
of Justice and that meet professional and legal requirements for test
development and validation. OPM added that it has efforts underway to
automate the ACWA system as the second phase of its Recruitment One-Stop
initiative. Nonetheless, many agency human resources officials that we
interviewed for our previous work on federal hiring told us that the ACWA
rating schedule was cumbersome, delayed hiring, and often did not provide
quality candidates. Thus, although the ACWA rating schedule might meet
legal and test-development requirements, it does not appear to effectively
meet the needs of many agency human capital officials in their efforts to
readily identify and quickly hire high-quality job applicants.

28 The Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service
are now part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Views of the CHCO Council Members

Status of Our Prior Recommendations to OPM

In our April 2004 survey of the members of the CHCO Council, 21 of the 22
respondents said that their agencies had made efforts to improve their
hiring assessment tools. For those responding that they had made such
efforts, we also asked about the extent to which OPM had assisted their
agencies in developing improved hiring assessment tools and their level of
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app. II for
further information). In narrative responses to our survey questions on
improving assessment tools, a Council member representing a cabinet-level
department said, for example, that the department has used OPM's
reimbursable service to develop occupation-specific assessment tools with
good success. A respondent representing another department said OPM should
tackle the ACWA assessment tool for hiring into occupations covered by the
Luevano consent decree, because the assessment tool places far too much
emphasis on experience at the expense of education and potential.
According to another Council member, departments and agencies are fully
competent to procure or develop assessment tools, and no additional OPM
policy or regulation is necessary for the improvement of such tools. Other
members made the following comments.

o 	OPM is best positioned to take the lead in improving assessment tools
for jobs that are common across the government.

o 	OPM should take the lead governmentwide for the development of improved
assessment tools, but agencies should take the lead for their own agency
efforts.

o 	Both OPM and the departments and agencies have responsibility for
developing assessment tools.

o 	Although OPM should not mandate specific assessment tools, as the
federal human resources expert, OPM should take a strong role in providing
information, assessments, analyses, and suggestions for agencies in using
automated tools to assess job applicants.

OPM officials told us that they believe OPM has implemented the
recommendation that we made in last year's report for OPM to develop and
help agencies develop improved hiring assessment tools. OPM officials also
told us that OPM has implemented another recommendation we made in last
year's report for OPM to review the effectiveness of the Outstanding
Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural Luevano consent decree hiring
authorities. Although we agree that OPM has provided assistance to
agencies in improving their candidate assessment tools and has collected
information

on agencies' use of the special hiring authorities, major challenges
remain in this area, particularly with the continued use of the ACWA exam.
OPM needs to take further action to address these recommendations, such as
actively working to link up agencies having similar occupations so that
they could potentially form consortia to develop more reliable and valid
tools to assess job candidates.

Our Prior Recommendation on Enhancing the Use of Human Capital
Flexibilities in the Federal Government

We have reported that agencies need to streamline and improve their
administrative processes for using flexibilities and review self-imposed
constraints that may be excessively process oriented. In our December 2002
report on the effective use of human capital flexibilities, we reported
that some of the barriers to effective strategic human capital management
in the federal government do not stem from law or regulation but are
selfimposed by agencies.29 We noted, for example, that the source of these
barriers can sometimes be agencies' lack of understanding on the
prerogatives that they have. Clearly, as we have previously reported,
agencies need to become better informed about the human capital tools and
flexibilities available to them and make better use of them than they have
in the past. Agencies need to learn more about what is being done in the
human capital area by agencies that have taken the initiative-which
approaches have worked, which have not, and what lessons can be drawn from
others' experiences and used to improve their organizations' approaches to
managing their human capital.

This process is where OPM can also play an important role. In a separate
report we issued in May 2003 on how OPM can better assist agencies in
using personnel flexibilities, we recommended that OPM work with and
through the CHCO Council to more thoroughly research, compile, and analyze
information on the effective and innovative use of human capital
flexibilities, including those related to federal hiring.30 We noted that
this should involve more fully serving as a clearinghouse in sharing and
distributing information about when, where, and how flexibilities are
being used, and should be used, to help agencies meet their human capital
management needs. As we recently testified, OPM and agencies need to
continue to work together to improve the hiring process, and the CHCO

29 GAO-03-2. 30 GAO-03-428.

Council should be a key vehicle for this needed collaboration.31 To
accomplish this effort, agencies need to provide OPM with timely and
comprehensive information about their experiences in using various
approaches and flexibilities to improve their hiring processes. OPM-
working through the CHCO Council- can, in turn, help accomplish this
effort by serving as a facilitator in the collection and exchange of
information about agencies' effective practices and successful approaches
to improved hiring.

Agencies Appear to Be Making Limited Use of New Hiring Flexibilities

On the basis of our interviews with OPM officials and the responses to our
survey of CHCO Council members, federal agencies appear to be making
limited use of category rating and direct-hire authority, two new hiring
flexibilities authorized by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Data on the
actual use of these two hiring flexibilities are not readily available,
partly because of the recency of their authorization. OPM officials we met
with expressed the OPM Director's frustration that agencies are not
attempting to use the flexibilities that OPM worked to have written into
law for agencies' use. Our survey of CHCO Council members confirmed the
view that agencies are not making extensive use of new flexibilities.
Also, 21 of the 22 survey respondents cited at least one barrier that they
said prevented or hindered their agencies from using or making greater use
of the new hiring flexibilities. Some of the barriers they identified
included (1) the lack of OPM guidance for using the flexibilities, (2) the
lack of agency policies and procedures for using the flexibilities, (3)
the lack of flexibility in OPM rules and regulations, and (4) concern
about possible inconsistencies in the implementation of the flexibilities
within the department or agency. OPM officials said that they believe the
primary reason agencies are not using these new flexibilities is that
agency officials are unfamiliar with them and do not have sufficient
knowledge and skills related to these flexibilities to maximize their use.
OPM officials said that OPM provided agencies with guidance for using the
flexibilities, such as training sessions at recruitment fairs and
procedures in the OPM Delegated Examining Operations Handbook.

31 GAO-04-800T.

Use of Category Rating Could Provide Agencies with a Larger Pool of
High-Quality Candidates from Which to Select

Category rating is an alternative rating and selection procedure that can
provide agency managers will a larger pool of qualified job candidates
from which to select than numerical ranking and the rule of three, while
also protecting veterans' preference. Under category rating, job
candidates are assigned to quality categories-such as "best qualified" or
"highly qualified"-following an assessment of their knowledge and skills
against job-related criteria. The names of all candidates in the highest
quality group are then sent to the selecting official and are available
for selection. If the highest quality group contains a veteran, the
veteran must be hired unless an objection to hiring the veteran is
sustained by OPM.32 If the number of candidates falling into the highest
quality group is inadequate, applicants from the next highest quality
group of eligible candidates can also be referred to the agency manager
for selection.

In our May 2003 report on hiring, we pointed out that among several
candidate-assessment-related issues, one of the largest obstacles in the
federal hiring process was the rule of three and numerical rating system
that limited managers' choice of quality candidates. Our report noted that
many of the human resources directors we interviewed from the 24 largest
federal agencies raised concerns that the rule of three and numerical
rating had a negative impact on hiring high-quality people. Under
procedures using the rule of three, once the assessment panel has rated
the candidates, the agency's human resources office applies applicable
veterans' preference points, ranks candidates, and refers a sufficient
number of candidates to permit the selecting official to consider three
candidates that are available for appointment. The selecting official is
required to select from among the top three ranked candidates available
for appointment. If a candidate with veterans' preference is on the list,
the selecting official cannot pass over the veteran and select a lower
ranking candidate without veterans' preference unless the selecting
official's objection to hiring the veteran is sustained by OPM.

32 Compensable veterans with a disability of 10 percent or more who are
rated as eligible "float to the top" of the highest quality group except
in cases involving hiring for professional or scientific positions at or
above grade GS-9.

Over the past decade, the use of category rating procedures to assess job
applicants was tested in selected agencies through an OPM-sponsored
demonstration project and was generally found to be an effective rating
approach.33 As we noted in our May 2003 report, the Department of
Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Forest Service (FS)
tested and implemented category rating in lieu of numerical ranking and
the rule of three under such a demonstration project. The final 5-year
evaluation of the project showed that (1) the number of candidates per job
announcement increased, (2) more candidates were referred to managers for
selection, (3) hiring speed increased, and (4) there was greater
satisfaction with the hiring process among managers. On average, there
were from 60 percent (ARS) to 70 percent (FS) more applicants available
for consideration under the demonstration project quality grouping
procedure than under the standard rule of three and numerical ranking.
Also, a higher percentage of veterans were hired in ARS and about the same
percentage of veterans were hired by FS compared with using the rule of
three process. In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress provided the
authority for all federal agencies to use category rating as an
alternative to the rule of three.

OPM has provided guidance to agencies on the use of category rating
systems to assess job applicants. In June 2003, OPM published interim
regulations for agencies on the use of category rating, and OPM revised
related guidance in its Delegated Examining Operations Handbook for
agencies when using this alternative rating procedure. In addition, OPM
officials told us that in July 2003, OPM provided on-site briefings to
agency program managers, human resources officials, and contractors on
issues related to using category rating procedures. In February 2004, OPM
included this new hiring flexibility in its memorandum to agencies as one
of the top 10 things agencies could do to improve federal hiring. OPM said
it would issue final regulations on the use of category rating before its
interim regulations sunset in June 2004. Officials said the changes to the
final regulations will be editorial in nature and will not alter the
procedures that agencies are to follow when using this alternative rating
system.

Data on agencies' actual use of category rating are not readily available.
The Homeland Security Act requires each agency that establishes a category
rating system to report annually to Congress for the first 3 years

33 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.

on its experiences, including (1) the number of employees hired under the
system, (2) the impact the system has on hiring of veterans and
minorities, and (3) the way managers were trained in administration of the
system. However, according to OPM, no agencies have yet reported on their
use of such category rating systems. Moreover, data on agencies' use of
category rating are not maintained in the Central Personnel Data File
(CPDF), OPM's centralized database of information on federal civilian
employees.

Views of the CHCO Council Given the lack of available data on the extent
to which agencies are using

Members	the newly authorized category rating flexibility, we asked about
this issue in our April 2004 survey of the CHCO Council members. As shown
in figure 2, a majority (13 of 22) of the officials responding to our
survey said that their agencies were using category rating to "little or
no extent." (See app. II for further information on the survey results.)
In narrative responses to our survey questions about category rating,
several respondents said that their agencies were not using category
rating but were considering options, developing procedures, or
establishing pilot programs. For example, a CHCO Council member responded
that his department had developed procedures for implementing category
rating and had included this flexibility as a tool for implementation in
the department's hiring plan for fiscal year 2004. According to this
official, category rating will be particularly useful for those
occupations for which the department anticipates hiring multiple
applicants as well as for positions that have highly specialized
experience requirements. Another Council member representing a
cabinet-level department said that the department had drafted a policy on
the use of category rating and was establishing a program to pilot the use
of this hiring flexibility with at least one occupation. This respondent
said that the department's human resources office was working with other
bureaus within the department to identify a cross-section of occupations
for which category rating would be an appropriate process for rating job
applicants.

Figure 2: CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Extent to Which Their
Agencies Are Using Category Rating

Number of agencies 14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 Little or Some Moderate Great Very great No basis/

no extent extent extent extent extent not

                                   applicable

Source: CHCO Council members' responses to GAO questionnaire.

We also surveyed CHCO Council members about the most significant barriers,
if any, preventing or hindering their agencies from using or making
greater use of the newly authorized category rating flexibility in their
hiring processes. Although the responses provided by the Council members
varied (see fig. 3), the most frequently cited barriers to using category
rating were (1) the lack of policies and procedures within the department
or agency for using the flexibility, (2) the lack of OPM guidance for
using the flexibility, (3) a need to reprogram automated systems to handle
the new process, (4) rigid OPM rules and regulations, and (5) concern
about possible inconsistencies in implementation. In narrative responses
to our survey questions about category rating, a few respondents said that
their agencies were not using or making greater use of category rating
because of key stakeholders' lack of understanding about the application
of veterans' preference and the Luevano consent decree. OPM officials told
us that each agency needs to determine how the applicant's ACWA test
points relate to the "best qualified" quality categories under category
rating. Other comments from CHCOs included the following. One respondent
said

that each agency has had to research best practices and lessons learned
prior to implementing this alternative rating system. Finally, a Council
member from a major department said that agencies need a governmentwide
champion to advance the use of category rating in their hiring processes.

Figure 3: CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Most Significant Barriers
Preventing or Hindering Their Agencies' Use of Category Rating

Lack of agency policies and procedures

Lack of OPM guidance

Need to reprogram automated systems

Rigid OPM rules and regulations

Concern about possible inconsistencies in implementation

Lack of OPM technical assistance

Lack of expertise needed for implementation

Reluctance within agency to change

Lack of an OPM clearinghouse 01234567

Source: CHCO Council members' responses to GAO questionnaire.

Note: Respondents could select up to three barriers.

In our survey of CHCO Council members, we also asked about the extent to
which OPM had assisted their agencies in using category rating and their
level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app. II
for further information). In narrative responses to our survey questions
about category rating, a CHCO Council member representing a major
department

said, for example, that the department was reluctant to use category
rating until OPM provided further guidance on use of the flexibility.
Another Council member noted that the interim regulations on category
rating that OPM issued in June 2003 would expire after 1 year and wanted
to know when OPM would publish the final regulations. Another respondent
said that OPM responded to ad hoc questions related to the technical
application of category rating, but generally defers to the agency to make
the final determination. This respondent suggested that it would be
beneficial for OPM to broadly address technical issues for agencies rather
than on an ad hoc basis. Another respondent commented that additional
training on the use of category rating should be provided to agencies.
Another respondent remarked that unresolved questions around the use of
category rating may be common to all agencies and that OPM should provide
additional implementing guidance in the form of questions and answers.

Use of Direct-Hire Authority Could Speed Hiring for Shortage Occupations
and Critical Needs through New Assessment and Rating Requirements

A provision of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides authority that
allows agencies to appoint candidates directly to positions where OPM
determines there is a severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring
need.34 When making appointments under the newly authorized direct-hire
authority, agencies are not required to numerically rate and rank
applicants nor apply the rule of three or veterans' preference. However,
under these direct-hire appointments, agencies would still be required to
provide public notice of the vacancies and screen all applicants to ensure
that they meet the basic qualification requirements of the position.

Under OPM's interim regulations, when making determinations to allow
agencies to use direct-hire authority, OPM may decide on its own that a
severe hiring shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need exists,
either governmentwide or in specified agencies, or for one or more
specific occupations, grade levels (or equivalents), or geographic
locations. Alternatively, an agency may, in a written request to OPM,
identify the position or positions for which it believes a severe shortage
or critical hiring need exists. Under OPM's rules, to demonstrate that a
severe shortage of candidates exists for a position or group of positions,
an agency must provide information showing that it is unable to identify
candidates

34 Section 1312(a)(1) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (amending 5
U.S.C. 3304). This provision also permits OPM to delegate the authority to
make such determinations under OPM criteria.

possessing the competencies required to perform the necessary duties of
the position despite extensive recruitment, extended announcement periods,
and the use, as applicable, of hiring flexibilities such as recruitment
and relocation incentives. To prove that a critical hiring need exists, an
agency must demonstrate that it has a critical need for the position or
positions to meet mission requirements brought about by an exigency such
as a national emergency, threat or potential threat, environmental
disaster, or other unanticipated or unusual events.

As with category rating, OPM has provided agencies with guidance on the
use of direct-hire authority in their hiring processes. In June 2003, OPM
published interim regulations implementing direct-hire authority and
included revised guidance in its Delegated Examining Operations Handbook.
Additionally, OPM covered issues related to using direct-hire authority in
the onsite briefings it provided to agency program officials, human
resources staff, and contractors in July 2003. As with category rating,
OPM said it would issue final regulations on the use of direct hire before
its interim regulations sunset in June 2004. Officials said the changes to
the final regulations will be editorial in nature and will not alter the
criteria in determining whether there is a severe shortage of candidates
or a critical hiring need.

Since the issuance of its June 2003 interim regulations on the use of
directhire authority, OPM has approved three governmentwide direct-hire
authorities and seven agency-specific direct-hire authorities (see table
2). The three governmentwide authorities allow all federal agencies to use
direct-hire procedures for specific medical occupations, information
security positions, and jobs requiring fluency in Arabic and other Middle
Eastern languages related to ongoing reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The
OPM-approved agency-specific authorities to use direct hire cover a range
of occupations, grade levels, and locations at six agencies, such as
veterinarians and related positions at the Department of Agriculture
principally to address mad cow disease. OPM officials informed us that
they had not formally declined any agency requests for direct-hire
authority since the interim regulations were issued in June 2003. However,
they did point out that they had not approved all of the occupations that
Agriculture had requested for direct hire.

 Table 2: Governmentwide and Agency-Specific Direct-Hire Authorities Issued by
                           OPM (June 2003 to Present)

Governmentwide direct-hire authorities issued Agency-specific direct-hire
authorities issued

Medical occupations

o  All grade levels at all locations for the following: Diagnostic
Radiologic Technologist (GS-0647) Medical Officer (GS-0602) Nurse (GS-610,
GS-620) Pharmacist (GS-0660)

Information security positions

o  Information Technology Management (Information Security) GS-2210, grade
levels GS-9 and above at all locations

Iraqi Reconstruction Efforts positions

o  Jobs that require fluency in Arabic or other related Middle Eastern
languages. Various Wage Grade and GS positions at all locations

Securities and Exchange Commission

o  Grade levels GS-9 and above at all locations for the following
occupations: Accountants (GS-0510) Economists (GS-0110) Securities
Compliance Examiners (GS-1831)

o  Information Technology Specialist (GS-2210) positions at grade levels 9
and above in the Office of Information Technology

Department of Agriculture

o  All locations for the following occupations: Veterinary Medical Officer
(GS-0701, grades 9 through 13) Animal Health Technician (GS-0704, grades 2
through 10) Plant Protection and Quarantine Officer (GS-0436, grades 5
through 13) Plant Protection and Quarantine Aid/Technician (GS-0421,
grades 2 through 7) General Biological Science (GS-0401, grades 9 through
13) Biological Science Technician (GS-0404, grades 2 through 7)
Microbiologist (GS-0403, grades 9 through 13) Entomologist (GS-0414,
grades 9 through 13) Botanist (GS-0430, grades 9 through 13) Plant
Pathologist, GS-0434 (grades 9 through 13) Ecologist (GS-0408, grades 9
through 13) Chemist (GS-1320, grades 9 through 13)

Department of Energy

o  Substation Operator positions (BB-5407) at Bonneville Power
Administration

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

o  Accountant and Examiner positions in the Washington, D.C., area

Department of Justice

o  Information Technology Specialist (GS-2210) positions at grade levels 9
and above in the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity
Section and Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section.

Department of Health and Human Services

o  Certain critical positions in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services responsible for implementing the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

Source: OPM.

While the Homeland Security Act requires agencies to report to Congress on
their use of category rating, the act does not require agencies to report
to Congress on their use of direct hire. However, agencies are required to
report to OPM on the use of direct hire for inclusion in OPM's centralized
personnel database. OPM reported that its review of data in the CPDF
indicated that as of December 31, 2003, fewer than 50 individuals had been

hired under the new direct-hire authority. It is possible that when new
personnel authority codes are added to personnel actions reported by
agencies for the CPDF, there could be a lag in personnel officials' use of
the new code and as a result the actual use of the authority may be
underreported.

The use of direct-hire authority was also listed in the OPM Director's
February 2004 memorandum to agency CHCOs as one of the top 10 things
agencies can do to improve hiring. In the memo, the OPM Director urged
agencies to look at their hiring plans, identify opportunities to use
direct hire based on the standards in the regulations, and, if
appropriate, ask OPM for the authority to use it. The memo also suggested
that agencies consider using direct-hire authority at one of the federal
job fairs that OPM was then sponsoring across the country. The memo noted
that OPM officials were somewhat surprised by how few agencies had
contacted OPM to request authority to use direct-hire procedures.

Views of the CHCO Council Given the lack of available data on the extent
to which agencies are using

Members	the new direct-hire authority, we asked about this issue in our
April 2004 survey of the CHCO Council members. As shown in figure 4, a
majority (17 of 22) of the officials responding to our survey said that
their agencies were using direct hire to "some extent" or to "little or no
extent." (See app. II for further information on the survey results.) In
narrative responses to our survey questions about direct hire, several
respondents stated that their agencies had used direct-hire authority to
fill various medical positions and small numbers of IT security positions.
Several respondents also said that their agencies had not yet used
direct-hire authority but were assessing the options for doing so. For
example, a CHCO Council member representing an independent agency said
that the agency had not thus far decided if it still had positions in a
shortage category and would make such a determination after completing its
workforce analysis and strategic assessments. A Council member from a
cabinet-level department said that it had determined a need for
direct-hire authority for acquisition specialists and was developing a
request to OPM. Another Council member representing a large department
said that the department's components were aware of the newly authorized
direct-hire authority but they had not yet identified situations for which
they would request OPM's approval to use the authority.

Figure 4: CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Extent to Which Their
Agencies Are Using Direct Hire

Number of agencies 12

10

8

6

4

2

0 Little or no Some Moderate Great Very great No extent extent extent
extent extent basis/not applicable

Source: CHCO Council members' responses to GAO questionnaire.

We also surveyed CHCO Council members about the most significant barriers,
if any, preventing or hindering their agencies from using or making
greater use of the newly authorized direct-hire authority in their hiring
processes. Although the responses provided by the Council members varied
(see fig. 5), the most frequently cited barriers to using direct hire were
(1) rigid OPM rules and regulations, (2) concern about possible
inconsistent implementation within the department or agency, (3) the
limited number of occupations for which the authority could be used, and
(4) the lack of policies and procedures within the agency for using direct
hire. In narrative responses to our survey questions about direct hire, a
CHCO Council member representing a large department said, for example,
that recently OPM officials informally told the department that OPM would
likely disapprove a proposed request for direct-hire authority that the
department desired for a specified occupation, even though at least one
other agency had direct-hire authority for that same occupation. This
respondent said that the specific position is relatively hard to fill and
that OPM needs to relax the criteria it uses to demonstrate a shortage of
qualified applicants. Another Council member representing an

independent agency commented that the governmentwide direct-hire
authorities that OPM has issued cover occupations that are generally not
applicable to the agency or in which the agency has an extremely limited
number of positions. In contrast, a CHCO representing a cabinet-level
department responded that no barriers exist for using direct-hire
authority.

Figure 5: CHCO Council Members' Responses on the Most Significant Barriers
Preventing or Hindering Their Agencies' Use of Direct Hire

Rigid OPM rules and regulations

Concern about possible inconsistencies in implementation

Limited number of occupations for which the authority could be used

Lack of agency policies and procedures

Lack of expertise needed for implementation

Reluctance within agency to change 0 24 681012

Source: CHCO Council members' responses to GAO questionnaire.

Note: Respondents could select up to three barriers.

In our survey of CHCO Council members, we also asked about the extent to
which OPM had assisted their agencies in using direct hire and their level
of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app. II for
further information). In narrative responses to our survey questions about
direct hire, one respondent from a cabinet-level department said, for
example, that the department had attempted to use direct-hire authority
for IT security positions but received inconsistent guidance on the
application of veterans' preference from OPM. A Council member from a
large department said that OPM should delegate authority to approve direct
hire requests to the agencies as permitted by the Homeland Security Act of
2002. A respondent from a department said that the department had surveyed
its components to determine if it should petition OPM for direct-

hire authority, but that most of the positions identified to date could
not be justified based on the OPM criteria.

Conclusions	Congress, OPM, and agencies have recognized the need to
improve the federal hiring process and have initiated numerous efforts to
address key problem areas. Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
agencies have been given new personnel flexibilities to improve the hiring
process. In addition, DHS and DOD have been given authority to
fundamentally reform their personnel systems, which, if successfully
implemented, could aid in improving their hiring processes. In addition to
these new hiring flexibilities given to agencies, agencies can address
many of their other hiring challenges by applying human capital tools and
flexibilities already available under existing laws and regulations.
Rather than wait for reforms to arrive, agency leaders need to take the
initiative to be more competitive in attracting new employees with
critical skills.

Although the agencies have primary responsibility to improve their hiring
processes, OPM can take additional action. As we noted earlier, we
previously recommended that OPM, working with the CHCO Council, should
serve as a clearinghouse to foster more use of personnel flexibilities. In
the hiring area, OPM could gather, analyze, and report on when, where, and
how agencies are using, or should use, direct hire and category rating
procedures to aid in their hiring efforts.

The federal government is now facing one of the most transformational
changes to the civil service in half a century, which is reflected in the
new personnel systems for DHS and DOD and in new hiring flexibilities
provided to all agencies. Today's challenge is to define the appropriate
roles and day-to-day working relationships for OPM and individual agencies
as they collaborate on developing innovative and more effective hiring
systems. Moreover, human capital expertise within the agencies must be up
to the challenge for this transformation to be successful and enduring.

Agency Comments and 	The Director of OPM provided written comments on a
draft of this report, which are shown in appendix III. In these written
comments, the OPM

Our Evaluation	Director said that OPM has done much to assist agencies and
increase their knowledge about the hiring flexibilities available to them.
She highlighted, for example, her memoranda to agencies that contain
information and

guidance on the use of hiring flexibilities as well as training that OPM
provided to agencies as part of the OPM-sponsored "Working for America"
recruitment fairs. She underscored that agencies must rise to the
challenge, provide consistent leadership at the senior level, take
advantage of the training opportunities offered by OPM, and make fixing
the hiring process a priority.

The OPM Director also commented that the report "appears to rely upon
perceptions that are not consistent with the facts." OPM explained this
concern in additional technical comments that were provided by E-mail. In
these technical comments, OPM raised objections to our use of narrative
responses from our survey of CHCO Council members and requested that many
of these responses be deleted from the final report. OPM said that in some
instances the opinions expressed by the CHCO Council members made
reference to situations or circumstances that were outside of the
respondent's agency or personal knowledge and were unsubstantiated.
However, consistent with OPM's position that agencies must take greater
responsibility for their own hiring processes and that it has effectively
trained agency officials on hiring, it seems to reason that the CHCOs of
these departments and agencies should be in a position to comment
knowledgeably on their agencies' efforts-and OPM's efforts in assisting
them-to improve hiring processes. As noted in the description of our scope
and methodology for this report (see app. I), the results of our survey
represent the views and opinions of the responding CHCO Council members.
In drafting this report, we provided a full range of narrative responses
from CHCO Council members-both positive and negative- related to OPM's
role in helping to improve the federal hiring process. In our survey to
the CHCO Council members (see app. II), we specifically noted that our
report would not identify the names of individual respondents or their
associated departments or agencies. We took this step to better ensure
that we received direct and candid survey responses. Moreover, we make
direct reference to actions taken and documents produced on federal issues
throughout the draft.

In its technical comments, OPM also offered suggested changes to clarify
various issues related to personnel policy and procedures. Where
appropriate, we made changes to the report to address the comments we
received.

We will send copies to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the
House Committee on Government Reform, the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and other
interested congressional parties. We will also provide copies to the
Director of OPM. In addition, we will make copies available to others upon
request. The report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202)
5126806 or [email protected]. Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix IV.

J. Christopher Mihm Managing Director, Strategic Issues

Appendix I

                       Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this study were to

o 	provide information on the status of recent efforts to help improve the
federal hiring process; and

o 	determine the extent to which federal agencies are using the new hiring
flexibilities-category rating and direct-hire authority-authorized by the
Homeland Security Act of 2002.

This study builds on the information, conclusions, and recommendations of
our report: Human Capital: Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies'
Hiring Processes (GAO-03-450, May 30, 2003). That report concluded that
the federal hiring process needed improvement and made recommendations to
address problems with the job classification process, job vacancy
announcements and Web postings, manual hiring processes, and hiring
assessment tools.

To respond to the objectives on this engagement, we interviewed officials
from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and members of the
subcommittee on the hiring process of the Chief Human Capital Officers
(CHCO) Council. Specifically, our questions and review centered on actions
being taken to address the hiring problems and recommendations identified
in our May 2003 report, what new hiring initiatives were underway, and an
assessment of the extent to which agencies are using category rating and
direct-hire authority. We also collected and reviewed OPM documents
related to federal hiring.

In addition, we obtained opinions and views on efforts to improve the
federal hiring process as well as agencies' use of new hiring
flexibilities by interviewing human capital experts at the following
organizations.

o 	The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent,
quasi-judicial agency in the executive branch that hears and decides civil
service cases, reviews OPM regulations, and conducts studies of the
federal government's merit system.

o 	The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) is an independent,
nonpartisan, nonprofit, congressionally charted organization that assists
federal, state, and local governments in improving their performance.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

o 	The National Partnership for Public Service is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization dedicated to revitalizing the public service.

We also conducted a survey of the members of the CHCO Council. The CHCO
Council currently comprises 25 members: the Director of OPM; the Deputy
Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB);
CHCOs from executive branch departments, and other agency CHCOs invited to
join by the OPM Director, who serves as chair of the Council. We sent our
questionnaire to the 23 Council members serving as CHCOs representing
federal departments and agencies; our survey did not include the Director
of OPM or the Deputy Director for Management of OMB. Specifically, the
Council members we surveyed were the CHCOs from the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human
Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior,
Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; and
CHCOs from the Central Intelligence Agency, Environmental Protection
Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OPM, Pension Benefit
Guarantee Corporation, and Social Security Administration. Twenty-two of
the 23 Council members responded to our questionnaire. The CHCO Council
member from the Central Intelligence Agency did not respond to our survey
because his representative said the agency was an excepted service agency
and thus the survey questions were not relevant.

Our survey of the CHCO Council members included questions to help us
address both engagement objectives. For the first objective, we asked
questions about the parts of the hiring process we had identified in our
May 2003 report-specifically, reforming the classification process,
automating hiring processes, improving job announcements and Web postings,
and developing improved hiring assessment tools. For the second objective,
we asked questions about the use of category rating and direct-hire
authority and the possible barriers hindering agencies' use of these two
new hiring flexibilities.

The results of our survey reflect the views and opinions of the responding
CHCO Council members. As noted above for objective one, we asked the
survey recipients if their agencies had made efforts in the four hiring
areas; however, we did not ask respondents to specifically identify those
efforts nor did we conduct other data collection efforts to verify the
nature or extent of such efforts. Similarly, for objective two related to
the use of

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

category rating or direct-hire authority, we asked the Council members
their views about the extent of use of the two flexibilities.

The questionnaire we used contained 34 questions and was developed from
March through April 2004 by a social science survey specialist and other
individuals knowledgeable about the OPM reforms. The questionnaire was
reviewed by other survey specialists and experts in the content area and
pretested with four government human capital professionals familiar with
the initiatives to develop a questionnaire that was unambiguous and
unbiased. We made changes to the content and format of the final
questionnaire based on the reviews and pretest results.

The survey was conducted using an Active X-enabled E-mail attachment. The
survey was sent to all agency members of the CHCO Council beginning on
April 15, 2004, and all recipients of our survey replied to our request
for information by May 7, 2004. Respondents were given the option of
returning the survey as an E-mail attachment or printing the questionnaire
and returning it via fax. Data for this study were entered directly into
the instrument by the respondents and converted into a database for
analysis. Appendix II presents a copy of the survey and the responses of
the CHCO Council members to the closed-ended questions on our survey.

As part of our analysis process, we examined CHCO Council members' answers
in response to questions asking them if they had any additional comments
to make on a specific topic or additional barriers to identify. We
reviewed the additional barriers identified and counted the number of
instances where two or more respondents identified a similar barrier and
included those frequency counts in our report. Given the broad scope of
the questions asking for any additional comments, we did not perform a
similar content analysis of CHCO responses to those broad questions.
However, we included some of those additional comments by individual CHCOs
in this report to illustrate the diversity of views provided by the CHCOs
on these topics.

In addition, we used data from OPM's Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) to
identify the total new hires by federal department and agency for fiscal
year 2003. We also analyzed data from the CPDF in an attempt to identify
the extent to which agencies are using the direct-hire authority contained
in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Data on agencies' use of category
rating is not maintained in the CPDF. As noted in the body of this report,
it is possible that when new personnel authorities are authorized (any new
codes established for the CPDF), personnel officials might continue to use

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

old codes and therefore underreport the use of the new authority. With the
exception of the concern just noted, based on previous GAO work, the CPDF
data are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of providing background
information on new hires.1

We provided a draft of this report to OPM for review and comment. OPM's
comments are shown in appendix III. We did our review in Washington, D.C.,
from March 2004 through May 2004 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

1 U.S. General Accounting Office, OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data
Appear Sufficiently Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs, GAO/GGD-98-199
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 1998).

Appendix II

Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members of the Chief Human Capital
Officers Council

United States General Accounting Office Survey of Chief Human Capital
Officers

Introduction

Chief Human Capital Officer:

In May 2003, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report
entitled Human Capital: Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies'
Hiring Processes (GAO-03-450), which discussed challenges and issues
related to the federal hiring process. As a followup to that report, Jo
Ann Davis, Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency
Organization, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of
Representatives, has requested that we update the status of ongoing
efforts related to the federal hiring process by determining

1)	the status of the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) efforts to
help improve the federal hiring process, and

2) 	the extent to which federal agencies are using new hiring
flexibilities authorized by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

This survey is part of our effort to collect information from members of
the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) Council with regard to these
matters. However, we encourage you to consult with other people in your
organization who may have more in-depth knowledge about particular areas
that are covered in this survey.

Instructions

Please complete this survey in MS-Word, save it and return it as an
attachment via e-mail to both of the GAO contacts noted below. If you wish
to complete the survey by phone, please call one of the numbers listed
below. If you prefer to print the survey out and fax it back, you can fax
the survey to (202) 512-2502.

If you have any questions about the contents of this questionnaire, please
contact:

Edward H Stephenson Jr. Phone: (202) 512-4845 e-mail: [email protected]

or if you encounter any technical difficulties please contact:

Monica Wolford
Phone: (202) 512-2625
e-mail: [email protected]

                                       1

Appendix II
Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members
of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council

Please use your mouse to navigate throughout the survey by clicking on the
field or check box you wish to answer.

To select a check box, simply click or double click on the center of the
box.

To change or deselect a response, simply click on the check box and the
`X' should disappear.

To answer a question that requires that you write a comment, please click
on the answer box and begin typing. Please do not use the enter key to end
a line.

Do not "unlock" this document, it will erase your answers. If you wish to
include comments about particular questions, include the comment with the
question number in the comments section at the end of each section.

Prior to filling out the relevant sections of the questionnaire, please
read the related sections entitled "Background Information."

Your participation in this survey is essential for obtaining a broad
perspective on government-wide adoption of new hiring flexibilities and
OPM efforts in these areas.

If you represent a cabinet-level department on the CHCO Council, please
generally consider the activities of all agencies within your department
and present a summary response. We do not plan to report any individuals'
responses by either name or department/agency.

If possible, please return this survey within one week of receiving our
e-mail. After that time, if we have not heard from you, we will attempt to
contact you to confirm that you have received this questionnaire and try
to arrange a convenient time when we could obtain your responses over the
telephone.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Edward H Stephenson Jr. Assistant Director Strategic Issues

Q1. Whom should we contact if we have follow-up questions?

1a. Name: [22]

1b. Department/Agency: [22]

1c. Phone: [21]

                                       2

Appendix II
Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members
of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council

Background Information on the Federal Hiring Process

OPM and federal agencies share responsibility for the federal hiring
process. OPM is responsible for providing agencies with training,
guidance, technical assistance, and oversight to help ensure that agencies
use their hiring authority in accordance with merit principles. Federal
agencies are responsible for designing and implementing their own hiring
processes that comply with merit principles by ensuring that the agency's
vacant positions are filled with the best-qualified persons from a
sufficient pool of well-qualified people. Typical steps in the federal
hiring process for filling job vacancies include the following:

Define job, set pay, qualifications and assessment criteria
Prepare public notice and job vacancy announcement
Receive applications electronically, by mail, or in person
Screen for eligibility and minimum qualification standards
Assess the relative qualifications of the candidates against job-related
criteria
Select candidate
Bring candidate on board

Reforming the Classification Process

The process of classification involves categorizing 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 pay for the position. The
Classification Act of 1949 provides a plan for classifying most federal
positions and sets out 15 grade levels. OPM develops standards that must
be consistent with the Act.

Q2. Are you aware of any efforts OPM has made to reform the federal
classification

process that affect your department/agency?

Number of Respondents

[13] Yes

[8] No --Skip to Q5

[1] Not sure --Skip to Q5

Q3. To what extent have OPM's efforts to reform the classification process
helped your

department/agency? (Check one.)

Number of Respondents

[1] Very great extent

[1] Great extent

[4] Moderate extent

[4] Some extent

[2] Little or no extent

[1] No basis to judge/not applicable --Skip to Q5

                                       3

Appendix II
Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members
of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council

Q4. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with OPM's efforts and proposals
to change the classification process? (Check one.) Number of Respondents

[1] Very satisfied

[3] Somewhat satisfied

[5] Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

[3] Somewhat dissatisfied

[0] Very dissatisfied

[0] No basis to judge/not applicable

Q5. At the current time, who should take the lead in furthering reform of
the classification process in the federal government? (Check one.) Number
of Respondents

[0] No further reforms needed

[5] Congress

[4] Departments/agencies

[10] OPM

[3] None of the above (Please explain: [3])

Q6. If you have any additional comments regarding reforming the
classification process, please write them below.

Number of Respondents

[13]

Automating Hiring Processes

Automation has the potential to streamline the hiring process by
generating vacancy announcements, helping determine if a job applicant
meets eligibility and basic job qualifications, and assessing the relative
merits of the qualified candidates. The use of an automated system could
also allow managers and human capital staff to easily document their
decisions. Both private vendors and OPM offer software that can automate
agency hiring processes.

Q7. Has your department/agency made efforts to automate any significant
parts of its hiring process?

Number of Respondents

[21] Yes

[1] No --Skip to Q10

[0] Not sure --Skip to Q10

                                       4

Appendix II
Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members
of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council

Q8. To what extent has OPM assisted your department/agency in automating
its hiring processes? (Check one.) Number of Respondents

[1] Very great extent

[1] Great extent

[5] Moderate extent

[7] Some extent

[6] Little or no extent

[1] No basis to judge/not applicable --Skip to Q10

Q9. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with assistance that OPM has
provided your department/agency in automating its hiring processes? (Check
one.) Number of Respondents

[1] Very satisfied

[6] Somewhat satisfied

[7] Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

[1] Somewhat dissatisfied

[2] Very dissatisfied

[3] No basis to judge/not applicable

Q10. At the current time, who should take the lead in furthering the
automation of federal hiring processes? (Check one.) Number of Respondents

[0] No further automation needed

[0] Congress

[11] Departments/agencies

[9] OPM

[2] None of the above (Please explain: [2])

Q11. If you have any additional comments regarding automating hiring
processes, please write them below.

Number of Respondents

[9]

Improving Job Announcements and Web Postings

A job announcement is a tool in the recruitment process that provides an
important opportunity to make a first impression on potential applicants,
and may strongly influence their decision to apply for a position. Job
announcements should be clear, concise, and attractive and make potential
job applicants want to apply. Federal agencies post federal jobs on the
Internet-based USAJOBS database, which is operated by OPM.

                                       5

Appendix II
Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members
of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council

Q12. Has your department/agency made efforts to improve its job
announcements and Web postings?

Number of Respondents

[22] Yes

[0] No --Skip to Q15

[0] Not sure --Skip to Q15

Q13. 	To what extent has OPM assisted your department/agency in improving
job announcements and Web postings? (Check one.)

Number of Respondents

[2] Very great extent

[2] Great extent

[9] Moderate extent

[3] Some extent

[6] Little or no extent

[0] No basis to judge/not applicable --Skip to Q15

Q14. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with assistance that OPM has
provided your department/agency in improving job announcements and Web
postings? (Check one.) Number of Respondents

[3] Very satisfied

[9] Somewhat satisfied

[8] Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

[1] Somewhat dissatisfied

[1] Very dissatisfied

[0] No basis to judge/not applicable

Q15. At the current time, who should take the lead in improving job
announcements and Web postings for the federal government? (Check one.)
Number of Respondents

[0] No improvements needed

[0] Congress

[8] Departments/agencies

[11] OPM

[3] None of the above (Please explain: [2])

Q16. If you have any additional comments regarding improving job
announcements and Web postings, please write them below. Number of
Respondents

[12]

                                       6

Appendix II
Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members
of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council

Developing Improved Hiring Assessment Tools

Making good employee selections in the hiring process helps lead to high
productivity, development of a cohesive work group, reduced employee
turnover, and other positive outcomes. These employee selections rely on
reliable and valid candidate assessment tools. Primary responsibility for
developing assessment tools rests with the agencies. OPM is responsible
for providing guidance and technical assistance to agencies and will
develop specific assessment tools for a fee.

Q17. Has your department/agency made efforts to improve its hiring
assessment tools?

Number of Respondents

[21] Yes

[0] No --Skip to Q20

[1] Not sure --Skip to Q20

Q18. To what extent has OPM assisted your department/agency in developing
improved hiring assessment tools? (Check one.)

Number of Respondents

[1] Very great extent

[3] Great extent

[3] Moderate extent

[5] Some extent

[8] Little or no extent

[1] No basis to judge/not applicable --Skip to Q20

Q19. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with assistance that OPM has
provided your department/agency in developing improved hiring assessment
tools? (Check one.)

Number of Respondents

[3] Very satisfied

[4] Somewhat satisfied

[7] Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

[0] Somewhat dissatisfied

[2] Very dissatisfied

[4] No basis to judge/not applicable

                                       7

Appendix II
Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members
of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council

Q20. At the current time, who should take the lead in improving hiring
assessment tools for the federal government? (Check one.)

Number of Respondents

[0] No improvements needed

[0] Congress

[9] Departments/agencies

[10] OPM

[3] None of the above (Please explain: [2])

Q21. If you have any additional comments regarding developing improved
hiring

assessment tools, please write them below.

# Respondents

[12]

Background Information on Hiring Flexibilities

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorized federal agencies to use
category rating and direct-hire authority, two hiring flexibilities that
were new to most agencies. The intent of these new hiring flexibilities is
to expedite the federal hiring process and help provide federal agencies
with a larger pool of qualified candidates from which to choose when
hiring. The following questions address the use of category rating and
direct-hire authority.

Category Rating

Category rating is an alternate candidate assessment procedure, authorized
to replace the "Rule of Three" selection procedure. Instead of restricting
selecting officials' choice to the three candidates with the highest
numerical scores under the "Rule of Three," category rating allows
candidates to be grouped together into quality categories. Under category
rating, the certificate of eligibles may include any number of candidates
who are identified as the most-qualified applicants.

Q22. To what extent is your department/agency using the newly authorized
category rating flexibility in its hiring process? (Check one.)

Number of Respondents

[1] Very great extent

[1] Great extent

[2] Moderate extent

[3] Some extent

[13] Little or no extent - Skip to Q23

[2] No basis to judge/not applicable - Skip to Q23

                                       8

Appendix II
Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members
of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council

22a. Please briefly describe how your department/agency is using the newly
authorized category rating flexibility.

Number of Respondents

[9]

Q23. What are the three most significant barriers, if any, preventing or
hindering your department/agency from using or making greater use in its
hiring process of the newly authorized category rating flexibility?
(Please check up to three choices only.) Number of Respondents

[1] Lack of available funding to implement category rating flexibility

[1] 	Lack of support for it from one or more key stakeholders (e.g., human
capital office, agency managers and supervisors, and/or employees, unions)

[6] 	Lack of policies and procedures within the department/agency for
using this flexibility

[3] 	Lack of expertise needed for implementation among one or more key
stakeholders (e.g., human capital office, agency managers and supervisors,
and/or employees, unions)

[1] Reluctance within the department/agency to change to new procedures

[4] 	Concern about possible inconsistencies in implementation within the
department/agency

[5] Lack of OPM guidance

[3] Lack of OPM technical assistance

[4] Rigid OPM rules and regulations

[2] Lack of an OPM "clearinghouse" of ways to use this flexibility

[10] Other: (Please explain: 11)

[0] Other: (Please explain: 0)

[0] Other: (Please explain: 0)

Q24. To what extent has OPM assisted your department/agency in using the
newly authorized category rating flexibility? (Check one.) Number of
Respondents

[2] Very great extent

[1] Great extent

[2] Moderate extent

[5] Some extent

[8] Little or no extent

[4] No basis to judge/not applicable- Skip to Q26

                                       9

Appendix II
Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members
of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council

Q25. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with assistance that OPM has
provided in helping your department/agency use the newly authorized
category rating flexibility?

(Check one.) Number of Respondents

[3] Very satisfied

[2] Somewhat satisfied

[8] Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

[2] Somewhat dissatisfied

[1] Very dissatisfied

[4] No basis to judge/not applicable

Q26. At the current time, who should primarily take the lead for
furthering the use of category rating in the federal hiring process?
(Check one.) Number of Respondents

[0] No need for further use

[0] Congress

[11] Departments/agencies

[10] OPM

[1] None of the above (Please explain: [1])

Q27. If you have any additional comments regarding category rating, please
write them below.

Number of Respondents

[9]

Direct-Hire

Direct-hire authority allows agencies to appoint candidates directly to
jobs for which OPM determines there is a severe shortage of candidates or
a critical hiring need. Directhire authority permits agencies to hire
without regard to the usual competitive requirements related to veterans'
preference, the "Rule of Three", and rating procedures.

Q28. To what extent is your department/agency using the newly authorized
direct-hire authority in its hiring process? (Check one.) Number of
Respondents

[0] Very great extent

[3] Great extent

[2] Moderate extent

[7] Some extent

[10] Little or no extent --Skip to Q29

[0] No basis to judge/not applicable --Skip to Q29

                                       10

Appendix II
Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members
of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council

28a. Please briefly describe how your department/agency is using the newly
authorized direct-hire authority in its hiring process.

Number of Respondents

[11]

Q29. What are the three most significant barriers, if any, preventing or
hindering your department/agency from using or making greater use in its
hiring process of the newly authorized direct-hire authority? (Please
check up to three choices only.) Number of Respondents

[1] Lack of available funding to implement direct-hire authority

[1] 	Lack of support for it from one or more key stakeholders (e.g., human
capital office, agency managers and supervisors, and/or employees, unions)

[4] 	Lack of policies and procedures within the department/agency for
using this authority

[2] 	Lack of expertise needed for implementation among one or more key
stakeholders (e.g., human capital office, agency managers and supervisors,
and/or employees, unions)

[2] Reluctance within the department/agency to change to new procedures

[5] 	Concern about possible inconsistencies in implementation within the
department/agency

[1] Lack of OPM guidance

[1] Lack of OPM technical assistance

[10] Rigid OPM rules and regulations

[0] Lack of an OPM "clearinghouse" of ways to use this authority

[11] Other: (Please explain: 11)

[3] Other: (Please explain: 2)

[0] Other: (Please explain:0)

Q30. To what extent has OPM assisted your department/agency in using the
newly authorized direct-hire authority? (Check one.) Number of Respondents

[1] Very great extent

[1] Great extent

[5] Moderate extent

[6] Some extent

[6] Little or no extent

[3] No basis to judge/not applicable --- Skip to Q32

                                       11

Appendix II
Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members
of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council

Q31. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with assistance that OPM has
provided in helping your department/agency use the newly authorized
direct-hire authority?

(Check one.)
Number of Respondents

[3] Very satisfied

[3] Somewhat satisfied

[8] Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

[1] Somewhat dissatisfied

[2] Very dissatisfied

[2] No basis to judge/not applicable

Q32. At the current time, who should take the lead for furthering the use
of direct-hire authority in the federal government? (Check one.) Number of
Respondents

[0] No need for further use

[0] Congress

[7] Departments/agencies

[10] OPM

[4] None of the above (Please explain: [4])

Q33. If you have any additional comments regarding the use of direct-hire
authority, please write them below.

Number of Respondents

[11]

SUMMARY

Q34. If you have any additional comments regarding any of these questions
or about the federal hiring process and the new hiring flexibilities,
please write them below.

Number of Respondents

[4]

                     Thank you for completing this survey.

Please save this file now and send us a return e-mail with your file as an
attachment.

                                       12

Appendix III

Comments from the Office of Personnel Management

Appendix III
Comments from the Office of Personnel
Management

Appendix IV

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806

Acknowledgments	Major contributors to this report include K. Scott
Derrick, Karin Fangman, Stephanie M. Herrold, Trina Lewis, John Ripper,
Edward Stephenson, and Monica L. Wolford.

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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htmWaste, and Abuse in E-mail:
[email protected] Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                               Presorted Standard
                              Postage & Fees Paid
                                      GAO
                                Permit No. GI00

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested
*** End of document. ***