Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at 
 


FEMA's Maryland National Processing 
 


Service Center 
 


OIG-10-27 December 2009 
Office (d'Ilispector General

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

DEe 1 0 2009

Preface

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was

established by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment

to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy,

efficiency, and effectiveness within the department.

The Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee requested that we review

several allegations by employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) Maryland National Processing Service Center (MD NPSC). Our review focused

on these allegations as well as related operational issues. It is based on interviews with

employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a

review of applicable documents.

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We

trust this report wil result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We

express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report.

lfc¿hard L. Skinner

/~~. ~

Inspector General

Homeland

Security
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1
 
 

Background..........................................................................................................................2
 
 

Results of Review ................................................................................................................4
 
 

FEMA Did Not Inappropriately Shift or Eliminate MD NPSC Job Functions .............4
 
 

Recommendations..........................................................................................................8
 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ..................................................................8
 
 

The Employee Performance Management Process Should Be More Transparent......1 0
 

Recommendation .........................................................................................................1 2
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................1 3
 

Constantly Changing Work Schedules Have Affected Employee Morale ..................14 
 


Low Supervisor-to-Agent Ratios and Ineffective Communication 

Have Led to Morale Problems ..................................................................................1 5
 
 

Recommendations........................................................................................................1 7
 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................1 7
 
 

FEMA Has Been Addressing MD NPSC Morale and Workplace Issues....................18 
 


Recommendations........................................................................................................20 
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................2 1
 
 

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.......................................................23
 
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report.......................................2 4
 
 

Appendix C: National Processing Service Center Workflow ...................................2 9
 
 

Appendix D: FEMA November 28, 2007, Reply to Senator Barbara Mikulski........3 0
 
 

Appendix E: Conditions of Employment – Stafford Act Employee.........................32 
 


Appendix F: Major Contributors to This Report ......................................................35 
 


Appendix G: Report Distribution ..............................................................................36 
 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations 
 


Abbreviations 

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity 

EPIMS Enterprise Performance Information Management Section 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

IA Individual Assistance 

MD NPSC Maryland National Processing Service Center 

NEMIS National Emergency Management Information System 

NPSC National Processing Service Center 

Stafford Act Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

TX NPSC Texas National Processing Service Center 

VA NPSC Virginia National Processing Service Center 
OIG
 
 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee requested that 

we review allegations submitted by employees at the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s Maryland National Processing Service Center. 

National Processing Service Centers provide centralized disaster 

assistance application services to individuals and families during 

presidentially declared disasters. Employees at the Maryland center 

alleged that the agency concentrated higher salaried positions at other 

centers, terminated employees by outsourcing operations, and 

mismanaged employee performance evaluations. Employees asserted that 

these issues undermine operational effectiveness. 

We reviewed certain events and practices at the Maryland center that led 

to employees’ perceptions of favoritism by agency headquarters toward 

other centers and complaints that managers were using employee 

performance evaluations to punish or terminate employees. Although 

management did reduce the number of employees needed at the center, 

resulting in fewer higher salaried positions there, the agency did not 

exceed its authority or act improperly. We did not find any instances 

where managers used individual performance reports for punitive reasons. 

However, the employee performance evaluation process should be more 

transparent. 

Other issues have lowered morale and increased tension between 

employees and managers. Low supervisor-to-employee ratios have 

hindered communication. Until recently, the Maryland center operated 

without fixed employee work schedules, meaning schedules changed 

every pay period. The center’s workforce consists mostly of temporary, 

excepted service employees, and the tenuous nature of their employment 

status creates constant anxiety among many. 

Morale problems at the Maryland center may be undermining operations. 

The agency acknowledges that the performance management process 

needs improvements and is refining the process, but overall it has 

responded slowly to these issues. We make seven recommendations to 

streamline the employee rating process, improve communication and 

management-employee relations, educate employees on their rights under 

excepted service appointments, and improve training programs. In its 

response to our draft report, FEMA concurred with each recommendation. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 1 
Background 

The mission of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is to 

reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all 

hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade 

disasters. It carries out its mission by leading and supporting a 

comprehensive national emergency management system that addresses all 

aspects of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. 

FEMA’s Disaster Assistance Directorate Individual Assistance Branch 

serves individuals and communities affected by disasters so they can 

return to normal function with minimal suffering and disruption of 

services. Individual Assistance provides or coordinates emergency 

housing, financial, unemployment, and other public assistance for 

individuals and families. The Disaster Assistance Directorate also assists 

states, local communities, businesses, and nonprofit groups to remove 

debris, restore and rebuild public systems and facilities, and comply with 

emergency protective measures. 

In 1994, FEMA opened full-service National Processing Service Centers 

(NPSC) in Denton, TX, and Winchester, VA. In 1995, FEMA opened a 

National Teleregistration Center in Trujillo Alto, PR, to provide Spanishlanguage support to disaster applicants. In 1997, FEMA opened another 

NPSC for registration intake activities in Hyattsville, MD, and full-service 

applicant processing began by the end of the year. From 1997 to 2008, 

FEMA operated the Maryland, Texas, and Virginia NPSCs and the 

teleregistration center in Puerto Rico. FEMA closed the teleregistration 

center in 2008; the other three NPSCs remain operational. 

NPSCs provide direct assistance to victims affected by natural disasters 

through a combination of telephone- and Internet-based registration, help 

line, and application processing services. For example, in 2007, NPSC 

employees completed approximately 260,000 disaster assistance 

registrations and 110,000 on-site inspections of damaged property, mailed 

more than 6.7 million applicant letters, and awarded more than $2.3 billion 

in disaster assistance to individuals and families. 

Disaster victims contact an NPSC to begin the application process or 

inquire about the status of an existing application. Human services 

specialists, also known as agents, answer calls and provide registration and 

helpline services. The National Emergency Management Information 

System (NEMIS) automatically grants eligibility to about 90% of 

applicants. Agents make eligibility determinations for applications that 

cannot be processed automatically; those applicants must provide 

additional documentation or information (see appendix C). 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 2 
Most NPSC employees are temporary, excepted service personnel hired 

under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act). FEMA’s Employee Handbook 

and various position descriptions describe these personnel as Cadre of OnCall Response and Recovery (CORE) employees. NPSCs typically 

employ about 1,600 staff and add up to 1,000 additional temporary duty 

personnel when severe or multiple disasters occur. FEMA also has a 

memorandum of agreement with the Internal Revenue Service to add up to 

300 agents from its call centers, if necessary. During the 2005 hurricane 

season, when seven major hurricanes, including hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita, occurred, FEMA expanded NPSC staff to 13,000 personnel, using 

temporary call centers and contracted staff. FEMA releases Stafford Act 

temporary appointment staff to inactive, nonpay status when disaster 

assistance activity diminishes but may recall them to employment. In 

November 2006, when applicant processing activity in response to 

hurricanes Katrina and Rita decreased, FEMA released 600 agents serving 

across the NPSC-wide enterprise. 

In 2002, FEMA determined that the NPSCs had become more interrelated 

and interdependent, and it began a large reorganization to ensure more 

uniformity in structure, streamline operations and procedures, and 

eliminate duplicate functions. In 2005, the FEMA Under Secretary 

approved a plan to combine and centralize many NPSC functions carried 

out at each of the four service centers. Centralization and reorganization 

of the NPSCs was phased in over several years. As a result, FEMA 

shifted job functions and work units from the Maryland and Puerto Rico 

NPSCs to the Denton, TX, and Winchester, VA, NPSCs and to FEMA 

headquarters in Washington, DC. The Maryland and Puerto Rico NPSCs 

operated only as call and processing centers, with applicant services and 

minimal support staff. In 2007, to reduce MD NPSC office rental, facility, 

and security costs, FEMA announced plans to outsource mailroom 

operations and moved center operations to a smaller, nearby building in 

Hyattsville, MD. In December 2008, following a 6-month closure due to 

building safety issues, FEMA decided to close the Puerto Rico center. 

Currently, the three FEMA NPSCs are located in Hyattsville, MD; 

Denton, TX; and Winchester, VA. 

Following the NPSC reorganization, the 2006 release of Stafford Act 

employees, and the announcement of plans to outsource mailroom 

operations, MD NPSC employees submitted complaints to FEMA’s Equal 

Opportunity Office about the workplace and the loss of positions at the 

center. During 2007, center employees contacted Senator Barbara 

Mikulski and other elected representatives regarding these issues. FEMA 

subsequently responded to a congressional inquiry (see appendix D) and 

the letter highlighted actions taken in response to employee complaints at 

that time. Employees also raised these issues and discussed their 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 3 
discontent and low morale during an all-hands meeting with senior FEMA 

leadership. Employees cited the same issues when they contacted 

Chairman Bennie Thompson, which led to this review. 

Results of Review 

The Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee requested that we 

review allegations by employees at FEMA’s MD NPSC that FEMA concentrated 

higher salaried positions at other NPSCs, terminated employees in order to 

outsource operations, and mismanaged employee performance evaluations. 

Employees asserted that these issues have undermined operational effectiveness. 

FEMA management reduced the number of employees needed at the center, 

resulting in fewer higher salaried positions there, but did not exceed its authority 

or act improperly. We did not find that managers were using performance reports 

for punitive reasons, but the performance management process should be more 

transparent. 

These and other issues are contributing to low morale and increased tension 

between employees and managers. FEMA has responded slowly to these 

challenges. We make several recommendations to improve the employee rating 

process, improve communication and management-employee relations, better 

educate employees on their rights under excepted service appointments, and 

improve training programs. 

FEMA Did Not Inappropriately Shift or Eliminate MD NPSC Job 

Functions 

From 2005 to 2008, FEMA centralized operations at four NPSCs and also 

contracted for MD NPSC mailroom operations, which transferred or 

eliminated 112 of 389 positions at the MD NPSC. During this time, 

FEMA also selected 600 temporary, excepted service employees 

employed at three centers for release. MD NPSC employees alleged that 

FEMA unfairly targeted the MD NPSC in favor of another center; 

terminated employees; unwisely reduced functions and eliminated higher 

graded positions, which restricted opportunities for advancement; and did 

not follow FEMA’s Equal Opportunity Employment Plan. Some MD 

NPSC employees believe that FEMA unfairly abolished mailroom 

positions occupied by minority employees because it did not conduct a 

cost/benefit analysis. Despite employee allegations, FEMA did not 

improperly terminate employees or transfer higher salaried positions from 

the MD NPSC, and it did conduct a cost/benefit analysis of mailroom 

operations before electing to outsource them. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 4 
�	 

Reorganization of the NPSC Enterprise 

In 2002, FEMA determined that NPSC work processes had 

become more interrelated and interdependent, and began to 

reorganize to ensure more uniformity in structure, streamline 

operations and procedures, and eliminate duplicate functions. That 

effort culminated in the National Processing Service Center 

Reorganization Business Case, which was approved by the FEMA 

Under Secretary. In April 2005, FEMA implemented the plan. 

Between 2005 and 2008, it eliminated or shifted NPSC functions 

and centralized them in enterprise-wide operational units. 

Specifically, FEMA shifted job functions and work units from the 

Maryland and Puerto Rico NPSCs to the Denton, TX, and 

Winchester, VA, NPSCs, and to FEMA headquarters. The 

Maryland and Puerto Rico NPSCs would operate only as call and 

processing centers, with applicant services and minimal support 

staff. The VA NPSC branch chief assumed management oversight 

of the Maryland center. FEMA reassigned the following 

organizational units: 

�	 The Enterprise Processing Services Section, National 

Coordination Center, to the VA NPSC; 

�	 The Enterprise Technical Assistance Group to the National 

Coordination Team at the VA NPSC, with these employees 

located within the MD NPSC Training Unit; 

The Correspondence Unit to FEMA headquarters; 

�	 The Enterprise Processing Analysis Section, Queue 
 

Management, to the TX NPSC; 
 

�	 The Enterprise Processing Analysis Section, Quality 

Assurance/Call Monitoring, to the TX NPSC; 

�	 The Enterprise Processing Analysis Section, Process 

Improvement, to the VA NPSC; 

�	 The Enterprise Processing Analysis Section, Individual 

Assistance Web Design, to the VA NPSC; and 

�	 The Enterprise Processing Analysis Section, Performance 

Standards Development, to the TX NPSC. 

The reorganization was carried out to help FEMA streamline 

management, create more uniformity, and eliminate duplicate 

functions. Employees correctly pointed out that it affected the MD 

NPSC the most, and this had become a central issue in employee 

complaints and workplace dissatisfaction. The NPSC 

reorganization accounted for 99 of the 112 positions transferred or 

eliminated at the MD NPSC, including 48 GS-11 or higher 

positions. Before terminating their employment, FEMA gave 

employees in those positions the opportunity to relocate to another 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 5 
NPSC, or move to another position for which they were qualified. 

Among the 99 MD NPSC affected employees: 

�	 Of 48 Enterprise Processing Analysis Section employees, 

10 relocated to other NPSCs, 17 shifted into other positions 

at MD NPSC, and 21 declined employment options 

presented to them and were terminated;1 

�	 18 employees in the Correspondence Unit moved to FEMA 

headquarters in Washington, DC; and 

�	 33 employees resigned. 

The 2006 Release of Stafford Act Employees to Nonpay Status 

Under the authority of the Stafford Act, FEMA hires human 

service specialists or agents as temporary, excepted service 

personnel. Agents sign Conditions of Employment to affirm their 

understanding that appointments are temporary (see appendix E). 

The agent’s Conditions of Employment form and employee 

handbook states that release from service may occur because of 

workload fluctuations. Agents are advised that selection for 

release from service will be based on one or more factors, 

including performance, job function, work schedule availability, 

most recent hire date, and production levels. 

In late 2006, FEMA prepared to release Stafford Act employees it 

no longer needed because of a decrease in applicant registration 

and processing activity. In preparation for this release, 

headquarters transmitted agent performance, job function, 

availability, and individual production rate data from the 

Enterprise Performance Information Management Section 

(EPIMS) database to managers at each NPSC. Center managers 

used this data to determine who to release. In November 2006, 

NPSC operations released 600 agents across the enterprise, of 

whom 183 worked at the MD NPSC. This action was not related 

to the 99 positions transferred or eliminated as a result of the 

NPSC reorganization discussed above. 

Employees alleged that up to 20 of the 183 MD NPSC agents 

selected for release had low individual production rates only 

because their work assignments had been under special project 

work queues such as special applicant outreach or processing, 

which they did not receive credit for in their production rate totals. 

Although we were unable to confirm that number and whether 

1

 The TX NPSC eliminated seven positions, while the Puerto Rico NPSC eliminated two positions. The 

VA NPSC did not eliminate any positions. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 6 
these cases were isolated or systemic in nature, we did confirm that 

at the time of the release, certain work queue assignments did not 

generate accurate production counts. Employees still perceive that 

the process was unfair and that management did not properly 

follow its own release criteria. Staff who remain concerned about 

their potential release believe that they are not getting sufficient 

credit for special projects completed outside of normal work 

queues. For this reason, agents are more likely to pick the easiest 

cases to review to ensure that their production rates remain high. 

Employees said that their temporary status affects morale, owing to 

confusion or uncertainty about their appointment term, release 

from service, and employment status in relation to the federal civil 

service. Despite having signed the form acknowledging their 

employment status, employees reported still being confused about 

what their status means. For instance, some employees are 

uncertain whether their Stafford Act appointment is included in a 

calculation of federal employment time in service. Some 

employees are confused about the differences in permanent 

termination from employment and release to nonpay status. 

FEMA may recall individuals in nonpay status to employment. 

Some employees stated that they did not know that their Stafford 

Act appointment does not count as time-in-service when applying 

for a federal civil service position. 

Outsourcing the MD NPSC Mailroom Operations 

Some MD NPSC employees asserted that FEMA unfairly 

abolished mailroom positions occupied by minority employees 

because it did not conduct a cost/benefit analysis. In fact, in 2008 

FEMA conducted an analysis in accordance with the Federal 

Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (FAIR Act). FEMA 

projected that it could save an average of $1,693,000 per year by 

contracting with the private sector for its MD NPSC mailroom 

operations. FEMA gave the 13 MD NPSC mailroom employees 

the opportunity to move to other positions at the center or transfer 

to another NPSC. Nine employees transferred to other positions at 

the center and four employees resigned. 

The FAIR Act requires that federal agencies submit to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) an annual inventory of 

functions that are not inherently governmental or commercial 

activities. OMB’s Circular A-76 outlines procedures to conduct 

cost comparison studies to determine whether such functions 

should be performed by federal employees or the private sector. 

After completing the cost study, FEMA used a competitive process 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 7 
to select a contractor to provide centralized mail-related services 

for the NPSC enterprise. 

Soon after the announcement of the plans to outsource mailroom 

operations, MD NPSC employees complained to FEMA’s Equal 

Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office that closing the mailroom 

would negatively impact minority employees. The EEO Office 

determined that FEMA’s actions were not discriminatory. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency: 

Recommendation #1: Develop a process to identify and track 

agents’ special projects and other work assignments and generate 

appropriate production data. 

Recommendation #2: Review its briefing process for new 

employees hired pursuant to the Stafford Act to ensure that FEMA 

is clearly articulating differences from the federal service and 

policies related to benefits and retirement, release to nonpay status, 

termination of employment, and qualification for civil service 

merit hiring. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA provided written comments on our draft report. We 

evaluated these comments and have made changes where we 

deemed appropriate. Below is a summary of FEMA’s written 

response to the report’s first recommendation and our analysis. A 

copy of FEMA’s complete response is included as appendix B. 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #1: 

FEMA concurred with the recommendation. In its response, 

FEMA stated that the National Processing Service Center's 

(NPSC) Performance Standards Analysis Department continually 

works to enhance the Individual Performance Report (IPR) by 

including special project data in the Production Key Performance 

Indicators (KPI). The criteria for establishing a production 

measurement for any "Special Projects" requires that the work 

activity be of adequate volume and/or duration to allow sample 

data to be confirmed in order to establish a viable measurement. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 8 
For this reason, it is not always possible to include every special 

project in the production reports. 

During the last eighteen months, FEMA has been modifying IPR 

measurements, including a new measurement to capture agents' 

time spent in "ready state for calls" as well as all "talk time" in 

order to give employees credit for being in an available mode 

while assigned to the call center. FEMA also reduced the "weight" 

assigned to the Production KPI from 40% to 20% to increase focus 

on the Quality KPI. 

Beginning October 1, 2009, additional work functions, previously 

identified as special projects, were tracked and incorporated into 

the employees' production data on the IPR (e.g. Indexing and 

Flood Plain mapping). In addition, the development of the 

Decision-based Routing measurement and the ability to capture 

cases that were reviewed and then placed on "policy hold" provide 

for a more complete picture of the employees' daily 

accomplishments on the IPR. 

OIG Analysis: 

We concur with FEMA’s response. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Closed. 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #2: 

FEMA concurred with the recommendation. FEMA responded 

that its Disaster Assistance Directorate and Human Capital 

Division (HCD) are coordinating the need to include more 

information about Stafford Act appointments and the differences 

and similarities with civil service appointments. FEMA will 

update the NPSC Employee Handbook and information posted on 

the website to include policies related to benefits and retirement, 

release to non-pay status, termination of employment, and 

qualifications for civil service merit hiring. 

OIG Analysis: 

We concur with FEMA’s response. In its action plan, FEMA 

should note when it updated the employee handbook and identify 

new information it added to the handbook. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 9 
 

The Employee Performance Management Process Should Be 
 

More Transparent 
 

In 2007, as part of the NPSC reorganization plan, FEMA centralized its 

employee performance management system. Employees alleged that 

FEMA has mismanaged the system—specifically, individual performance 

reports and quality control assessments—and that the system is unfair. 

Despite allegations, FEMA has not mismanaged the system, and we could 

not confirm any instances where managers tainted daily employee 

performance assessments to punish employees. However, the subjective 

nature of the quality control assessments and the appeals process has 

brought about employees’ lack of confidence in the system, and 

undermined its utility. To be more helpful to employees and managers, 

the system should provide for assessments that are less subjective, and an 

appeals process that is more flexible and timely. 

The individual performance reports and quality control assessments are 

intended to capture daily performance data, measure the quality of 

assistance provided to disaster assistance applicants and support remedial 

training and mentoring. Employees alleged that the performance 

management system, conducted by staff located at another center, does not 

emphasize direct and timely feedback or learning from one’s mistakes. 

Agents and some supervisors contend that the system is punitive and low 

production may lead to release. Moreover, employees contend that the 

quality control assessments and individual performance reports do not 

accurately capture performance, and that scoring is subjective or unfair. 

Some agents said that the criteria on which individual performance reports 

are based do not allow sufficient time to serve customers, and that 

pressure creates processing errors and poor customer service. Employees 

also alleged that there is no timely and transparent method to appeal 

individual performance report and quality control assessment scores, and 

should an employee obtain a favorable appeal, there are no assurances that 

management will adjust appealed scores so the employee is not penalized. 

The NPSC reorganization gave the TX NPSC responsibility for managing 

EPIMS, which oversees individual performance report and quality control 

assessment standards and analysis for the entire NPSC enterprise. EPIMS 

creates and delivers on average 625 individual performance reports daily 

to agents across the enterprise. Managers said the individual performance 

report captures daily performance data necessary to evaluate each agent. 

Managers evaluate agents on how they conduct telephone interviews, 

complete initial disaster assistance registration procedures, process claims 

and requests for disaster assistance, and provide information to applicants 

and the public. Services delivered by agents fall primarily into one of 

three processing functions or queues: registration intake, help line, and 

casework. The individual performance report measures work queue 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 
 

Page 10
 
performance according to specific performance standards in the following 

categories: quality, availability, after-call work, production rate efficiency, 

and adherence to “handle time” limits—the total talk time per transaction 

or the after-call case processing time. 

Quality control assessments measure the effectiveness of assistance 

provided to disaster assistance applicants. EPIMS quality control 

specialists at the TX NPSC monitor selected registration intake telephone 

conversations and the agent’s computer screen to verify data entry. Based 

on their assessment of an agent’s performance, the specialists may enter an 

assessment score of up to 100 points. The goal of EPIMS is to score five 

of an agent’s calls per pay period. However, due to resource limitations, 

quality control specialists complete only two or three assessments per 

agent per pay period. The department tends to monitor recently hired 

agents more. 

The quality control specialists score calls of 80 points or above as 

“successful” when the agent performs all mandatory registration intake 

requirements, correctly answers questions from the caller, resolves 

problems, uses resources appropriately, and provides accurate information 

to the applicant and public. Specialists may determine that a call is 

“unsuccessful” when the agent does not verify or complete one or more 

mandatory items during the call. 

An agent may appeal his or her score to their supervisor within 5 days. 

Given the agent’s daily work duties, tight timeframes, and the time 

required to prepare an appeal, we question whether 5 days is sufficient for 

filing an appeal. 

When a supervisor concurs with an agent’s appeal, the appeal is forwarded 

to the Quality Control department and an appeal board. The appeal board 

consists of one member of the Quality Control department not involved 

with the original assessment and two program specialists from the NPSC 

Applicant Processing Services department. Since the calls are not 

recorded, appeals often are a matter of the agent’s word against that of the 

quality control specialist. 

The appeal board frequently overturns quality control specialists’ scores. 

From October 2007 through May 2008, EPIMS completed 50,150 agent 

quality reviews. Of those reviews, 46,024 or 92% received a perfect score 

of 100 points. During this period, employees appealed 1,162 scores (2%), 

and the board granted 338 appeals. Although employees do not often 

appeal their scores, they and first-line supervisors perceive that scoring is 

inaccurate, which undermines their confidence in the evaluation systems, 

as does the fact that the appeal board overturned and changed 29% of the 

appealed scores. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 11 
 

EPIMS managers said that they continue to examine and refine procedures 

and metrics to eliminate problems. Managers periodically review the 

quality control and individual performance report scoring processes and 

the expected handle times for casework. They have adjusted the quality 

control and individual performance report metrics, as well as data 

collection, scoring, and appeal processes. Managers have also revised 

quality control scoring guidelines, and they regularly select sample cases 

to calibrate quality control specialists’ scoring to reduce subjectivity 

among the staff. EPIMS managers meet with quality control specialists to 

review all overturned appeals and, when appropriate, they conduct audits 

on other quality control review cases similar to those overturned at appeal. 

There is consensus among NPSC supervisors and agents that the initial 

negativity surrounding the performance management system has 

decreased as the metrics have been refined and as agents become more 

familiar with the process. However, managers should periodically consult 

with agents and their supervisors about potential refinements to the quality 

control and individual performance report processes. 

In 2009, FEMA plans to begin recording all quality control assessment 

calls. This would be a major step toward making the quality control 

process more transparent. It would eliminate the need to conduct real-time 

quality control reviews because the reviews can be conducted later. Since 

there is a plan to record calls, quality control specialists can apply more 

fact-based assessments and less subjectivity to their analyses of agent 

performance. In addition, an agent’s recorded quality control review call 

will be saved, which will allow a third party to assess the call and score 

during the appeal process. This should help reduce disputes over scores, 

as well as the time required to prepare and process appeals. Recorded 

calls will also allow more precise feedback to agents and can be used for 

mentoring and training. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency: 

Recommendation #3: Establish a procedure to solicit suggestions 

from agents, managers, and specialists on possible refinements to 

the individual performance review and quality control processes. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 12 
Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #3: 

FEMA concurred with the recommendation. In its response, 

FEMA stated that the NPSC's Enterprise Performance Information 

Management Section, which is responsible for the Quality Control 

(QC) and Individual Performance Report, does reach out to the 

NPSCs to solicit feedback and recommendations, but will increase 

these outreach efforts as a result of this recommendation. The 

section hosts bi-weekly meetings with Applicant Services Section 

managers from each NPSC to solicit recommendations for Quality 

Control changes and Individual Performance Reports refinements. 

In June 2009, FEMA conducted a focus study group to capture 

suggestions for improving the IPR and QC processes. FEMA is 

assessing the feasibility of the requested changes. During July 

2009, the Quality Control Department coordinated several focus 

group sessions to receive additional feedback from Applicant 

Services employees on the Rental Recertification process. That 

feedback resulted in enterprise workshops to improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of Recertification processing 

guidelines. 

The Performance Standards Analysis and Quality Control 

Departments plan follow-up surveys throughout 2010 and will 

continue to include opportunities for agents, managers, and 

specialists to provide feedback. They will publish the information 

received from participants of surveys, work shops, training, etc. 

and make the information available to all enterprise staff to ensure 

planned actions/responses are communicated. 

OIG Analysis: 

We concur with FEMA’s response. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Closed. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 
 

Page 13 
 
Constantly Changing Work Schedules Have Affected Employee 
 

Morale 
 

Inconsistent practices across the three NPSCs regarding agents’ work 

schedules and shift assignments have affected morale at the MD NPSC. 

Different approaches to work schedules have also challenged managers to 

meet customer service requirements during peak demand periods, such as 

hurricane season or when call volume surges in the late afternoon or early 

morning. MD NPSC employees have been disgruntled concerning 

constant work shifts or schedule changes and feel that managers have 

given preferential treatment to employees working at other NPSCs. Only 

25% of the MD NPSC employees who responded to the 2008 Work 

Climate Survey, described on page 19, felt that management assigned 

work hours equitably. Some employees at other centers have not had a 

shift or schedule change throughout their entire period of employment and 

want an opportunity to move to a different schedule. 

Managers said that ensuring that all work shifts and schedules across the 

NPSC enterprise are staffed sufficiently is a constant challenge. The 

number of staff required to meet NPSC customer service demands can 

change quickly depending on the amount of disaster activity. For this 

reason, as a condition of employment, agents agree to be available to work 

schedules and temporary geographical assignments based on the needs of 

the agency, and to be available for service with 24 to 48 hours’ notice. 

The Enterprise Contact Center Telecommunications Section in Denton, 

TX, forecasts the applicant services workload for the NPSC enterprise. 

Within the center, the Enterprise Agent Coordination Team is responsible 

for forecasting and scheduling caller and case processing queue 

requirements to ensure sufficient staff coverage at all NPSCs. It 

determines daily and intraday workloads, call and case processing loads, 

and staffing requirements for each facility. 

MD NPSC employees have felt disadvantaged with regard to scheduling, 

knowing that the TX and VA NPSCs were using very manageable fixed 

weekly schedules and shift assignments. The MD NPSC was changing 

agent work shifts and weekly schedules whenever the Coordination Team 

issued a new set of shifts and schedules. MD NPSC managers explained 

that they did this because the early morning and late afternoon shifts are 

hard to staff, and there are insufficient volunteers to permanently assign 

agents to these shifts. Employees do not volunteer for these shifts because 

public transportation is not available at these hours. Frequently changing 

schedules frustrate employees because they must adjust commuting 

schedules, daycare services, and other personal activities. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 14 
In May 2009, FEMA implemented an enterprise-wide 90-day fixed 

scheduling process for all agents, known as shift bids. This approach 

permits employees to bid for a set weekly schedule and shift start time 

every 90 days. Managers award shift bids based on employees’ time in 

service. Managers estimate that 80% of the Applicant Services staff now 

have a 90-day fixed work schedule. The remaining staff works flexible 

schedules, based on seniority, which may shift weekly as operational 

needs dictate. The new schedule eliminates the need for managers to 

produce new schedules every few weeks and rotate daily shifts and work 

assignments during weekends. Managers estimate that the new plan gives 

weekends off to 46% of the staff, and all staff have at least one weekend 

day off. 

Managers expect these scheduling adjustments to partially address agent 

complaints regarding scheduling and to improve morale. The shift bid 

concept should improve the work environment at the MD NPSC as well as 

the entire NPSC enterprise. FEMA plans to assess the benefits of the 90­

day fixed shift scheduling process implemented in May 2009 and modify 

it as necessary to maintain uniform and stable shift assignments across the 

NPSC enterprise. 

Low Supervisor-to-Agent Ratios and Ineffective Communication 

Have Led to Morale Problems 

Low supervisor-to-agent ratios, as many as 1 to 80 during peak disaster 

periods, and ineffective communication by first-line and midlevel managers 

have strained relationships with employees. Agents expressed concern that 

their supervisors do not manage and communicate effectively because of the 

number of employees each is assigned. This has, at times, escalated into 

employee charges of supervisory harassment or intimidation, and has 

contributed to an atmosphere of tension and distrust at the MD NPSC. 

Supervisory human services specialists supervise agents handling core 

applicant processing functions, develop and adjust work schedules, and 

perform administrative and personnel management functions. When fully 

staffed, 56 supervisory human services specialists oversee 850 agents across 

the three NPSCs. However, because of the geographic distribution of 

supervisors, weekly schedules, leave, unfilled supervisory positions, and 

other factors, supervisors typically manage 25 to 35 agents per shift. 

During peak disaster periods of up to 2 months or more, such as hurricane 

season, one supervisor may be responsible for up to 80 agents per shift. 

Each NPSC needs a proportionate number of experienced supervisors to 

support agents helping disaster victims. Supervisors said that providing 

adequate support to large teams, particularly ensuring that agents are aware 

of and follow applicant processing procedures and policies, is difficult. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 15 
Although 55% of the MD NPSC respondents indicated in the 2008 climate 

survey that they think positively of their supervisor’s performance, agents 

and supervisors told us that supervisors are challenged by having such a 

wide span of control. Many MD NPSC managers and supervisors were 

once agents, and agents who earn promotions usually possess good 

technical skills and knowledge of NPSC core functions. Nevertheless, 

supervisors also need leadership experience and managerial training. 

According to managers and agents, the work environment at the MD 

NPSC is very intense during disasters. Policy or procedural changes are 

often necessary, which require that agents receive timely information 

about operational changes. Supervisors and agents are under great 

pressure to deliver services to victims, which exacerbates the tension 

between them. As the number of staff to supervise grows and supervisors 

are spread too thinly, supervisors struggle to oversee the agents’ work. 

We noted that: 

�	 Supervisors spend less time supporting and mentoring each agent. 

Agents want supervisors to be available to them more often during 

their work shifts, to spend more time with them individually, and 

to address workplace issues more quickly. However, supervisors 

communicate less frequently and less effectively with each agent. 

This has led to friction or breakdowns in communication between 

agents and supervisors. 

�	 Supervisors have less time to keep agents abreast of policy and 

operational information during daily preshift meetings, and agents 

attribute some of their processing or casework errors to poor 

communication of operational and policy changes. 

�	 In the absence of adequate supervision and communication, 

employees believe the quality of registration intake, customer 

helpline service, or casework processing suffers. 

�	 Supervisors spend less time following up with agents whose 

production or quality of service is poor, or addressing poor quality 

control or individual performance reports scores. 

�	 Employees lack confidence that supervisors take the time to 

forward or follow up on their complaints to management, which 

results in complaints submitted to the FEMA EEO Office instead. 

FEMA is aware that many NPSC supervisors have not had formal training 

in many managerial skill areas, and would benefit from a comprehensive 

management, communication, and leadership training program. Under the 

direction of NPSC Operations in FEMA headquarters, the TX NPSC 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 16 
training unit has established a standard supervisory curriculum to support 

the development of supervisory skills. During 2009, all supervisors are 

scheduled for leadership, EEO, and communication training. As part of 

this initiative, FEMA should establish individual training plans for 

supervisors to set goals and track progress against their goals. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency: 

Recommendation #4: Establish a limit for how many agents may 

be assigned to one supervisor, including during peak operations, 

and if necessary, hire additional supervisors to increase the ratio. 

Recommendation #5: Establish an individual training plan for all 

NPSC managers and supervisors and ensure that training goals and 

progress are tracked and recorded. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #4: 

FEMA concurred with the recommendation. In its response, 

FEMA emphasized that it typically does not have a need for a 

greater supervisor to employee ratio during most years. FEMA has 

to increase the number of supervisors only when it augments 

staffing by hiring additional employees in the NPSCs. When 

necessary, the NPSCs may hire additional contract staff, who have 

contract supervisors and are managed through the contract's 

Contracting Officer's Technical Representative. FEMA intends to 

continue this practice as needed. 

FEMA also explained that just prior to receiving our draft report, 

the NPSCs adjusted their employee to supervisor ratio baseline 

from 30:1 to 25:1. In addition, each NPSC has hired a number of 

CORE supervisors to augment the employee to supervisor ratio. 

Currently, all three NPSCs have a 20:1 ratio or smaller. In larger 

disasters, FEMA intends to limit the employee to supervisor ratio 

to 50 employees during large disasters. FEMA will support the 

supervisors by providing subject matter experts to support 

oversight of the employees. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 
 

Page 17 
 
OIG Analysis: 

We concur with FEMA’s response. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Closed. 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #5: 

FEMA concurred with the recommendation. In its response, 

FEMA stated that the NPSC Enterprise Training Department has 

created a comprehensive Supervisor Development Training 

curriculum for all Applicant Services supervisors. FEMA has 

developed training course catalogs to help supervisors and staff 

obtain appropriate professional development training. Managers 

and supervisors can use the catalogs in developing their Individual 

Development Plan (IDP) training goals and objectives and select 

the courses they need to complete their goals. 

FEMA is enhancing its Enterprise Personnel Database System (EPDS). The system will include the ability to enter, track, and 

report IDPs that will include training requirements. Managers, 

supervisors, and individuals will be able to track their IDP 

achievements and accomplishments. FEMA expects to implement 

the E-PDS by June 30, 2010. It will establish IDPs with clearly 

determined goals and well-developed training plans for meeting 

goals. 

OIG Analysis: 

We concur with FEMA’s response. In its action plan, FEMA 

should apprise the OIG of its progress in launching the E-PDS and 

establishing IDPs. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

FEMA Has Been Addressing MD NPSC Morale and Workplace 

Issues 

In 2008, FEMA offered MD NPSC employees the opportunity to voice 

their concerns through a survey, and it has taken several actions to address 

those concerns. For example, as previously described, refinements to the 

individual performance report and quality control processes are ongoing, 

and additional changes (such as the plan to record calls) have been 

approved. FEMA has conducted all-hands meetings and work climate 

surveys. In addition, FEMA expanded its employee award and 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 18 
�

�

�

�

�

�
 

�

�
 

recognition programs to include recognition for superior individual 

performance report results, special project participation, and applicant 

services functions. Management implemented the employee shift bid 

process to provide more regularity and stability to schedules and work 

shifts. It also developed a supervisory training curriculum, with an 

emphasis on leadership and communication skills. 

The 2008 Work Climate Survey 

In May 2008, NPSC operations leaders held an all-hands meeting 

at the MD NPSC to hear employees’ concerns about their work 

environment. Among many topics, employees cited issues that 

included negative sentiments about center operations, the 

performance management system, and opportunities for 

advancement. In July 2008, management conducted a Work 

Climate Survey to assess staff perceptions and prioritize aspects of 

the workplace that it needed to address. In August 2008, 

management published the survey results. However, MD NPSC 

managers have neither involved center employees in formulating 

actions to implement nor kept them informed of their efforts to 

address issues, which were among the survey’s primary goals. 

The NPSC Customer Satisfaction Analysis Section in Denton, TX, 

developed the survey, which it patterned closely after a survey of 

TX NPSC employees in April 2008. FEMA distributed 282 

surveys to MD NPSC employees, and employees returned 180 

surveys. Three categories in the survey received a positive 

response of 80% or more: including training, physical work 

environment, and relationships with coworkers. 

The survey results identified 6 of 10 categories where the rating 

indicated either “serious concern” (51% to 65% positive rating) or 

a “need for immediate attention”(less than 50% positive rating): 

Overall job satisfaction (63% positive rating) 


Effectiveness of communication (51%) 


Commitment to quality (49%) 


Confidence in leadership (45%) 


Performance management (37%) 


Recognition and awards (22%) 


Survey responses to questions in the 10 categories pointed to 

several specific issues “in need of immediate attention”: 

Morale (41% positive rating) 

Job security (19%) 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 
 


Page 19
 

�	 Work schedules (25%) 

�	 Confidence in the IPR as an effective tool (24%) 

�	 Promotional opportunities (24%) 

�	 Effective communication regarding workforce changes 

(27%) 

Both the Texas and Maryland NPSC 2008 Work Climate Survey 

recommendations and action plans cite improving organizational 

performance and employee morale as goals for follow-up action. 

In response to its survey, TX NPSC managers convened employee 

focus groups and created Change Teams composed of a wide range 

of employees. Managers asked the teams to propose actions to 

address immediate priorities and deadlines for completing them. 

The MD NPSC did not organize similar teams, nor did it undertake 

the action plan produced by the Customer Satisfaction Analysis 

Section. 

While we recognize that FEMA management has responded and 

taken action regarding some enterprise-wide workplace issues, MD 

NPSC management has not launched a definitive plan of action or 

substantially engaged employees since the 2008 Work Climate 

Survey. In the months following the survey, the MD NPSC center 

manager sent several communications to employees assuring them 

that management was addressing their concerns. However, at the 

time of our fieldwork, MD NPSC employees were not sure what 

actions management had implemented. In March 2009, we asked 

the center manager about those plans and were told that managers 

and supervisors had met periodically since the survey and were 

addressing issues. In April 2009, the center manager sent a 

memorandum to employees informing them how management was 

addressing their concerns. Senior FEMA managers said that they 

are aware of low employee morale and other workplace issues at 

the MD NPSC, and that they plan to survey employees again. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Administrator, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency: 

Recommendation #6: Deploy an MD NPSC Work Climate 

survey steering committee and create Change Teams to identify 

actions, required resources, and timelines to address immediate 

priorities. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 
 


Page 20
 
 
Recommendation #7: Ensure that MD NPSC managers follow up 

on staff complaints and notify employees in a timely manner of 

any actions to address those concerns. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #6: 

FEMA concurred with the recommendation. In its response, 

FEMA stated that the MD NPSC management team will establish a 

steering committee and create Change Teams to address those 

elements of the NPSC survey which were categorized as "in need 

of immediate attention" or a "serious concern." FEMA set two 

goals for the committee. First, the committee will seek to educate 

employees regarding specific improvements already in place as a 

direct result of the climate survey. Second, for all of the items 

management has not addressed, the committee will form a 

multidisciplinary team composed of representatives from all 

sections of the processing center to address specific concerns, 

propose solutions, determine feasibility of those solutions, and 

implement recommended changes. The NPSC Operations Branch 

Chief will review the committee’s recommendations and approve 

accordingly. Management will establish a timeline for 

implementing the changes. It will publish the results, as well as 

any follow-up, in a memorandum to staff. 

OIG Analysis: 

We concur with FEMA’s response. In its action plan, FEMA 

should update the OIG on the creation of the steering committee 

and change teams, and its timeline for resolving “unaddressed” 

items. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

FEMA’s Comments to Recommendation #7: 

FEMA concurred with the recommendation. In its response, 

FEMA stated that the MD NPSC management team will follow up 

on staff complaints identified in the climate survey with an all 

hands memorandum to address the current status of those elements 

of the survey which were categorized as "in need of immediate 

attention" or a "serious concern." Once the work from the steering 

committee/change teams is complete, a final report will be 

prepared and sent to all employees detailing specific results and/or 

actions. The Maryland NPSC management team will ensure that 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 21 
reasonable timelines are established and publicized to employees 

for dissemination of the results and will develop a process for ongoing steering committee involvement. The MD NPSC 

management team will send interim reports regarding follow-up 

actions to the NPSC Operations Branch Chief. 

OIG Analysis: 

We concur with FEMA’s response. In its action plan, FEMA 

should apprise the OIG of its progress in following up on issues 

identified in the climate survey and completing a report detailing 

actions management has taken or plans to take. FEMA should 

include copies of the MD NPSC’s interim reports in its updates for 

the OIG. 

This recommendation is Resolved – Open. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 
 

Page 22 
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee 

requested that we review complaints he received regarding selected 

personnel management practices at FEMA’s National Processing 

Service Center in Hyattsville, MD. Our objective was to determine 

whether FEMA has improperly (1) conducted employee 

performance evaluations, (2) terminated employees, and 

(3) concentrated higher salaried positions at other selected 

processing centers. We also reviewed other issues involving agent 

work schedules, supervisory/managerial training, and 

management-employee relations. 

We examined data and documents related to the MD NPSC and 

enterprise-wide disaster assistance operations. We reviewed 

organizational charts, business cases, position descriptions, 

performance management guides and materials, employee surveys 

and staffing assessments, personnel polices and procedures, and 

operational and training materials, as well as correspondence 

between officials and MD NPSC staff. We also examined 

documents and records related to employee EEO complaints. 

We interviewed 51 current and former staff at the Maryland NPSC, 

including human service specialists, training and administrative 

staff, supervisors, and managers. In addition, we interviewed 25 

staff members at the Texas and Virginia NPSCs. At FEMA 

headquarters, we interviewed staff in NPSC Operations, the 

Alternative Dispute and Resolutions Office, and the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Office. We also observed operations at 

the Maryland, Texas, and Virginia NPSCs. 

We conducted our review between October 2008 and March 2009 

under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspections 

issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 
 

Page 23 
 
Appendix B

Management Comments to the Draft Report

lJS.l

Stinf

Wll-òhingtüii. DC

NOY 2 4 2009

MEMORANDUM FOR: Carlton i. Mann

Assistant Inspector General for Inspections

(Wice of liispector General

FROM: David J. Kmilìiian

~"" ~~ fiADirector

Oflcc of Policy and Program Analysis

SUBJECT: Comments on OIG Drali Report, Review alSeleçled

!'cr.W/wid I'raclices al MlIJ'ltmil's Na/ioiial Processiiig

Scrl'ic: ('('Iler

Thank you for the opponuiiity to review and comment on the Offce of Inspector

General's (OIG's) subject drall audit report. As the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) works toward reHning its programs, the OIG's independent analysis of

program performance greatly benefits OUl iibility to continuously improve our activities.

FEMA conells with the drati report's seven recommendations. FEivlA has been working

diligently to eorreetthe issues identilìcd in your audit. While we will be providing

corrective ¡iet ion plans in our c)O-day response. we provide the following information

relative to the seven recommendations:

Recommendation #1: Develop a proccss to identify and track agents' special projects

and othcr work assignments and gcnenne appropriate production data.

Response: The Nationall'rocessing Service Cente(s (NPSC) Performance Standards

Analysis Department continually works to enhance the Individual Performance Report

(IPR) by including spccial pl'jecl data in the Pl'duelÎon Key Pcrfonnancc Indicators

(KPI). The criteria for establishing a pl'duction measurement tbr any "Special Projects"

requircs that the work activity be of adcquate volume and/or duration to allow sample

data to be confirmed in order (0 esta(,lis!i a viable measurcment For this reason, it is not

always possib!ç to include c"ery spcchil project in the productÎon reports.

w\\'w.f\'iiia.~o\'

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA's Maryland National Processing Service Center

Page 24
Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Page 2 

Durng the las eighteen months, modifications to the IPR measurements have been 

intruced. In April 2009, the first significant chages were implemented. They include: 

i. A new Occupancy measurement was added to the IPR tht captues the agents' time 

spent in "redy stte for calls" as well as all "talk time" in order to give employees 

credit for being in an available mode while assigned to the call center. 

2. FEMA ha reduced the "weight" assigned to the Production KPI frm 40% to 20% to 

incree focus on the Quality KPI.
 


Beginng October I, 2009, additional work fuctions, previously identified as special 

projects, were tracked and incorporated into the employee' production data on the IPR 

the Decision. (e.g. Indexing and Floo Plain mapping). In addition, the development of 
 

baed Routing measurment and the abilty to capture ca that were reviewed and then 

placed on "policy hold" provide for a more complete picture of the employees' daily 

accomplishments on the IPR. 

Recommendation #12: Review its briefing proces for new employees hired puruat to 

the Staord Act to ensure that FEMA is clearly ariculating differences from the federa 

service and policies related to benefits and retirement, release to nonpay status, 

termination of employment, and quaification for civil service merit hirng. 

Response: FEMA's Disaster Assistace Directorate and Human Capital Division (HCD) 

ar coordinating the need to include more information about Staford Act appointments 

and the differences and similarities with civil service appointments. The NPSC 

Employee Handbook and information posted on the website will be updated to include 

policies related to benefits and retirement, releae to non.pay status, termination of 

employment. and qualifications for civil service merit hiring. The NPSC Employee 

Handbook is posted on the intret and is accesible to all NPSC employees. The NPSCs 

wil also include more emphasis on thes topics in their briefings and workshops to new 

employees. 

R~ommendation #13: Establish a procedure to solicit suggestions from agents, 

managers, and specialists on possible refinements to the individual pedormance review 

and quaity control processes. 

Response: The NPSC's Enterprise Performance Information Management Section which 

is responsible for the Quality Control (Qc) and Individual Pedonnance Report does 

rech out to the NPSCs to solicit feedback and recommendations, but will incree these 

outreah efforts as a result of this recommendation. 

The Enterprise Pedormance Information Management Section has an established 

proèedure that hosts bi-weekly meetings with Applicant Services Section (APS) 

mangers from each NPSC to solicit recommendations for Quality Control changes and 

Individua Performance Reports refinements. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA's Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 25
 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Page 3
 


In June 2009, approximately 30 Applicant Serices employee from each NPSC 

parcipated in a focus study group to captue suggestions for improvements to the IPR as 

well as QC proceses. Many of the requested changes require system enanceents and 

are being addressed for feaibilty. Additonal follow-up is planned.
 


Durng July 2009, the Quality Control Deparent coordinated several focus grup 

sesions to recve additional feedback from Applicant Services employees on the Rental
 


Rçcification proces. The ¡nfonnation was analyzed and resulted in enterprise
 


workshops to improve the effectiveness and effciency of Recerfication processing
 


guidelines. 

The Perfonnance Standards Analysis and Quality Control Deparents plan follow-up 

sureys thughout 2010 and wí1 continue to include opportnities for agents, managers, 

and specialists to provide feeback. They wil publish the infonnation received from 

paricipants of sureys, work shops, training, etc. and make the infonnation available to 

all enterrise staff to ensure planed actions/responses are communicated. 

Recommendation #4: Establish a limit for how many agents may be assigned to one 

superisor, including during peak operations, and ¡fnecar, hire additional supersors
 


to incree the ratio. 

Response: It is important to note that typically we do not have a need for a greater 

supersor to employee ratio durng most years. We find the need to increase supervisors 

only when we augment our staffng by hiring additional employees in the NPSCs. When 

necsar, the NPSCs may hire additional contract staff, who have contract supersors 

and are managed through the contract's Contracting Offcer's Technical Representative. 

We intend to continue this practice as needed in the future. 

Just prior to the publication of this reprt, the NPSCs adjusted their employee to 

supesor ratio baseline frm 30: i to 25: i. In addition, each NPSC has hired a number
 


of CORE supeisors to augment the employee to supersor ratio. Currently, all thee 

NPSCs have a 20: 1 ratio or smaller. In larger disaster, our intent is to limit the 

employee to supervisor ratio to 50 employees. While this may see high, it is only 

durng large disasters and for a very limited time. We wil support the supervsors by 

providing Subject Matter Experts to support overight of the employees. The employee 

to supersor ratio is consistent with call ceter indust standars for the call tyes and 

volume. 

Recommendation #5: Establish an individual training plan for all NPSC manager and 

superisors and ensure that training goals and progress are tracked and recrded. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA's Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 26
 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Page 4 

Response: The NPSC Enterrise Training Deparent has created a comprehensive 

Supesor Development Training curculum given to all Applicant Serices supeisors. 

Additionally, FEMA has developed training course cataogs to support superisors and 

staff to request and recive appropriate professional development training. These 

catalogs list job skils/tak-based credentialing coures, professional development courses 

and leadership training courses. Catalogs ca be used to assist managers and supervsors 

in helping staff to complete their Individual Development Plan (IDP) goals and objectives 

and select the courses they need to complete their goals, 

Course titles offered to supervisors include: Change Management, Coaching and 

Counseling, Communcation, Conflct Management, Decision Making, Diversity, 

Diverity/EEO Policies and Proceures, Goal Settng and Planing, Motivation, Problem 

Solving, Tea Building, Time Management, Creating a Framework for Effective
 


Ledership and Superision, and Delegation Techniques and Strategies.
 


Supeisors also attend training outside the NPSCs. For instance, this yea all of the MDNPSC Superisors attended Leding Teas and Groups training at the USDA Graduate 

SchooL. 

Over the past year FEMA's Infomiation Technology Division has worked 10 enhance an 

Enterrise Personnel Database System (E-PDS) to include a method to record, trck and 

reprt trning daia. The system wil include the abilty to enter, track, and reprt lOPs 

which wil include training requirements. E-PDS wil also be able to trck and record 

training as it is completed and report ihis to managers, supervisors, and individuals so 

they ca track their IDP achievements and accomplishments. 

Full development and implementation of the E-PDS for tracking training is expeted to 

be completed and implemented by lune 30, 2010. lOPs wil be established with clealy 

detenined goals and well developed training plans for meeting goals using the FEMA 

Human Capital Pomi 30-05, 

Recommendation #6: Deploy a MD NPSC Work Climate surey steering committee 

and crate Change Teas to identify actions, required resurces, and timelines to address . 

immediat~ priorities. 

Response: The Marland NPSC management team wil establìsh a steering committee 

and crte Change Teas to address those elements of the NPSC surey which were 

categorized as "in nee of immediate attention" or a "serious concern," The goals of the 

committee wil be two-fold: 

. The committee wil seek to educate employees regarding specific improvements
 


that have already been implemented as a direct result of the climate surey. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA's Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 27
 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Page S
 


. For all of the items that have not been addressed, the committee wil form a multidisciplinar team composed of representatives from all sections of the processing 

center to address specific concerns, propose solutions, deterine feaibilty of
 


those solutions, and implement recmmended changes. The recommendatìons 

will be made to the NPSC Operations Brach Chief for review and approval prior 

to implementation. 

A timeline wil be established to implement the changes and the results, as well as any 

follow-up, wil be published in an "all hands" memorandum. 

Recommendation #7: Ensure that MD NPSC managers follow up on staff complaints 

and notify empl()yees in a timely maner of any actions to address those concerns. 

Response: The Marland NPSC management team wil follow up on staff complaints 

identified in the climate survey with an all hands memoradum to address the cutent 

statu of those elements of the survey which were categorized as "in need of immediate 

attention" or a "serous conce." Once the work from the steering committeechange 

teas is complete, a final report wil be prepared and sent to all employees detailng 

specific results and/or actions. The Marland NPSC management tea wil ensure that 

reaonable timelines are established and publicized to employees for dissemination of the 

results and wil develop a process for on-going steering committee involvement. Interm 

report regarding follow-up actions wil be sent to the NPSC Opeations Branch Chief. 

Than you again for the opportity to comment on this draft report and we look forward 

to w()rking with you on other issues as we both strve to improve FEMA. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA's Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 28
 

 

Award & 

er Sent to 

plicant 

Dete

Elig

E

Appendix C 

National Processing Service Center Workflow 

NPSC Workflow NPSC Workflow

Registration 

Intake 

Non-Registration 

Non-Referral 

Letter Sent to 

Applicant 

Uninsured 

Housing and/or 

Other Needs 

Referral 

FEMA 

Inspection 

Performed 

Letter Sent to 

Applicant 

Auto/Manual 

Determination 

Ineligible 

Lett 

Ap 

Auto/Manual 

rmination 

ible 

ligibility Determinations 

Initial Assistance... 

Subsequent Assistance... 

Call to Helpline 

or Document 

Sent In 

New WP 

Created at 

Mailroom 

(or Helpline) 

Manual 

Determination 

Made 

Letter Sent to 

Applicant 

Source: FEMA NPSC Briefing Book, April 2008. 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 29 
Appendix D 

FEMA November 28, 2007, Reply to Senator Barbara Mikulski 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 30 
Appendix D 

FEMA November 28, 2007, Reply to Senator Barbara Mikulski 

The Honorable Barbar Mikuski 

Page 2 

Date NOV 2 8 20
 


Th employees of the MD-NPSC ar often asked t work evenings and weekends; and, 

someties ar scheduled for extended hours. MD- SC employees consisently 

demonstte extrordinar professionalism, comp ion and commitment to FEMA's
 


mission. However, ths lettr from your constituen reveas that maner and 

supesors nee to do a better job of communica' g a wide rage of issues, despite the 

fact tht these topics ar included in regular all-ban and daly tea meeings. 

Employees at all NPSC facilties ar evaluated ag . st a performance matr which 

includes Individual Performance Report and eval tions by the NPSC Quality Control 

Team. The Quality Control Tea is made up of ex . enee speeialist who ar required 

to attend the full employee development trning uired of Human Service Specialist, 

and who must reertfy anually. Upon completion ftrining, Quality Control 

Specialists aie expeted to perform the saie cae p ocessing assignents as the 

casorker. In addition, the NPSCs have an inte al Quality Contrl process to ensure 

the quaity of the work completed by Quality Contr i Speialists exceeds the 

performance stadards set for the Human Serice S cialist. 

A quality control compaon gude with explicit' ctions on performance stadars 

and the quality control review proce is posted on e NPSC intret site. An appe 

pros was embeded in the quaity control pro when it began sever yeas ago. 

To ensure that each case and quaity contrl decisio is objectively reviewed, the process
 


includes an appea panel tht is mae up of Quityf,0ntrl Speialists and Program 

Specialists not associate with the cas. The pael views the case and report bak to 

the employee. The appeal deision comes frm the panel, not the Quality Contrl staff. 

The NPSC function thoughout FEMA wa reor8;ze in 200S, and tls relted in 

resctug the call ceter operatons, in some 10 ions. The rergation and 

subsequent elimintion of some depents an re ocation of others did in fact reduce 

the number of maageral and anyst positions at . e MD-NPSC; however, many others
 


were tritioned into positions thatgave them car ladder opportties. No 

employees were teinated beaus of the reorgani tion. The MD-NPSC wa never 

"down grded" and reains an importt compone t of the NPSC enterse. The former 

NPSC maner referenced in the employees' letter one of several very-well quaified 

employees selected in November 2004, to sta the rogram Coordition and Planning
 


(PCP) Brach and work on cataphic plang.
 


The unusual requirements of Hurcane Kattna an Hurcane Rita produced diferent 

sttegies to addres the nee of the. large, muliifate, impacted disaer population. In 

respns to this lettr, resch disclosed tht NPSlst trained Florida Long Term
 


Recovery Center (FL TRC) employees to procss d plicate queue applicaions for over 

700,000 cases locked in the syst. Whle the sta gy was succssful in clearng many 

I 

I 

I 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA's Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 31
 

Appendix E

Conditions of Employment - Stafford Act Employee

u.s. l)('p::rmicnt of Homeland Security

500 C Street S\V

Wnshingtí1n. DC 204ì2

FEMA

CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR

EMPLOYEES HIRED UNDER THE STAFFORD ACT

APPOINTMENT TYPES:

. CORE (Cadre of On-Call Response Employee) - hired to perform longer term

disaster work at a fixed location with a regular tour of duty.

. DAE (Disaster Assistance Employee) - hired for initial surge staffg required in

disasters with an intermittent tour of duty. Employees surge to disaster sites from

their duty station, which are their homes, and are placed on per diem for the

duration of their surge assignment.

NATURE m' APPOINTMENT:

. I understand that this is a temporar civil service excepted service position that

does not confer eligibilty or priority consideration for permanent appointment. I

may be terminated at any time, with cause (e.g. poor performance or misconduct)

or without cause (e.g. downsizing of workforce, change in program direction or

operational needs). My appointment wil neither help nor hinder my chances for

permanent appointment.

. I understand that my appointment is subject to successful completion and

processing of essential securty investigation forms, cooperation with the

investigation and a favorable determination on my suitabilty for Federal

employment.

. I wil conduct myself at all times in a professional maner, preserve the public

trust and adhere to FEMNDHS rules and regulations.

. I may be required to work long hours under stressful and unfavorable conditions.

. I understand that I may be assigned to perform my disaster-related duty,

irrespective of my position description, based on the needs of the operational

situation. (CORE)

.. I may be released from an assignment at any time and with little or no notice

based on the needs of the operation. In addition, I understand that I may be

placed in a non-duty, no-pay status at anytime (e.g. due to downizing ofthe

workforce or change in program direction) and may be terminated at any time for

cause (e.g. poor performance or misconduct) and that I am not subject to any

protection afforded by reduction-in-force provisions, fe-employment rights or

adverse action procedures established under any statutory or regulatory provision.

(CORE & DAE)

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA's Maryland National Processing Service Center

Page 32
Appendix E 

Conditions of Employment - Stafford Act Employee 

. My work schedule and temporary geographical assignent may be changed based
 


on the mission needs of the Agency. 

. I must be reay to deploy wherever the Agency needs my servces within 24 -48
 


hour of notification. 

. I understand that I wil not receive any benefits such as health or life insurance; I
 


wil however contrbute to the social securty system. (DAE only, No Benefits) 

· I understand that my appointment will end on the Not to Exceed (N) date of 

my appointment, unless it is extended based on the needs of the Agency. 

CONDITIONS OF APPOINTMENT; 

. Use of electronic funds transfer is mandatory for salar payments and travel
 


reimbursements. 

· My compensation, progression and retention will be based on acceptable 

performance and conduct, professional ability and availability to deploy. (DAE 

only) 

. I must be eligible for and able to maintain a governent issued travel card and I
 


wil abide by the ters and conditions established by the card provider and
 


FEMA. Violations (e.g. delinquency, personal use of card) will result in 

appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. 

. I will travel in the most expeditious and cost effective maner, using the Agency's 

Travel Agent to make all my travel arangements. 

. If I am authorized to use a motor vehicle for offcial business, I must comply with
 


all applicable laws, regulations and policies relating to offcial motor vehicle 

usage. 

· Upon arving at a temporar duty station location, I must check in accordance 

with guidance set in place by my cade manager whether it be by phone or online 

and follow instrctions. I am also required to check out and update my 

deployment status with the Automated Deployment Database. 

· If! am a retire Federal civil servant, my pay from FEMA may be subject to
 


offset. 

REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF A V AIABLITY: 

. If not in a pay statu, I must certify my availabilty for deployment at least once 

every 30 days. (DAE only) 

· I must be available to be in deployment status not less than 60 days a year. I 

understand tht my availabilty for deployment does not guarantee tht I wil be
 


deployed. (DAE only) 

. Because of extraordinar circumstances, I may be called to work by the Agency
 


even when I have informed the Agency that I am unavailable. I wil become 

available within two weeks of receiving the call unless I have medical or other 

appropriate documentation that justifies iny unavailabilty. (DAE only) 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA's Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 33
 

Appendix E 

Conditions of Employment - Stafford Act Employee 

. The National Processing Service Centers (NSC) require highly trained and
 


skiled stato meet FEMA's mission of providing disaster assistace to 

individuals and families afected by major disasters. Al employees classified as 

Human Services Specialist are required to demonstrte core job competencies by 

completing and passing a Registration Intake course with a score of 85% or 

higher. Following the completion and passing ofthe Registration Intae course,
 


these same employees wil be required to adere by the tenus and conditions 

stated in the "Conditions of Continued Employment Individuals and Households 

Program (ll) Training Requirements" document.
 


I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AN UNDERSTAND THE TERMS AND 

CONDITION OF MY EMPLOYMENT WITH FEMA AS A STAFFORD ACT 

EMPLOYEE. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT FAILURE TO MEET AND 

MANTAIN THE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AT AN TIME COULD 

RESULT IN TERMNATION OF MY EMPLOYMENT. 

Printed Name of Employee Last Four digits of SSN 

Signature of Employee Date 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA's Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 34
 

Appendix F 

Major Contributors to This Report 

William McCarron, Chief Inspector 

Jim O’Keefe, Senior Inspector 

Gina Davis, Inspector 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 35 
Appendix G 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff for Operations 

Chief of Staff for Policy 

Deputy Chiefs of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Director, Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Audit Liaison, Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Review of Selected Personnel Practices at FEMA’s Maryland National Processing Service Center 

Page 36 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.