4.0  HUMAN RESOURCES
 The Human Resources Services Unit (HRS) at the Library of Congress
supports each of the other service units within the Library on human
resources functions, including classification, pay and leave, staffing,
recruitment, selection, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)/dispute
resolution, affirmative action, training, labor relations, awards and
incentives, promotions, and policy development.  The Associate Librarian
for Human Resources reports directly to the Associate Librarian for
Support Services and has 97 permanent employees in the unit.  HRS is
organized functionally, with managers and team leaders directly
responsible for each functional area.  The organization structure of HRS
is shown in Exhibit 4-1.
EXHIBIT 4-1
HRS Organization Chart
 Four of the service units of the Library outside of HRS have some staff
dedicated to human resources functions within their units as indicated in
Exhibit 4-2 below. These staff are the direct liaison to HRS.
EXHIBIT 4-2
Staff Dedicated to the HR Function Within the Service Units
Service Unit
Number of Staff Dedicated to HR Function
Library Services
5
Office of the Librarian
1
Law Library
1
Congressional Research Service
5
Copyright
2
 For the past 20 years, issues have been raised internally and externally
about the Library's human resources services, most notably by the Cook
Class Action Suit filed in February 1982.  A detailed description of this
case is provided in the Competitive Selection Process Case Study in
Volume 2 of this report.
 Beginning in the 1980s, several Library studies focused, at least in
part, on the improvement of human resources services at the Library,
including the following:
A study by Arthur Young & Company in 1988 offered guidance and
recommendations for a performance appraisal model for senior management.
In 1988, the Management and Planning Committee of the Library addressed
and made recommendations for many human resources issues, including equal
employment opportunity and affirmative action, consultative management,
labor-management cooperation, staff development, performance evaluation,
staff recognition, incentive awards, adverse actions, and training.
A study by Morrison Associates in 1992 examined the Library's overall
management framework with emphasis on the personnel processes that were
determined to be discriminatory in the Cook case.
In December 1992, an evaluation by Edmund Cooke, Jr., an attorney with
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., of the Library's personnel processes
against the requirements of the Cook court ruling.
 In addition to the internal recognition that certain human resources
problems need attention, there has also been wide publicity about
problems at the Library.  Recently, entities outside the Library,
including Congress, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), the
press, and the courts, have contributed to this publicity in response to
employee complaints.
Methodology
 The focus of BoozaAllen's study was to examine the human resources
function at the Library for:
Impact of the Cook case on human resources and personnel management
Effectiveness of the existing training program
Effectiveness of the labor-management relations program
Relationship between the Library's personnel policies against good
management principles
Extent to which personnel practices, including adverse actions, selection
and performance management, are in compliance with EEOC's Uniform
Guidelines for Selection Procedures.
 In conducting the study, BoozaAllen used several methodological tools to
gather data, including:
Focus groups
Structured interviews
Process reviews
Document reviews to include policies, contracts, and statutes.
 During the course of the study of the human resources function of the
Library, BoozaAllen completed:
Twenty-six focus groups with union members1, union officials2, Library
managers, Library employees, and Human Resources staff in order to obtain
employee attitudes and process information about the human resources
services provided at the Library
Twenty-five formal interviews with Library senior managers, union
officials, service unit managers, other agencies, Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) officials, FLRA, and Library counsel in order to
investigate attitudes toward HR services, pinpoint key areas for in-depth
study, request relevant documentation, establish areas of concern to
managers, and establish contacts for ongoing data requirements
Analysis of data collected on topics such as vacancies, tenure, turnover,
attrition rates, training course evaluations and attendance, labor
relations statistics, adverse actions, fitness for duty examinations,
grievances, and disputes.
 Our findings and recommendations are organized by topic area into the
following five sections:
 4.1 Labor Relations
 4.2 Competitive Selection Process
 4.3 Personnel Management
 4.4 Human Resources Services Deployment
 4.5 Training.
BoozaAllen is also conducting an employee satisfaction survey of all
Library employees.  The results of the survey will be reported in a
separate document.
4.1 LABOR RELATIONS
 The labor relations organization at the Library is composed of a Chief
of Labor Relations, four labor relations specialists, and one secretary.
The Chief of Labor Relations is an attorney specializing in labor
relations and was previously a labor attorney for the Air Force.  The
labor relations specialists have diverse backgrounds -one was a former
union president and another was in academia.  The other two labor
relations specialists have 15 years of labor relations experience.  The
functions of the Labor Relations Office are to 1) bargain for the
Library, 2) investigate and issue decisions on grievances, 3) represent
the Library in litigation, arbitration, and unfair labor practice
litigation, and 4) advise on all issues related to labor relations.
 Three unions represent workers at the Library: American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 2910, AFSCME Local
2477,  and Congressional Research Employees Association (CREA).  Exhibit
4-3 shows the number of employees represented by the unions and the
number and percentage of employees paying dues.
EXHIBIT 4-3
Analysis of Bargaining Unit Employees as of November 22, 1995
Labor
Organization
Occupational Composition of Employees
Number of Employees Represented
Number of Dues Paying Members
Percentage Dues Paying Employees
AFSCME Local 2910
Professional employees at Grades 9 through 15 (e.g., librarians, nurses,
and computer programmers)
1433
326
23%
AFSCME Local 2477
Nonprofessional employees  including the police force
1454
293
20%
CREA
Professional and nonprofessional  library employees of CRS
587
354
60%
 Each union has its own contract, which is standard in nature.  However,
differences exist among the three contracts.  For example, AFSCME Local
2910 has negotiated fairly extensive participation rights in many aspects
of the Library's employment  policies.  AFSCME Local 2910 has the right
to have a member on all Library committees whose principal purpose is to
consider personnel policies.  The CREA collective bargaining agreement
appears to have a less legalistic relationship between the union and the
Library, although it is similar to those of AFSCME Local 2910 and 2477 in
the procedural protection for promotions, evaluations, and the like.
Despite these differences, the contracts are similar in many other areas.
 Historically, the labor relations program has been a source of concern
at the Library, with former studies, congressional hearings, and
publicity criticizing the labor-management relations.  The Management and
Planning Committee (MAP) report issued in 1988 initially outlined the
problems that exist within the labor-management program.  The report
referred to the absence of effective communication and training, and the
excessive reliance on rules and regulations, as well as a lack of
flexibility and cooperation.  During initial discussions in late 1995,
Library officials continued to voice these concerns.
 In response to the concerns outlined above, BoozaAllen conducted a
review of the labor relations function at the Library.  The objectives of
our study were to:
Characterize the relationship between labor and management and quantify
the extent of the labor-relations problem
Determine and assess the length of time involved in bargaining and
negotiation
Evaluate the impact of the Federal Service Labor Management Relations
Statute on bargaining and negotiation processes
Determine past and ongoing efforts to improve the labor-management
relationship at the Library
Determine the typical process for resolving labor disputes
Determine whether employees are adequately trained regarding the
Library's labor-management relations program
Identify opportunities to improve the Library's labor-management
relations.
 Our findings in relation to these objectives are described below.
4.1.1 Labor Relations Findings
 The Library's labor-management problems relate to lack of communication,
collective bargaining, general lack of training in the labor-relations
program, and general frustration with the labor-management relationship.
Both labor and management focus group participants also expressed
frustration with the decision- making process, problems with
communication, and lack of trust on both sides.
1. Temporary absence of a labor relations authority figure closed unions'
line of communication and resulted in an increased number of grievances.
 A dramatic increase occurred in the number of grievances filed against
the Library between FY 1992 (12 grievances) and FY 1993 (89 grievances).
During this time period, the Associate Librarian for Management Services
resigned.  A major function of this position was for the incumbent to
meet with representatives from the three unions to address informal union
complaints, permitting settlement before complaints reached the formal
grievance process.  After the departure of the Associate Librarian, the
unions no longer had a channel through which to settle complaints
informally. The vacancy of the position further deteriorated
communication problems at the Library.
 The position of the Chief of Labor Relations was vacant from October
1993 to April 1995.  Interviews with the FLRA indicated that the number
of cases filed with that organization by the Library's three unions
during this 18-month period increased from 12 to over 70.  The FLRA labor
attorneys attribute this increase to the vacancy in the labor relations
position.  As of February 1996, the number of current FLRA cases filed by
the unions has decreased from 70 to 5, and the FLRA views the arrival of
the Chief of Labor Relations as a positive factor.
 A review of the labor-relations programs of three other Federal
agencies, and interviews with labor relations experts as well as with the
FLRA, indicate that the Library is not unique in the types of grievances
filed.  Exhibit 4-4   shows the number of grievances filed by the three
Library unions from FY 1991 to FY 1995.  Exhibit 4-5 shows the types of
grievances that have been filed over the past 5 years. AFSCME Local 2477
has been more active than the other two unions in filing grievances.
AFSCME Local 2910 and CREA do not have unusually high grievance rates.
Based on our review of the data, AFSCME Local 2477's concerns are
centered over basic employee rights (e.g., harassment of an employee,
supervisors allowing religious and racial jokes, employees being required
to visibly display their identification badges).
EXHIBIT 4-4
Grievances From FY91 to FY95 Library of Congress
FY-Year
AFSCME
2477
AFSCME
2910
CREA
Agency3
Joint
Grievances4
Total
1991
11
10
5
3
29
1992
8
2
1
1
12
1993
42
34
11
2
89
1994
51
15
6
1
6
79
1995
45
14
7
3
69
5-Year Total
157
75
30
8
8
278
2. Management and unions have different perceptions concerning
consultative management.
 A Consultative Management (CM) Pilot, proposed in the Management and
Planning Committee Report, was designed to provide Library staff with an
opportunity to provide input into work-related issues.  However, the
pilot has not worked because the Library has not clearly defined its
purpose and intent.  This lack of clarity results in further breakdown of
communication, as indicated by union officials and management.
 For example, line managers stated that the intent of CM is to keep
everyone informed rather than to reach consensus.  The union officials
indicated that while CM works in some areas, it is sometimes seen as
management's attempt to get around the contract.5  Union officials from
CREA and Local 2910 indicate that CM is not used on issues that
management views as important.  While the  intent of CM is to get unions
involved early in the decision-making process, this is not typically
done. The CM approach cannot be successful unless the Library clearly
defines the intent and purpose of the CM program.
EXHIBIT 4-5
 Types of Grievances Unions
Have Filed From FY 1991 to FY 1995
General Articles in the Library Unions' Contracts
CREA
AFSCME
2910
AFSCME
2477
Accountability
0
0
2
Arbitration
0
4
2
Bargaining boundaries
0
0
1
Continuous or frequent posting of positions that have numerous incumbents
and frequent turnover
1
0
0
Details
0
0
6
Employee Assistance Program
0
1
2
Employee relocations
0
0
1
Employee rights
0
5
25
Equal employment opportunity
5
0
2
Expedited bargaining
0
 0
2
Food services
0
3
0
Health and Safety
0
1
5
Hours of duty
 0
 0
0
Leave
2
0
8
Library-union cooperation
1
1
4
Management rights
0
0
0
Merit employment
6
13
9
Negotiated grievance procedure
1
1
1
Overtime
0
0
5
Parking
0
1
0
Performance evaluations
0
11
7
Personnel files
1
1
5
Position classification
3
0
0
Promotion review for positions in the promotion ladder
1
0
4
Reassignments
0
3
3
Reduction in force
0
5
2
Reorganization
0
7
2
Training and career development
0
0
1
Union representation functions
0
1
0
Union rights
4
10
17
Use of official facilities and services
0
1
0
Within-grade determinations, quality increases, and incentive awards
1
0
0
Working conditions
0
0
3
Subtotal
26
58
122
Miscellaneous
4
6
35
Total
30
75
157
3. Managers and other employees indicate lack of training in labor
relations.
 Data obtained from focus groups with Library managers revealed that the
managers perceive managerial training in labor relations to be fragmented
and poorly sequenced.  In addition, there is no updated supervisory
manual for issues pertinent to management's relationship with the unions.
Managers indicate they are unaware of union employees' rights.  As a
result, managers may inadvertently violate an employee's rights causing
the employee to file a grievance.  Both management and union members
indicate that they lack training on bargaining and negotiation skills.
Lack of training for managers results in confusion over determining the
negotiability of bargaining issues.  Lack of training for the unions
leads to difficulty in selecting members who are knowledgeable about the
issues at hand as well as knowledgeable about the bargaining process.
The consequence of the lack of training for both managers and labor is
delay in the bargaining and negotiation process.
4. The Federal Service Labor-Management Statute limits the unions'
ability to negotiate critical areas of collective bargaining causing
unions and management to have different bargaining emphases.
 The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute prescribes labor-
management relations rights and obligations of the Library and its three
unions.  The Statute permits management to do the following without
bargaining over substantive issues in these areas:
Determine organizational aspects such as number of employees
"...Hire, assign, direct, layoff, and retain employees in the agency or
to suspend, remove, reduce in grade or pay, or take other disciplinary
action"
Assign work and determine whether to contract work out
Select appointees for vacant positions.
 In the Federal sector, bargaining does not generally cover critical
areas pertaining to wages, benefits, or other significant management
decisions.  With respect to these critical areas, Federal unions can
negotiate the "procedures" that will be followed regarding the above-
listed critical areas.  In addition, Federal employees are prohibited
from striking as a means of supporting their contract demands.  Rather,
the Statute establishes the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP), which
functions to help Federal unions and agencies resolve impasses.
 Because the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute provides
only for impact bargaining where management exercises a retained right,
much bargaining focuses on procedural issues.  Although the Library
unions are bargaining within their statutory rights, they emphasize
bargaining on procedural issues that management considers "minor."
Examples of  issues that can be considered minor include bargaining over
office equipment and the size of an employee's cubicle.  In contrast,
management bargains over issues that unions do not consider in their best
interest (e.g., bargaining over employees wearing identification badges).
 Thus, unions and management hold different perceptions of what
bargaining issues are considered important.  This disagreement over the
importance of bargaining issues leads to delays in the bargaining process
and to poor relations between unions and management.
5. Management and union officials share similar views on reasons for
delays in the bargaining process but hold each other accountable for
delays.
 BoozaAllen conducted separate focus groups with library managers and
union officials knowledgeable of contract negotiation.6  They were
invited to discuss their perceptions of the bargaining and negotiation
process including reasons for delays in the process.   From the focus
group data, it appears that management and unions share similar
perceptions of reasons for delays in the bargaining process.  One reason
is the length of time to set groundrules.  Management and unions both
agreed that setting the groundrules can be a lengthy process.  The
process should last only a week but usually lasts many months.7  A reason
for delay is the difficulty in coordinating schedules of individuals
involved in the bargaining team.
 Another reason for delays in the bargaining process is due to the time
intervals between bargaining meetings.  Because bargaining team members
have difficulty in coordinating their schedules for bargaining meetings,
union and management teams may meet only a few hours each month.  The
time interval between meetings may last as long as a month.  As a result,
the bargaining process digresses and may last for months.  The
consequence of the delays is stagnation in the bargaining process,
leading to postponement in resolving bargaining issues.  Management and
union focus group participants indicated that effective contract
bargaining requires a continuous flow of ideas and discussions until a
decision is reached.
 Managers and union officials have different explanations for the
scheduling difficulty.  Managers said that union representatives claim
they were not given enough advance notice for bargaining even though
managers said that they do give unions sufficient notice.  Union
officials, however, believe that bargaining is not a top priority for
managers.  According to union officials, managers do not abide by the
time frames dictated in the contract or agreed upon in the groundrules in
master contract bargaining.  In addition, union officials believe that
managers will purposely delay  scheduling bargaining meetings and are not
willing to meet more than a few hours a month for bargaining purposes.
Union officials also reported that management often approaches the
bargaining table without having developed a suitable management plan.  As
a result, management does not have a clear focus of what it wants to
accomplish during contract bargaining.
 Managers also attribute delays in the bargaining process to the unions.
Specifically, managers reported that unions have little incentive to
complete negotiations quickly.  Therefore, according to managers, it is
to the union's advantage to continue bargaining until it achieves all its
goals.  Management also reported that unions do not prioritize issues
brought to the bargaining table.  As a result, the bargaining teams waste
time negotiating over issues management considers trivial.
 However, management admits to holding some responsibility for delays in
the process.  Managers report difficulty determining what is negotiable
and what is not because they find the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Statute confusing. Further time delays also occur because
managers must research issues to determine their negotiability.  Managers
indicate that the new Chief of Labor Relations has helped greatly in this
matter by providing clarification and guidance.
 In sum, management and union officials do have similar viewpoints
regarding the reasons behind delays in the bargaining negotiation
process, but they blame each other for causing the delays.  Although time
frames are either dictated by the union contracts or agreed upon by both
union and management, the time frames are not strictly enforced which
perpetuates the delays.
4.1.2 Labor Relations Recommendations
 Labor-management relations can span a spectrum from constant conflict to
collaboration; however, most  labor-management relationships fall between
the two extremes. Often the history of an organization can cause labor
and management to institutionalize their disagreements, but development
of an effective labor-management relationship can reduce these problems.
From our findings, we determined that the general major themes include a
lack of communication, a lack of understanding of the bargaining and
negotiations process, and a lack of training on the labor relations
program.  These deficiencies result in a breakdown in communication
between labor and management and a lack of trust between the two sides.
In order to address the concerns of both labor and management, we
recommend the following.
1. Develop systematic ways to increase communication between labor and
management.
 To begin to improve and foster effective labor-management relations, we
recommend that the Library utilize external facilitators  to lead labor
management sessions, encourage communication, and effectively manage
conflict.  FLRA indicated that facilitated labor-management sessions are
commonly used as a first step to eliminate small issues that can weigh
down an organization and to identify the major issues impacting labor
relations.  Federal collective bargaining is process-oriented by nature
and facilitated sessions enable labor and management to see past the
process and set ground rules for communication.  FLRA attorneys concur
that while apparent conflicts arise over priorities, both management and
the unions share a common belief in the Library as a valuable
institution.  By building on this shared belief along with the efforts of
the Chief of Labor Relations,   progress can be made concerning the lack
of communication at the Library.  These facilitated sessions would enable
labor and management to put aside trivial differences and get to the
essence of the issues.
2. Identify a Library unit to pilot simplified bargaining terms and
thereby improve relations.
 As a means for creating a breakthrough in more effective labor-
management relations, the Library should select a relatively small and
severable unit within the larger bargaining unit, especially if that unit
has a history of an unfavorable labor-management relationship (which
might get the union interested in participating).  The Library and the
union could then negotiate a much simplified set of terms with stricter
adherence to time frames.  These guidelines would be applicable to this
group only.  The format would emphasize discussions, not paper.  The
pilot would have a definite duration of less than an entire 3-year
contract so that it could be properly reviewed, modified, and extended if
successful.  Training would be included for all employees, supervisors,
and managers covered under the pilot.  Specific criteria would be
identified to show demonstrable improvement (e.g., fewer grievances).  If
the pilot succeeds, it would demonstrate to other parts of the Library
the benefit of working differently.  This kind of program has led to
improvements in other organizations but only when both sides recognized
that their relationship was defective.
3. Revitalize the labor relations training program geared toward
management.
 A focus of the training program should be to increase managers'
awareness of individual union members' rights as well as the rights and
the demands of the unions.  The benefit of managers' greater awareness of
union issues is an increased level of trust and open communication
between management and union.  In addition, training for managers and
union members focused on the contract negotiation process may accelerate
the negotiation process.  Training for both managers and union members
can address the inadequacies uncovered in our study and potentially
decrease the length of time spent in negotiations.
4.2 COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS
 Requirements of the settlement of the Cook Class Action Suit, described
in the Competitive Selection Process Case Study (see Volume 2), include:
Changes in employment policies at the Library of Congress, including a
revision to the competitive selection process
Promotions (40) and reassignments (up to 10) for a number of the class
members
Monetary relief to the class totaling $8.5 million, exclusive of attorney
fees
EEO, workforce diversity, and unlawful stereotyping training for Library
of Congress supervisors
The elimination of any discriminatory non job-related criteria for
noncompetitive personnel actions.
As part of the settlement, the court reserves jurisdiction for 4 years to
ensure compliance with the settlement.  In addition, the Library is
required to review the results of its employment decisions quarterly and
to provide plaintiffs' counsel with statistics demonstrating whether its
selection procedures have resulted in disparate impact on African-
Americans.
 In light of the Court's opinion and settlement agreement, the Office of
the Librarian and the Human Resources Service Unit has placed much
emphasis on establishing a new competitive selection process that is
consistent with the Court's requirements of compliance with the EEOC's
Uniform Guidelines for Selection Procedures.  BoozaAllen assessed the
Library's revised competitive selection process with the following
objectives:
Determine the length and reasonableness of time required for selection of
new employees, with reasonableness determined somewhat by customer
(manager) satisfaction
Determine whether changes in the hiring and promotion procedures as a
result of the Cook case address the inequalities that caused the
settlement.
The findings, detailed below, address the competitive selection process
in relation to these objectives.
4.2.1 Competitive Selection Process Findings
 BoozaAllen reviewed the competitive selection process (CSP) in relation
to the requirements of the Cook Settlement and the Uniform Guidelines and
against good management practice.  The findings, presented below,
highlight our evaluation of the CSP against those requirements and
standards.
1. The lengthy competitive selection process inhibits the Library's
ability to recruit efficiently; however, at this time changes are impeded
by the Cook Settlement Agreement.
 The CSP, developed prior to and made part of the Cook Settlement, has
been described as lengthy and cumbersome by HRS staff, Library staff and
OPM.  Exhibit 4-6 shows the time required to fill all vacancies posted
between FY 1993 and FY 1995.
EXHIBIT 4-6
Time Required To Fill Vacancies Posted Between FY93 and FY95
 The  median number of calendar days to fill vacancies is 177 days.  Few
vacancies (6 percent) were filled between 1 and 3 months.  Most of the
vacancies (78 percent)  were filled within 4 to 9 months.  Some vacancies
(16 percent) were filled in 10 months or more.  An HRS staff member
indicated that some positions are left open because of an ongoing need
(e.g., deck attendants); those vacancies were included in the data and
were not readily identifiable but are likely represented in the 12 months
and above category.  Additionally, the HRS staff member noted that
different types of positions take different amounts of time.  For
example, senior-level positions often take longer to fill than more
junior-level positions because recruitment is done over a broader area
(often nationally) and schedules of senior hiring officials and
applicants are difficult to arrange.  Because the vacancy data does not
identify job type, the calculations cannot distinguish between the types
of jobs.
 In comparing the Library's time to hire to three selected agencies, the
Library takes longer to hire.  Exhibit 4-7 highlights other agency
estimates of time to hire employees.8
EXHIBIT 4-7
Length of Time to Hire for Other Agencies
Agency
Calendar Days
U.S. Government Printing Office
42-56
National Archives and Records Administration
30-60
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
60-120
 Participants in employee satisfaction focus groups reiterated the
cumbersome and time consuming nature of the selection process.  The
participants cited such problems as:
Unreasonable times for hiring within the Library (over 18 months to 4
years).  Managers and Administrative Officers noted that the process
should take 120 days at a maximum
A cumbersome job analysis9 process that is confusing, lengthy, and
difficult to understand
Lack of standardized recruitment plan
Need for more training for those involved in the process (e.g., subject
matter expert (SME) panel training)
Poor applicant tracking system.
 External factors and mechanics of the process also add to the delays
such as:
Difficulty of scheduling SMEs (internal and external to the Library) for
job analysis and rating panels
Use of only one selecting official per position to interview candidates,
when there are often many candidates to interview
Delay by contractors in reporting job analysis results
Inefficiency of doing job analysis for individual positions or groups of
positions for each posting
Rating panel cut-offs (natural break) results in large number of
interviews10 (e.g., in FY 1995, an average of 61 interviews were
conducted for nonprofessional jobs in Copyright Services and an average
of 23 interviews were conducted for nonprofessional jobs in Constituent
Services)
Vague vacancy announcements are not job-specific and can cause those who
should self-select out of the position to apply.  This has been a long
standing problem within the Library
Large number of steps (over 30) with several hand-offs (see Exhibit 4-8).
Having a lengthy and cumbersome selection process inhibits the Library
from efficiently hiring qualified employees.  In the long run, this
inefficiency has and will have negative effects including:
Potential loss of highly qualified candidates to other jobs
Lack of trust in the system
Added costs of contractors and internal staff time
Inability to handle changes to recruitment and selection requirements
resulting from innovations in technology, changes to the Library mission,
or sizable staff turnover.
 The fact that the CSP is a part of the Cook Settlement requires the
Library to perform the actions outlined in the Settlement Agreement
Appendix B. The Library, therefore, is limited in its ability to make
adjustments or changes to the CSP.  The Library has taken initiatives to
improve the process within the limits of the Cook Settlement as described
below.
EXHIBIT 4-8
Competitive Selection Process Flowchart
(This exhibit not available electronically.)
2. The Library is making progress in addressing problems with the
competitive selection process11; however, it has no in-house selection
expert to provide oversight of the changes and the overall system.
 The Library has initiated some improvement strategies to address the
length and inefficiencies of the CSP.  For example, the "Improve
Competitive Selection Process Now!" task group (formed in 1995) outlined
several of the aforementioned problems surrounding the CSP and generated
possible solutions to the problems in its report.  The task force
recommendations addressed six key areas:
Planning-formulating hiring plans, operational strategies, assessing
progress toward achieving agency goals
Decentralization-decentralizing aspects of the process that do not
sacrifice legal defensibility to the service units
Resources-making the staffing function a higher priority with HRS and
reallocating staff to this function
Technology-automating to reduce operational inefficiencies and improve
communications
Process-streamlining the process by eliminating unnecessary steps
Development/Training-training the HR staff to lessen reliance on external
contractors.
 The task force generated an implementation plan that provided dates for
each of the recommendations to be initiated before the end of calendar
year 1995. Conclusions cannot currently be made as to whether the changes
have had an impact on the length or delays of the process because the
changes were made late in 1995.  Of the 26 recommendations outlined in
the implementation plan, 23 have been initiated or fully implemented.
The 3 remaining recommendations and the status of their implementation
include:
Require annual hiring plans be submitted by each service unit:  under
discussion within HRS
Collapse Level 2 and 3 Affirmative Action reviews and eliminate
comparisons of applicant data against civilian labor force data:  under
discussion because of its potential impact on the Settlement Agreement
Eliminate the need for contracting out some affirmative action reviews:
initiated through the hiring of a full-time statistician; however, the
Library still uses contractors.
 Another Library initiative to address CSP problems is a contract with
OPM applying the Microcomputer Assisted Rating System (MARS) process to
Library technician jobs.  MARS has many components conceptually in common
with the procedure required in the Settlement Agreement.  MARS is a
computer-assisted job analysis and rating system that has been used by a
number of Federal agencies. OPM and HRS staff have indicated that the
MARS takes less time (60 days to make 39 selections for the Library
Technician (1411) series) than the existing procedure because a) the job
analysis segment is faster due to the use of generic job analyses and the
current position description, b) fewer panels need convening since
subject matter experts are required only for the review of the task
inventory and the interview stage,  and c) the computer performs the
ratings for both minimum qualifications and the quality-ranking factors.
 The Library has made other changes that should address the issues
surrounding the CSP.  In December 1995, HRS implemented the Posting and
Applicant Tracking System (PATS) aimed at remedying the applicant
tracking problem.  Also, HRS has contracted with the OPM to do job
analyses for entire series within the Library to speed up these analyses.
 The Library's initiatives to make changes to the CSP seem to be targeted
to correct the problem areas in the process.  However, the Library does
not have a selection expert dedicated to oversee the CSP and the changes
being made to improve it.  We found that within HRS several offices and
staff are involved in different aspects of the process, but no one person
is fully responsible for the system and its implementation, or for
improvements to it.  Without this expertise, this process could be
implemented incorrectly.
3. The Library of Congress is in compliance with the requirements of the
Cook Settlement Agreement and the Uniform Guidelines.
The Library currently does not have to implement all the requirements
outlined in the Settlement Agreement because certain requirements are
pending final Court Approval12 (see Exhibit 4-9) and must await the
disposition of five appeals to the Settlement Agreement.  Only those
requirements contained within the Settlement Agreement that were
contingent upon Preliminary Court Approval13 (August 2, 1994) must be
implemented at this time.
 In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Library has developed
Human Resource Directives and has revised its competitive selection
process, which was incorporated as Appendix B of the Settlement
Agreement.  In addition, it has provided training to panel members, Human
Resource personnel, and selecting officials on the competitive selection
process and its core elements.  OPM has been contracted to perform the
disparate impact review; however, it has not begun pending Final Court
Approval.  And finally, documentation as outlined on the Settlement
Agreement is being maintained within the PATS (which was started in
December 1995) in the Personnel Office for the competitive selection
process and within the Personnel and Payroll Database through the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center (NFC) for the
noncompetitive promotion information.
 The Library's competitive selection written policy is consistent with
the Uniform Guidelines.  The Library has written policy describing each
of the steps in the CSP.  A written standard operating procedure for
conducting job analyses is in existence.  There is a general
understanding that the competitive selection procedures must be based on
job analysis and job analysis results linked to selection requirements.
OPM reviewed the written competitive selection procedures and concluded
that if the written policy and procedures were implemented as specified
on paper, the Library would be in compliance with the Uniform Guidelines.
OPM also noted that implementation of the selection procedures ultimately
determines compliance with the Uniform Guidelines.  By interviewing Human
Resources specialists to determine the procedures they follow and by
comparing their responses to policy requirements, BoozaAllen determined
that practice meets policy.
EXHIBIT 4-9
Review of the Components of the Settlement Agreement
Requirement
Effective Date
Current Status
Competitive selection process changes
Upon Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94
Implemented
Analysis of disparate impact of competitive selection process
Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time
Not yet applicable
Ensuring all noncompetitive personnel actions are job related
Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time
Not yet applicable
Providing training to all managers on EEO, changes to the competitive
selection process and noncompetitive personnel actions, diversity, and
unlawful stereotyping
Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time
640 managers were trained on Diversity awareness - was included as part
of the Library's "Diversity Management Plan."
Providing to all persons involved in the competitive selection process
(Human Resources, panels, and selecting officials) training on the
competitive selection process and the need for job-related promoting of
diversity prior to participation
Upon Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94
Implemented
Meet with management no less than 2 times per year (class members,
counsel, and Library)
Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time -- applicable
for 4 years.
Not yet applicable
Library management shall maintain and make available to Plaintiffs
Counsel quarterly reports for competitive selection process -
Professional and Administrative positions
Upon Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94
Information being maintained; reporting requirement not applicable until
90 days after Final Court Approval.
Library management shall maintain and make available to Plaintiffs
Counsel quarterly reports for Promotions under the noncompetitive
selection system
Upon Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94
Information being maintained; reporting requirement not applicable until
90 days after Final Court Approval.
Plaintiff class will receive $8.5 million
Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time
Not yet applicable
Library shall promote 40 class members
Effective within 90 days of Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at
this time
Not yet applicable
Library shall reassign up to 10 class members
Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time
Not yet applicable
OPM shall conduct a disparate impact review of the competitive selection
process on African-Americans for professional and administrative
positions
Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time.
Not yet applicable
The Agreement will expire within 4 years.
Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time
Not yet applicable
The Library shall disseminate a notice to potential Class Members of
their rights under this agreement
Within 60 days After Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94
Implemented
Plaintiffs Counsel (after consultation with Class Members) shall appoint
a Plaintiffs Committee of up to 13 members who by simple majority shall
decide all issues of class membership and allocation or distribution of
the relief provided in this Settlement Agreement.
Within 30 days after Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94
Implemented
All plaintiffs decisions shall be subject to a Fairness Hearing
Upon Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94
Implemented
All attached appendixes are considered part of the agreement
Upon Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94
Implemented
30 days notice to be provided to the Library of any alleged violations of
the terms of the Agreement
Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time
Not yet applicable
The Agreement will satisfy all conditions of the Class Action
Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time
Not yet applicable
No retaliation may be taken against any Class Member because of
participation in this litigation
Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time
Not yet applicable
Plaintiffs Counsel may designate expert consultants to assist in policy
review
Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time
Not yet applicable
Library shall pay the Plaintiffs Counsel up to $15,000 in expenses per
year
Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time
Not yet applicable
Library will pay attorney fees
Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time
Not yet applicable
Library personnel indicated that content validation was chosen as the
Library's method for validation of the CSP.  Therefore, in addition to
the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, the Uniform Guidelines
require that the Library maintain content validity documentation, which
should include: employer location and date, purpose of the validity
study, job analysis content and method, description of the selection
procedure, relationship between selection procedure and the job,
alternative procedures investigated, how procedure will be applied/used,
steps taken to maintain accuracy and completeness, and a contact person
for more information about the study.  The Library maintains this
documentation (e.g., copy of position description, copy of Affirmative
Action recruitment plan, copies of all correspondence) in accordance with
the Uniform Guidelines.
4. Lack of methodological soundness in existing Library studies makes it
impossible to determine if there is adverse impact in Library employment
decisions.
 The Affirmative Action and Special Programs Office (AASPO) has conducted
several studies on whether there are gender, race, or national origin
(RNO) differences (known as adverse impact) in terms of library
employment procedures.  AASPO provided two studies (which were conducted
in June 1993 and May 1994) that investigated whether adverse impact
existed with four types of awards.   The first covered the period from
July 1, 1990 to October 6, 1991; the second covered the period from July
1, 1990 to June 30, 1993.  Both studies compared protected groups in
terms of percentage selections for each award and medians for award
amount.  It is not possible to conclude the presence of adverse impact in
the Library awards system based on these studies for two reasons.  The
studies did not compute statistics testing the significance or
probability of the observed differences.  They also did not look at the
potential impact of extraneous variables on awards.  Number and amount of
awards are frequently correlated with other variables such as type of
job, grade level, and organizational unit; a conclusion of adverse impact
requires accounting for these variables.
 Two studies by the same division investigated the adverse impact of the
CSP.  These studies also have methodological shortcomings. They attempted
to determine if there were differential rates of selection at three
points in the CSP across multiple vacancy announcements.  The studies
applied the four-fifths rule14 and cited the Cook Settlement Agreement as
to the appropriateness of this application.  In reality, the Settlement
Agreement states that after the four-fifths rule has been applied, a
Multiple Pools Statistical Analysis15 must be done in order to draw
accurate conclusions.
 If the Library does not ensure that accurate analyses of adverse impact
are performed, it is in jeopardy of not complying with the Cook
Settlement Agreement.  Additionally, the Library will not be able to
adequately monitor the success of its hiring practice in meeting
Affirmative Action and diversity goals.  The PATS, recently installed in
December 1995, collects data on the race and gender of applicants for
each
competitive selection vacancy announcement in terms of number of
applicants, number of qualified applicants, number of better qualified
applicants, number interviewed, and number selected.  This database will
facilitate conducting adverse impact analyses in the future.
4.2.2 Competitive Selection Process Recommendations
 In our assessment, the CSP and its implementation has room for
improvement.  Our recommendations focus on improvements that will enhance
the existing CSP and will place the Library in a better position for the
future when the Cook Settlement period is over.
1. The Library should continue implementing its many competitive
selection initiatives and should place an employee selection expert in an
oversight role.
 The Library needs to place an expert with appropriate credentials in an
oversight role of the CSP either as an employee or through a contract
vehicle.  As OPM noted, implementation is the key to compliance with the
Uniform Guidelines.  This expert could give direction to the process and
ensure correct implementation of the job analysis procedures, rating
panels, and interview process.  The expert also could assist in
demonstrating the similarities between MARS and the procedure outlined in
the settlement agreement from different perspectives to help obtain
approval of more generalized application.  Improvements to the system
could also be adequately monitored by a selection expert.
 In addition, the Library should position itself now for when the Cook
Settlement Agreement time period is over by continuing to follow up on
recommendations for improvements in various studies/initiatives.  The
existing CSP could have major improvements once the Settlement
requirements are no longer applicable.  Use of this expert to plan for
changes and to set up an innovative process would position the Library
well for the future.
2. The Library needs to obtain the appropriate statistical expertise to
determine if there is adverse impact in its employment decisions.
 Determining adverse impact is complex.  The Library needs to obtain an
appropriately trained person to perform or review all analyses of adverse
impact and other personnel analyses.  Based on shortcomings of the
studies we evaluated, we believe the Library does not demonstrate
adequate skills to perform these analyses.  A qualified person
understands statistics and workforce demography, and how adverse impact
has been analyzed in court cases.  This person should be familiar with
issues related to the multiple pool versus the single pool issue and the
variety of statistical procedures available.  The Library should also
evaluate the adequacy of the outstanding contracts that are investigating
adverse impact.
4.3 PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
 In assessing the human resources function at the Library, we reviewed
several processes to determine if policies and procedures reflect good
management practices.  Specific focus was placed on the following
objectives:
Determine employee satisfaction with human resources services and
employee perceptions of management
Evaluate the Library's use of fitness for duty examinations
Determine the typical avenues used by employees and managers for
complaints and adverse actions
Evaluate performance management at the Library and equitability of
personnel actions.
We have developed the following findings in relation to these objectives.
4.3.1 Personnel Management Findings
 Several improvements are needed in the Library's personnel functions.
In general, the Library has not given sufficient attention to workforce
planning and policy maintenance, and employees reflect negative views of
HRS personnel services.  Each of these issues is explained in detail
below.
1. Lack of attention to a static and aging workforce may result in the
loss of crucial intellectual capital upon which the Library depends for
its effectiveness.
 Employees at the Library have an average service there of 16.4 years and
an average of 17.9 years of Federal service.   In addition, the average
age of the workforce is 46.4 years.  Because of the workforce's
longevity, the Library's major processes are heavily dependent upon deep,
long-term intellectual capital resident in its current staff. The Library
is nearing a time when it could lose a significant portion of its staff
to retirement.  The workforce that has been characterized by stability
and long tenure is now significantly older.  Estimates as of December
1995 indicate that approximately one-third of the Library workforce is
eligible for optional or voluntary early retirement.16  Estimates for CRS
are that by the year 2005, 50 percent of the workforce will be eligible
for retirement, and by 2010 more than  70 percent will be eligible.17
 The long tenure of the workforce is both a strength and a weakness.  For
example, the legacy systems (e.g., Multi-Use MARC System) have been
around for 20 years or more and require knowledge of how records are
created and in-depth knowledge of the cataloging process itself in order
to make changes.  The current employees are very knowledgeable of the
legacy systems, particularly with the complex code that has evolved over
the many years of system service, but new employees will have difficulty
learning those complexities because documentation of the systems is not
up to date.  In addition, people who were hired in the 1970s are experts
in mainframes, which allowed for the separation and specification of
individual skills.  However, in today's Internet environment, different
skills are needed.
 This problem is further exemplified in relationship to the Library's
core processes.  The core processes require significant specialized
skills because of the variations of media, languages, and sources of the
Library's materials.  Each variation requires a separate and distinct set
of skills.  For example, the Library processes collections in more than
400 languages and maintains staff with those language skills. These
skills will be difficult to replace because of their specialized nature,
decreasing applicant pools (particularly in foreign languages), and the
decreasing budget available to hire new employees.
 Another example is CRS, which houses a pool of experts on legislative
matters, including legislative context and institutional memory of
congressional precedent and experience.  Loss of expertise will have a
negative impact on the services to Congress and on the intellectual
capital of the Library.
 The Human Resources function at the Library also has some significant
issues that will impede the Library's ability to maintain its
intellectual capital.  Coordinated training is not yet in place.  The
Human Resources personnel and processes are not equipped to handle
changes to recruitment, training, or selection requirements that may
result from innovations in technology, changes to the Library mission, or
sizable staff turnover.  The Human Resources services unit is also not
able to strategically plan for workload and staffing requirements because
of its poor coordination with, and lack of respect among, the Library
service units.  Ongoing problems in communications between managers and
the unions inhibit their ability to plan together for future directions
of the Library.  And finally, the individual personnel functions,
particularly the CSP and training functions, inhibit the Library's
ability to bring on new staff members and get them trained quickly.  This
situation is evidenced by the fact that it
takes members 5 to 6 months on average to recruit and hire new employees
and that training is not offered regularly.  Failure to plan attrition
and skills maintenance will inhibit the Library's ability to maintain the
intellectual skills required for its mission in the future.
2. The Library has not completed initiatives to update its personnel
policies and regulations.
 In 1992, a Library task force undertook a detailed review of personnel
regulations "to ensure that they are fair and equitable." Of the 157
Library of Congress Regulations (LCRs) dealing with Personnel (some of
which were originally issued in the 1960s and 1970s), 96 were part of the
review.  The task force found that regulations needed updating for many
reasons, including removal of dated language, elimination of content no
longer reflecting current policy or practice, addition of content to
increase the clarity of procedures, alteration to eliminate divisive
policy or practices, and updating to reflect current organizational
structure.
 In the fall of 1995, the regulations were updated.  Based on our review
of the regulations, little evidence exists that significant changes to
regulations have been made to address the recommendations of the task
force.
 The task force also noted the need to clarify the relationship between
the different types of guiding documentation, such as Human Resources
Directives, LCRs, Policy Memoranda, and Collective Bargaining Agreements.
Having multiple outdated sources of guidance can be confusing to
employees and may result in misapplication of personnel policies and
regulations.
3. No standard application of the performance appraisal system is in
place across the Library.
 No centralized control of, or standards for, the performance appraisal
system are in place; appraisal of performance depends on the activities
of the individual service units.  According to HRS staff, oversight of
the performance appraisal system is assigned to the Directorate of
Personnel.  However, we could not identify anyone in the Directorate with
this responsibility.  A lack of certainty exists among Human Resources
staff members about where the function resides.  Multiple sources said
that the person with the responsibility left the Library and no one new
has been assigned the responsibility.  Performance appraisal regulations
cite an office that no longer exists as providing administrative
oversight to the system.  Additionally, no tracking system within HRS is
available to determine how many people received ratings in any given
year.
 Focus group participants noted that:
Many do not receive regular appraisals
Ratings are often meaningless
Those who have topped off in their grade feel that the performance
appraisal provides little incentive
Much subjectivity exists in the system
Some managers are not willing to give outstanding ratings because of
paperwork involved
Managers are not held accountable for doing performance appraisals.
 Managers specifically noted that it is difficult and time consuming to
administer the performance appraisal system.  Managers are given little
guidance on how to perform appraisals and the Library has not provided
systematic training on the performance appraisal system to supervisors.
 The need for appraisal system improvement is a recurring theme in
previous Library studies and task forces.  The issues surrounding
performance appraisals have been studied in both the Management and
Planning Committee in 1988 and in the Arthur Young study in 1988.  These
reports cited numerous problems with the system, including lack of clear
performance standards and the absence of career development and
advancement discussions during performance reviews.
4. Library Position Classification and Management Office performs a
number of essential activities but timeliness and control over outcomes
are concerns.
 Position classification across the Federal Government has received
decreasing emphasis over the last 10 years.  The Library's position
classification activities reflect this trend; the number of classifiers
in the Position Classification and Management Office has decreased from
14 to 6 since 1982.  Office personnel do provide a number of essential
services including:
Certifying positions as part of the competitive selection system
Reviewing position descriptions and conducting desk audits to determine a
position's classification or to ascertain if it should be reclassified
Counseling managers and supervisors on classification procedures.
 The Office does not perform the maintenance reviews and surveys
specified in position classification regulations necessary to ensure that
all Library position descriptions are accurate. According to HR personnel
staff, a general belief is held that position descriptions need increased
maintenance to keep them up to date.
 Library employees can request position reclassifications and can, if
necessary, appeal the results.  Participants in focus groups who have had
positions reclassified are satisfied with the results, but they complain
about the time required. Employees seeking reclassification cite that it
has taken from 6 months to 1 year to reclassify a position.  In the
classification process the Chief of Classification assigns expected
completion dates that are on average 2 weeks from assignment.  Staff
within the Classification Office indicated that the delays are
predominantly explained by workload, staffing, and scheduling problems.
Additionally, if the classification decision is appealed, the process can
be delayed.
 Staff of the Office express dissatisfaction because they cannot control
the position classification system to the extent they believe
professional classification requirements dictate.  Staff members
frequently feel forced to accept classification decisions made by
consultants hired by the service units.  Library regulations state that
reorganization packages, which are reviewed by the classification
specialists for their impact on job descriptions and job classifications,
should be developed with the Office's involvement, but instead the Office
receives the packages after they are developed when the office staff
cannot adequately assess the impact on job descriptions and
classifications.   Staff believe a decision is needed about whether
certain classification and position management activities belong in Human
Resources or within the service units.
5. The use of fitness for duty examinations at the Library has led to
criticism and mistrust.
 The use of fitness-for-duty examinations18 (initially outlined in LCR
2018-2) by the Library has been widely criticized.  Despite the fact that
Congress curtailed the use of fitness-for-duty examinations in the
Executive Branch agencies in the 1980s, the Librarys policy and use of
the examinations continued until 1995.  Unions and employees made
allegations about misuse of the examinations to handle problem employees.
However, after examining the numbers of referrals made and the results of
the referrals, there is little indication of any skewed distribution of
referrals.  Exhibit 4-10 shows the distribution of referrals for
examinations that occurred from FY 1991 to FY 1995.
EXHIBIT 4-10
Fitness for Duty Examinations, FY 1991-1995
Examinations Requested - 57
Examinations Conducted/Not Conducted
Conducted
28
Not conducted based on assessment of medical records
16
Not conducted based on other actions
13
Refused  5
No action taken 5
Enforced leave 1
Removed  1
Request withdrawn 1
Types of Examinations
Psychological/Substance Abuse
7
Medical/Substance Abuse
3
Psychological
24
Medical/Psychological
6
Medical
17
Service Units
Collections Services
24
Constituent Services
22
Copyright Office
1
Congressional Research Service
6
Cultural Affairs
1
Law Library
1
Office of the Librarian
2
Managers Requesting Examination
8 managers requested
2 examinations
41 managers requested
1 examination
Grade
Wage Grade and Other Pay Plans
8
GS 1-4
3
GS-5-8
28
GS 9-12
10
GS 13-15
8
Race
American Indian
1
Asian
1
Black
28
White
27
Gender
Female
25
Male
32
Union
CREA
5
AFSCME 2910
10
AFSCME 2477
36
Non-bargaining
6
Determinations of Exams Done
Fit
8
Unfit/Conditional or Ft/Conditional
15
Unfit
3
No Determination (Medical Records Not Released)
2
Of the 57 examinations requested,  only 28 were conducted, with the
remaining 29 requests either not conducted because existing medical
records could be used to make a fitness determination (16) or  because of
other employee or Library actions (5 employees  refused the examinations,
5 employees had no action taken, 1 employee was placed on enforced leave,
1 employee was removed, and 1 supervisor withdrew the request).
 Based on our discussions with the Medical Officer and our review of the
data provided, there do not appear to be any trends indicating potential
misuse or bias in the use of the referral process.  Allegations that
certain supervisors abused the use of the FFDs are not substantiated.
Only eight managers in the Library requested more than one examination
over the four fiscal years, and there is no indication that any one
service unit is responsible for the bulk of the referrals.  In fact,
while both Collections Services and Constituent Services had the most
referrals (24 and 22 respectively), they also have the most employees in
the Library.  In addition, in FY 1995, 9 white employees were referred
and 4 African-American employees were referred, which represent only .004
percent and .002 percent of the Library populations of white and African-
American employees in FY 1995, respectively.  The 8 males and 6 females
referred in FY 1995 represent .004 and .002 percent of the males and
females at the Library respectively.  Given that not even 1 percent of
any of the groups was referred for exams, there is no indication of bias
toward any group.
 Exhibit 4-11 summarizes the actions taken by the Library as a result of,
or in conjunction with, the examinations or referrals.  In 18 cases where
either examinations were done or medical records were used to make a
conditional determination, accommodations were made for the employees to
be able to maintain their jobs.  In only three cases were employees found
to be unfit without conditions, and in all three cases the Library worked
to have them leave on disability or retirement.  Fourteen of the 57
referrals resulted in adverse actions.
EXHIBIT 4-11
Library of Congress Actions on Referrals19, FY 1991-1995
Action Taken
Number
Job modifications made
5
Resolution agreements
3
Employee detailed to another job
320
Employee placed on forced leave/LWOP
8
Employee refused examination
--Removed (3)
--Downgraded (1)
--Voluntary retirement/reassignment (1)
5
None
32
 On November 3, 1995, the policy for nonbargaining unit staff was changed
to reflect the general executive branch policy, including:
Much more limited basis for directed examinations
If a manager needs medical evidence in order to make a personnel
decision, the Library may offer an examination to an employee
Unless the Library offers an examination, it will be the employee's
responsibility to provide medical evidence demonstrating a medical or
psychological impairment to explain any noted performance deficiencies or
misconduct
There is no provision for a representative for the employee during the
process
Under circumstances where the Library may direct a medical examination
(which does not disclose any medical reason to explain the behavior),
then a psychiatric examination may be directed
The procedure eliminates the opportunity for an employee to provide an
alternative list of doctors.
 A similar policy change is being negotiated with the bargaining units.
Until an agreement is reached with the unions on the new policy, there is
a moratorium on the use of mandatory fitness-for-duty examinations.
 This change in policy reflects what is typical of other government and
private sector agencies.   However, despite the policy change, potential
exists for continued mistrust of the fitness-for-duty examination process
because of its link to managers at the Library.  While the policy change
will probably reduce the criticism, the level of mistrust in the process
is likely to remain unless the Library disconnects the employee
assistance program from the Library management and supervisory structure.
6. Focus group participants view the Library as a professionally
rewarding place to work but have mixed views concerning human resources
services.
 Focus group participants noted several positive aspects of their jobs.
Specific examples of why the Library is a professionally rewarding place
to work include:
Dream job for librarians
Unique jobs that would not be found at any other place of employment
Use of language backgrounds
Family atmosphere due to the tenure of the staff
Prestige of providing services to scholars, congresspersons, and authors
Several opportunities to learn.
However, focus group participants also discussed several issues/negative
perceptions with HR services.  Their perceptions are promulgated by
several factors.  Human Resources has been reorganized several times in
the recent past, including organizing into a team approach in 1990 and
back to a functional organization in 1995.  In addition, the management
of the HRS service unit has changed hands and structure several times.
Turnover of HRS staff has been quite low.  For example, of the 97 total
employees within HRS, five employees left HRS, and three people were
hired in the past year.  This turnover mirrors the traditional attrition
rates of 3 to 3.5 percent in the Library.  Low turnover and lack of
training within HRS suggests that little new expertise has been infused
into the HRS workforce.  The reorganizations and changes in management
have likely been an influence on the fragmented service that has been
provided to the service units.  A final factor which has influenced the
perception of the service provided to the Library staff is that HRS has
historically been perceived as a low priority of the Librarian and
management as a whole.
 The perceptions and themes expressed by multiple participants in
multiple employee satisfaction focus groups are described in Exhibit 4-12
below.  The Employee Satisfaction survey that BoozaAllen & Hamilton is
distributing and analyzing  should help quantify these perceptions and
provide further evidence of the attitudes of Library employees.
EXHIBIT 4-12
Employee Perceptions of HRS Offices
Office
Perception
Employment Office
% Selection procedures are lengthy and cumbersome
% Information is not provided about the status of applications within the
process
Classification
% Often pleased with results of reclassifications
% Process for reclassifications is lengthy (from 6 months to 1 year)
Training and Development
% Not sure of the purpose and services of the office.  Training is mainly
provided at the service unit level
% Have issue with training in general at the Library (see the Training
section of this report for more detail)
Pay and Personnel Information (PPI)
% In general, pleased with payroll services.
% Have had isolated problems with delays in processing changes in
personnel status (e.g., name or address change and pay increases)
% Some of the forms used with PPI are not user friendly
Equal Employment Opportunity and Dispute Resolutions (EEO/DR)
% The office provides useful services
% Processes can take a long time
% Concerned about confidentiality
% Unsure of where the office's allegiance is-with management or the
employees
Affirmative Action and Special Programs Office
% The special intern and tuition assistance programs have been viewed as
a positive approach to promoting employees in dead-end on professional
jobs
% Implementation of the programs within the office has been sporadic and
inconsistent
Employee Relations Office (ERO)
% People have had both good and bad experiences with the office
% Concern about confidentiality
% Several highly respected ERO staff have left - concerned that quality
will not be as good
% Some participants were unsure of what services ERO provides
Labor Relations
% Have received inconsistent guidance from different staff members
% Many had no interactions with the office
 Focus group participants also highlighted issues related to overall HR
services including:
Untimely services
Inability to access HRS staff
Lack of responsiveness
Poor staff qualifications
Little information about HRS services, processes, time frames, and points
of contact
No comprehensive employee handbook.
These perceptions as well as those noted surrounding the specific offices
indicate that Library employees perceive HRS as providing poor customer
service.  These perceptions impact the level of satisfaction and trust
that employees have with HRS.
 4.3.2 Personnel Management Recommendations
 The following recommendations offer improvement options and ideas for
the Library to follow in addressing the findings noted above.
Recommendations are made to address specific problem areas as well as
global changes that could be made to offer the personnel services
differently.
1. The Library needs to be more proactive in planning for, and
developing, its future workforce.
 As the Library experiences a decreasing amount of resources and an
increasing set of technologies to accomplish its mission, ingenuity,
planning and strategy must come together.  As budgets decrease and
organizations lose expertise to retirement and downsizing initiatives,
the Library should implement key initiatives such as succession planning
to alleviate the threat that a loss in expertise may create.  Some
planning efforts that the Library should undertake include the following:
Establish a mentoring system that encourages senior employees to share
their expertise and to create a legacy of knowledge that will outlast
their service.
Establish future mission requirements and determine the skills gap
between current and future skill requirements.  This analysis should be
used to plan the types of hires required to keep the Library expertise up
to date with mission requirements.
Ensure linkage of the training and career development programs to foster
development of the correct skills for meeting anticipated career
deficiencies as attrition occurs.
Ensure that process and procedures are fully documented so that new
employees can get up to speed quickly.
 CRS is currently conducting planning to sustain its intellectual
capital.  By thorough planning of this nature, the Library can alleviate
the potential pitfalls and costs of any extreme change in its workforce
in the future.
2. The Library needs to update and simplify its policy and regulation
system.
 Having so many different sources of guiding documentation is confusing
to employees, particularly when some of the content no longer reflects
policy and/or practice.  The Library needs to implement one system to
handle all policy and regulations.  Existing documents should be modified
and simplified.  The task force report provides a start, since they
provided a detailed review of many LCRs and types of policy
documentation.
3. The Library should ensure standard applications of the performance
appraisal across the Library.
 The Library has a clear idea of the problems and issues related to the
performance appraisal system.  The system has received much study, but
there has been little follow-through of the recommendations.  Performance
appraisal systems need consolidation and standardization as much as
possible.  Supervisors need training in how to assess performance, set
performance standards, give feedback, and provide career development
guidance.
4. The Library should redefine the role of position classification and
management.
 It is unlikely that classification staffing will increase in the current
environment.  Therefore, the Position Classification and Management
Office must redefine its role given existing staffing levels.  The Office
should continue providing position classification/reclassification review
upon request, as well as certifying the accuracy of position descriptions
that are part of the competitive selection system.  These services need
the consistent standards and objectivity only a centralized office can
provide.  These roles are particularly important given the Cook case.
Other responsibilities such as oversight and maintenance of the system
should reside in the service units.  The Office should actively take on a
training and consultative role to assist the service units.  The Library
should update regulations to reflect these changing roles and clearly
communicate the changes to staff.
 A  change also is needed in position classification policy.  Whenever it
is determined that an accurate position description does not exist during
a classification appeal, the Library should conduct a desk audit and base
position classification decisions on current job duties.
5. The Library should ensure that the HR staff are qualified to perform
their work.
 The HRS staff has been criticized by other Library employees for
unresponsiveness and seemingly poor qualifications.  This has contributed
to a poor reputation of HRS among the Library service units, which
lessens its authority.  HRS should conduct a full skills analysis of its
HR staff against the requirements of the positions.  The skills gap
(i.e., the difference between staff skills and required job skills) will
provide information about the types of skills HR should acquire through
training, new hires, or outsourcing.
6. Federal Government demonstration projects may offer innovative ideas
for some personnel processes.
 Three demonstration projects sponsored by OPM may be applicable to the
Library's personnel service issues.  Two demonstration projects are
targeted toward decreasing the amount of time required to hire new
employees and one project is focused in part on improving labor-
management relations:
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Examining/Selection
Process-The USDA project uses job-related criteria to develop a "quality
group" of eligible candidates rather than numerical rating and ranking of
candidates.  This project has led to improved satisfaction of site
managers and decreased hiring times (from 136 and 96 days on average, to
88 and 78 days respectively) for both professional and administrative
positions at one USDA site.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Hiring Methods-
NIST instituted the expansion of direct hire authority for professional
and support occupations and the use of agency-based hiring for
administrative and technical positions.  Under the direct hiring
procedure the average hiring time was 10 weeks compared to 18 weeks
(based on 1991 results) under agency-based hiring procedures.
The Pacer-Share Project, based at U.S. Air Force Sacramento Air Logistics
Center and Defense Logistics Agency, Sacramento Specialized Distribution
Site, McClellan Air Force Base, California, experimented with new methods
of labor-management cooperation based in part on the participative
management philosophy and total quality management principles of
Dr. W. Edwards Deming.  Although first year results were unimpressive,
indications are that after the first year, labor and management had
improved cooperation.  This was the first personnel management
demonstration project with major union involvement.
Given the relevance of these topics, and the piloting of these projects
within Federal agencies, these projects may be helpful to the Library in
providing options to consider in the future.  As is the case with all
piloted projects, care must be taken by the Library to fully assess
whether these projects carry any potential side effects that may be
detrimental to the Library (e.g., one outcome of broadening direct-hire
authority may be lack of control over diversity in the workplace).
Although the warnings must be heeded, the Library can benefit from
reviewing these projects since they are developed, supported, and tested
with OPM approval.
 However, as stated earlier in this report, the Library must be
continuously aware of how any changes to its selection process impact on
its compliance to the Cook Settlement Agreement.  Once the Library is
outside of the 4-year period of the Settlement, these options may be more
attractive and may also be further tested in other Federal agencies.
4.4 HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES DEPLOYMENT
 The Human Resources function has been reorganized several times in the
recent past.  In early 1990, HRS established a team structure, with HR
teams providing services to a single service unit.  Recently, in
September 1995, HRS reorganized to be more functionally oriented.
Additionally, the management of the HRS service unit has changed
incumbents and structure several times.  For example, in June 1989 the
Associate Librarian for Management was named the head of Library
Management Services where Human Resources resided.  In 1992, the
Associate Librarian for Management was reassigned as Associate Librarian
for Special Projects and an Acting Associate Librarian for Human
Resources was assigned as part of the Library's management team.  The
incumbent was officially appointed Associate Librarian for Human
Resources in August 1993 and currently remains in that position.
However, the position was recently reassigned to report to the Associate
Librarian for Support Services.
 Because the organization of the HR function directly impacts the way
that HR services are offered/provided and as part of our study of human
resources, BoozaAllen evaluated the human resources organization for:
Duplication of effort and inefficiencies
Service delivery/deployment issues
Centralization and decentralization of functions.
Our analysis of the Library's HR function in relation to these objectives
is provided below.
4.4.1 Human Resource Services Deployment Findings
 BoozaAllen has noted several findings in relation to the deployment of
HR services at the Library.  These findings focus on areas where
improvements are needed.
1. The Library lacks an integrated approach to diversity.
 The Library has three offices focused on diversity issues:
Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints Office and Dispute Resolution
Center (EEOCO/DRC)
Affirmative Action and Special Programs Office (AASPO)
Senior Advisor for Diversity within the Librarian's Office.
Three offices mean three diversity approaches:
The EEOCO/DRC Office (specifically EEOCO) resolves disputes related to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,  including complaints and
charges of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, age, or physical or mental disability.  Dispute Resolution is an
alternative process to resolve both discrimination complaints and other
worksite problems through a more informal resolution process than EEO.
The EEOCO/DRC Office counsels and trains Library staff on the laws and
issues related to EEO.
The Librarian established the AASPO in September 1992 "...to help carry
out high-priority initiatives to ensure equal employment opportunity and
promote understanding of the rich diversity of backgrounds represented in
the Library work force."  The AASPO develops policies, plans, and
programs aimed at increasing the participation of underserved populations
and conducts evaluations of the effectiveness of the Library's programs
in meeting Affirmative Action goals.
The Librarian created the Senior Advisor for Diversity position in
October 1994 to be devoted to supporting his efforts in dealing with
diversity issues at the Library.  The position has recently been combined
with the Chief of Staff position within the Office of the Librarian.  As
a result, the Chief of Staff will be devoted to both the day-to-day
functions of the Library and to diversity issues.
 In FY 1995, at the request of Congress, the Library analyzed the
organizational and functional relationships between the Office of
Affirmative Action and Special Programs, the Dispute Resolution Center,
and the Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints Office with the purpose
of eliminating possible overlap, duplication of effort, and conflict
among these units.  The Library reported that "AASPO's mission and
functions are distinct from either EEOCO or DRC." AASPO sponsors intern
and other education programs, conducts targeted recruitment, and reviews
competitive selection actions.  On the other hand, they found that "EEOCO
and DRC are charged with resolving worksite problems."  The Office of the
Senior Advisor for Diversity was not included in the analysis.
 Both in interviews and in focus groups, Library staff commented on a
lack of integration among the efforts of the three offices.  Employees
believe that the EEOCO/DRC and AASPO should be moved outside the HRS and
linked to the Senior Advisor for Diversity.  A similar alignment was also
suggested by the Management and Planning Committee in November 1988 as
well as in the 1988 Arthur Young study of the Library.  The studies
suggested establishing an EEO office (AASPO did not exist then) that
would function independently of all personnel and human resources
functions.  Employees at the Library noted that moving EEOCO/DR and AASPO
would promote a more objective approach to the EEO and Affirmative Action
issues for the Library.
 Additional perceptions about diversity at the Library were provided in
the employee satisfaction focus groups.  These perceptions include:
A positive change in hiring has provided a more diverse profile in some
areas
Management's commitment is not strong enough
Minorities in management positions are seen as tokens and are not given
the respect and credit they deserve
The move of the Senior Advisor for Diversity to the Chief of Staff
position seems to indicate that diversity is on the "back burner"
The Multi-year Affirmative Action Plan has not been communicated to
Library staff.21
 The Library has made efforts at the top-management level to increase the
focus of diversity.  Senior level managers are accountable for efforts in
EEO and Diversity on their performance appraisals. Additionally, the
Senior Advisor for Diversity has developed a diversity plan that outlines
specific actions to promote a commitment to diversity (e.g.,
communication to all levels about the Librarian's commitment to
diversity, focus groups to address Cook Settlement issues).  However, the
division of diversity-related functions across three offices seems to
have diluted the Library's approach to diversity and created a perception
that diversity is not a major focus of the Library.
2. The offices of Human Resources are stove-piped, focusing on their
individual office activities with little integration of functions.
 Organizational divisions within the human resources service unit limit
integration of functions and communication and create some duplications
of effort.  There is little cross communication or cross training with
other offices.  Although each office must serve specific functions, it is
necessary for the offices to understand the entire HRS process in order
to help serve the customer and provide seamless service.
 For the most part, each office conducts unique functions.  However,
there is a lack of coordination of services.  For example, counseling is
provided by separate HRS offices (e.g., benefits counseling at Pay and
Personnel Information (PPI), counseling on personal issues at the
Employee Relations Office, workplace-issue counseling at DRC).  Employees
are able to choose the avenues they would like to resolve problems.
Unfortunately, depending upon the office chosen, the employee may receive
inconsistent information.
 Both PPI and the Technical Services Group (TSG) of the Employment Office
noted duplication of effort in processing personnel actions.  The
personnel action process has several hand-offs.  One hand-off is between
TSG and PPI.  These two groups are required to record specific
information to process the personnel actions.  Both offices indicated
that there is a duplication of effort in the processing and that quality
problems occur because of this duplication.  For example, the TSG ensures
that regulations are sufficiently adhered to in personnel actions and
sets pay while PPI processes the information provided by TSG.  The two
offices noted that each must follow up on the work done by the other,
often having to do the work of the other.  Because of concern about work
quality, several checks and balances for processing personnel actions are
required.  The offices indicated that this function should be coordinated
through one office, and that office should be held responsible for
quality.
 AASPO, the Employment Office, and the service units all participate in
some recruitment activities (e.g., participation in conferences,
recruitment fairs, and outreach).  Focus group participants noted that
none of the offices or service units coordinates their recruiting
activities.
3. Failure to have standardized and coordinated approaches to HR
services, either centralized or decentralized, can create additional cost
and inconsistency in their application.
 Although HRS is a centralized office, some human resources issues are
dealt with in a decentralized manner at the service unit level.  Some
functions have been strategically decentralized because those activities
may be best performed at the service unit level (e.g., recruitment plans
developed at the service unit level, time and attendance reporting).
Even though these activities are housed at the service unit level, it is
the responsibility of HRS to provide guidance and oversight of HR
activities that are decentralized.  Focus groups with the HR offices
identified some areas where guidance and training are given (e.g., time
and attendance) and other areas where little guidance is given (e.g.,
development of recruitment plans).  In a group interview, several
administrative officers who deal with human resources issues said that
little guidance is given.
 Some decentralization of functions has simply evolved over time.  Three
specific areas that HR staff noted with concern were training,
outsourcing of HR functions (e.g., classification, staffing), and labor
management relations.  In interviews and in focus groups, Library staff
indicated that most technical training is provided at the service unit
level.  The current Staff Training and Development Office noted that it
has little control over training performed at the service unit levels.
The Training and Development Office noted with concern that much of the
training conducted by contractors could be offered in-house for less
money.  Additionally, some training provided could be useful across the
service units but is only provided in isolated areas.  These concerns are
described in more detail in the Training section of this report.
 Besides contracting for training services, the service units have used
contractors for other HR-related activities.  For example, the
Classification Office noted that service units will sometimes use outside
assistance to classify positions.  The service unit will then forward the
report with the classification request to ensure that the position is
classified the same way.  The Classification Office feels that the
service units are influencing the way they do business and believes that
it impacts their credibility.  Service units also obtain their own
contractors to do job analyses for the hiring process.  HRS focus group
participants noted concern that when the service units contract out
functions without consulting HRS, they have no control over the processes
and lose credibility with the service units.
 Finally, in the focus group with the Labor Relations Office,
participants noted that managers at the service unit level often do not
consider labor relations in their decision making.  Managers at all
levels have been known to participate in bargaining that can conflict
with decisions or contracts at the Library.  These attempts at bargaining
may also lead to further implications and set new precedents that could
have a negative impact on the Library or other organizations.  The
Dispute Resolutions Office also participates in these types of bargaining
agreements without the Labor Relations Office's involvement.  If Labor
Relations were kept informed, it could proactively stop or alter
decisions that are likely to lead to labor relations disputes.  This
involvement could save the Library time and money and eliminate fallout
from ill-advised decisions.
4.4.2 Human Resources Services Deployment Recommendations
 Our findings highlighted several areas where coordination is necessary
both within HRS and with the service units.  Our recommendations focus on
possible initiatives that could enhance the services deployed by HRS.
1. The Library should integrate and strengthen its diversity function.
 The Library's history of racial tensions (as evidenced by the Cook Case)
requires a strong diversity program that is integrated throughout the
Library and that enlists HR processes in achieving its goals.  The
Library should consider several efforts to improve integration of the
diversity program, including:
Ensure the diversity plan and Affirmative Action plans are linked and are
provided to managers for use in developing recruitment plans
Integrate the functions into one office to organizationally tie them
together and provide a united plan
Continue extensive diversity training throughout the Library
Develop plan for addressing any fallout from implementation of the Cook
Case Settlement requirements (e.g., promotions and cash awards).
Each of these changes can help the Library to demonstrate its commitment
to diversity and plan for ways to address issues if they should arise.
2. The Library should investigate alternative methods for providing HR
services.
 Historically, the human resources function at the Library has not worked
well.  As the Library moves into the future, it faces even more demands
for efficiency and innovative solutions to personnel.  Thus, it seems
appropriate for the Library to consider some approaches to providing
human resources support that have not been tried there before.  Several
options are being tried and tested in the marketplace today, including
shared services,22 outsourcing, and interagency agreements.  These
options are being used by both private and public sector organizations as
methods to improve operations and decrease costs.  The Library should
conduct best practices studies to investigate the options presented below
for their applicability to the Library, their success rates, and key
issues related to implementation of such options.
a. A shared services environment may reduce costs and provide an
organizationally standardized approach to HR services.
 Shared services requires that both the customer and the provider are
jointly responsible for the results attained.  Customers (i.e., the
service units) and provider (i.e., HRS) must agree (formally through
contract or informally through internal agreements) on the types of
services needed and on the cost of those services.  The focus of shared
services is the pooling of like activities to reduce costs and enhance
service.  While the human resources functions are already
organizationally centralized at the Library and service all the service
units, doubt exists whether the functions are truly implemented in a
centralized manner.  A shared service environment would allow the service
units and human resources to work together through a service commitment.
Shared services would thus enhance customer satisfaction and provide cost
effectiveness by offering economies of scale.  Best practices information
shows that moving to a shared services environment results in a 15-30
percent improvement in overall service costs.23  Although this savings
may be less for the Librarys HRS since it is already organizationally
centralized, savings could be realized in decreasing duplication of
functions in the service units.
b. The Library should use outsourcing as an alternative to its present
method of providing some human resources services.
 Outsourcing is an alternative way to offer personnel and human resources
services.  A benchmarking study of outsourcing HR functions that are
outsourced most frequently identified training and development,
administrative services, benefits administration, outplacement, employee
opinion survey, and relocation services.  Common reasons for outsourcing
include reduction of costs, reduction of staff, buying external
expertise, narrowing down core functions, and improving quality.  To
date, the Library has outsourced some training, its pay and personnel
data function, and portions of its selection process (i.e., job analysis,
affirmative action reviews, calculation of disparate impact, minimum
qualifications reviews, and job postings).  Interagency agreements
provide a method through which outsourcing can occur.  The Library's
agreement with the Department of Agriculture is the basis for the pay and
personnel information system function.  Agreements with OPM have been
used to conduct job analyses, training, and oversight reviews.  These
agreements provide potentially less expensive options by the sharing of
services across Federal agencies (similar to shared services above).
 Many employee relations firms offer cost-per-employee services in a
confidential setting.  Because this function is used sporadically, and
because of the need for confidentiality, it is an excellent candidate for
outsourcing and cost reduction.
 The Library could also outsource the majority of the personnel functions
and reduce HRS to a policy and selection shop, maintaining functions that
must be controlled internally within government agencies.  This would
allow the Library to invest its resources in overall management of the HR
function rather than the day-to-day processing of human resources and
personnel services.
 If the Library decides to investigate outsourcing, it must be cautious
about staying in compliance with the Cook Settlement Agreement.  The
Settlement Agreement provided promotions and specific positions to some
employees, although only a few within Human Resources.  If any of those
employees occupy outsourced functions, they must be assigned to jobs of
the same grade elsewhere in the Library.  It may be difficult to match
employee skills to other Library positions.  The Library could be charged
with retaliation if RIFs resulting from outsourcing appeared to target
Cook plaintiffs.  In addition, the Library should conduct a full cost-
benefit analysis prior to outsourcing any function, to ensure cost-
effectiveness.
4.5  TRAINING
 The Library's mission and supporting goals depend on its human
resources.  Whether the mission is to serve the Congress, the nation, or
the world, its ultimate achievement rests with the quality of the people
who work toward that achievement.  The Library traditionally has depended
on a highly qualified staff who have come to the Library with the
requisite knowledge, skills, and ability to do their jobs.
 But the staff of the Library is changing.  The potentially large number
of staff retirements at the Library over the next decade means that much
of its intellectual capital could disappear.  Further, because of the
changing nature of technology and the new ways that work will be
performed, new staff will need specialized training that they may not
possess when they are hired.  These conditions make it imperative that
the Library's training function is able to meet these demands.
 The focus of our review centered around the following four objectives:
Evaluate the strategic role of training
Evaluate the training policies/procedures to determine availability of
structured career paths, accountability of managers for employee
development, and mandatory training policies
Review the training budget with specific focus on how training is funded
and the method for allocating and tracking training expenditures
Evaluate the course planning and implementation process, including needs
assessment methods, relationship of course content to training needs,
frequency of course offerings, course administration and tracking,
training delivery methods, and evaluation methods.
 BoozaAllen's training management assessment revealed the following
significant findings and conclusions.
4.5.1 Training Findings
 We began our study of the training and development system within the
Library by examining key reports of previous studies that have addressed
the effectiveness of training provided by the Staff Training and
Development Office and by the service units.  One basic theme emerged
from the studies: for at least the last 8 years, the
centralized training function has not played a key role in providing
direction for staff development within the Library.  Further, as the
report of our findings will show, little has been done to implement the
many recommendations from previous studies.  The Library's training
function today looks very much as it is described in the previous
studies.  Little has been done to improve the training processes and
procedures in the Library.
1. The Library has not integrated the training and development of its
staff into its strategy for fulfilling its missions or supporting goals.
 What is valued in an organization is highly visible and clearly tied to
the strategic plans for achieving the organization's mission and
supporting goals.  This is true of staff development in organizations
that are models of "best practices" in their training and development
systems.  In such organizations, training is seen as important as a
business strategy, and the training function has high visibility.  We
found this is not the case with the centralized training function in the
Library, nor is it true of the training offered in the three service
units we studied.
 Several findings support this conclusion.  One is the location of the
Staff Training and Development Office in the organizational structure of
the Library.  As the organizational chart shows (see Exhibit 4-1 at the
beginning of this section), the Office is buried deeply within the
Directorate of Personnel, under the Associate Librarian for Human
Resources Services.   With the exception of technical training being
conducted within Library Services (described later in this section),
training likewise is not a highly visible function in the service units
that we studied.
 The position of the Staff Training and Development Office has made it
vulnerable to various reorganizations and shifts in staff numbers and
capabilities over the last 7 years.  The Office had no staff from 1989 to
1993, during which time all training functions were decentralized to the
service unit level and the staff members were dispersed throughout the
Human Resources Directorate.  In March 1993, the Library reinstituted the
Staff Training and Development Office.  An acting chief served for 18
months from October 1993 to April 1995.  Since that time the position of
Chief of the Staff Training and Development Office has been vacant.  A
Chief Training Officer has recently been named.
 Another indication of the importance of training and development to the
achievement of organizational goals is the presence of a strategic plan
for training.  Best practices organizations are as likely to have
strategic plans for the training organization as they are to have overall
strategic plans.  In contrast, we were unable to locate a
strategic plan for Library-wide training and development or for the
training being offered by the service units.  Without a strategic plan
for staff development, the Library is unable to:
Describe how staff development is integrated into the achievement of the
mission of the Library
Ensure top management oversight of training and development
Integrate training and development managers into strategic planning
Ensure consistent quality and effectiveness of training needs assessment,
design, development, delivery, evaluation, and tracking methods.
2. The Staff Training and Development Office and the three service units
we investigated lack the resources-monetary and human-to play a major
role in the development of employees' skills to meet the Library's
current and future needs.
 One good way to measure an organization's commitment to staff
development is to look at the dollars allocated for training and
development.  Best practices industries report average total annual
training expenditures of $800-$1,000 per employee.  In 1992, OPM reported
an average expenditure of $760 per employee in midsize agencies (1,500 to
10,000 employees).24  Using these figures as benchmarks, the funding for
training within the Staff Training and Development Office and within the
service units is inadequate to meet the staff development requirements of
the Library.
 The Staff Training and Development Office receives no funding beyond
staff salaries.  Training budgets are at the service unit levels.  The
following exhibit shows the appropriated dollar amounts obligated for
training in the service units under study.  The figures reveal a much
lower - $153.00 - per employee expenditure for training than industry or
mid-size government agency av erages.  Even the highest figure calculated
for dollars spent per employee for training in these service units - the
$292.00 per Constituent Services employee - falls short of the industry
and government averages.  A 1991 request to establish a training base of
$552.00 per Library employee was not funded.
EXHIBIT 4-13
Training Dollars Spent Per Library Employee, FY 1995
Office
Amount
Obligated
Number of Employees
Calculated Average Expenditure
Collections Services
  Appropriated
  Non-appropriated
Total
$125,575
6,600
132,175
1437
$92
Constituent Services
  Appropriated
  Non-appropriated
Total
$284,276
79,859
364,135
1248
$292
Copyright Office
  Appropriated
  Non-appropriated
Total
$36,693
----
36,693
512
$72
Congressional Research Service
  Appropriated
  Non-appropriated
Total
$72,271
----
72,271
751
$96
Total
$605,274
3948
$153
 Poor Library-wide training records maintenance and the lack of
systematic methods for assessing training needs (see discussions of the
training tracking system and the needs assessment process later in this
section)  make it impossible to determine whether the training dollars
were spent on the training that employees most need to do their jobs.
Interviews with Library managers and supervisors and focus group data
indicate that most training dollars were spent on technical skills
training within the service units.
 In addition to our findings that funding for staff development is below
industry and government averages, line managers, focus group participants
and even staff members in the Staff Training and Development Office
question the expertise of those
who oversee training (both within the Staff Training and Development
Office and within the service units).  Comments indicate that training
staff lack the necessary background in design, development, and delivery
of instruction to provide the leadership necessary to integrate staff
development into the overall achievement of the missions of the Library.
3. The Staff Training and Development Office provides limited training
opportunities for Library-wide staff development and limited support to
the training activities of the service units.
 The centralized training function should support Library-wide staff
development and the offerings of the service units by fulfilling mandated
training activities, providing cross-cutting and mandatory training, and
tracking and reporting training activities Library-wide and within the
service units.  Information gathered from line managers, focus group
participants, and the Staff Training and Development Office staff
indicate that such support from the Office is weak.
 The Library's implementing regulations are contained in LCR 2017-1.1,
Training Responsibilities and Procedures, dated February 6, 1974 and LCR
2017-1.2, Supervisory Training Program, dated April 20, 1984.  These
regulations divide training responsibilities within the Library among the
Training Officer and the service units.  The regulations detail the
Staff Training and Development Office's duties and responsibilities for
providing a variety of training and administrative functions.
Exhibit 4-14 outlines the responsibilities of the Office and the degree
to which line managers and focus group participants estimate that the
Office fulfills these responsibilities.
EXHIBIT 4-14
Staff Training & Development Office Tasks
Tasks from LCR 2017-1, Staff Training and Employee
Development Policies in the Library of Congress:
Estimated Level of Fulfillment from Staff Training & Development Office
2017-1.1, Training Responsibilities and Procedures
Assemble, analyze, and merge service units training requirements (Section
2)
Propose training courses to meet the Library's needs (Section 2)
Prepare and recommend annual training budget to respond to the employees'
developmental needs and mandatory needs (Section 2)
Review and approve proposed training courses (Section 2)
Approve proposed training facilities (Section 2)
Notify supervisors of training approvals (Section 2)
Provide advice, counsel, and assistance to employees and supervisors
about the Library's training programs (Section 2)
Provide advice to employees about external educational and external
training opportunities (Section 2)
Review training nomination for accuracy and conformance with law and
Library policy (Section 4)
Provide for the continuing evaluation of the results and effectiveness of
training to ensure effective use of resources and competency of training
sources (Section 7)
Prepare annual reports for OPM on the Library's training programs and
plans for training for each fiscal year (Section 7)
2017-1.2, Supervisory Training Program Responsibilities
Plan, recommend, develop, conduct and evaluate supervisory training
courses that meet the requirements of LCR 2017 (Section 4)
Schedule supervisory training courses on a regular basis (Section 4)
Advise and counsel managers and supervisors concerning various aspects of
supervisory training needs and opportunities (Section 4)
Maintain records which reflect the amount and kind of supervisory
training individuals have completed in the Library
Level of Fulfillment: -High  -Medium  -Low
 As the exhibit shows, the Staff Training and Development Office
functions primarily for the reviewing and processing of management-
approved training request forms, and for coordinating and providing
logistical support for courses available through the Office.  Each staff
member is also responsible for coordinating, scheduling, and tracking a
certain number of the courses listed as offerings in the course catalog.
 Line managers and focus group participants indicated that the Staff
Training and Development Office offers and/or sponsors a very small
number of courses.  Information from the staff of the office confirms
that the office provides little training.  Exhibit 4-15 lists the courses
offered in the 1995 Staff Training and Development Office FY 95 Course
Catalog.  The catalog listed 49 classes in the four  broad categories of
Supervisory Institute, LC Specific, Career Development, and Personal
Computer.  These courses are almost all 1/2 to 1 day duration and
classroom-based.  The exhibit shows the listed frequency of course
offerings and the number of times each course actually took place,
according to information supplied by the Office staff.  The total number
of course hours offered through the office in FY 1995, as advertised in
the catalog, was 348 (313 hours were actually run).  For an organization
of the Library's size, this is a small number of hours of training.
EXHIBIT 4-15
Staff Training and Development Office
Fiscal Year 1995 Course Offerings
Course Name
Frequency of Course Offerings
Actual Times Course Ran
SUPERVISORY INSTITUTE
Dealing with Employee Problems
2
1
EEO for Supervisors/Managers
5
2
How to Make Training Pay Off
1
0
Introduction to Employee Assistance & Incentive Awards Program
4
0
Labor-Management Relations in the Federal  Government
7
6
Managing Organizational Change
1
0
Managing Time & Attendance
7
7
Personnel Regulations & Relevant Contract Articles
6
6
Principles of Supervision
4
2
Sexual Harassment: A Federal Women's Program Briefing
7
3
Supervisor's Guide to Worker's Compensation
3
2
Time Management and Getting Things Done
4
2
Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
7
7
LC SPECIFIC
Dispute Resolution Training
6
6
Introduction to PC-TARE
9
8
Property and Supply Management
4
3
Reference Collections in LC
3
3
Workshop on Travel
5
5
CAREER DEVELOPMENT
Application for Employment
5
4
Communication Skills for Office Support Staff
2
0
Effective Briefing Techniques
2
1
English Grammar Review
3
3
Ergonomic Strategies for Computer Users
17
18
Fundamentals of Writing
4
2
Management Skill for Office Support Staff
2
0
Managing Stress Effectively
2
1
Mentoring in the Workplace
2
0
Personal Ergonomics Seminar
21
26
Retirement Seminars
3
5
Seminar Series
10
10
Time Management
1
1
Writing Techniques for Effective Letters and Memos
8
0
PERSONAL COMPUTER
Advanced WordPerfect
12
12
Advanced LOTUS 1-2-3 and Other Spreadsheets
12
12
Advanced MS-DOS Commands
12
12
Banyan Vines Basics
12
12
Basic LOTUS 1-2-3 and Other Spreadsheets
12
12
Basic MS-DOS Commands
12
12
Beginning WordPerfect
12
12
Mainframe Connectivity-PROCOMM PLUS
12
12
Macintosh Basics
12
12
Overview of the Internet
4
7
Paradox
12
12
PC Backup, Recovery and Virus
12
12
PC Literacy
9
4
Scanner Techniques
12
12
TCP Connectivity-LC Mainframes
12
12
WP Fonts and HP LaserJet Printer Clinic
12
12
4. Library employees have negative perceptions of training within the
Library.
 Despite the pockets of good training practice that exist in some service
units (e.g., automation training provided to employees in the
Congressional Research Service and the Technical Processing and
Automation Instruction Office (TPAIO)25 in the Library Services Unit),
the picture that emerges about training across the Library is that it is
uneven in quality and availability.
 Focus group participants and line managers expressed strong
dissatisfaction with the training offerings, services, and practices of
the Staff Training and Development Office and with Library training
practices in general.  Their generally negative comments about training
opportunities reveal a training function in trouble.  Some of the
problems with the training provided through the Office include:
Non-responsiveness to training suggestions; the Staff Training and
Development Office neither asks for nor responds to training needs
Frequent cancellation of course offerings, often without adequate warning
Infrequent and uneven offering of mandatory training such as supervisory
training, diversity awareness training, and sexual harassment training
Ineffectiveness of training methods; for example, using lecture only in
the sexual harassment course, without offering a chance for feedback and
discussion from participants.  Another example cited by a focus group
participant was that the "Performance Appraisal for Supervisors" was the
same for division chiefs and for supervisors who only supervise one or
two people.  The participant felt that the training should be tailored to
meet their differing needs
Inappropriate timing:  For example, Internet training  was given when
participants were not using the Internet; Employee Orientation is offered
after an employee has years on the job
Inadequate guidance from management on training and development
needs/activities
Unavailability of structured career paths
Inadequate advertisements of course offerings.  According to line
managers and focus group participants, the primary method for announcing
courses is through The Gazette, the weekly Library newsletter
Crucial training falls through the cracks.  For example, in an interview
the Inspector General reported that police officers felt their training
was "minuscule."
 There is little evidence of any written standards or guidelines  for the
systematic design and development of instruction, either within the Staff
Training and Development Office or the service units we studied.
5. There is no evidence that training content in the courses offered by
the Staff Training and Development Office meets employees' on-the-job
skill needs.
 No course catalog has been prepared for 1996.  As Exhibit 4-15 shows,
the courses that most frequently ran during 1995 were computer courses,
Ergonomics, Retirement Seminar, and Understanding the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.  The course catalog also provides information
about a series of seminars on career development (10 2-hour seminars in
the series) and video training resources (8 tapes on various subjects and
15 tapes on American Sign Language).
 There are no indications as to how these particular courses came to be
the core curriculum of the Library, representing the body of training
that is available to Library employees.  No evidence exists of any
written consistent, systematic methods/practices for determining training
needs, either in the centralized training function or in the training
provided by the service units.  Interviews with the Staff Training and
Development Office employees and line managers and data from focus groups
confirm that no systematic, Library-wide needs assessments have been
conducted to ensure that the courses offered by the Staff Training and
Development Office and the service units are in fact the courses Library
employees need to do their jobs.
 Further, we found no evidence of written policies or procedures that
indicate methods are in place to hold managers/supervisors and training
participants themselves accountable for transfer of learning to the job.
Participants in focus groups indicated that managers and supervisors
generally do not counsel staff on training needs or opportunities or
discuss what has been learned in training.  Participants generally felt
that they are responsible for finding their own opportunities for
training; in fact, they indicated that they often form informal training
groups among themselves when the need for learning a new process or
procedure arises.
 Nor did we find any policies and procedures to measure the impact of
training on improved job performance.  We were unable to locate any
written policies or procedures for tracking behavioral changes in
employee performance after training or on tracking the value of training
toward achieving the Library's mission and goals.
6. Mandatory training is offered sporadically and poorly tracked.
 One important function of a centralized training office is the tracking
of training organization-wide and within the individual units.  The
Library's performance in tracking training has been poor for years.
Studies since 1990 have reported poor collection, monitoring, and
reporting of training activities.  Despite recommendations by these
studies for improving the tracking of training, we found only minimal
training records.
 Currently, the Staff Training and Development Office uses the National
Finance Center database to record training data; the service units all
use different systems.  According to one member of the office staff, the
database generates individual training records as well as summary
training reports.  However, the staff member cautioned that the records
were probably not reliable because of the way entries had been made in
the database.  The office provides very limited training reports to the
service units about courses they do offer. During the course of this
study, the only training report made available to us was the OPM-required
Annual Report.  We were unable to obtain any other reports of training
activities from the office.
 The lack of centralized training records makes it extremely difficult to
track whether mandatory training for all employees, such as supervisory
training, Diversity Awareness Training, or Sexual Harassment Training,
has been conducted.  Focus group participants and line managers expressed
frustration with the lack of universal participation in mandatory
training.
 Library of Congress Regulations 2017-1.2 mandate that each new
supervisor be required to take no fewer than 80 hours of formal
supervisory training courses within 18 months of appointment to a
supervisory position. Interviews with line managers and comments from
focus group participants, as well as findings from previous studies
indicate that this training has been offered sporadically over the last
few years.
 According to the 1993 Report of the Human Resources Working Group, a
survey of all Library service units revealed that only two service units
had ongoing supervisory training programs.   The Report emphasized the
seriousness of the lack of a Library-wide supervisory training and
development program:  [it] "...contributes to an atmosphere of
divisiveness. " When supervisors are unskilled in the fundamentals of
supervision, personnel policies and practices are applied inconsistently
and inequitably.  Inconsistency among supervisory practices leads to a
risk both of inequitable treatment of staff and of the perception of
inequity, both of which contribute to an atmosphere of mistrust,
hostility, divisiveness, and dysfunction.  Management effectiveness and
efficiency are dependent on the ability of supervisors to perform their
duties skillfully and consistently.  Supervisors need appropriate initial
preparation in practical processes and theoretical issues to be able to
handle their jobs adequately.  In addition, management is a dynamic
process where new techniques are introduced regularly and where increased
responsibility requires increased knowledge and more sophisticated
skills."
4.5.2  Training Recommendations
 To ensure that Library personnel are adequately prepared to meet current
and future challenges, the Library must integrate staff development into
the strategic planning process and ensure that processes are in place to
make the training of its staff a strategic component for change.
Following are our recommendations for making this happen.
1. Strengthen the Staff Training and Development Office, making it more
central and visible, thereby ensuring that staff development is of
strategic importance in achieving the Library's missions and goals.
This study and others that have preceded it reveal that the Staff
Training and Development Office as it is currently configured cannot play
a key role in helping the Library develop staff capability to meet
current and future challenges.  The effect of a largely decentralized
training function such as now exists in the Library is that training
opportunities are being duplicated or lost.  A centralized training
function would provide the direction and coordination necessary to ensure
consistently high quality training and equitable opportunities for
training.  While it makes sense for other human resource functions to be
outsourced, the same is not true for training and development; a
centralized function is a necessity within the Library to meet the
training needs of its highly specialized staff.
The recent "university initiative" headed by the Senior Advisor for Staff
Development and Staff Transition has the potential to be the kind of
centralized and visible training function that is needed within the
Library.  Initiated in the Fall of 1995, the stated goals of this
initiative are to elevate training to a highly visible position in the
Library and to put processes in place for achieving an excellent center
for the development of Library staff.
2. Designate resources and staff to the Staff Training and Development
Office so that it can play a major role in developing needed skills in
the Library's current workforce and be positioned to meet the challenges
of developing future capabilities.
 Financial investment in training is the most unambiguous measure of its
importance among an organization's competing priorities.  Without
adequate designation of  funds and other resources, staff development
will not be viewed as a priority.  In order to function effectively, the
centralized training function should be staffed by training and
instructional design experts who play a highly visible role in
integrating staff development with the strategic goals of the Library.
3. Improve the quality and expand the scope of methods for gathering
information on employee training needs.
The centralized training function should assume a major role in gathering
information on Library-wide employee training needs and in assisting
service units to gather information on unit-specific training needs.
Needs assessment information should be gathered from multiple sources,
both internal and external, to provide valid data to drive training
design, development, and delivery.  Information should be gathered
internally from top management, users, and succession plans.  Information
should be gathered externally by benchmarking best practices and studying
trends that could impact the Library's achievement of its missions.
4. Develop methods to enhance and sustain the transfer  of learning to on
-the-job performance.
Transfer refers to the extent that learning from training activities is
used on the job.  Without formal mechanisms in place for ensuring
transfer, the training function is rightly viewed as an expendable
resource.  Some ways to ensure transfer include:
Hold managers and trainees themselves accountable for performance
improvement as a result of training
Integrate management into the planning and delivery of training
Provide opportunities in training activities for realistic practice
Build training into the job itself
Integrate training with other elements of the human resource management
system, such as selection and promotion.
5. Develop methods for evaluating the impact of training on job
performance and organizational results.
 The Library's centralized training function should establish a process
for annual assessment of its own and the service units' effectiveness in
achieving training goals in terms of access, impact, and cost-
effectiveness.  The evaluations should track the performance of the
training function in such areas as:
Amount of training delivered and supported on and off the job
Results of training delivered
Cost of training per program and employee
Types of training methodologies/training providers.
1 Booz7Allen planned several focus group meetings with union officials
and union members  from each union.  CREA accepted our invitation to
participate in both the union official and union members meetings.
However, AFSCME Local 2910 only participated in the union officials
meeting.
2 Union officials from CREA and AFSCME Local 2910 participated in a focus
group.  However, AFSCME Local 2477 declined participation in the union
officials focus group.
3 Agency refers to Library employees who are not represented by a union.
4 Joint grievances refers to two or more unions filing grievances
together.
5 CREA and AFSCME Local 2910 Union Officials Focus Group Summary,
February 1996.
6 AFSCME 2477 union officials declined to participate in the focus group.
7  AFSCME Local 2910 and management are presently conducting master
bargaining negotiations.  Managers reported that the groundrules phase of
the bargaining process with AFSCME Local 2910 lasted almost a year before
actual bargaining began (June 1993 to February 1994).  Actual bargaining
commenced on June 1994.  A major reason cited for the delay was the
lengthy time intervals (as long as one month) between meetings.
Currently, management and AFSCME Local 2910 have been in contract
bargaining for 2 years and are at an impasse.
8 The "Improve Competitive Selection Now!" task force surveyed three
other agencies to determine their estimates of time it takes to hire new
staff.
9 Job analyses provide the primary basis for defining the contents of a
job.
10 The cut-off methods used for the rating panels (natural break or mid-
point between highly qualified and qualified) have been criticized by
OPM.  It has suggested a more standardized approach to cut-offs (e.g.,
percentile, standard deviations from average, or quartiles).  However,
the cut-offs have been negotiated with the Library's unions and changing
the current methods would be difficult.
11 The Cook Settlement Agreement requires that the Library adhere to the
CSP as is described in Appendix B of the Settlement Agreement. Any of the
task force recommendations or other changes must be evaluated and
approved by the Office of General Counsel to ensure they do not violate
the requirements of the Cook Settlement Appendix B.
12 Final Court Approval is defined within the Settlement Agreement as
"the date following the conduct of a Fairness Hearing and approval of
this Agreement by the Court (signed by Judge Johnson September 22, 1995),
on which any and all appeals from any objections to the Agreement have
been dismissed, a final appellate decision upholding approval has been
rendered, or the time for taking an appeal has expired without an appeal
having been taken.
13 Preliminary Court Approval is defined in the Settlement Agreement as
the date, following submission of the Agreement to the Court by the
parties but prior to the conduct of a Fairness Hearing, on which the
Court grants initial approval of the Agreement.
14  The 4/5ths rule is used as an indicator of the disparate
treatment/impact of a selection test.  If the selection ratio of any
group is less than 80% (4/5ths) of the selection ratio of the highest
selected group, that selection procedure is considered to have disparate
treatment/impact. For example, if the selection ratio for whites is 75%
and the selection ratio for African-Americans is 50%  -- 50%/75%=67%
which is less than 80%.  Therefore, the test is considered to have
disparate treatment/impact.
15 The Multiple Pools Statistical Analysis is critical in drawing
conclusions about adverse impact.  A multiple pools statistical analysis
is one which considers a sample of selections as a series of successive
groups that may have a changing composition over time.
16  "LC Employees Eligible for Optional or Early Out as of December 31,
1995," provided by the Human Resources Service Unit.  BoozaAllen
calculated approximately 32 percent eligibility based on optional and
voluntary early retirement and workforce of approximately 4,700,
statement of James H. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, before the
Subcommittee of Legislative Appropriations, Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. House of Representatives, Fiscal 1997 Budget Request, March 5, 1996
states that 27 percent of the workforce will be eligible for retirement
in 2000.
17  Statement of Daniel Mulhollan, Director, Congressional Research
Service, before the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Fiscal 1997 Budget
Request, March 5, 1996.
18 Fitness-for-duty examinations include both medical and psychological
examinations to determine cause for performance and/or behavioral
problems on the job.  Determinations from the examinations include fit,
not fit, fit/conditional or unfit/conditional.  In both the
fit/conditional and unfit/conditional determinations, the Library decides
whether accommodations can be made on the job to allow the employee to
continue to work.
19 Total number of actions is 56 because one referral was withdrawn by
the manager.
20 Only two of the persons detailed to other jobs also had accommodations
made.
21  In the AASPO focus group, staff noted the Multi-Year Affirmative
Action Plan was under review by a committee set up by the Librarian's
Office and has not been finalized.
22 Shared services is defined as the leveraging of delivery of needed
services so as to enhance both internal customer satisfaction and
provider cost effectiveness by providing only needed and agreed upon
services at the "right" levels to internal customers and achieving
performance standards acceptable to internal customers and providers.
23 Review of Shared Services, proprietary briefing of Booz7Allen and
Hamilton Inc.
24 OPM, "Human Resource Development in the Federal Service," Fiscal Year
1992. (This was the last year data were compiled.)
25 The TPAIO provides an especially full and active training program,
detailed in a comprehensive Annual Report of Training.  The Office
trained 2906 staff members (some staff members took more than one course)
in Fiscal Year 1995, offering 299 sessions of 60 courses.  The program
covers instruction in a range of subjects: cataloging instruction,
instructional techniques, language and culture instruction , mainframe
computer skills training (including bibliographic workstation skills),
microcomputer skills, preservation.
BoozaAllen & Hamilton
4-56