A Report to the President and the Congress 

of the United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Help Wanted 

A Review of Federal 

Vacancy Announcements 
THE CHAIRMAN 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 


1615 M Street, NW 


Washington, DC 20419-0001


April 2003 

The President 


President of the Senate 


Speaker of the House of Representatives 


Dear Sirs: 


In accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C 1204(a)(3), it is my honor to submit this U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board report, "Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements." 

As many have noted, there is the potential for what has been referred to by the General 

Accounting Office as a human capital crisis in the Federal Government. In many agencies, up to half of 

their employees are currently eligible or will become eligible to retire in the next 5 years. Similarly, 

results from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s recent Governmentwide survey indicate that for 

a variety of reasons including retirement, nearly one out of three Federal employees are planning on 

leaving their current job within the next 3 years. The ability of the Government to provide needed 

services to the American people will depend on finding highly competent new employees to replace many 

of those who leave. To meet this challenge, the Government needs a comprehensive recruiting strategy to 

attract highly qualified applicants. Vacancy announcements are key in such a strategy since they are the 

main source, and often the only source, of public information on Federal employment opportunities. 

However, the way vacancy announcements are often written does not help the Government's recruiting 

efforts. Our systematic review of a random sample of Federal vacancy announcements found that at least 

half of them are poorly written and that they make little or no attempt to sell the Government, the agency, 

or the positions to be filled. Far too often, vacancy announcements are difficult to understand and use 

threatening and insulting languagecharacteristics that are more likely to drive applicants away than 

attract them. 

Many of the problems we found can be corrected immediately. There are no insurmountable 

legal or regulatory barriers to creating better written, better organized, and more appealing vacancy 

announcements. What is more challenging is fixing some of the complex institutional barriers to hiring 

that came to light during our review of vacancy announcements. Our review found that many agencies 

lack comprehensive recruiting and assessment strategies to help attract and hire highly qualified 

applicants. This report offers some suggestions that may help resolve many of the shortcomings we have 

identified. 

I believe you will find this report useful as you consider issues regarding the ability of the Federal 

Government to attract and hire a highly qualified workforce. 

Sincerely, 

Susanne T. Marshall 


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board


Susanne T. Marshall, Chairman 

Office of Policy and Evaluation 

Director 

Steve Nelson 

Deputy Director 

John Crum, Ph.D. 

Project Manager 

Ligaya J. Fernandez 

Project Analyst 

Jamie J. Carlyle, Ph.D.


Karen K. Gard


James J. Tsugawa


Paul van Rijn, Ph.D.


Table of contents 

Executive summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii


Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


Purpose of the study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


Scope and methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


Roles of vacancy announcements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3


Recruiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3


Complying with the merit principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3


Hiring based on relative ability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3


Providing adequate public notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


Supporting public policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


An overview of vacancy announcements posted in FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


Agencies used competitive examining or internal merit promotion 


announcements, or combined the two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


Agencies opened jobs to external applicants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6


About half of the announcements were for professional and administrative jobs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7


Half of vacancy announcements were open for 2 weeks or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7


The current state of Federal vacancy announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9


The quality of vacancy announcements generally is not good. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9


Common problems noted in vacancy announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10


Announcements read poorly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10


Announcements are weak recruiting tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11


Announcements are focused on observing laws and regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


Other areas of concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


Agencies lack a comprehensive recruiting strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


Exclusive reliance on USAJOBS to announce jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


Using one announcement for a broad range of jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20


Canceling announcements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20


Using technology ineffectively . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21


Agencies are not positioning themselves to make good selections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22


Agencies rely too heavily on previous work experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22


Agencies use vague or restrictive qualification requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


HR professionals lack expertise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


Conclusion and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27


Appendix A. Rating criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31


Appendix B. A sample vacancy announcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33


Appendix C. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35


A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board v


Executive summary 

One of the Federal Government’s most serious challenges is to find and manage highly 

capable employees who will effectively and efficiently provide needed services to the 

American people. In this decade, the composition of the Government’s workforce will 

dramatically change: about 600,000 current Federal employees are projected to retire by 

2010. Many of those who will leave must be replaced if the Government is to provide 

needed services to the public. Hiring a large number of new employees with the right 

competencies is a challenge that must be addressed now. 

Federal vacancy announcements are an important 

step in the Government’s effort to recruit top talent. But the way vacancy announcements are written does not further this effort. Because many 

agencies have carried their concerns about laws and 

regulations to extremes, the language of vacancy 

announcements tends to be legalistic, stilted, and 

hard to follow. Further, agencies don’t use vacancy 

announcements as recruiting tools. In fact, less 

than half of the human resources (HR) office staff 

members who responded to our survey on the subject indicated that vacancy announcements are 

effective in informing applicants about their agencies’ missions. Far too often, vacancy announcements turn applicants away rather than encourage 

them to apply. 

There is no intrinsic reason why the problems we 

observed regarding vacancy announcements cannot 

be corrected. That is, there are no insurmountable 

legal or regulatory barriers to interfere with creating 

better written, better organized, more appealing 

vacancy announcements. However, some of the 

problems that we identified with vacancy 

announcements are actually symptoms of other, 

more complicated problems faced by the Government’s staffing system. Moreover, agencies appear 

to continue to give a relatively low priority to 

human resources programs, especially recruiting 

new employees. 

Among the problems we identified in the course of 

our review of vacancy announcements are the following: 

Agencies lack a comprehensive recruiting strategy. Vacancy announcements do not replace 

recruiting, yet many agencies seem to expect that 

vacancy announcements alone will sell their jobs to 

potential applicants. This problem would be less 

serious if the selling were at least done effectively. 

However, announcements don’t appear to be targeted towards identified pools of candidates nor do 

they have a unified message designed to create an 

image of the Government as an employer of choice. 

On the whole, the announcements we reviewed 

provide little evidence that agencies have analyzed 

their jobs properly and developed plans for filling 

the jobs on the basis of those analyses. 

Agencies are not setting themselves up to make 

good selections. The sample of vacancy announcements we reviewed suggests that agencies lack a 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board iii 
comprehensive candidate assessment strategy that 

will assist them in making good selections. When 

evaluating and selecting applicants, agencies rely 

heavily on the assessment of previous work experience rather than on assessments of competence or 

potential. We also found that agencies appear to 

use assessment tools ineffectively. Ratings of training and experience can be effective for certain jobs 

but not all. They can be ineffective, for example, 

for entry-level jobs where high-potential applicants 

may lack the amount of experience or education 

agencies are looking for, but may have the competencies needed for excellent performance. 

HR professionals’ lack of expertise. The wellwritten vacancy announcements and the strategic 

recruitment and assessment plans that are key components of a high-quality hiring program are 

largely the responsibility of an agency’s HR professionals. While many HR professionals are highly 

competent, many others lack the expertise to 

develop and implement the necessary strategies for 

successful hiring programs. Heavy HR workloads 

and steady loss of staff over the last decade are only 

partly responsible for this problem. The training 

HR specialists receive, the manner in which they 

themselves are selected, and the agency management priorities that do not stress the importance of 

good HR management all contribute to this situation. 

The Government is faced with serious challenges. 

It is experiencing a “crisis in human capital” that 

threatens the Government’s ability to serve the 

public well. But these challenges are by no means 

insurmountable, provided that agencies place 

greater emphasis on the HR function and the 

recruitment of highly capable Federal employees. 

HR has limited resources so it makes good business 

sense to ensure that the tools used, such as vacancy 

announcements, are as good as they can be. Such 

excellence can be obtained only through collaboration with and cooperation among all stakeholders. 

With these challenges in mind, we offer the following recommendations: 

In collaboration with appropriate stakeholders, 

chief human capital officers and HR directors 

should: 

•	 Develop and implement a comprehensive 

recruiting strategy, with improved vacancy 

announcements as a major component. In 

developing such a recruiting strategy, agencies 

should: 

–	 Identify the groups from which they need to 

recruit, then write vacancy announcements 

targeted to those groups. 

–	 Greatly reduce the length of vacancy 

announcements by providing only relevant 

information and avoiding repetitive statements and unnecessary verbiage. 

–	 Reduce the use of negative, threatening, and 

legalistic language. 

–	 Design a message to sell the job and the 

agency, and to the extent possible, present the 

Federal Government as an employer of choice. 

–	 Describe the job and its requirements clearly 

and realistically. 

–	 Make the application process simple, breaking 

the hiring process into steps whenever feasible. Require the least amount of information 

needed to make basic qualification determinations, then request more information as 

needed later in the process. 

–	 Give clear and straightforward instructions on 

how to apply. Also, give applicants options on 

how to submit their applications. Do not 

limit filing methods to electronic media. 

–	 Move towards automation to support recruiting and subsequent assessment efforts. 

•	 Develop a comprehensive assessment strategy. 

An essential first step in filling any vacancy 

should be to conduct a thorough job analysis 

and then to choose assessment tools that are 

appropriate for the job and the candidate pool. 

When feasible and with the aid of technology, 

agencies should minimize the burden on applicants by conducting applicant assessment in 

stages. 

•	 Examine the quality of their HR staffs. Agencies should assess the competencies of current 

HR staff and develop a strategy to ensure they 

have the competencies and resources needed to 

carry out their responsibilities. The strategy 

should include establishing procedures for selectiv Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
ing and developing HR professionals to ensure 

that they have the competencies needed for high 

performance in the roles demanded of them. 

Organizations and individuals have developed a 

number of competency models that agencies can 

use. For example, the HR roles that the U.S. 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has 

identified are technical HR expert, strategic 

business partner, change agent, and leader. 

The director of OPM should: 

•	 Revise the Federal regulation pertaining to 

vacancy announcements. The regulation at 

5 C.F.R. § 330.707 lists the information 

required in vacancy announcements. The list is 

fairly modest and includes information essential 

to job applicants. However, the regulation 

requires the inclusion of explanations regarding 

eligibility requirements for veterans preference 

and career transition program consideration. 

This material can be lengthy and sometimes 

complex and confusing, and certainly does not 

apply to the majority of potential job candidates. 

Therefore, the regulation should be revised to 

make inclusion of such lengthy material optional 

as long as the announcement provides a hyperlink that makes the details available to interested 

applicants. This should allow agencies to make 

vacancy announcements shorter and tailor them 

more easily to targeted groups. 

•	 Make USAJOBS, the Government’s career 

opportunity site, more attractive, welcoming, 

and easy to use. To be more effective, USAJOBS should be developed and maintained with 

applicants in mind, many of whom may not be 

technologically savvy or familiar with Federal 

hiring procedures. In particular, OPM should: 

–	 Make navigation easier by making information more transparent and meaningful. 

–	 Create a simple and more precise job search 

capability that can provide a list of jobs organized in order of relevance to the job seeker. 

•	 Continue providing agencies with information on writing better vacancy announcements, building on its recent efforts to 

modernize and improve Federal vacancy 

announcements. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board v 

Introduction 

One of the Federal Government’s most serious 

challenges is to hire competent employees who will 

effectively provide needed services to the American 

people. It is projected that about 40 percent of Federal employees eligible to retire in this decade will 

do so, meaning that about 600,000 employees will 

retire by 2010.1

 Concerned by the skills gap that 

could result from this exodus, the President Bush 

highlighted human resources management (HRM) 

in his management agenda.2 Under this agenda, 

agencies will be evaluated on the results of their 

HRM programs, and the results will be taken into 

account during budget deliberations.3 

Purpose of the study 

To respond to the challenge and meet their workforce needs, agencies must begin now, if they have 

not yet started, to develop a comprehensive recruiting strategy that attracts highly qualified applicants. Vacancy announcements are key in any such 

strategy since they are the main source of public 

information on Federal employment opportunities. 

However, a February 2000 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) study on the job 

search experiences of new hires identified problems 

with vacancy announcements.4

 Given vacancy 

announcements’ importance in the recruiting process, the study findings prompted the Board to take 

a closer look at vacancy announcements. In particular, this study focused on the following questions: 

•	 What is the quality of Federal vacancy 

announcements? 

•	 Are vacancy announcements written in a way 

that would attract high quality applicants? 

•	 Do vacancy announcements follow the merit 

principles? 

•	 What are the factors that affect the quality and 

use of vacancy announcements? 

Scope and methodology 

We reviewed vacancy announcements only for jobs 

posted on USAJOBS, the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management’s (OPM’s) centralized electronic jobs 

database.5 To prepare this report, we relied on the 

following sources of information: 

•	 Summaries of 10,000 vacancy announcements 

posted on USAJOBS during fiscal year 2001. 

The summaries provided us with a broad view of 

1 U.S. Office of Personnel Management Central Personnel Data File as of January 2001. 

2 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, “The President’s Management Agenda,” Fiscal Year 

2002, pp. 12-15. 

3 Memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies on the implementation of the President’s Management Agenda 

and presentation of the FY 2003 budget requests, from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Oct. 30, 2001. 

4 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Competing for Federal Jobs: Job Search Experiences of New Hires,” Washington, DC, 

February 2000, pp. 10-11. 

5 In January 2003, OPM contracted out its USAJOBS website to Monster.com to make the site more visually appealing and 

easier to use. At the time of printing, changes to USAJOBS have not yet been implemented. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1 
the jobs agencies announced, giving such information as job title, series, grade, who could 

apply, length of time the announcement would 

be open, duty location, and hiring agency. 

•	 A survey conducted between January and April 

2002 of 300 randomly selected human resources 

office staff members who posted vacancy 

announcements on USAJOBS in fiscal year 

2001.6

 Completed surveys were returned by 

more than half (55 percent) of the HR specialists 

who received the questionnaire. 

•	 Content review of 100 randomly selected 

vacancy announcements posted on USAJOBS 

on March 6 and 7, 2002, to gauge the quality of 

Federal vacancy announcements. We reviewed 

only announcements that were open to all applicants, meaning open to both current Federal 

employees and to external applicants (i.e., those 

who did not work for the Federal Government). 

We included vacancy announcements from the 

five white-collar occupational groupsprofessional, administrative, technical, clerical, and 

other white-collar occupationsas well as 

announcements for blue-collar and Senior Executive Service positions. MSPB’s five rating 

teams, each comprising two people, individually 

rated the overall quality of each of 20 vacancy 

announcements. Then the two members met in 

consensus sessions to determine their final ratings. 

The rating teams used a scale of Good, Acceptable, and Poor in reviewing each vacancy 

announcement for overall quality based on its 

organization, readability, and use as a recruiting 

tool. In addition to rating overall quality, the raters examined more closely three critical sections 

of the vacancy announcements: duties of the 

position, how to apply, and qualifications 

required, including knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs). (KSAs are characteristics that agencies expect superior job applicants to have in 

addition to the Governmentwide qualification 

requirements that OPM has established.) We 

reviewed the utility and appropriateness of information and the instructions given in these sections of the announcements. Appendix A 

provides detailed descriptions of the elements 

used to rate the announcements. 

6 To obtain a copy of the survey, write to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation, Washington, DC 20419; call (202) 653-6772, extension 1350; or send an e-mail to studies@mspb.gov. 

2 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
Roles of vacancy announcements


Federal vacancy announcements are comparable to 

the “Help Wanted” ads private companies post on 

store windows, in newspapers, or on web sites in 

that their main purpose is to draw people in to 

apply. But Federal vacancy announcements must 

also clearly reflect Federal public policies and comply with the mandates of the first merit system 

principle which states: 

Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an 

endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis 

of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after 

fair and open competition which assures that 

all receive equal opportunity.

7 

Recruiting 

Recruitment is the effort or process used to attract 

applicants with the right qualifications for a job. 

While posting vacancy announcements is the 

required method of notification,8 agencies may 

and many douse methods to recruit that go 

beyond basic notification. These include paid 

advertising, contract recruiting firms, job fairs, and 

visits to schools and college campuses to inform 

potential applicants about Federal jobs and the 

organizations offering them. Nonetheless, because 

it’s required, the posting of vacancy announcements remains the primary method of notifying the 

public of the Government’s job opportunities. For 

many job seekers these postings are the only available source of information about the position, the 

agency, and the Federal Government. Therefore, it 

is in the Government’s best interests for agencies to 

treat vacancy announcements as a key recruiting 

tool that presents the job, the agency, and the Government in the best possible light. 

Complying with the merit principles 

In addition to posting vacancy announcements to 

attract applicants, agencies use vacancy announcements to ensure that they are meeting the merit system principles’ requirement of “fair and open 

competition.” “Fair and open competition” 

requires that vacant positions be publicized for a 

period of time that gives job seekers the opportunity to apply for positions that they are interested 

in and for which they qualify. It also requires that 

applicants be informed of the basis on which they 

will be rated or assessed. 

Hiring based on relative ability 

Vacancy announcements are used to solicit information for the purpose of assessing candidates’ 

qualifications to do the job. Since the assessment is 

intended to ensure that selections (or advancements) are based solely on relative knowledge, 

ability, and skills of the applicants, vacancy 

announcements are to include information about 

7 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1). 

8 OPM requires agencies to post an announcement on USAJOBS for every vacant job that is to be filled for 121 days or more 

when they solicit applications from outside the agency’s or the Government’s workforce. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3 
the KSAs required for the job. Based on the applicants’ responses to vacancy announcements, agencies assess and rate applicants (assign numerical 

scores) in terms of the extent to which they possess 

the required KSAs, and then refer candidates to 

selecting officials based on those scores. 

Providing adequate public notice 

As noted above, vacancy announcements are meant 

to inform the public of job opportunities in the 

Federal Government and give interested applicants 

the opportunity and time to apply. Formal notification occurs when vacancies are posted on USAJOBS, which applicants can access 24 hours a day, 

7 days a week by computer or telephone.9 

Federal regulations require that Federal job vacancy 

announcements include, at a minimum, the following:10 

1. A brief description of the position, including its 

title, series, pay plan, grade, duty location, and 

rate of pay. 

2. Instructions on how to apply, including the date 

by which applications must be submitted and 

what information to file. 

3. The name of the agency issuing the announcement and the announcement number. 

4. The qualifications that are required, including 

knowledge, skills, and abilities. 

5. The basis on which applicants will be rated. 

6. Instructions on how to claim veterans preference, if applicable. 

7. An equal opportunity statement. 

8. A statement that reasonable accommodation is 

available for individuals with disabilities to help 

them apply for the job. 

9. Information on how a displaced or soon-to-bedisplaced Federal employee may apply under the 

Career Transition Assistance Program (CTAP) or 

Interagency Career Transition Assistance Program (ICTAP), including what the agency considers “well-qualified” for priority consideration 

under the program.11 

In addition to this basic information, agencies 

include other information that their employment 

policy dictates, or language required as a result of 

bargaining unit negotiations, equal employment 

case settlements, or other formal proceedings. 

Supporting public policies 

Vacancy announcements are intended to inform 

applicants of the Government’s commitment to 

fairness and equal opportunity. They are also a 

means by which certain groups of applicants—such 

as veterans, displaced Federal employees, or people 

with disabilities—are informed of special hiring 

authorities designed to help them find Federal 

employment. The announcements inform such job 

seekers about how they can exercise their right to 

be considered through the special hiring authorities 

that apply to them. 

9 USAJOBS can be accessed through http://www.usajobs.opm.gov on the World Wide Web and at (478) 757-3000 by telephone. 

10 5 C.F.R. § 330.707. 

11 CTAP and ICTAP were created during the height of the Government’s downsizing in the early to mid-1990s to help surplus 

employees find jobs on their own within the Federal Government. 

4 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
An overview of vacancy 

announcements posted in FY2001 

After significantly reducing the size of its workforce 

during years of downsizing in the 1990s, the Government began to hire more employees than it separated starting in FY 2000 and continuing through 

FY 2001. This increased hiring is reflected in the 

number of vacancies announced during FY 1999 

through FY 2001. In FY 2001, agencies posted 

over 150,000 announcements on USAJOBS, an 

increase of about 56 percent over FY 1999 (see 

fig. 1). However, the number of vacancy announcements posted on USAJOBS does not necessarily 

translate to the number of jobs actually vacant and 

filled. Sometimes agencies prepare and post more 

than one announcement for a vacancy: one to 

solicit applications from internal applicants and 

another for external applicants. And in some cases, 

vacancies might not be filled the first time they are 

announced and may, therefore, be announced a 

second time. Furthermore, a single vacancy 

announcement may cover multiple openings in 

either a specific occupation or within a broad occupational category. 

Figure 1. Number of vacancy announcements 

posted on USAJOBS 

Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

0 

50,000 

100,000 

150,000 

200,000 

FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 

Competitiv e examining Internal merit promotion 

Combined Total 

Agencies used competitive examining 

or internal merit promotion 

announcements, or combined the two 

There are two basic types of vacancy announcements: internal merit promotion and competitive 

examining announcements. Internal merit promotion vacancies are generally open to current or 

former Federal employees who have or had permanent appointments.12 Vacancies in the competitive 

service that are filled through competitive examining are open to any qualified U.S. citizen and are 

12 These current or former employees are referred to as “internal” or “status” applicants. Internal merit promotion announcements may limit who is considered. For example, an announcement may be open to displaced or about-to-be-displaced employees only, to agency employees only, or to employees from other Federal agencies within the commuting area. When soliciting 

applications from Federal employees outside their own workforce, agencies also are obliged to accept applications from military 

veterans who are eligible under the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5 
not restricted to current or former Federal employees.13 Internal merit promotion and competitive 

examining processes have their own sets of rules, 

but both must observe the spirit of the first merit 

system principle. Competitive examining is distinct 

from internal merit promotion in two notable 

ways: 

•	 Competitive examining is subject to a law that 

gives veterans, and certain family members of 

veterans, preference in hiring; and 

•	 It is subject to a law that limits hiring consideration to the three candidates with the highest 

numerical scores (the Rule of Three). As an alternative to the Rule of Three, the Homeland Security Act of 200214 permits agencies to use 

category ranking.15 

Agencies may, and often do, issue separate internal 

merit promotion and competitive examining 

announcements for the same position. Or, agencies 

may prepare a single vacancy announcement for 

both internal and external competitions. Because 

internal merit promotion and competitive examining have different requirements, combined 

announcements can easily confuse applicants, particularly external applicants who are unfamiliar 

with the Federal hiring process. OPM has cautioned agencies to give very clear instructions to 

applicants when the two kinds of announcements 

are combined.16 As figure 1 shows, about 30,000 

combined internal merit promotion and competitive examining announcements were posted in FY 

2001, about 32 percent more than in FY 1999. 

Agencies opened jobs to external 

applicants 

Including announcements where agencies combined competitive examining and internal merit 

promotion processes into one announcement, 

more than 88,000 vacancy announcements posted 

on USAJOBS in FY 2001 were open to external 

applicants (see fig. 1). This was an increase of about 

37 percent in the number of open announcements 

over FY 1999. However, our review of a sample of 

10,000 vacancy announcement summaries that 

appeared in USAJOBS in FY 2001 indicates that 

agencies varied greatly in the extent to which they 

opened jobs to external applicants. For example, 

figure 2 shows that the Department of Health and 

Human Services opened a much higher percentage 

of their jobs to external applicants (82 percent) 

than the Departments of Defense (43 percent) and 

the Air Force (48 percent). 

Figure 2. Top 10 agencies that opened their 

vacancy announcements to external applicants 

in FY 2001 

Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, USAJOBS. 

29 

40 

43 

40 

24 

42 

26 

53 

46 

53 

14 

8 

11 

17 

34 

19 

36 

10 

26 

29 

0 10 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 

Defense 

Air Force 

Agriculture 

Justice 

Army 

Treasury 

Commerce 

Interior 

Navy 

Health & Human Serv. 

External Combined 

2 3 5 6 7 8 9

Perhaps not surprisingly, agencies were more likely 

to consider external applicants at the entry-level 

than at higher grades. Seventy-four percent of jobs 

at grades 1 through 4 were open to external appli13 Applicants from outside the Federal Government are referred to as “external” or “nonstatus” applicants. They include Federal 

employees serving on temporary appointments or appointed in positions outside the competitive service. Current and former 

Federal employees may also apply under competitive examining. When they do, all the laws and regulations that govern competitive examining apply to them. 

14 Public Law 107-296, Nov. 25, 2002. 

15 Category rating is a method of rating that allows candidates to be grouped in two or more categories instead of ranked by 

numerical scores. All candidates within a group are treated as equally qualified. Veterans preference rules continue to apply in 

category rating. 

16 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Delegated Examining Operations Handbook,” Washington, DC, October 1999, p. v-6. 

6 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
cants, while 54 percent of announcements for 

grades 12 through 15 were open to external applicants. We also found that agencies were more likely 

to open their professional, technical, and clerical 

jobs to external applicants, while reserving more of 

their administrative jobs for internal applicants. 

Additionally, agencies operating under an alternative personnel system or demonstration project 

authority17 were more likely to consider external 

applicants than agencies with traditional personnel 

systems. 

About half of the announcements were 

for professional and administrative 

jobs 

Our review of the 10,000 vacancy announcement 

summaries showed that agencies announced a wide 

range of jobs in FY 2001. About half (54 percent) 

of the jobs were in the professional and administrative categories, and most of those were program/ 

management analysts, information technology specialists, program administrators, and engineers. 

About a third of the jobs announced (36 percent) 

were technical and clerical jobs with the most common being office clerks (including office automation clerks) and secretaries. The remaining 10 

percent were blue-collar and other types of jobs. 

As table 1 shows, announced jobs started at various 

grade levels with technical and clerical jobs likely to 

be announced at grades GS-5 through 8 and professional and administrative jobs at grades GS-9 

and above. In general, agencies announced fewer 

jobs at entry levels than at non-entry levels for all 

categories of jobs opened for both internal and 

external applicants. This suggests that agencies prefer to fill most of their vacancies with experienced 

workers rather than people just beginning their 

careers. 

Half of vacancy announcements were 

open for 2 weeks or less 

Providing adequate public notice ensures that 

interested individuals have the opportunity to 

apply. The minimum open period for competitive 

announcements is 5 business days, but agencies 

may establish shorter or longer open periods 

depending on the pool of candidates they want to 

attract or the number and quality of applicants 

likely to be available. The open period for internal 

merit promotion vacancy announcements depends 

on agencies’ merit promotion plans, which in some 

agencies incorporate aspects of collective bargaining agreements, and vary from agency to agency. As 

figure 3 shows, half (52 percent) of the Federal 

vacancy announcements posted in FY 2001 were 

open for receipt of applications for 14 calendar 

days or less. Open periods were basically the same 

length for both external and internal 

announcements. 

Table 1. Percent of vacancy announcements by 

occupational category and grade levels, FY 2001 

Grade levels 

Occupational 

category 1-4 5-8 9-11 12-15 Other* 

Professional 7 12 37 42 2 

Administrative 3 16 37 43 1 

Technical 15 74 9 2 

Clerical 32 67 1 

Other 28 59 5 8 

Blue-Collar 23 43 30 2 2 

Source: Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, USAJOBS. 

* “Other” includes demonstration projects, the Senior Executive 

Service, and pay plans other than the general schedule. 

As we have noted, the public notice requirement is 

met when a vacancy announcement has been 

posted on USAJOBS. Currently, OPM requires 

17 The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 gave OPM and other Federal agencies the authority to test innovative approaches to 

human resources management under the act’s demonstration project authority (5 U.S.C. 47). As of April 2002, the Department 

of Defense (Air Force, Army, and Navy laboratories and the DOD Acquisition Workforce), and the Department of Commerce 

had active demonstration projects. The Navy, the Department of Agriculture, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology now have alternative personnel systems that were tested under the demonstration project authority and were then made 

permanent through legislation. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7 
Figure 3. Percent of vacancy announcements by 

open period, FY 2001 

Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, USAJOBS. 

12 

40 

17 

10 11 10 

1-7 

days 

8-14 

days 

15-21 

days 

22-28 

days 

29-35 

days 

35+ 

days 

agencies to enter their announcements into the system by 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time for 

appearance on USAJOBS the next day.

18 

Figure 4 shows that 9 percent of vacancy 

announcements did not appear on USAJOBS until 

after the announced opening date for receipt of 

applications. Notifying the public of the vacancy 

after the announcement has opened effectively 

reduces the number of days applicants have to learn 

of the vacancy, prepare materials, and submit their 

applications. This results in less publicity, and 

worse, it can undermine the perception of “fair and 

open” competition, especially for announcements 

with short open periods. Even so, having an adequate open period is not in itself sufficient to meet 

the spirit of fairness and openness. It is not necessarily fair and open to post a job vacancy for 30 

days, for example, but make the qualification 

requirements so narrow or the instructions so 

obscure that no one but an insider can successfully 

compete. These issues are discussed in more detail 

later in this report. 

Figure 4. Vacancy announcements appearing on 

USAJOBS before and after the opening date 

Source: U.S. Office of Personnel Management, USAJOBS. 

Appearing 

bef ore 

opening 

date 

80% 

Appearing 

on 

opening 

date 

11% 

Appearing 

af ter 

opening 

date 

9% 

`

18 This time limit will not apply once USAJOBS migrates to the system maintained by Monster.com. Once entered, vacancy 

announcements will appear on USAJOBS in real time. 

8 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
The current state of Federal vacancy 


announcements 

The quality of Federal vacancy announcements 

directly affects the Government’s ability to attract 

and hire the workers it needs to serve the American 

people. Depending on their quality, vacancy 

announcements can attract or repel qualified applicants. Because of vacancy announcements’ importance in the Government’s recruiting efforts at a 

time when a large number of employees are projected to retire, OPM has recently begun focusing 

more attention on the state of Federal vacancy 

announcements. In an April 2002 news release, 

OPM announced that it has collaborated with two 

employment experts to modernize vacancy 

announcements, and in a July memorandum to 

agencies’ HR directors, OPM provided suggestions 

for writing effective job announcements.19 This 

brought much needed attention to the issue. 

Although some agencies are making improvements 

to their announcements, more needs to be done. 

One private sector consultant who advises applicants on how to apply for Federal jobs has asserted 

that Federal vacancy announcements are often 

unintelligible to first-time applicants.20 Based on 

our systematic content review of a random sample 

of 100 vacancy announcements for jobs open to all 

applicants, we believe this to be true in far too 

many cases. 

Figure 5. Ratings of vacancy announcements 

Source: MSPB review of vacancy announcements. 

Good 

2% 

Acceptable 

45% 

Poor 

53% 

The quality of vacancy 

announcements generally is not good 

Our quality review of 100 vacancy announcements 

posted on USAJOBS found that just under half (45 

percent) were “acceptable,” only 2 percent were 

“good” and the rest—53 percent—were poor (see 

fig. 5). Vacancy announcements rated acceptable 

were adequately organized and clear, but reviewers 

indicated that even these barely met the “acceptable” level because although these announcements 

were more organized and clear than the poor 

announcements, they generally made no effort to 

sell the jobs. This finding coupled with the “poor” 

19 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “OPM Expands Efforts to Modernize Job Vacancy Announcements,” news release, 

Apr. 29, 2002; Memorandum for human resources directors on improving job announcements, from Richard A. Whitford, 

OPM Acting Associate Director for Employment, July 15, 2002. 

20 Kathryn Kraemer Troutman, “Seven Ways to Fix Federal Hiring,” Sept. 20, 2001; and “Change your Vacancy Announcements Now,” Dec. 18, 2001, both at http://www.resume-place.com/archives/. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9 
rating given to 53 percent of the announcements 

does not bode well for the Government’s quest for 

talent. Our review of the vacancy announcements 

identified a number of different problems that represent common themes that cut across agencies and 

types of positions. 

Common problems noted in vacancy 

announcements 

Announcements read poorly 

Many of the 100 vacancy announcements we 

reviewed read poorly, a shortcoming that can drive 

away applicants who have other choices in the 

labor market. The most common flaws were poor 

organization, poor writing, and overuse or ineffective use of templates and “canned” or standardized 

language. 

Organization is poor 

Many of the announcements suffered from disorganization and were much too long. For example, one 

vacancy announcement for medical officers 

included a multi-page section containing numerous 

items of information unrelated to one another. 

Much of the information was important but could 

easily be missed by applicants because of the disorganized presentation. 

Misspelling and grammatical errors are common 

In addition to disorganization, we found many 

misspelled words and grammatical errors in 

vacancy announcements. This sloppy writing can 

quickly create an image of the Government as 

unprofessional. 

For example, we noted errors such as using principle for principal, basic for basis, and it’s for its.

21 In 

addition, statements such as one noting that there 

21 In this report, we used italics to signify direct quotes. 

is 0001 vacancies to be filled contain an error (the 

plural vacancies) and do nothing to contribute to 

readability. According to some of our survey 

respondents, some problems such as this are related 

to USAJOBS’ inflexibility or inability to check certain kinds of typographical mistakes. But grammatical mistakes and many of the spelling errors can’t 

be attributed to the system’s shortcomings. Those 

mistakes are more likely attributable to poor writing skills or the human resources office staffs’ rush 

to get announcements published. 

Jargon and acronyms are prevalent 

We also noted the prevalence of jargon (e.g., career/ 

career-conditional appointment22) and undefined 

acronyms (e.g., PCS23). Although useful when 

communicating information within an organization, jargon and acronyms are inappropriate when 

communicating outside the organization because 

the terms can be unfamiliar or have different meanings to different people. Moreover, their use suggests a closed process geared to insiders rather than 

thoughtful consideration of all applicants. 

Templates and “canned” or standardized 

language are used ineffectively 

Another common practice that contributes to poor 

readability is the ineffective use of templates or 

“canned” language. The size of HR staffs was 

reduced by almost 18 percent during the downsizing and restructuring of the Federal Government in 

the 1990s.24 This loss of staff forced HR offices to 

employ new strategies to help them keep up with 

the work. One of these strategies was to automate 

portions of the staffing process, including preparing parts of vacancy announcements. Although 

writing vacancy announcements cannot be wholly 

automated, much information is common among 

announcements, such as statements about equal 

22 “Career” or “career-conditional” appointment pertains to the employment tenure given to employees with permanent 

appointments. The first 3 years of an employee’s initial appointment is “career-conditional,” after which it becomes “career.” 

23 “PCS” is an abbreviation for “permanent change of station,” which means a permanent move or transfer of an employee to 

another duty location. 

24 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Human Resources Employment Trends: An Occupation in Transition,” Washington, 

DC, September 1999, p. 4. 

10 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
employment opportunity or where to send applications. To save time and to ensure consistency, many 

HR offices have developed vacancy announcement 

templates and standardized language. 

To help agencies post vacancy announcements on 

USAJOBS, OPM has developed a data-entry form 

that includes standardized statements that agencies 

may use, such as language on who can claim veterans preference or on accommodating applicants 

with disabilities. OPM offers short and long versions of the same information. To use OPM’s suggested statements, the HR office staff members 

who prepare vacancy announcements simply select 

which ones to include in their announcements. 

The use of templates and standardized language 

can ensure consistency and can make writing 

vacancy announcements faster, but there are disadvantages when these aids to efficiency are used 

thoughtlessly. For example, we found that sometimes HR office staffs select statements from the 

USAJOBS data-entry template that are duplicated 

in the agency’s template—so statements appear 

twice, although sometimes worded slightly differently. This and other errors make Federal 

announcements too long, confusing, repetitive, and 

replete with irrelevant and unnecessary information. Here are some examples: 

Veterans Preference is not a factor for Senior Executive Service jobs or when competition is limited to status candidates 

(current or former Federal career or career-conditional 

employees). [From an administrative program assistant 

grade 6/7 vacancy announcement] 

The reference to the Senior Executive Service is irrelevant to this job. The announcement should clearly say 

veterans’ preference rules apply. 

PRE-EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS: Selectees may 

be required to successfully complete a probationary period, 

obtain a security clearance, and meet all certification 

requirements (depending on the position to be filled) prior 

to appointment. Some positions may require successful completion of a physical examination, agility test, pre-employment drug test and/or participation in the Anthrax vaccine 

immunization program if applying for an emergency essential position. Selectees required to meet one or more of these 

employment conditions before appointment will receive a 

tentative offer of employment. [From a computer specialist grade 12 vacancy announcement] 

Depending on where this job is located in the agency, 

some of these pre-employment requirements, such as 

the agility test, may not apply. The plural “Selectees” 

(twice) and the qualifier “Some positions” are also confusing since the announcement was for only one 

vacancy. The parenthetical “depending on the position 

to be filled” indicates the likelihood that this is canned 

language the agency didn’t bother to adjust, as does “if 

applying for an emergency essential position.” 

EDUCATION: If this position requires education to meet 

basic requirements or you are seeking to qualify based on 

education or a combination of education/experience, you 

must submit college transcript. [From an associate 

research molecular biologist grade 7 vacancy announcement] 

The word “if ” is inappropriate here because this job 

does require a specific level and type of education. Even 

if it didn’t, it’s not helpful to applicants to make them 

search through the announcement to figure out whether 

the position requires education and, therefore, whether 

a transcript is required. 

The use of templates and canned language saves 

time for the human resources office and ensures 

consistency, which is desirable from both a legal 

perspective and the perspective of the applicant in 

need of sound information. However, these advantages are lost if they force applicants to contact HR 

for clarification (which wastes the time of both 

applicants and HR). Nor is it effective if highly 

qualified applicants do not apply because they find 

the announcement too confusing or so obviously 

thrown together carelessly that it repels rather than 

attracts them. 

Announcements are weak recruiting tools 

To be useful as a recruiting tool, vacancy 

announcements should be attractive, easy to read 

and understand, and have a friendly and pleasant 

tone. Readers must be immediately engaged or they 

will not read the entire announcement. A sample 

vacancy announcement that complies with OPM’s 

current requirements and includes many of the 

desirable attributes we highlight in this report 

appears in appendix B. 

As noted earlier, although we rated almost half of 

the vacancy announcements as “acceptable,” many 

barely met this level because they did little to sell 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11 
the jobs. Part of the problem could be USAJOBS’ 

system limitations that make tailoring difficult. 

Equally problematic is the fact that vacancy 

announcements on USAJOBS generally look unattractive, although to be fair, some do have better 

layouts than others. (This problem on appearance 

may be resolved when USAJOBS migrates to the 

system maintained by Monster.com.) Still, the 

problems we found were not so much caused by 

the limitations of USAJOBS as by the contents of 

the announcements themselves. 

Job titles and duties are unclear 

Job titles. Generally, applicants search for jobs by 

job titles. Certain occupations are easy to search for 

because they have standard job titles in the public 

and private sector, such as nurse, secretary, or engineer. But the Government has many positions that 

have no counterpart in the private sector. When 

appropriate, it would be useful to include in the 

announcement not only the job classification title 

but also an organizational title that is more descriptive of what the job entails. For example, “Program 

Analyst (Missile Defense Systems)” would be more 

helpful than the classification title “Program Analyst.” Agencies should also be more careful and precise when titling their jobs. For example, an 

announcement for an Assistant Crossing and Trespasser Regional Manager sounds as if the agency is 

looking for someone to manage assistant crossings 

(whatever they might be) and trespassers. 

Duties. Most of the “duties” sections of vacancy 

announcements we reviewed were poorly written. 

Most made little attempt to make the job interesting. “Duties” appear to be almost always verbatim 

excerpts of official position descriptions or classification standards. Descriptions are wordy and jargon-laden yet vague, making it difficult to 

determine what the person would be doing in the 

job. Moreover, they contain overly long sentences 

and are written in a tone that is impersonal and 

sometimes even pretentious. The following examples illustrate some of these problems: 

The incumbent serves as the Senior Network Engineer who 

reports to the Director of the Information Systems Department and is responsible for the new design, configuration, 

analytical and evaluation duties relating to computer networks and/or telecommunications with primary knowledge 

requirements of information processing methodology, information technology, computer capabilities and processing 

techniques. Receives network, communications and related 

operating systems from various sources and ensures that an 

inventory of all network hardware and software is maintained. Serves as the lead Network person on operating systems and/or application software projects and ensures that 

current releases of software products are in use. . .[From a 

computer specialist grade 12 vacancy announcement] 

A confusing and vague description. Shorter sentences 

and clear, simpler writing are needed along with some 

explanation or identification of the network or telecommunication systems involved. 

Participates in the building fire prevention and inspection 

program of the area served, insuring that all assigned buildings are [sic] structures are inspected for fire hazards on a 

scheduled basis in accordance with established elements of 

the fire risks and hazards in buildings under rehabilitation 

and/or alterations to insure the operations meet the requirements of the National Fire Codes, existing orders and depot 

requirements. [From a fire protection inspector grade 

level 6 vacancy announcement] 

This rambling statement never specifies that the selectee 

will actually perform fire inspections. Also, it provides 

information that is unnecessary at this stage (e.g., “the 

area served” and “assigned buildings”). The following is 

more to the point, less wordy, and free of several writing 

or typing mistakes: “In accordance with the National 

Fire Codes, inspects building for fire risks during construction and renovation.” 

Minimum qualification requirements are not 

specific 

For all jobs in the Government, OPM has developed a set of minimum qualification standards that 

describe job requirements in broad terms but are 

not sufficient for purposes of announcing jobs. 

OPM has informed agencies that the standards 

described in OPM’s qualifications handbook are 

not sufficiently specific to be used directly in examining or to be quoted in vacancy announcements.25 

Unfortunately, we found many of the announcements used OPM’s qualification standards defini25 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “ General Policies and Instructions: Qualification Standards for General Schedule 

Positions,” at http://opm.gov/qualifications/SEC-II/s2-a-b.htm, Sept. 14, 2001, Part B 2. 

12 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
tions without further specification. For example, a 

job for administrative support assistant grade 6 

defined specialized experience as follows: Experience 

that demonstrated the knowledge, skills, and abilities 

to perform the work of the position to be filled. To be 

creditable, specialized experience must have been at 

least equivalent to the next lower grade level in the 

normal line of progression for the occupation of the 

organization. 

This definition presupposes that applicants know 

about the Federal classification and qualification 

standards and the organization’s line of advancement. Although applicants could find the classification and qualification standards with patience and 

some effort (OPM posts the classification and qualification standards on the Web and agency recruiting offices may have copies available for review), it 

is unreasonable to expect most applicants to know 

an organization’s normal line of advancement. And 

it’s unfair to expect applicants to learn what the line 

of advancement or the classification and qualification standards are in the short period that they have 

to apply. It would be much more helpful and 

appealing if announcements described the agency’s 

specific requirements for the actual vacancy in a 

simple, straightforward manner. For example, in 

the specialized experience passage cited in the preceding paragraph, stating that applicants should 

have experience ordering office equipment and 

supplies would have made the passage more useful 

and helpful for the applicant. 

Announcements are negative and even 

threatening 

Our raters also noted that many vacancy 

announcements use negative language and tone 

that could very likely deter and even insult many 

qualified applicants. Some threaten applicants with 

nonconsideration, dismissal, or imprisonment if 

they lie on their application. It’s almost as if applicants are assumed to be untruthful and so are 

warned of the consequences of lying even before 

they have decided to apply. Here are examples of 

some of the threats or negative language we found: 

If you make a false statement in any part of your application, you may not be hired; you may be fired after you begin 

work; or you may be subject to fine, imprisonment or other 

disciplinary action. [From a laborer grade 2 vacancy 

announcement] 

If the warning must appear, the following could be 

much less threatening and adversarial and more inviting: “Please help us hire the best applicant by giving us 

complete and accurate information. Federal job applicants who make a false statement in any part of the 

application could be turned down for the job; fired after 

beginning work; or subject to fine, imprisonment, or 

other disciplinary action.” 

Please note: If a determination is made that you have rated 

yourself higher than is supported by your description of 

experience and/or education or that your application is 

incomplete, the following process will take place. The application will be returned to you unrated with an explanation 

that the narrative does not support the self-report. Your 

application will receive no further consideration for this 

announcement OR you may submit additional materials 

by [date]. [From a quality assurance specialist grade 09/ 

11 vacancy announcement] 

Agencies have the right to ensure that self-ratings are 

consistent with stated qualifications. But agencies 

should be more direct and diplomatic when informing 

applicants of this policy. For example, this paragraph 

could begin with: “Please note: Your rating will be 

based on both your responses to the questionnaire and 

information stated in your application. Please make sure 

that your self-ratings are supported by information in 

your application.” 

With warnings and threats peppering vacancy 

announcements, it would not be surprising if some 

applicants gave up their job search before they 

began. Negative language and threats belittle applicants, tarnish the Government’s image, and can 

drive applicants away. To be effective, vacancy 

announcements should present information in as 

positive and appealing a way as possible. And using 

the word “please” on occasion is not a bad idea. 

Announcements are not applicant-centered 

Burdensome requirements. Almost all of the 

vacancy announcements we reviewed required 

applicants to submit a complete application package by the closing date of the announcement. In 

addition, most announcements require that applicants submit separate application packages for each 

of the hiring methods (i.e., merit promotion and 

competitive examining), for each special appointA Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13 
ing authority,

26 or for each cut-off date of an opencontinuous announcement for which they wish to 

be considered. This sounds like a reasonable 

requirement until one considers what a “complete 

application package” usually includes and notes 

that the open period is 2 weeks or less for half of 

the announcements. 

The following are some of the most common 

pieces of information agencies require in a “complete application package”: 

•	 An application, using either a resume, or one of 

two application forms, the Optional Form (OF) 

612, or the Standard Form (SF) 171;27 

•	 Narrative responses to the knowledge, skills, and 

abilities requirements listed on the announcement or responses to a self-rating questionnaire; 

• Proof of military service, if claimed; 

•	 Proof of service-connected disabilities or certification of disabilities, if claimed; 

• Proof of Federal service, if claimed; 

•	 A copy of the most current performance 

appraisal if the applicant is a current Federal 

employee; 

•	 College transcripts, including certification of 

U.S. equivalency if the education was obtained 

in another country; and 

•	 A letter showing that the applicant is a Federal 

employee due to be displaced, or proof of displacement if the applicant is claiming priority 

placement under the Federal Government’s 

career transition assistance programs. 

While an application is always required to apply for 

a Federal job,

28 agencies typically ask for additional 

documentation depending on the assessment 

method they will use and the proof they need to 

determine eligibility to apply. For agencies that use 

training/education and work experience (commonly referred to as the T&E rating method) to 

assess qualifications, applicants are usually required 

to write narratives on how their work experience 

and training meet the job’s knowledge, skills, and 

abilities (KSAs).29 The number of KSAs typically 

ranges from three to eight. In a previous study, we 

found that applicants consider this requirement to 

be burdensome and repetitive (that is, these essays 

repeat information already given in their application or resume).30 Responding to multiple-choice 

questionnaires can be less burdensome but some 

questionnaires, especially the one currently used for 

entry-level professional and administrative jobs 

covered by the Administrative Careers With America (ACWA) exam,31 can nevertheless be quite time 

consuming. That self-rating questionnaire is very 

26 Persons who may be considered for noncompetitive appointment include Veteran’s Readjustment Appointment (VRA) eligibles, veterans who are 30% or more disabled, Peace Corps or VISTA volunteers who left the service within the preceding year, 

certain former overseas Federal employees who returned stateside within the preceding 3 years, certain National Guard technicians separated within the preceding year, severely physically disabled or mentally impaired individuals, and veterans who have 

been separated from the armed forces under honorable conditions after 3 years or more of continuous service. 

27 The SF 171 was made obsolete in December 1995 with the adoption of OF 612. However, applicants may still use the SF 

171 to apply for Federal jobs. 

28 Some agencies maintain resumes in databases. Those that do usually require applicants to submit a self-nomination (in writing, by FAX, or e-mail) to be considered for a job. 

29 Agencies using automated systems to perform T&E ratings typically don’t require narrative statements in addition to the 

application form or resume. 

30 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Competing for Federal Jobs: Job Search Experiences of New Hires,” p. 14. 

31 Prior to the ACWA exam, OPM administered the Professional and Administrative Examination (PACE), which was abolished under a consent decree entered into in a case alleging that the examination discriminated against, and had adverse impact 

on, Hispanic and African-American applicants based on test bias. OPM ultimately replaced the PACE with an exam that had a 

cognitive test portion and a biodata component. This was called the Administrative Careers With America, or ACWA written 

test. OPM subsequently replaced the ACWA written test with a self-rating instrument also called ACWA. However, the ACWA 

written test remains in OPM’s inventory of assessment tools if an organization wants to use it. The self-rating version of the 

ACWA that is currently being used expanded the biodata component of the ACWA written test. For more information about 

the PACE and the abolishment of the exam, see the following MSPB reports: “Report on the Significant Actions of OPM During 1982,” December 1983; “Entering Professional Positions in the Federal Government,” April 1994; and “Restoring Merit to 

Federal Hiring: Why Two Special Hiring Programs Should be Ended,” January 2000. 

14 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
Figure 6. Percent of supervisors and managers indicating the importance of various factors when 

hiring from outside the Federal workforce 

Most Important Factors Least Important Factors 

*PPP/CTAP/ICTAP refers to Priority Placement Programs (PPP), Career Transition Assistance Program (CTAP), and Interagency Career Transition Assistance Program (ICTAP). 

Source: MSPB Survey of Federal HR specialists on FY 2001 Vacancy Announcements. 

24 

26 

36 

47 

76 

Ref erence 

checks 

Recommendations 

f rom know n 

persons 

Perf ormance 

during interview 

Qualif ications of 

candidates 

Job-related 

experience 

25 

31 

36 

55 

56 

PPP/CTAP/ICTAP* 

Advice from HR 

Union contract 

provisions 

Schools attended 

Current salary 

lengthy, comprising more than 140 questions. But 

even though responding to questionnaires or writing essays focused on KSAs can be a burden, and 

unnecessary for making basic qualification determinations, many agencies do not want to postpone 

obtaining this information until those not basically 

qualified are screened out. They want all the information up-front. 

Based on our review of vacancy announcements, 

agencies appear unwilling to make basic qualification and eligibility determinations without supporting documentation. The requirement to 

submit college transcripts and certification of U.S. 

equivalency for foreign education during the initial 

application stage are examples of how HR makes 

the process cumbersome. Almost always, human 

resources offices require that all documents be submitted during the open period and most agencies 

have a policy of not considering applicants who do 

not submit all of the paperwork up-front. This HR 

policy is designed with the HR office in mind, 

rather than the applicant. Its objective is having 

fewer applicants to rate rather than helping the 

manager get a broader and better applicant pool. 

The requirement for so much paperwork in order 

to apply seems to test applicants’ endurance when 

an endurance test is unnecessary. Our research suggests that often, the rigors of the application process do little to improve the actual assessment of 

candidates’ qualifications or to help selecting officials make better informed selection decisions. In 

the Board’s 1997 survey of Federal supervisors and 

managers, supervisors indicated that the information most important to them when hiring from 

outside the Federal workforce is the applicants’ jobrelated experience (see fig. 6). Information such as 

schools attended or eligibility for priority placement is the least important. Yet, almost all 

announcements require applicants to provide information about their schools and to submit their 

transcripts even though these may not be necessary 

for eligibility or qualification determinations or for 

selection decisions. 

Agencies may be losing qualified candidates with 

their unwieldy application processes. As noted, 

applicants find writing essays about their KSAs 

burdensome enough. Requiring unnecessary documentation or requiring documentation at an earlier 

stage than necessary places a burden on applicants 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15 
that is contrary to the Government’s policy of keeping paperwork requirements to a minimum.32 

The Board recognizes that requiring so much information and documentation or submission of multiple application packages during the application 

phase of the hiring process is at times unavoidable. 

For example, agencies that have to fill certain jobs 

immediately may not be able to delay receipt of 

application materials until later in the process. We 

also recognize that HR specialists may feel more 

confident that their qualifications and eligibility 

determinations are correct if they have as much 

information as possible in their hands from the 

start. The first two are valid reasons for requiring 

that applicants submit a complete application 

package up-front, and the third one is understandable. However, agencies must find a balance 

between what they need to determine qualifications 

and eligibility and the burden they put on job 

applicants. Also, agencies that lack the technology 

that would allow them to delay receipt of some 

documentation should try to upgrade their tools. 

Vague instructions. To be most useful, vacancy 

announcements should be written with a targeted 

group of applicants in mind. Additionally, 

announcements should be simple and easy to 

understand to make it more likely that qualified 

applicants will apply correctly and unqualified 

applicants will rule themselves out. Our survey 

shows that many unqualified or ineligible individuals apply. Othersboth qualified and unqualifiedapply but fail to follow instructions. As 

figure 7 shows, the most common reasons applicants were eliminated from competition was their 

failure to show the required education and/or experience. 

Why do unqualified applicants apply and why do 

applicants fail to comply with instructions? One 

reason may be applicants’ difficulty in understanding the vacancy announcement. In fact, our review 

found many of the instructions on how to apply 

vague, confusing, and contradictory. For example, 

in one announcement’s minimum qualifications 

section applicants were told to submit college tranFigure 7. Reasons applicants were disqualified 

or rated ineligible, in percent 

Source: MSPB Survey of Federal HR Specialists on FY 2001 Vacancy 

Announcements. 

3 

5 

6 

10 

11 

13 

46

Failed to include required information 

Application submitted improperly 

Failed to submit college transcripts 

Application was late 

Failed to address KSAs 

Failed to submit required forms 

Failed to show required education 

and/or experience 

scripts, only to find later in the announcement that 

transcripts were not mandatory. 

Poor service and limited methods to apply. The 

vacancy announcements we reviewed showed that 

some agencies limit the service they provide to 

applicants or the way they will accept applications. 

Statements such as Don’t call; No attempts will be 

made by the personnel office to obtain missing documents; Form requests will not be honored; We will not 

make copies; We WILL NOT accept FAX; If you fail 

to submit a COMPLETE on-line resume, you WILL 

NOT be considered. . . Paper applications WILL 

NOT be accepted. . . are common in vacancy 

announcements. Perhaps these practices are HR 

offices’ attempts to operate more efficiently in the 

face of staff shortages, but they are not likely to 

encourage applicants to apply. They also do nothing to improve the Government’s image as an 

employer of choice. 

Agencies have a right to set boundaries, but they 

should not cut too many corners. For example, the 

refusal to talk on the phone with applicants can be 

viewed as unwillingness to be helpful, or even as a 

lack of interest in whether anybody applies for the 

32 P.L. 104-13, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

16 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
job. This unwillingness can also convey the idea 

that Government offices are so hectic, pressureridden, and short-handed they can’t even deal with 

applicants’ legitimate inquiries. Some direct access 

to HR staff is necessary to assist applicants who 

have met a roadblock in the process and require the 

answer to a legitimate question. 

Agencies’ practice of accepting only electronic 

applications is not only unhelpful but also a questionable employment practice. Limiting receipt of 

applications to this one method is not a mark of a 

truly open competitive process as required by the 

first merit system principle. In a March 2002 memorandum, OPM’s director reminded agencies that 

they may require submission of applications in a 

particular format or form, but must not require 

only electronic submission. Electronic filing is 

encouraged, but agencies must provide alternative 

methods for those who do not have Internet 

access.33 This is a useful reminder. Although Internet access has increased since we first noted its use 

to search for jobs,34 a large proportion of American 

adults still aren’t connected.35 Thus, multiple methods of accepting applications are needed to ensure 

that any interested applicant can apply. 

Announcements are focused on observing 

laws and regulations 

As stated earlier, our review found vacancy 

announcements to be focused more on the legal 

aspects of the hiring process than on selling the job, 

the agency, or the Government. In fact, HR staff 

members who responded to our survey agreed. 

Almost all of our survey respondents (97 percent) 

indicated that their vacancy announcements help 

them comply with legal and regulatory requirements, while only about half (48 percent) indicated 

that vacancy announcements are effective in 

informing applicants about their agencies’ missions. 

Using vacancy announcements to comply with 

legal and regulatory requirements is appropriate 

but should not be carried to such extremes that it 

becomes a detriment to recruiting. For example, 

many vacancy announcements provide overly long 

descriptions of programs and procedures for displaced Federal employees. Announcements also 

often include excessive detail on who is eligible for 

veterans preference. While it is important that individuals eligible for special consideration for Federal 

employment are afforded all the benefits of their 

eligibility, they should be informed in a way that 

does not disrupt the flow of information for other 

job seekers. For example, it would be better to alert 

applicants to specific programs that may apply to 

them with a short instruction on where to go for 

more information than to include detailed information that might be irrelevant or confusing to 

others. 

We also found numerous vacancy announcements 

that sound overly legalistic, citing public law, regulations, and executive orders. For example, some 

vacancy announcements cite the Privacy Act, PL 

93-579 to show agencies’ right to obtain certain 

information, Executive Order 9397 to show why 

applicants must provide their social security number, or 39 U.S.C. § 415 to explain why applicants 

must not send their applications in Governmentfranked envelopes. In addition to citing the law or 

regulation, the announcements warn applicants, 

sometimes repeatedly, about the consequences of 

failure to observe these rules (e.g., they might not 

be considered for the job or they could be sent to 

jail). Who can blame applicants who object to this 

sort of treatment and therefore decide not to apply? 

Such heavy reliance on the legalities associated with 

hiring suggests that some HR staffs may be more 

worried about possible litigation than about giving 

sufficient consideration to attracting applicants. 

And this concern has some basis. HR offices 

33 Memorandum from Kay Coles James, Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, to heads of departments and 

agencies, on agencies’ responsibilities to recruit and assess high-quality candidates, Mar. 25, 2002. 

34 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Competing for Federal Jobs: Job Search Experiences of New Hires,” pp. 8-9. 

35 U.S. Census Bureau, “Home Computers and Internet Use in the United States: August 2000,” Special Studies, Washington, 

DC, September 2001. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17 
undergo periodic inspections both from agency 

HR organizations and OPM. These inspections 

include looking for deficiencies or violations of policies or regulations. When an HR office has been 

cited for noncompliance, staffs may be loath to run 

that risk again and could adopt a complianceoriented approach to most of what they do. HR 

staffs’ approach may also be affected by their concern that applicants canand some doquestion 

the process and file complaints. Applicants have 

successfully sued potential employers for many different reasons, ranging from the use of discriminatory words in advertisements to promises that were 

implied, but not met.36 Rather than worry about 

lawsuits to the detriment of recruiting, HR should 

treat legal and recruiting needs as complementary. 

HR need not provide every detail about legal and 

regulatory requirements in the vacancy announcement but instead could impart much of this information to applicants as the process moves along. If 

laws and regulations must be cited in vacancy 

announcements, such references can be expressed 

in a careful and courteous manner that would 

encourage applicants to follow instructions when 

applying. 

36 Phillip M. Perry, “Bulletproofing Your Help Wanted Ads,” VNU Business Media, vol. 126, No. 26, June 26, 1993, pp. 32-

34. 

18 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
Other areas of concern

Many of the problems identified in this study are 

actually symptoms of other, more complicated 

problems faced by the Government’s staffing system. If sufficient attention is not paid to these 

issues, it will be difficult for many agencies to dramatically improve their vacancy announcements. 

As a consequence, the Government’s efforts to hire 

a highly skilled and productive workforce could be 

jeopardized and the merit system principles undermined. In this section, we summarize some of the 

other issues raised by our review of Federal vacancy 

announcements. 

Agencies lack a comprehensive 

recruiting strategy 

The vacancy announcements we reviewed suggest 

that many agencies lack a comprehensive recruiting 

strategy that would help them attract highly qualified applicants. There are several aspects to this 

issue, as discussed below. 

Exclusive reliance on USAJOBS to announce 

jobs 

There are many ways agencies can announce their 

job openings in addition to the required one on 

USAJOBS (see fig. 8). However, our survey of HR 

specialists revealed that agencies rely almost exclusively on USAJOBS. For example, less than half 

(44 percent) of our HR survey respondents indicated that they post job announcements on their 

own agency’s web site and just 32 percent indicated 

that they use their agency’s e-mail system to 

announce job openings to their own employees.

Figure 8. Media agencies used to publicize 

vacancies, in percent 

Source: MSPB Survey of Federal HR Specialists on FY 2001 Vacancy 

Announcements. 

3 

4 

6 

30 

32 

44 

2 

For- 1 fee recruiting agency 

Trade journals or magazines 

Community bulletin boards 

School or college career centers 

Local or national newspapers 

Agency bulletin boards 

Agency intranet or e-mail system 

Agency job opportunity web page 

USAJOBS 

By not using other tools in addition to USAJOBS, 

agencies may miss the opportunity to attract potential applicants. Agencies that don’t post their 

announcements on their own web sites may miss 

alerting their web site visitors to job openings. Not 

telling their employees about vacancies means that 

agencies can’t energize their own employees to act 

as recruiters. This is a particularly important concern since in our study on new Federal employees’ 

job search experiences, we found that the most 

common way employees first learn about their jobs 

is through friends and relatives, many of whom, no 

doubt, are Federal employees.37 It would certainly 

be to agencies’ advantage to make greater use of 

37 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Competing for Federal Jobs: Job Search Experiences of New Hires,” p. 7. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19 

96 
these two additional broadcast tools and other tools 

that would enhance their recruiting efforts. 

Using one announcement for a broad range 

of jobs 

Some agencies issue a single vacancy announcement for a broad range of jobs (both clerical and 

professional) belonging to an occupational group, 

e.g., all positions classified in the GS-600 occupational group (the health care group), which 

includes doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, 

medical records clerks, and other health care workers. These announcements are usually open to both 

internal and external applicants, and their purpose 

is to build applicant inventories. The announcements are generally open for receipt of applications 

for 6 months to a year, and cover all grade levels 

from grade 1 or 2 to 15. By their very nature, these 

announcements describe the jobs and qualification 

requirements in very general terms. For example, 

this is how the duties were described in an 

announcement for the health care occupational 

group. 

Duties: This group includes all classes of positions the duties of which are to advise on, 

administer, supervise, or perform research or 

other professional and scientific work, subordinate technical work, or related clerical work in 

the several branches of medicine, dietetics, nursing, occupational therapy, physical therapy, pharmacy and others. 

The announcement went on to list 38 job titles 

ranging from medical officers to medical records 

clerks. Obviously, the strategy was to cast the widest net possible to see who would be caught. At first 

glance this strategy looks efficient, since only one 

announcement is prepared for a large number of 

positions. Further, even if a large number of applicants were to apply, the large volume of applications would not be a problem because the agency 

uses an automated system that supposedly can 

screen applicants and identify qualified ones in a 

matter of minutes. However, the announcement 

may not be effective for several reasons: 

•	 It is confusing, especially to external applicants 

who are unfamiliar with the Federal hiring process. 

•	 It may create expectations that can’t be met. 

Because it appears that so many employees are 

being sought, applicants may anticipate all sorts 

of job offers soon after they apply. If no offers 

come and the applicants receive no feedback, 

they might conclude that the Government’s hiring process is too slow and they could lose interest. Such situations do not create an image of the 

Government as an employer of choice. 

•	 It has the potential to mislead applicants. For 

example, one announcement for Recreation or 

Creative Arts Therapist listed the job’s grade as 

GS-02/15. It is unlikely that any employees hired 

through this announcement have promotion 

potential to GS-15. But applicants who are unfamiliar with the Government’s announcement 

practices and promotion policies may think they 

do. 

•	 It does little to motivate applicants to apply. 

Generally, applicants apply for specific jobs that 

meet their needs, interest, and qualifications. 

Announcements with no specific information 

about the job don’t give them any basis on which 

to decide to apply. 

Canceling announcements 

Another practice that we found troubling is the frequent cancellation of vacancy announcements. 

Some 42 percent of the HR specialists who 

responded to our survey indicated that their 

vacancy announcements did not result in selection. 

The most common reason they gave for the nonselection was the cancellation of the announcement 

(32 percent). 

Announcements are cancelled for various reasons, 

but regardless of the reason, cancelled announcements have unintended consequences. They are a 

huge disappointment for applicants who devoted 

so much time, effort, and even money (for ordering 

transcripts, making copies, etc.) to applying. Cancellations can also give the impression that the 

Government doesn’t know what it’s doing. But of 

more concern is that cancellations suggest that HR 

specialists are devoting too much time to doing 

20 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
something with no apparent results. The relatively 

high rate of cancellation also suggests that HR and 

program managers need to better plan their recruitment strategies to avoid unnecessary work. 

HR specialists create vacancy announcements in 

response to program managers’ hiring needs and 

requests. Program managers know their jobs better 

than HR. Unfortunately, some HR specialists have 

indicated to us that many of their program managers spend little time working with HR in planning 

recruiting strategies, identifying requisite skills, and 

developing assessment strategies. More often than 

not, program managers involve themselves in 

administrative, non-value-added tasks, such as 

signing requests for personnel actions. Such minimal involvement may be due to program managers’ 

lack of knowledge of the hiring process and the 

belief that they’re leaving it up to the experts (i.e., 

HR). However, program managers’ lack of involvement in the recruiting process can result in poorly 

described jobs or inappropriate assessment criteria. 

This increases the likelihood that the managers will 

cancel the vacancy because they are dissatisfied 

with the quality of the applicants referred to them. 

Effective human resources management depends 

upon a partnership between program managers and 

HR staffs. Members of both groups need to work 

as a team, sharing the responsibility for success. 

Until this is achieved, many of the problems we 

identify in this report will likely remain unaddressed. 

Using technology ineffectively 

Some HR professionals do not view USAJOBS as a 

recruiting tool. They use it simply because they are 

required to post their vacancy announcements 

there. Some HR specialists who responded to our 

survey expressed the wish that posting jobs on 

USAJOBS be made optional since they already 

post their announcements on their agency’s web 

site. Where USAJOBS is not viewed as a tool that 

can help to recruit, agencies are not inclined to use 

the system’s full capabilities to present a good, clear, 

attractive announcement. 

Vacancy announcements began as paper notices 

posted in post offices to let people know when a 

competitive examination was to be held. Agencies 

posted internal merit promotion announcements 

on their bulletin boards to let their employees 

know when vacancies occurred. This paper-based 

system of announcing jobs was overtaken by technology when USAJOBS went onto the World 

Wide Web in the mid 1990s. Even so, OPM’s regulations governing vacancy announcements are still 

oriented toward a paper system. This situation prevents agencies from taking full advantage of technology to modify their approach to preparing 

vacancy announcements. Hence, vacancy 

announcements posted on USAJOBS still read and 

look as if they are in a paper system, as this example 

shows: 

Please check ONE item in each section that best 

reflects your situation. Your responses are subject 

to verification should you be appointed. A complete description of these factors can be found on 

page 5 of the announcement. [From an analyst 

grade 9/11 vacancy announcement] 

This announcement was not adapted for the 

medium in which it appeared. USAJOBS uses the 

hypertext markup language (HTML) to publish 

documents in the World Wide Web. Since HTML 

does not recognize pagination, instructing applicants to go to a certain page is not only pointless 

but shows a failure to adapt paper to electronic format. 

Another troubling practice that highlights inadequate use of available technology is including in 

vacancy announcements lengthy instructions on 

what a resume must contain. In many vacancy 

announcements, the long lists describing information that applicants must supply in order to apply 

contain much of the same information that was 

required by the SF 171, which was discontinued in 

1995 because it was considered too burdensome. 

To make applying for Federal jobs less taxing, especially for external applicants, the use of resumes was 

allowed in place of the SF 171. But many 

announcements require the same information in a 

resume that the SF 171 once required, which 

undermines the benefit gained from using a 

resume. The burden remains and the vacancy 

announcement itself is cluttered with paragraphs 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21 
or pageslisting information that applicants 

must include to be considered for a job. This problem of severely cluttered announcements could be 

addressed by a more efficient use of web technology. A link from the vacancy announcement to a 

web page located in USAJOBS or to an agency web 

site containing the additional details about what 

information is needed to apply would suffice. 

Unfortunately, agencies have not fully used the 

power of USAJOBS on the Web. 

It is worth noting here that in contrast to USAJOBS, some agency web sites we have visited display vacancy announcements that are user-friendly. 

For example, instead of overloading the announcement with information, these agencies use their 

own systems to link to different web pages that 

contain the details applicants might need. This 

way, applicants are presented with manageable 

amounts of information and need select only the 

pages they want to read. This is a step in the right 

direction that all agencies should aim for. Still, 

agencies need to focus more on applicants’ perspective when developing or revising their web sites and 

must tailor their recruiting strategy to the job being 

filled. As we mentioned earlier in the report, this 

may mean using other methods, in addition to 

posting announcements on the Web, to recruit job 

candidates. 

During the time we conducted our study, OPM 

continued to make improvements to USAJOBS. 

More improvements are forthcoming as OPM 

develops and implements its Recruitment OneStop Project, including the contracting out of 

USAJOBS to Monster.com, an initiative being carried out under the President’s Management 

Agenda. However, at the time of our review, we 

found a number of aspects of USAJOBS that could 

be improved. For example, USAJOBS’ search feature is not particularly user-friendly. USAJOBS 

lacks a sufficiently simple and precise searching and 

indexing facility. Many of the search categories are 

broad, providing applicants with lists of jobs that 

are not organized by relevance. In our view, the 

search feature of USAJOBS is a major shortcoming 

that needs to be addressed. If a prospective applicant can’t find a relevant vacancy announcement, 

then no matter how poor or good that announcement may be, the prospective applicant is excluded 

from the applicant pool. Improvements in the 

quality of vacancy announcements must be coupled with systems enhancements to USAJOBS. 

When this happens, USAJOBS will be closer to 

becoming a truly premier recruiting tool, not 

merely an electronic bulletin board. 

Agencies are not positioning

themselves to make good selections 

One function of vacancy announcements is to 

solicit information about applicants’ qualifications. 

Announcements tell applicants what education or 

experience they must have to qualify for the job 

and what specific knowledge, skills, and abilities 

they will be rated on. Our review of required qualifications stated in vacancy announcements, including KSAs, suggests that agencies often lack a 

comprehensive assessment strategy needed to help 

them make good selections. 

Agencies rely too heavily on previous work 

experience 

The first hurdle Federal job applicants have to clear 

is OPM’s qualification standards,38 which agencies 

are required to apply to all applicants. The standards are experience-based, requiring agencies to 

focus on candidates’ previous work rather than on 

their competence or talent, which have been found 

to be more predictive of success than has experience.39 In most cases, the qualification standards 

allow the substitution of education for experience, 

but they do not acknowledge the obsolescence of 

experience or education over time. As a result of 

technological advances, what one knows can 

become obsolete in a matter of months, an especially serious problem in jobs where technology 

38 The qualification standards for General Schedule positions can be found at http://www.opm.gov/qualifications, and the 

qualification system for Trades and Labor occupations can be found at http://www.opm.gov/qualifications/x-118c. 

39 Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman, “First Break All the Rules,” Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, 1999, pp. 71-105. 

22 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
plays a vital role.40 Although the OPM qualification standards may be appropriate for certain jobs 

where prior preparation is essential, they are problematic for entry-level jobs where high-potential 

applicants may lack the amount of experience or 

education required by the standards but still may 

have the competencies needed to do the job well. 

Our review of vacancy announcements suggests 

that agencies do not use a wide range of assessment 

tools—such as tools that focus on competencies or 

potential—that would offset this heavy reliance on 

an applicant’s experience. Rather, agencies tend to 

use a limited number of assessment tools and they 

do not always apply these tools effectively in evaluating applicants’ qualifications. 

Various types of assessment tools are available to 

evaluate candidates, including training and experience (T&E) rating methods, written tests, performance tests, structured interviews, work samples, 

physical abilities tests, assessment centers, and professional certifications. Even though certain assessment tools are more useful for certain types of jobs 

than for others, we found that agencies usually do 

not tailor the assessment methods they use to the 

type of job being filled. In a December 2001 study, 

we found that agencies use the T&E rating method 

as their assessment tool of choice.41 Our review of 

vacancy announcements also suggests this to be 

true. 

However, T&E rating methods aren’t effective for 

certain jobs, such as blue-collar occupations. 

OPM’s Job Qualification System for Trades and 

Labor Occupations focuses on what applicants can 

do, rather than how they gained their skills or how 

long they spent in a line of work. This OPM guidance indicates that information about applicants 

for blue-collar jobs can be obtained from a number 

of sources, and questions to elicit information 

should be easy to understand and answer, and presented in a “yes” or “no” format to the extent possible. Yet we find announcements for laborer-type 

jobs telling applicants to substantiate by [written] 

examples how they meet the knowledges, skills, and 

abilities required for the job. Or applicants for an 

electrician job are told to submit a narrative statement...to [address] the knowledge, skills, and abilities listed in the announcement. A review of the 

duties for these jobs shows that neither requires 

writing ability in the job at the level needed to 

apply for the job. 

Furthermore, this excessive reliance on the T&E 

rating method may be misplaced. In the 2001 

study cited above, we found that use of T&E rating 

tools typically is not very effective in identifying 

which candidate would be the best for the job. This 

method uses rating (or crediting) plans which 

assign points for certain kinds of work experiences 

or training related to the job being filled. Unfortunately, many of these plans are poorly developed, 

e.g., rating levels are ill-defined or unclear, which 

make them ineffective assessment tools.42 

Agencies’ heavy reliance on the assessment of previous work experience may stem from the importance selecting officials place on it in selection. It 

may also stem from managers’ lack of involvement 

in the substantive aspects of hiring, such as participating in job analyses, identifying assessment criteria, and developing assessment tools for the job 

being announced. However, this lack of involvement may also be due to HR specialists’ failure to 

reach out to managers to involve them more in the 

process, instead using previously developed tools to 

speed up the process. Using previously developed 

tools can be helpful to timely hiring, however, such 

tools can increase the risk of a bad hire if they are 

outdated or inappropriate for the job. 

40 John Sullivan, “Experience -- It ain’t what it used to be,” Gately Consulting, http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/pp15js56.htm, Sept. 9, 1999. 

41 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Assessing Federal Job Seekers in a Delegated Examining Environment,” Washington, 

DC, December 2001, pp. 27-29. 

42 Ibid. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23 
Agencies use vague or restrictive 

qualification requirements 

Agencies are required to conduct a job analysis to 

decide what knowledge, skills, and abilities a candidate needs to successfully perform a given job.

43 

Well-developed KSAs can help agencies identify 

the right candidates, while poorly developed ones 

add little or no value to the process. 

Many of the announcements we reviewed had 

appropriate KSAs. Unfortunately, many others 

listed KSAs that were too vague or restrictive to 

help agencies make good selections. Vague KSAs 

can discourage qualified applicants from applying, 

while overly restrictive KSAs can effectively disqualify high-quality applicants. Here are two examples of the latter type: 

1. Knowledge of complex procedures and rules concerning payment of government claims, i.e., travel, 

household goods, etc.; 

2. Knowledge of a large body of military pay rules, 

regulations, laws, and procedures. [Both from a 

financial services technician grade 6 announcement] 

Because the two requirements are so restrictive, 

they make the competition no longer truly open. 

Although this announcement was open to any U.S. 

citizen, the only candidates who would have any 

chance of being referred to selecting officials for 

selection would be those with previous experience 

working with military pay and travel. Candidates 

from outside military organizations or outside the 

Federal Government would have little chance of 

getting this job even if they did have the aptitude 

or potential to do excellent work. Restrictive KSAs 

also create an appearance of a closed process that 

discourages qualified candidates from applying. 

Moreover, in many cases, a high-potential person 

can acquire knowledge in a fairly short time, while 

a person who already has knowledge of a particular 

subject but has limited ability will rarely be a good 

selection. At a time when the Government has to 

attract a large number of quality applicants from 

outside its workforce, agencies need to be more 

thoughtful when developing job requirements. 

Restrictive KSAs can occur for several reasons. The 

job may be poorly analyzed or the KSAs may be 

poorly worded. Restrictive KSAs may also occur 

when an agency’s promotion policy requires the 

vacancy to be open to applicants outside the organization or outside the Government, even though a 

sufficient number of qualified applicants are available within the agency—including one the selecting official wants to select. When this happens, 

agencies may make the KSAs narrow enough to 

ensure that that employee meets the requirements 

and is referred for selection. In effect, the agency is 

conducting a sham competition, which, as we 

noted in our study of internal merit promotion, is 

an all too frequent occurrence when a supervisor 

has already observed an employee’s performance 

and wishes to promote the employee but is not permitted to without issuing a vacancy announcement. The Board’s recommendations on how to 

address this problem (including a call for more 

merit-based, noncompetitive promotions) appear 

in that report.44 

HR professionals lack expertise 

Another concern raised by our review of vacancy 

announcements is that many HR professionals may 

not have the competencies to perform effectively, 

especially in the area of recruiting. The poor quality of many vacancy announcements is one indicator suggesting that expertise is lacking in Federal 

HR operations. Another is problems in the assessment methods that are being used. 

This lack of expertise is not a new problem. In a 

1993 MSPB report on personnel offices, we noted 

a lack of skill in many HR office staffs and called 

for increasing the skill levels of HR employees.45 

But it appears that agencies continue to give a rela43 5 C.F.R. 300.103. 

44 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “The Federal Merit Promotion Program: Process vs. Outcome,” Washington, DC, 

December 2001, pp. 9 and 28. 

45 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Federal Personnel Offices: Time for Change?,” Washington, DC, August 1993, p. 28. 

24 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
tively low priority to improving the quality of their 

human resources office staffs. 

Since publication of our 1993 report, the number 

of Federal human resources professionals has 

decreased tremendously because of downsizing and 

retirements. The result has been a significant loss of 

knowledge and expertise. Subsequent Board studies 

confirm this. A 1998 survey of the Board’s standing 

panel of HR specialists46 showed that almost twothirds of them agreed that many coworkers with 

critical expertise had left and that their expertise 

had not been replaced. Furthermore, about a quarter of our panel respondents indicated that they 

themselves do not possess all the knowledge and 

skills necessary to do their job, and almost half said 

they need more training to do their job well. Agencies need to address the issue of HR capacity to 

ensure that they have the competencies needed to 

provide effective and efficient support to program 

managers. 

But training alone may not be enough to resolve 

the issue of HR staff competence. In addition to 

huge reductions in HR staffs, other changes, such 

as consolidation of HR functions into large 

regional offices, delegation of HR authority to 

managers, and automation have transformed the 

roles of the HR professionals. Almost 10 years ago, 

in the report on personnel offices cited above, the 

Board outlined some of those roles. They included 

being part of the management team, helping managers plan strategies for developing a representative 

workforce, and focusing on mission, customer service, and strategic thinking.47 Several years later, the 

National Academy of Public Administration created a competency model for HR professionals to 

support similar roles that the Academy had identified.48 The roles were business partner, change 

agent, HR expert, leader, and advocate. 

What does all this mean for HR specialists? It 

means that preparing a vacancy announcement oriented almost exclusively to agency and compliance 

requirements rather than job seekers, posting it on 

bulletin boards (electronic or otherwise), screening 

out unqualified applicants, and referring candidates 

for selection are not enough. This has always been 

true but especially is true now, when the Government faces ever-increasing competition for highquality workers. HR professionals need to be proactive in seeking partnerships with other stakeholders, e.g., program managers and union officials, in 

order to ensure that agencies hire the people they 

need to deliver the services the American people 

need and want. 

46 In 1997, the Board established a standing panel of HR specialists whom we can periodically survey about personnel management issues. Although results from the panel surveys are not statistically representative of the population of HR specialists, their 

responses provide insights into what is happening in their organizations. 

47 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, “Federal Personnel Offices: Time for Change?,” pp. 8-9. 

48 For more information, see the National Academy of Public Administration’s “A Competency Model for Human Resources 

Professionals,” Washington, DC, June 1996. OPM also looked at HR competencies as part of its three-part special study of the 

Federal HR workforce. For more information on HR competencies, see OPM’s “Looking to the Future: Human Resources 

Competencies,” September 1999, and “The HR Workforce: Meeting the Challenge of Change,” January 2000. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25 

Conclusion and recommendations


Federal vacancy announcements are an important 

step in the Government’s effort to recruit top talent. But the way many vacancy announcements are 

written does not further this effort. About half of 

the announcements we reviewed were acceptable, 

but left a great deal of room for improvement and 

did a generally poor job of selling the Government, 

the agency, or the positions. The other half were 

poor overall. 

As a primary source of information for job seekers, 

and many times the only source, Federal vacancy 

announcements should be written to help applicants readily understand the job and the application process. Announcements need to market the 

job to appeal to appropriate groups of applicants. 

At the same time, the announcements must comply 

with legal and regulatory requirements regarding 

public notice of Federal vacancies and with public 

policies such as equal opportunity and veterans’ 

hiring. To adequately accomplish all of these objectives, Federal vacancy announcements need to be 

improved considerably. 

Currently, vacancy announcements are compliance-oriented to the detriment of recruiting. In the 

process of satisfying legal and regulatory requirements, many HR staffs tend to generate announcements that turn applicants away rather than 

encourage them to apply. Clearly, poor quality 

announcements do not help agencies meet the 

challenge of a human capital crisis if potential 

employees are deterred at the very beginning of the 

employment process. 

There is no intrinsic reason why many of the problems that we observed regarding vacancy 

announcements cannot be corrected. There are no 

insurmountable legal or regulatory barriers to interfere with creating better written, better organized, 

and more appealing vacancy announcements. 

However, even more challenging than fixing 

vacancy announcements is the challenge of improving the other aspects of the hiring process. 

Many agencies lack a comprehensive recruiting 

strategy. Our review of vacancy announcements 

led us to conclude that many agencies approach 

recruiting somewhat haphazardly. Vacancy 

announcements do not take the place of recruiting, 

yet for many agencies, announcements alone seem 

expected to do all the selling. This might not be 

such a serious problem if the selling were at least 

done effectively. But announcements don’t appear 

to be targeted towards identified pools of candidates, nor do they have a unified message or create 

an image of the Government as an employer of 

choice. Many do not clearly describe the duties of 

the vacant jobs. Often, vacancy announcements are 

canceled, leaving the impression that the recruiting 

agency doesn’t know what it’s doing. It also wastes 

HR office staff’s time and applicants’ time, which 

can discourage them from applying for other jobs 

in the future. On the whole, the announcements 

we reviewed provide little evidence that agencies 

have analyzed their jobs properly and developed 

recruiting plans that are based on those analyses. 

Many agencies lack a comprehensive assessment 

strategy. Vacancy announcements are the vehicle 

by which agencies inform applicants about the 

qualifications required for the job and how candidates will be evaluated. The sample of vacancy 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27 
announcements we reviewed suggests that agencies 

use ratings of the candidates’ training and experience as the preferred method of assessing their 

qualifications. Training and experience ratings typically require candidates to provide written narratives about the extent to which they have the 

knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to do a job 

effectively. Depending on the job and the applicant 

pool this may not be the best way to evaluate candidates. Further, the knowledge, skills, and abilities 

that agencies require applicants to demonstrate 

often are specified in terms that are vague or restrictive, making them ineffective in identifying the 

best candidates for the job. 

Ratings of training and experience can be an effective selection tool if applied appropriately. However, this is only one of a number of assessment 

tools that can be used to evaluate candidates and 

identify the best among them. Other tools include 

written tests, performance tests, structured interviews, work samples, physical abilities tests, assessment centers, and professional certifications. 

Unfortunately, agencies do not use these tools 

nearly as frequently as training and experience ratings, which appear to be used almost by default in 

many cases. This suggests that selecting officials 

tend to favor the use of training and experience ratings, or that they are unaware of the limitations 

inherent in their use. This bias in favor of training 

and experience ratings and the lack of awareness 

about these limitations may be shared by many HR 

specialists. The findings also suggest that program 

managers may not be as involved in the hiring process as they should be. This is particularly problematic because limited involvement on the part of 

program managers greatly increases the risk that 

they will hire the wrong person. 

Many HR professionals appear to lack expertise. 

The well-written vacancy announcements and the 

strategic recruitment and assessment plans that are 

key components of a high-quality hiring program 

are the responsibility of an agency’s HR professionals. Since 1993, we have noted the problems and 

challenges facing these professionals and recommended actions agencies should take to address the 

situation. This study simply corroborates and 

extends our earlier positions. We believe HR professionals need a higher level of analytical, critical, 

and strategic thinking skills. They also need to use 

more effectively the skills they do possess in order 

to develop and implement the necessary strategies 

for successful hiring programs in collaboration with 

all stakeholders. This includes being more proficient in writing plain English announcements in a 

way that is not only informative, but also welcoming and sensitive to marketing and public relations 

techniques. 

Heavy HR workloads and the steady loss of staff 

over the last decade are responsible for some of the 

deficiencies we observed. The training provided 

HR specialists and the manner in which they themselves are selected also play roles in this situation. 

Perhaps more important, however, is the need to 

elevate HR’s position enough to achieve the HR 

workforce we envision. We’re hopeful that the 

appointment of a chief human capital officer, as 

called for in the recently enacted Homeland Security legislation, will help HR to attain the seat at 

the table necessary to address the human capital 

crisis. 

As the Government undergoes dramatic change to 

respond to the threat of terrorism while still meeting its myriad other responsibilities, it should be 

able to depend on HR professionals to play a critical role in ushering in that change. The challenges 

to HR professionals are immense, but by no means 

insurmountable, provided agencies place greater 

emphasis on the HR function. Agencies have limited resources and it makes good business sense to 

ensure that the HR tools used—such as vacancy 

announcements—are as good as they can be in 

order to increase the likelihood that the Government has the workforce it needs to serve the American people. 

With these challenges in mind, we offer the following recommendations: 

In collaboration with appropriate stakeholders, 

chief human capital officers and HR directors 

should: 

•	 Develop and implement a comprehensive 

recruiting strategy, with improved vacancy 

announcements as a major component. In 

28 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements 
developing such a recruiting strategy, agencies 

should: 

–	 Identify the groups from which they need to 

recruit, then write vacancy announcements 

targeted to those groups. 

–	 Greatly reduce the length of vacancy 

announcements by providing only relevant 

information and avoiding repetitive statements and unnecessary verbiage. 

–	 Reduce the use of negative, threatening, and 

legalistic language. 

–	 Design a message to sell the job and the 

agency, and to the extent possible, present the 

Federal Government as an employer of choice. 

–	 Describe the job and its requirements clearly 

and realistically. 

–	 Make the application process simple, breaking 

the hiring process into steps whenever feasible. Require the least amount of information 

needed to make basic qualification determinations, then request more information as 

needed later in the process. 

–	 Give clear and straightforward instructions on 

how to apply. Also, give applicants options on 

how to submit their applications. Do not 

limit filing methods to electronic media. 

–	 Move towards automation to support recruiting and subsequent assessment efforts. 

•	 Develop a comprehensive assessment strategy. 

An essential first step in filling any vacancy 

should be to conduct a thorough job analysis 

and then to choose assessment tools that are 

appropriate for the job and the candidate pool. 

When feasible and with the aid of technology, 

agencies should minimize the burden on applicants by conducting applicant assessment in 

stages. 

•	 Examine the quality of their HR staffs. Agencies should assess the competencies of current 

HR staff and develop a strategy to ensure they 

have the competencies and resources needed to 

carry out their responsibilities. The strategy 

should include establishing procedures for selecting and developing HR professionals to ensure 

that they have competencies needed for high 

performance in the roles demanded of them. 

Organizations and individuals have developed a 

number of competency models that agencies can 

use. For example, the HR roles that OPM has 

identified are technical HR expert, strategic 

business partner, change agent, and leader. 

The director of OPM should: 

•	 Revise the Federal regulation pertaining to 

vacancy announcements. The regulation at 

5 C.F.R. § 330.707 lists the information 

required in vacancy announcements. The list is 

fairly modest and includes information essential 

to job applicants. However, the regulation 

requires the inclusion of explanations regarding 

eligibility requirements for veterans preference 

and career transition program consideration. 

This material can be lengthy and sometimes 

complex and confusing, and certainly does not 

apply to the majority of potential job candidates. 

Therefore, the regulation should be revised to 

make inclusion of such lengthy material optional 

as long as the announcement provides a hyperlink that makes the details available to interested 

applicants. This should allow agencies to make 

vacancy announcements shorter and tailor them 

more easily to targeted groups. 

•	 Make USAJOBS, the Government’s career 

opportunity site, more attractive, welcoming, 

and easy to use. To be more effective, USAJOBS should be developed and maintained with 

applicants in mind, many of whom may not be 

technologically savvy or familiar with Federal 

hiring procedures. In particular, OPM should: 

–	 Make navigation easier by making information more transparent and meaningful. 

–	 Create a simple and more precise job search 

capability that can provide a list of jobs organized in order of relevance to the job seeker. 

•	 Continue providing agencies with information on writing better vacancy announcements, building on its recent efforts to 

modernize and improve Federal vacancy 

announcements. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29 

Appendix A. Rating criteria


We used five criteria to rate the 100 vacancy 

announcements we randomly selected from USAJOBS on March 6 and 7, 2002. In developing 

benchmarks for organization and readability, we 

relied on various books and articles on reader-cen


tered writing, but especially on the work of the 

Federal Communicators’ Network, the Plain 

English Network, and Mortimer D. Goldstein, 

author of “Disciplined Writing and Career Devel


opment.” We developed the standards for judging 

announcements’ usefulness and effectiveness as a 

recruiting tool on the basis of our literature review 

on recruiting. To judge utility and appropriateness, 

we relied on our knowledge of the rules and regula


tions that govern the Federal staffing process. A 

bibliography of the works we reviewed appears in 

appendix C. The five criteria are as follows: 

Organization. This pertains to the flow of infor


mation and whether the sections of the announce


ment are arranged in a logical sequence. 

Organization includes the overall structure as well 

as the order in which information is presented, 

with presentation of the most important informa


tion first being the aim. It also includes layout, 

delineating the sections and providing headings to 

make them easily distinguishable. 

Readability. Readability includes the tone and the 

manner in which the information is presented. Is 

the presentation friendly and inviting? Are instruc


tions or requests for information made politely and 

pleasantly, or in a threatening or intimidating man


ner? 

Readability also includes the way language is 

usedthe choice of vocabulary plus grammar, 

including punctuation and spelling. This includes 

the use of acronyms or jargon. For best readability, 

the use of acronyms and jargon should be limited, 

and if used, should include definitions for appli


cants who may be unfamiliar with the terms. Readability also includes clarity (i.e., use of plain 

English and concise sentences) and pertinence of 

the information to the section in which it appears. 

Usefulness as a recruiting tool. This pertains to 

the efforts made to attract applicants by presenting 

the agency and the job positively and realistically. 

This includes information that may make the job 

appealing to applicants, e.g., the mission of the 

agency or the types of benefits programs offered to 

employees. 

Utility for applicants. Utility is defined as the 

extent to which the information or instructions 

allow applicants to easily, accurately, and com


pletely do what is asked of them in order to apply. 

Appropriateness. Appropriateness refers to 

whether the information and documentation 

requested or required from the applicants add value 

to the hiring process. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31 

Appendix B. A sample vacancy 

announcement 

Any Department49


Job Vacancy Announcement


Vacancy Announcement 

Number 

XYZ2002 

Position Cultural Resources Manager, GS-025-15; permanent full-time; $92,060 - $119,682 

annual salary and a full-range of benefits. Relocation allowance and recruitment 

bonus are negotiable. 

Duty Location Any Park, Anystate. The park is located in a picturesque location 5 miles from Pictureperfect City with excellent hospitals, churches, schools, and residential areas. 

Open Period Feb. 25 to Mar. 8, 2002; applications must be received or postmarked by 

March 8th . 

Who May Apply Any qualified U.S. citizen; no previous Federal service is required. 

Duties As a guardian and protector of one of America’s cultural resources, you will manage 

and administer the overall operation of Any Park. As manager, you will plan, develop, 

organize, direct, staff, and evaluate park programs that Americans would enjoy. You 

may have to travel overnight up to 10 times per month. 

Qualifications Required Your work experience must include at least 1 year of experience planning, directing, 

and managing operations, budget, and administration for a variety of very complex 

recreational, natural, and cultural resource management programs, including supervising the work of professional, technical, and support staff. 

Basis for Rating If you meet the qualification requirements stated above, you will be further rated 

based on your responses to the Occupational Questionnaire. The questions used to 

rate applications are based on the following evaluation criteria: technical competence, 

negotiating, leadership, and team building. You will find the definitions of these criteria in the questionnaire. 

Your score may range from 70-100 points and will be based on your responses to the 

questionnaire and information stated in your application. Please make sure that your 

responses to the questionnaire are supported in your application. Please follow all 

instructions carefully as errors and omissions may affect your score. Your score is critical for your getting referred for the job. 

49 Adapted from a vacancy announcement prepared by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for the National Park Service. 

All names, phone numbers, addresses, and links are fictitious. Underlined words represent hyperlinks. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33 
How to Apply Please follow these steps to apply: 

Step 1: Submit an application 

Submit a resume, Optional Application for Federal Employment (OF-612), or other 

written application format of your choice. You may obtain a copy of the OF-612 

online or by calling 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. If you are submitting a resume or other 

application format, please include certain specific information (see list here). You may 

also build and submit your resume online by using our Resume Builder. 

Step 2: Submit a completed Occupational Questionnaire 

The Occupational Questionnaire is our rating instrument. You may submit your 

questionnaire online, or do one of the following. 

• Submit your answers via telephone. Call 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX (long distance charges 

apply). Follow the instructions that will be given to you. To record your responses to 

the questions, please use the numbers on your telephone keypad by selecting 1 for 

A, 2 for B, 3 for C, 4 for D, 5 for E, etc. You may review and correct your responses 

after you’ve finished entering your responses. It may take you up to 30 minutes to 

complete it. 

• Submit your answers using an answer sheet (OPM Form 1203-FX). You may obtain 

the answer sheet and a copy of the questionnaire by visiting any Office of Personnel 

Management office, by calling 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, or by sending an e-mail to 

helpdesk@anyagency.gov. 

Step 3: Claim Veterans Preference 

If you’re a veteran, you may be eligible for hiring preference. To learn more about Veterans Preference and whether you’re eligible for it, please visit our website or call 1-

XXX-XXX-XXXX. To claim veterans preference, please submit your DD 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) or SF 15 (Application for 10-Point 

Veterans Preference). Write the vacancy announcement number on top of the form. 

Step 4: Submit your paper materials: 

Mail your application, Occupational Questionnaire answer sheet, and (if applicable) 

proof of veterans preference eligibility to: 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

ATTN: Vacancy Anno. No. XYZ2002 

P. O. Box 0000 

Any City, AnyState 00000 

Contact Information If you have questions about this announcement or your application, contact Ms. 

H.R. Specialist at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, by sending a message to 

hrspecialist@anyagency.gov, or by writing to the address above. Please reference 

vacancy announcement number XYZ2002 when you write or call. 

Information for Current 

or Former Federal 

Employees 

Current or former Federal employees eligible for the Career Transition Assistance Program (CTAP) or Interagency Career Transition Assistance Program (ICTAP) must 

receive a score of at least 80 (without veterans preference points) to received priority 

consideration under either program. Please indicate in your application that you’re 

applying as a CTAP or ICTAP eligible. For more information about these programs, 

click here. 

The Federal Government is an equal opportunity employer. 

Please call our Disabilities Program Manager at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX if you need reasonable accommodations to 

apply due to disabilities. Decisions on granting reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

34 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements
Appendix C. Bibliography 

Atherton, Tony, The secret behind the job advert, Electronics Weekly, May 6, 1998, No. 1859, p. 60. 

Breaugh, James A., and Starke, Mary, Research on employee recruitment: So many studies, so many remaining 

questions, Journal of Management, 2000, vol. 26, iss. 3, p. 405. 

Bretz, Jr., Robert D., and Judge, Timothy A., Realistic job previews: A test of the adverse self-selection hypothesis, Journal of Applied Psychology, April 1998, vol. 83, No. 2, pp. 330-337. 

Caggiano, Christopher, Recruiting secrets of the smartest companies around, Inc. Magazine, October 1998, 

pp. 30-42. 

Corporate Leadership Council, Cost and usage of recruitment channels, literature review, August 2001, catalog CLC1AQ88V. 

Craig, H. Kent, Write effective ads to recruit managers, Contractor, January 2001, vol. 48, iss. 1, p. 34. 

Davison, Barbara, Special report: strategies for managing retention (special report on recruitment and retention), HR Focus, October 1997, vol. 74, No. 10, p. S3. 

Federal Communicators’ Network, Communicators Guide, Washington, DC, December 2000. 

Fyock, Catherine, Recruiting today’s elusive job candidate, HR Focus, June 1999, vol. 76, iss. 6, p. S7. 

Gatewood, Robert, Corporate image, recruitment image and initial job choice decisions, Academy of Management Journal, April 1993, vol. 36, iss. 2, p. 414. 

Goldstein, Mortimer D., Disciplined writing and career development, Foreign Service Institute, U.S. 

Department of State, 1986. 

Highhouse, Scott; Stierwalt, Sandra L.; Bachiochi, Peter; Elder, Allison E.; and Fisher, Gwenith; Effects of 

advertised human resource management practices on attraction of African American applicants, Personnel 

Psychology, Summer 1999, vol. 52, iss. 2, p. 425. 

Homer, Pamela M., Ad size as an indicator of perceived advertising cost and effort: The effects on memory and 

perceptions, Journal of Advertising, Winter 1995, vol. 24, iss.4, p. 1. 

Keenan, Jr., William, What’s wrong with your recruiting ads?, Sales and Marketing Management, November 

1994, vol. 146, iss. 13, p. 50. 

Manager’s Intelligence Report, Use a ‘poster’ for internal job postings, April 2001, p. 14. 

Martinez, Michelle Neely, Winning ways to recruit, HR Magazine, June 2000, vol. 45, iss. 6, p. 56. 

A Report by The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

McCarthy, E. Jerome; and Perreault Jr., William D.; Basic Marketing, 10th ed., Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 

Homewood, IL., 1990. 

Plain Language Network, Writing User-Friendly Documents, http://www.plainlanguage.gov/handbook/bigdocw.pdf. 

Russell, Thomas and Verrill, Glenn, Otto Kleppner’s Advertising Procedures, 9th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986. 

Ryan, Gerard; Gubern, Marcel; and Rodriguez, Inma; Recruitment advertising: The marketing-human 

resource interface, International Advances in Economic Research, May 2000, vol. 6, iss. 2, p. 354. 

Thaler-Carter, Ruth E., Diversify your recruitment advertising, HR Magazine, June 2001, vol. 46, iss. 6, p. 

92. 

Yuce, Payam, and Highhouse, Scott, Effects of attribute set size and pay ambiguity on reactions to ‘Help 

Wanted’ advertisements, Journal of Organizational Behavior, July 1998, vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 337-352. 

36 Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements