U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–085 PDF 2008

S. Hrg. 110–525 

FROM CANDIDATES TO CHANGE MAKERS: 

RECRUITING AND HIRING THE NEXT GENERATION 

OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 8, 2008 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

THOMAS RICHARDS, Professional Staff Member 

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY. Minority Staff Director 

JESSICA NAGASAKO, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 

Robert N. Goldenkoff, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office ......................................................................................................... 5 

Angela Bailey, Deputy Associate Director for Talent and Capacity Policy, 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management ................................................................ 7 

John Crum, Ph.D., Acting Director, Office of Policy and Evaluation, U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board ......................................................................... 9 

James F. McDermott, Director, Office of Human Resources, Nuclear Regulatory Commission ............................................................................................... 11 

John Gage, National President, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO ....................................................................................................... 23 

Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees Union ... 25 

Dan Solomon, Chief Executive Officer, Virilion, Inc ............................................. 27 

Max Stier, President and Chief Executive Officer, Partnership for Public 

Service ................................................................................................................... 29 

Donna Mathews, Principal, Federal Sector Programs, Hewitt Associates LLC . 31 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Bailey, Angela: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Crum, John, Ph.D.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Gage, John: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Goldenkoff, Robert N.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Kelley, Colleen M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 

Mathews, Donna: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 102 

McDermott, James F.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

Solomon, Dan: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 89 

Stier, Max: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

Background .............................................................................................................. 120 

Copies of job applications submitted for the Record by Senator Voinovich ........ 126 

Post-Hearing Questions for the Record submitted from: 

Ms. Bailey ......................................................................................................... 132 

Mr. Crum ........................................................................................................... 142 

Mr. McDermott ................................................................................................. 148 

(1) 

FROM CANDIDATES TO CHANGE MAKERS: 

RECRUITING AND HIRING THE NEXT 

GENERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 

Room SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. 

Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka and Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. This hearing will come to order. 

Again, I want to thank you for joining us to discuss the Federal 

hiring process and how agencies can improve the way they recruit 

and evaluate the next generation of Federal employees. We would 

like at this point in time, to look at the 21 Century Federal workforce and look at it in terms of what we can do to make the recruitment and hiring process better. 

Today, we are in a crisis. The hiring system is broken. Every day 

talented people interested in Federal service are turned away at 

the door. Too many Federal agencies have built entry barriers for 

younger workers; invested too little in human resources professionals; done too little to recruit the right candidates; and invented 

an evaluation process that discourages qualified candidates. As a 

result, high-quality candidates are abandoning the Federal Government. 

The Federal Government has become the employer of the most 

persistent. The Office of Personnel Management estimates that 30 

percent of the Federal workforce—approximately 600,000 employees—will retire in the next 5 years. Agencies have an opportunity 

and a challenge. The opportunity is to hire the next generation of 

highly talented and dedicated employees. The challenge is how to 

fix the recruitment and hiring process that is outdated and broken. 

Senator Voinovich and I have been working on this, and he is a 

champion of moving this along as well. 

OPM is responsible for rating agencies on their human capital 

activities, which includes hiring practices. Agencies receive a red, 

2 

yellow, or green rating depending on their improvement and success. Yet agencies receive green ratings for human capital, despite 

the fact that the hiring process is failing. 

For example, Federal agencies still require applicants to answer 

knowledge, skills, and ability questions. Applicants are given 500 

to 5,000 characters per answer to respond to many, often redundant, questions. According to the Merit Systems Protection Board 

report entitled ‘‘Attracting the Next Generation: A Look at Federal 

Entry-Level New Hires,’’ the two greatest obstacles new hires faced 

were the length and complexity of the process. In the private sector, employers only require a resume and cover letter. Applying to 

the Federal Government should be just as easy. 

The problem is not Congress. Since 2002, Congress has given 

agencies the flexibilities they need: Agencies no longer must rely on 

the rule of three; they can use category ratings; and they can get 

direct hire authority from OPM. However, in many cases Federal 

agencies are not using these authorities. 

The competitive process is not the problem. The notion that 

merit system principles and veterans’ preference are barriers to 

hiring is wrong. These are good management practices. Agencies 

need to adapt, just as the private sector has, to the culture of the 

next generation of Federal workers. For example, agencies should 

use new media marketing tools to attract young people into Federal 

service. Candidate-friendly applications that welcome cover letters 

and resumes should be implemented. Candidates should receive 

timely and informative feedback. And more pipelines into colleges 

and technical schools need to be developed to recruit candidates 

with diverse backgrounds. 

The Federal Government is the largest employer in the United 

States. Federal service is a noble profession. This week—Public 

Service Recognition Week—we celebrate those men and women 

who make a commitment to serve their government in the military 

or civilian corps. In honoring these employees, we have an opportunity to recruit the next generation by highlighting inspiring Federal careers. Good people attract more good people. However, the 

positive impact of this week will not help agencies recruit if they 

continue to use outdated hiring practices. 

I look forward to hearing about the efforts being made by OPM 

to address this issue and recommendations from other witnesses to 

improve recruitment and hiring at Federal agencies. 

Now I would like to ask our Ranking Member for his statement. 

Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We really appreciate your calling today’s hearing, ‘‘From Candidates to Change 

Makers: Recruiting and Hiring the Next Generation of Federal Employees.’’ That is a pretty good title. 

Holding this hearing during Public Service Recognition Week is 

appropriate given our need to thank the men and women who serve 

our Nation through their service as Federal employees. 

When we discuss hiring, we discuss a process that affects every 

individual employed by the government today. Making the right 

hiring decisions affects the current workforce’s ability to continue 

3 

1The copies of applicants submitted by Senator Voinovich appears in the Appendix on page 

126. 

doing their jobs. It also is the same process these employees must 

go through when pursuing new opportunities within the government, including promotions. 

Additionally, we need to convey to the thousands of men and 

women at all stages of their career that the Federal Government 

is more than just an employer, but a place where Americans can 

utilize and grow their skills in service to their Nation, making a 

difference to their Nation and their fellow man. 

As the old cliche goes, you never get a second chance to make 

a first appearance. You need to convey to those Americans that the 

Federal Government wants them. If we do not, someone else will. 

We know the challenges confronting the Federal Government. 

This Subcommittee has focused its attention on understanding and 

addressing those challenges for the past 9 years. We have discussed for years the human capital crisis that will ensue when the 

baby-boom generation begins retirement, and that has already 

begun. 

Mr. Chairman, that era is here. The baby boomers are retiring. 

At the same time, the needs and demands on government continue 

to grow. OPM itself has identified certain areas of critical hiring 

importance: Air traffic controllers, Border Patrol officers, engineers, 

food inspectors, human resources specialists, nurses, visa examiners, patent examiners, scientists, veterinarians, accountants, and 

acquisition professionals. In addition, the Partnership for Public 

Service has estimated that over the next 2 years, the government 

will need to hire 193,000 new people to fill mission-critical jobs in 

fields such as security, public health, accounting and budget, engineering and sciences, and program management. 

Over and over, we hear of the problems in the Federal hiring 

process: It takes too long, it is too burdensome, and so forth. The 

quality of technology has improved, but our processes have not. 

Just yesterday, Stephen Barr of the Washington Post hosted an online chat in which dozens of individuals wrote in expressing their 

frustrations with the process. I hear this at home constantly from 

people. They want to work for the Federal Government, but how 

do you get into the system? 

Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has a real image problem if this is the message conveyed to the American people about 

what it actually takes to come to work for the Federal Government. 

And I would like to just show you an example. I found three job 

postings or human resource professionals. 

The first I found on the website for the Washington Post, and you 

can see clearly there are two pages, and it asks interested applicants to submit their resumes via e-mail. So it has got the basic, 

what the job is about, and asks them to submit their resume via 

e-mail.1

The second is a position at Google, which was ranked by Fortune 

Magazine as the Best Place to Work. Again, the initial requirement 

of applicants is to submit a resume and cover letter. 

4 

And, last, if there is an opening in the Federal Government, it 

asks for the same information, then proceeds to ask applicants to 

write narrative answers to eight additional questions. 

Mr. Chairman, if I were looking for a job, I would be happy to 

write my cover letters and e-mail my resume to those two companies that I first mentioned on the charts. I do not know that I 

would have the time or patience to sit down and write letters to 

eight different questions for my initial application for a position. It 

just does not make any sense. 

Certainly there is a place for this or similar assessment of applicants in the hiring process, but down the road, after you have been 

through the initial application, then you get into all this other 

stuff. But I am not convinced it is necessary to subject every applicant to this process. This does not say ‘‘welcome’’ to any prospective 

candidate. It does not say ‘‘Uncle Sam Wants You.’’ This does nothing to dispel any preconceived notions that the Federal Government is nothing but a bureaucratic system that who in the world 

would want to go to work for. 

Too often we have heard that processes exist for what I believe 

to be unacceptable reasons, such as ‘‘That is the way it has always 

been done.’’ But to be an employer of choice, the government must 

understand what the competition is doing and adapt to the changing environment. How can we expect employees to lead change if 

they are first shown the government’s inability to respond to what 

job seekers deserve and expect? 

Mr. Chairman, I believe the current statute provides the Federal 

Government ample flexibility and opportunity for the human resources professionals to utilize a flexible and more dynamic hiring 

process if there was just the will and the desire to do things differently. And I just want to say this is very critical. We have been 

working, as Senator Akaka said, as a team for about 8 years to try 

and give more flexibility to the Federal Government so that we 

could recruit and retain and reward good people. The competition 

is very keen today. Everybody has a human capital crisis right 

across the board. And if the Federal Government is going to get the 

best and the brightest, we have got to adapt to what the competition is out there. And the competition makes it a lot easier to bring 

people on board, and that is what we need to do right now if we 

expect to provide the kind of services that the American people demand from us so that we have the right people with the right 

knowledge and skills at the right place at the right time. 

Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. You 

can tell we are of the same mind. We have been working together 

on this, and I just want you to know we need your help to try to 

improve the system. That is what we are all about. 

And so I would like to introduce our first panel: Robert 

Goldenkoff, Director of Strategic Issues, GAO, Government Accountability Office; Angela Bailey, Deputy Associate Director, Talent and Capacity Policy Center of the Strategic Human Resource 

Policy Division, Office of Personnel Management; John Crum, Acting Director, Office of Policy and Evaluation, Merit Systems Protection Board; and James McDermott, Chief Human Capital Officer, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenkoff appears in the Appendix on page 39. 

As you know, our Subcommittee rules require that all witnesses 

be sworn in, and so I ask you to please stand and raise your right 

hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 

give the Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. I do. 

Ms. BAILEY. I do. 

Mr. CRUM. I do. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, could I just make one comment before the witnesses—— 

Senator AKAKA. Before you do, let me note for the record that our 

witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to say that I am glad that Mr. 

McDermott is here, and I would like to say, Mr. McDermott, that 

we worked very hard to provide flexibilities to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission because we anticipated some of the challenges 

that you would have. And I am glad that you are here today because I think you are going to portray what we could do in other 

agencies if we put our minds to it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

Before we begin, I want to remind you that although your oral 

statement is limited to 5 minutes, your full written statements will 

be included in the record. 

Mr. Goldenkoff, will you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT N. GOLDENKOFF,1 DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Voinovich. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today to discuss recruiting and hiring the next generation of Federal employees. I would like to commend the Subcommittee for timing this hearing to coincide with Public Service Recognition Week, 

which honors the employees at all levels of government who proudly serve our Nation and make life better for all of us. 

Earlier this week, I visited the exhibits that Federal agencies 

have set up on The Mall to celebrate the contributions of their employees, and the importance of hiring a top-notch Civil Service employee was abundantly clear. From health care to homeland defense, Federal agencies are on the front lines of issues that have 

profound implications for our future economic growth, our standard 

of living, and our national security. The public has come to expect 

and needs a high-performing and responsive Federal workforce. 

However, as you know, the government is facing a looming retirement wave which could leave agencies with critical leadership and 

skill gaps. Restoring this talent could be a challenge as the Federal 

hiring process is cumbersome and often falls short of the needs of 

agencies and applicants, as we have just discussed. 

6 

As requested, my testimony today will focus first on the challenges Federal agencies have faced in recruiting and hiring talented employees; second, the progress that has been made to date 

in addressing these challenges; and, third, additional actions that 

are needed to further strengthen the government’s recruiting and 

hiring efforts. 

Importantly, in my remarks this morning, I want to stress the 

following: Although a number of challenges still need to be addressed, in many ways the Federal Government is well positioned 

to hire the people it needs to carry out its diverse roles and responsibilities. Federal employment offers intangible rewards such as interesting work and opportunities to make a difference in the lives 

of others, as well as a variety of tangible benefits and work-life 

flexibilities that many job seekers look for in an employer. 

Turning first to recruiting and hiring challenges facing Federal 

agencies, as you know, studies by us and others have pointed to 

such problems as passive recruitment strategies, unclear job vacancy announcements, and imprecise candidate assessment tools. 

These problems put the Federal Government at a competitive disadvantage when acquiring talent. The good news, however, is that 

in recent years, Congress, OPM, and agencies have taken a number 

of steps to improve the employment process. For example, as we 

have already mentioned, Congress has provided agencies with hiring flexibilities that could help agencies streamline their hiring 

processes and give agencies more latitude in selecting from among 

qualified job candidates. And for its part, OPM has, among other 

actions, sponsored job fairs across the country and has placed various tools on its website to help agencies improve and refine their 

hiring procedures. 

Likewise, individual agencies have taken steps to meet their specific recruiting and hiring needs. For example, NASA has recruited 

workers with critical skills through a combination of techniques 

that have included improved compensation and benefits packages. 

While these actions are all positive trends, our past work has found 

that additional efforts are needed in four key areas: Strategic 

human capital planning, diversity management, existing flexibilities, and OPM’s leadership. 

First and foremost, Federal agencies will have to bolster their efforts in strategic human capital planning to ensure they have employees with the skills and competencies necessary to achieve their 

current goals as well as their future mission. 

With respect to diversity management, to ensure that agencies 

are reaching out to diverse pools of talent, agencies must consider 

active recruitment strategies, such as widening the selection of 

schools from which they recruit. This can include, for example, 

more aggressive outreach to historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and women’s college. 

A third area for improvement is the appropriate use of human 

capital flexibilities. Although agencies have various flexibilities at 

their disposal to help them recruit and retain talent, agencies do 

not always make effective use of them. 

A fourth area in need of greater attention is OPM leadership. 

OPM must continue to assist—and, as appropriate, require buildVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:48 Oct 07, 2008 Jkt 043085 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43085.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Bailey appears in the Appendix on page 54. 

ing of infrastructures within agencies needed to implement and 

sustain human capital reforms. 

In summary, OPM and agencies have made progress in addressing many of the impediments to effective recruitment and hiring, 

but still, as I have discussed today, more can and must be done. 

With sustained and committed leadership, innovation, and planning on the part of Congress, OPM, and agencies, the Federal Government can brand itself as an employer of choice and successfully 

compete in the labor market for its fair share of the Nation’s best 

and brightest individuals. 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Voinovich, this concludes my prepared statement, and I would be happy to respond to any questions 

you may have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Goldenkoff. 

Ms. Bailey, please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF ANGELA BAILEY,1 DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR TALENT AND CAPACITY POLICY, U.S. OFFICE OF 

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Ms. BAILEY. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Akaka, Senator Voinovich, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 

this opportunity to highlight, during Public Service Recognition 

Week, the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) mission to ensure the Federal Government has an effective civilian workforce— 

a workforce that draws on the strength of America’s rich diversity 

of talent. In pursuing our mission, OPM must balance the needs 

of our agencies and job applicants with merit system principles and 

veterans’ preference. We also are mindful of the responsibilities assigned to OPM under the President’s Management Agenda concerning strategic management of human capital, and we are very 

appreciative of all of the work done by this Subcommittee over the 

last several years to provide needed flexibilities that are helping to 

improve Federal recruitment efforts and the overall Federal hiring 

process. 

As the President’s human resources advisor, OPM Director Linda 

Springer fully understands the importance of recruiting and employing the next generation of Federal workers. 

OPM has expanded our efforts to reach out across the country to 

encourage Americans to join Federal service. We have used television ads to promote public service; we are highlighting our compensation and benefits packages; and we are promoting our 

telework and family-friendly policies, which are geared to the preferences and expectations of today’s job seeker. 

To help agencies better address their hiring needs at both ends 

of the employment spectrum, OPM developed a legislative proposal 

that would allow agencies—without coming to OPM for approval— 

to rehire annuitants on a part-time and/or time-limited basis under 

certain conditions, without a salary offset. These experienced workers, with their institutional knowledge, can help the next generation of employees integrate into an agency’s workforce by serving 

as mentors and knowledge management facilitators, thus providing 

a seamless transition from generation to generation. 

8 

OPM would particularly like to thank Senators Collins, Warner, 

and you, sir, Senator Voinovich, for their introduction of this proposal as S. 2003. We also appreciate the support for this proposal 

from the President of the Partnership for Public Service who is testifying on the next panel. 

In addition to the above, I would like to address three specific 

areas in which OPM is leading the way to improve the recruitment 

and employment of the next generation of Federal employees: The 

hiring process, job announcements for entry-level positions, and selection methods for the Senior Executive Service. 

We are well aware that the Federal hiring system has evolved 

over many years into a cumbersome process and hiring takes far 

too long. There are few of us who do not have a story to tell that 

illustrates frustration with the Federal hiring process, whether it 

is our own, a friend’s, or a neighbor’s. 

Under the leadership of Deputy Director Howard Weizmann, we 

have expanded these efforts by partnering with several agency 

Chief Human Capital Officers to launch a new, holistic, and systemic view of the hiring process. In the past, we took a much narrower view of the process and tried to ‘‘fix’’ individual pieces rather 

than look at all of the components and their interrelatedness. By 

July we will have the results of our pilot efforts and will publish 

in September a government-wide standard for the hiring process, 

along with a ‘‘how to’’ guide that includes successful practices such 

as those mentioned by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for the 

hiring process along with successful templates, which I will discuss 

later, and scripts for communicating with applicants. 

As a subset of this initiative, we also are streamlining our job announcements and creating templates that agencies may use when 

advertising for entry-level positions. OPM is working with the Federal Acquisition Institute to design a job announcement for the acquisition community and has managed to streamline that announcement by reducing the verbiage by 75 percent. It also advertises up front two of the most important issues of concern to new 

professionals: Pay and benefits. 

Moving to our executive corps, in concert with several agencies, 

OPM will pilot two separate methods for executive selection starting this June. One alternative in the pilot will be a more streamlined selection method that focuses on an individual’s accomplishments as identified through the current executive competencies. 

The other alternative in the pilot will allow candidates to apply for 

Senior Executive Service (SES) positions by providing only their 

resume. This method is specifically designed to attract seasoned executives whose resumes clearly demonstrate the extent of their experience and accomplishments. 

If anything, OPM believes that these efforts will prove that it is 

possible to challenge difficult and esoteric processes and, more importantly, create solutions that do not compromise our principles. 

Public service is a noble calling, and we look forward to working 

with you to inspire a new generation to join public service. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you and other Members may have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Bailey. 

Dr. Crum, will you proceed with your statement? 

9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Crum appears in the Appendix on page 58. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN CRUM, PH.D.,1 ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLICY AND EVALUATION, U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS 

PROTECTION BOARD 

Mr. CRUM. Good morning, Chairman Akaka and Senator 

Voinovich. Thank you for the opportunity today to testify regarding 

the challenges to recruiting and hiring applicants for Federal jobs. 

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) conducts independent studies of the Federal Civil Service system to determine 

if the workforce is managed under the merit system principles and 

free from prohibited personnel practices. We have identified a set 

of key challenges the government faces in recruiting and selecting 

the next generation of Federal employees, which I will discuss. I 

will also discuss efforts undertaken by the Office of Personnel Management and several other Federal agencies to address these challenges. 

Our studies have shown that there are four primary barriers 

that often prevent qualified applicants from seeking employment 

with the Federal Government. These include: The length of the 

process, the complexity of the process, the use of ineffective candidate assessment tools, and an absence of an effective marketing 

strategy. 

First, with respect to the hiring process, research conducted by 

the MSPB has shown that it is not uncommon for successful applicants to wait 5 months or more to receive job offers. Of course, the 

longer the process takes, the more applicant attrition is likely to 

occur. 

A second barrier is the complexity of the process. Decentralization of the hiring process has added to the complexity because 

there is no standard application and there are no uniform assessment processes. Applicants must submit different applications and 

other required forms to each agency with which they seek employment. 

A third issue of concern regarding the Federal Government’s 

ability to hire a high-quality workforce is how Federal employers 

assess the relative qualifications of job applicants. The assessment 

tools many agencies use are simply not effective predictors of success on the job. 

Finally, the Federal Government often fails to market itself effectively as an employer of choice. MSPB’s research shows that Federal vacancy announcements are often poorly written, difficult to 

understand, and filled with jargon and unnecessary information. 

Consequently, many announcements actually discourage potential 

applicants from applying for Federal jobs. 

The Office of Personnel Management has attempted to address 

these challenges in a variety of ways. OPM has worked with agencies to improve the timeliness of the process. OPM has also instituted new hiring flexibilities, such as category rating, and developed new hiring authorities, including the Federal Career Intern 

Program, and authorized direct hiring authority as needed by agencies. OPM has also instituted a 45-day hiring model and is working 

with agencies to achieve this goal. 

10 

OPM has also worked to improve Federal vacancy announcements. This has included working with agencies to develop a job 

announcement template for use in conjunction with the USAJOBS 

website that is more streamlined and user friendly. OPM has also 

been working on the development of standard job announcements 

for a set of occupations that cut across agencies. Finally, OPM is 

working with the Chief Human Capital Officer Council to identify 

additional hiring reforms that will speed the process and protect 

merit. 

A number of other Federal agencies have demonstrated that it is 

possible for the government to effectively compete for talent. Our 

2004 report, ‘‘Managing Federal Recruitment: Issues, Insights, and 

Illustrations,’’ cited a number of interesting practices that improved agencies’ ability to recruit and hire qualified candidates. For 

example, a former Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting 

Service led recruitment events at his alma mater. These efforts 

conveyed his commitment to effective recruitment and made a positive impression on candidates. Another agency, the Government 

Accountability Office, assigns senior executives and a recruiting 

team to targeted colleges and universities. The Social Security Administration built an agency-wide marketing campaign around a 

single tag line and targets marketing materials to specific needs 

and audiences. These organizations have made recruitment an organizational priority, allocated the resources necessary for it, and 

employed proactive and creative approaches in their recruitment 

strategies. 

Similarly, at the MSPB we have attempted to streamline and improve our own hiring practices. This included revising our vacancy 

announcements, implementing category rating, and using a multiple hurdle assessment approach that did away with lengthy 

knowledge, skills, and ability write-ups. 

MSPB offers the following recommendations to guide reform and 

improve the Federal hiring process: 

First, agencies should manage hiring as a critical business process, not an administrative function that is relegated to the human 

resources staff. This means integrating discussions of hiring needs, 

methods, and outcomes into the agency’s business planning processes. 

Second, agencies should evaluate their own internal hiring practices to identify barriers to high-quality, timely, and cost-effective 

hiring decisions. Agencies will probably be surprised to see that 

many of the barriers they face are self-imposed. 

Third, we recommend that agencies, with the assistance of OPM, 

employ rigorous assessment strategies that emphasize selection 

quality, not just cost and speed. In particular, agencies should use 

assessment instruments that have a relatively good ability to predict future performance. 

Finally, we recommended that agencies implement sound marketing practices and better recruitment strategies, improve their 

vacancy announcements, and communicate more effectively with 

applicants. These reforms may well encourage applicants to await 

a final decision rather than abandon the Federal job search in 

favor of employment elsewhere. 

11 

1The prepared statement of Mr. McDermott appears in the Appendix on page 71. 

This concludes my statement today, and again, I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for the opportunity to appear this morning, and I am 

happy to respond to questions from you or Senator Voinovich. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Dr. Crum. 

Now we proceed to Mr. McDermott for your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES F. McDERMOTT,1 DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF HUMAN RESOURCES, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Voinovich. I am glad to be here to talk about NRC’s hiring practices. 

In the fall of 2005, Chairman Nils Diaz and I met with Senator 

Voinovich to talk about our plans to increase the agency’s size to 

handle the new work coming our way. And Senator Voinovich 

asked me could I hire 350 people in that year. Well, historically 

NRC was hiring about 220 people per year, so to the mild displeasure of Chairman Diaz, I said, ‘‘Three hundred? Probably. 

Three hundred and fifty would be a stretch.’’ But in the end, we 

hired 371 people in that fiscal year for a net gain of 175 in the 

staff. 

The next year, we hired 441 people and gained a net of 216, and 

this year, we are on the way to more than 400 hires and will hit 

our target of 200 net gain this year. Forty-five people will start at 

NRC next Monday. 

I think there are four key factors that have made our hiring program successful. The first is the mission. Protecting the public and 

the environment is a challenge that attracks a broad range of individuals. Its mission resonates with the young and with the not so 

young. About half the people we hired in fiscal year 2007 were over 

the age of 40. 

What we have done is improve the way we highlight the value 

of the mission and the value of a career at NRC. We spend a lot 

of money to upgrade our ads, our displays, and our videos to try 

and tell a compelling story about a consistent message: Make our 

mission yours. 

The second big key to our success is management commitment 

and support. Chairman Klein introduces himself as my chief recruiter, claims he works for me. He does. He is constantly setting 

off my BlackBerry with buzzes about ‘‘I found this resume,’’ ‘‘Talk 

to this person,’’ things like that. The other Commissioners participate, and it carries right down through the staff. We have managers who are passionate about recruiting people. They get involved at the recruitment events. They follow up afterwards with 

candidates and prospects. And they push the mechanisms in the 

agency to get the job offer out. They say, ‘‘Hey, where is the offer 

to this young person I talked to at the campus?’’ This commitment 

is not lost on the candidates, who recognize that investing in people 

is a real top priority at the NRC. 

My third factor in NRC’s recruitment strategy is maximum use 

of the hiring flexibilities. We routinely offer recruitment bonuses, 

flexible work schedules, AND teleworking opportunities. And for 

12 

mid- and late-career candidates, the Federal Health Benefits Program, which includes guaranteed health benefits coverage in retirement, is an absolutely huge attractor. 

The Energy Policy Act—thank you very much—of 2005 gave us 

some particularly useful tools. We can cover housing and transportation expenses for cooperative education students during their 

work periods at NRC. This has made it economically feasible for 

students from outside the metropolitan area to come and work at 

NRC during work periods or during the summers. The act also provided us the authority to waive the pension-salary offset when you 

are hiring retirees either to meet sudden critical skill needs or for 

short-term knowledge transfer efforts to mitigate the loss of critical 

skills through retirement. 

The fourth key that we use is our reputation as a great place to 

work. We highlight our rankings in the surveys and being cited as 

a best diversity company, and one result of this employee-friendly 

culture is we have about 3,000 recruiters in the agency. They talk 

to their colleagues and former associates about what a good place 

NRC is to work, and that word of mouth is a top source of good, 

quality candidates. Personally, I got both of the jobs I got in the 

Federal Government by word of mouth, not by the vacancy announcement process. 

But, obviously, our program is still a work in progress. We are 

working hard with OPM to improve the end-to-end hiring process. 

We have completed one and we are engaged in two other Lean Six 

Sigma reviews to identify ways to improve our cycle times, and we 

have established targets, and we have got them in our operating 

plans. And we are working with OPM and others to try and share 

this stuff with the government at large so the government becomes 

an employer of choice. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to you. I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. McDermott. 

Let me read to you, the panel, what a few people wrote this week 

on the Washington Post Federal Diary online discussion in response to articles on the Federal hiring process. 

One person said, ‘‘The biggest problem with Federal hiring is 

that it is too slow. There are many who would make great public 

servants who do not even apply because the government has that 

reputation.’’ 

Another person said, ‘‘I decided not to apply for other Federal 

jobs. Not worth the effort.’’ 

Yet another said, ‘‘For private sector jobs, you send a resume, 

references, and a cover letter. For government jobs, you fill out 

endless forms, and if you miss one, you are out.’’ 

You all represent agencies with recruitment and hiring programs. Do you think applicants say the same about your agency, 

what I just mentioned? What do you think we can do about this? 

That is the question. 

Let me begin with Mr. Goldenkoff. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, I think as we have discussed, the hiring 

process definitely needs to be streamlined. It is too paper-based, it 

is very cumbersome. When I think of all the thousands and thousands of applicants who apply for Federal employment each year, 

13 

one person comes to mind, and that is my daughter and what 

would attract her to the Federal Government. And basically there 

are so many other opportunities out there in the private sector, and 

I think that she would be turned off, and I know she is already 

turned off, by just the thought of this daunting process as we saw 

earlier with those displays. So that is one thing, simplifying the 

process. 

Another factor that agencies would need to consider is being 

much more aggressive on college campuses and elsewhere in their 

recruiting. The Government Accountability Office, for example, 

goes out and establishes long-term relationships with colleges and 

universities. There is a lead recruiting team for each of about 27 

national schools and about 15 target universities that we have included because they have high concentrations of minority students. 

Each team is led by a senior executive, and they are expected to 

go out there and establish relationships with the students, with the 

faculty, and the administrators. 

The point to all this is that we just do not go out to the schools 

when we have something to sell, when we need people. We go out 

there, we teach classes, we serve on panels, and that is very effective. What it does is it brands your organization as a good place 

to work. 

So those are two approaches right there: Simplifying the process 

and more aggressive outreach. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Goldenkoff. Ms. Bailey. 

Ms. BAILEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To add to what the gentleman had mentioned, I also believe that one of the things that 

we can do that I had mentioned in my testimony is the idea of 

streamlining the job announcements themselves. As you demonstrated, where you had eight pages for a job announcement, it 

is very possible to take those down to where it is at least three to 

four pages of things that are very direct, hit up front on those key 

issues that are important to prospective employees—for example, 

pay—and do not talk to it in terms of GS–5, GS–7, because no one 

has a clue what that means. So we need to go after and we need 

to be very clear on what the salary is exactly that an employee can 

expect. 

With regard to our benefits, we have a wealth of benefits. We 

need to advertise those because what I think most of the studies 

that GAO and MSPB have shown is that it is not always about the 

pay. A lot of times what people are actually looking for has to do 

with our flexible work schedules, our teleworking, our ability to 

work in different locations, whether it is Guam for the United 

States Navy or it is with the NRC here in the Washington, DC 

area. 

So there is a wide range of things that we can do to actually get 

up front, market who we are, be very specific about that, and then 

talk in much more plain language with regard to what it is that 

we are looking for, whether it is knowledge, skills, and abilities. 

We kind of beat ourselves up occasionally over the idea of assessing employees. Should we do it up front or should we do it in a 

more hurdled approach? I think that both of them have merit, and 

we could probably argue those points on both sides. But whichever 

method that we choose, we have to be very cognizant of the fact 

14 

that the very baseline of our merit system principles is that our selections will be based solely on the ability, the skills, and the 

knowledge of individuals when we make those kinds of selections. 

We have to be very clear in our ability to balance both the assessment of those individuals without making it look like it is such 

an arduous process. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. Crum. 

Mr. CRUM. Yes, I would say the first thing we need to do is have 

agencies look more closely at themselves and what they are doing. 

Oftentimes, I think that they have developed processes that they 

continue to use because they have always done it that way, instead 

of reviewing what they are doing to see whether they can be done 

better. 

In many agencies that we have looked at, management is not 

taking its recruiting and selection as seriously as they should. They 

get people, but do they get the best people? They do not really 

know. Their processes are, again, institutionalized and oftentimes 

turned over to human resources staffs without sufficient involvement with management. 

Our view is that management—this is a key objective of management—is to create a workforce for both today and for tomorrow, not 

just look at who we can get in at the moment but, in fact, build 

that workforce of the future. So I think agencies have to, in fact, 

review their processes and see whether there are ways in which 

they can do it better. I think that there are. 

I think another issue is one of applying for jobs across agencies. 

Right now every time a person submits an application for a job in 

one agency, that application is not usually transferable to another 

job in a different agency. They will have to resubmit a new application, fill out new KSAs, in fact, be involved in a very long process 

that is frequently off-putting. So I think that having a facility to 

submit at least a basic application for common jobs across agencies 

would be a big help. 

Additionally, as Ms. Bailey mentions, I think we could do a better job of marketing ourselves. We do have an awful lot to offer. 

Right now we have very passive recruitment strategies. We either 

rely on people who are in the agencies to tell us about what they 

do or tell their friends about what they do, or we rely on 

USAJOBS. We have so much to offer that if we could reach people 

with the fact that we have a chance to make a difference in people’s lives, that we have interesting missions, that we have benefits, I think we could, in fact, entice many more people to apply for 

Federal jobs. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. McDermott. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Well, I would say that in regard to a lot of the 

processes, our best boast is we are no worse than anybody else. But 

what we trade on is getting the managers involved. Take the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. We send a big team—we blitz 

them. We have done that every year since 2000, and we take eight 

or nine people down there, half of them senior executives who really model what a career with NRC could be. It pays off. And then 

I tell them, ‘‘You are here to sell on Friday and screen on Saturday.’’ 

15 

So we market—actually, we get in about Wednesday. We talk to 

them, we get them all lined up, we get the best and brightest. Then 

we screen them. We sit in a room. I am sitting at a typewriter in 

the room, and if I get a nod from the interviewer, I am writing an 

offer letter. And we say, ‘‘Here.’’ And we do not talk about Grade 

5 or 7. We say, ‘‘This is a good life. Come to work for us and in 

3 or 4 years you will be making $80,000 a year.’’ That is an offer 

letter that Mom and Dad are real happy to see when they take it 

home. 

These things work for us, and we think that if we sell and then 

if we are smart and get the right people doing the screening, we 

can do things a lot faster. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. McDermott. 

What I will do is ask my Ranking Member for his questions, and 

I will come back to a second round. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. Mr. McDermott, I am tickled 

that those flexibilities we enacted in the 2005 Policy Act really 

have made a difference for the NRC. I was just telling one of the 

young ladies behind me, I said, ‘‘Doesn’t that really make you feel 

good?’’ [Laughter.] 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. It makes me feel good. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Ms. Bailey, you have been with OPM for 

how long? 

Ms. BAILEY. Six months, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Is this the first time you have testified? 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, it is, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, you are probably pretty nervous, I suspect. You did a good job with your opening statement, by the way. 

Ms. BAILEY. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And I have to say that at the end of your 

testimony, the suggestions that you are making to effect change 

seem to be very good. The real issue is whether or not you can actually get them done. 

Why has it taken so long for OPM to address this issue? 

Ms. BAILEY. Senator, we have been trying to fix the hiring process for the last 10 to 15 years. I think that a lot of very good initiatives have been done over the years. The 45-day model is a good 

start at that. Using the scorecard method with the agencies and 

drawing attention to their human capital practices is another good 

area that we have started. 

Under Deputy Director Weizmann, one of the things that when 

he first came on board that we talked about is the fact that what 

we need to look at, though, is we need to look at the hiring process 

as an end-to-end thing. 

Senator VOINOVICH. When did Deputy Director Howard Weizmann start his work? 

Ms. BAILEY. In July 2007. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. 

Ms. BAILEY. When I then came on board, we sat down and we 

had a discussion about it because the issue that was very important to him was this charge that we needed to fix the hiring process. And from my years of experience in the operating world out 

in the field, not at the policy headquarters level, there are a lot of 

things that you can see when you are out in the operating area 

16 

that you can see the policy drives much of what we do within the 

operations area. 

The discussion centered around the fact that what we had to look 

at the hiring process we had to look at the root causes of what was 

causing some of these issues and go after those root causes. Because it is not always about a new hiring authority or a new automated tool. Sometimes it goes back to basic staffing and recruiting. 

Sometimes it goes back to having basic commitment from top senior leadership that they are actually going to see themselves as the 

agency’s recruiter, and it is not simply something that is thrown 

over the shelf to a GS–7 HR specialist. 

So in looking at that, we said it starts with workforce planning. 

Quite frankly, if the agencies—and we are at an agency as well. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I hate to interrupt you, but—— 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator VOINOVICH [continuing]. The first thing you ought to do 

is get back to us on your plan. One of the things that is a concern 

to me right now, Senator Akaka, is we are getting toward the end 

of the current Administration. 

Ms. BAILEY. OK. 

Senator VOINOVICH. It takes a while to get things done. I know 

that. The first thing I would do is straighten out OPM’s internal 

application process. OPM ought to be able to do that in a very 

short period of time. There are some good models being discussed 

here. I would encourage you to look at the forms they are using, 

and come up with a new form for OPM. OPM is supposed to be the 

lead personnel management agency, and its application stinks. So 

OPM ought to straighten that one out in the beginning, and hopefully in the process of doing that the agency could share that reform with some of the other agencies that have the same type of 

challenges. There are some good role models here. You do not have 

to hire a consultant. Go talk to Mr. McDermott. Talk to Mr. Crum. 

Go over to the General Accountability Office and get them in a 

room. Get a hold of your CHCO Council people. Have they been 

bothering with this or talking about it at all? 

Ms. BAILEY. Absolutely, yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. What have they done? 

Ms. BAILEY. The Chief Human Capital Officers are intricately involved in the entire hiring process, and they also are working with 

us on the streamlining of the templates. We deliberately chose to 

go after working with the Chief Financial Officer Council to address the accountant and accounting technician, and our next initiative that we are working on right now is with the Federal Acquisition Institute to go after the acquisition community, because what 

there is is a need for us to work within the communities of interest, 

not just within the HR communities. So in collaboration with the 

Chief Human Capital Officers and the communities such as acquisition, we are able to take this and put forth one face to the applicants to be America’s buyer as the acquisition community sees 

themselves. 

So there is a tremendous effort going on right now to collaborate 

together with the different communities, to pull together and create 

one face to these applicants. 

Senator VOINOVICH. When? 

17 

Ms. BAILEY. We are doing that right now, and actually we have 

the template finished. It is in the clearance process. We plan to 

have that implemented by July 1. We also are going to work with 

the acquisition community to create a centralized register to address, as Dr. Crum has said, this idea of every time you apply for 

a job, you have to apply for it under a different method. So, by July 

1, we are going to roll out with the acquisition community the idea 

of a centralized register. You apply for one job. You get to pick the 

location. You can pick the agencies that you are interested in. And 

then we will issue those registers. 

The other thing that we are looking at is this whole idea of assessment. We also are going to work with the acquisition community to create a streamlined assessment that directly goes after the 

competencies that the acquisition community is interested in rather than a one-size-fits-all approach so that we can eliminate this 

need for agencies to think that you have to do both an assessment 

exam and then turn around and address what we call the KSAs. 

We are collaborating with both the human resources professionals and with those communities to say this is your field, this 

is your expertise. Work with us so that we can come up with exactly what it is that you want to do to assess and be able to predict 

the successful outcome of that applicant. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Are you a Civil Service employee? 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, I am. 

Senator VOINOVICH. That means that you will be around to continue to push to reform this process. 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, I am leading this project that I am referring to. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Have you been working with Mr. Stier, 

President, Partnership for Public Service, who is going to testify on 

the next panel? 

Ms. BAILEY. Yes, actually, we are working with him. We also are 

working with the Corporate Leadership Council. We are working 

with MSPB. So we are working with a host of people, and to be 

honest, we are also working with ordinary citizens, I mean literally 

going out and asking them, showing them these job announcements 

that are egregious and saying to them, ‘‘Would you apply for this 

job?’’ The answer is, ‘‘No.’’ ‘‘All right. Let’s talk about what it is 

that we can do to write this in plain language.’’ Because when an 

HR specialist looks at it, what looks like plain language to me is 

not plain language to a 21-year-old junior in college. 

And so by working with private citizens and pulling together all 

the different information that we have, we are able to, I think, 

come up with something that is—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a written strategic plan on what OPM is going to do in order to meet the 

goal that Ms. Bailey has talked about today—— 

Ms. BAILEY. OK. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Within that plan, I would like to know what 

are the things that OPM is going to do in order to achieve success 

and some idea of timing so that Senator Akaka and I can sit down 

and look at the total picture. Maybe you can come in to see us or 

talk with our staff. I would like to monitor what OPM is doing so 

that it actually gets done what it claims to want to accomplish and 

18 

also identify any impediments where maybe we can provide some 

kind of blocking in order to make it happen. 

Ms. BAILEY. OK. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I have to tell you there is an urgency here. 

This has got to get done. OPM’s plan cannot just meander down 

the stream until next year and hope something is going to get 

done. We have to get on this right away. 

Ms. BAILEY. I agree, Senator Voinovich. We will do that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

He is correct. We are going to be pushing this, and we look forward to your help in bringing this about. 

Let me ask this of Ms. Bailey and of Mr. McDermott. Most private employers only require applicants to submit a resume and 

cover letter to apply for a position, yet Federal agencies still use 

the complicated KSAs—knowledge, skills, and abilities—questionnaire to evaluate candidates. Why aren’t Federal agencies using resumes and cover letters to evaluate candidates? Ms. Bailey. 

Ms. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I just would like to read 

very quickly from the merit system principles because I think it 

sets the stage and puts some of this into context for all of us. 

‘‘Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a workforce 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.’’ 

I think what we have done over the years is we have kind of misinterpreted that perhaps a bit to say that somehow there is a requirement then for potential employees to have to literally address 

every single knowledge, skills, and abilities that we are looking for. 

The new approach that we are taking with these templates and 

with what we are working with the Chief Human Capital Officers 

on is we have a requirement to list the knowledge that we are looking for and the skills that we are looking for and the ability. I 

mean, even the Washington Post position that was demonstrated by 

Senator Voinovich’s staff, even in there they address the qualifications, what they are looking for: That an individual would possess 

oral and written communication skills, for example. 

So we cannot lose sight of the fact that we have an obligation to 

tell people what we are looking for, what exactly we are looking for, 

but we do not have a requirement to then make them write everything—write it out in pages and pages of dialogue. There are many 

methods for assessing employees and assessing whether or not they 

have those knowledge, skills, and abilities, and a resume is one 

way of doing so. 

At the agency I worked at before with the Department of Defense, we did away with this idea of KSAs 7 years ago, and we use 

resumes only. It was an automated system. It came in and it did 

a word search. And there are some pitfalls with that, too, in that 

if you do not do your resume well and sometimes with the younger 

generation or even any generation, they struggle with how to do a 

good resume. 

19 

I think that seasoned executives have that down pat, but a college student sometimes struggles with what exactly he needs to put 

on a resume. 

So as a result of that, what we found is that we needed to balance this idea of using expediency—a resume only—with the idea 

that at some point in time we also have to have the ability to assess whether or not in particular a GS–15 at a leadership position, 

do they really have the knowledge that we are looking for, or the 

skills or the abilities, to lead someone. So we went back and we reinstituted having them address four or five basic questions in that 

regard. That, coupled with structured interviews or having other 

interview panels that were diverse, actually led us to having better 

selections of our leadership positions. 

The notion that there should be no reason for us to assess employees concerns me just a little bit in that there has to again be 

a balance between being able to provide up front to employees exactly what it is that you are looking for, and then being able on 

the tail end to assess whether or not those individuals had that. 

The military has one of the most advanced and sophisticated assessment processes in the world. It is 225 questions with eight different sections. It takes hours to complete. In doing research on 

this whole idea of templates and how best to assess, I went in and 

I applied at Panera Bread, so if this does not work out, I will 

maybe be doing that. [Laughter.] 

But, anyhow, I went into Panera Bread, and I applied for that, 

and believe it or not, you do an application up front, which, yes, 

even asked for my Social Security number and everything else. It 

was a five-page application, and it ended with a 212-question questionnaire for me to fill out in order to work at Panera Bread to see 

if I was a right fit for them. 

And so sometimes what concerns me, Mr. Chairman, is that in 

our quest to simplify all of this, if we want to do assessments that 

are important enough for the military and for some of the private 

sector, I want to make sure that those that are coming in to serve 

the public, which is what we do as Federal employees, that we 

have some method of also assessing them in such a way as to ensure that they, too, are a right fit within the Federal Government. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. McDermott. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Well, part of the problem is we have been seduced by technology. We thought the computer will make the judgments that need to be made to make sure we hire the right person. 

That is not true. That is not going to happen. 

The other thing we do is we write everything for the trial. It is 

very defensive. We practically require a legal brief from the applicant to prove that they are going to be the best qualified. We have 

got to not do that. 

Our newest Commissioner, Kristine Svinicki, asked me, she said, 

‘‘I need a staff. How are you going to get me staff?’’ I said, ‘‘I am 

going to ask them for a one-page resume and a cover letter that 

says, ‘Dear Commissioner: Here is what I could do for you.’’’ Stop. 

She said, ‘‘That ought to work.’’ And I said to myself that should 

work for every job that we are filling. We need to simplify this 

stuff. 

20 

And at the NRC, I am working to make this change. There are 

a lot of things we do to make selections that we should have done 

in the assessment phase, not at the selection phase. Let’s talk to 

people. That is really how you find out. There are two things I say: 

Talk to them and figure out whether they are good or not, and then 

use the probationary period when you are hiring a new employee, 

because you are not really going to know until you put them to 

work and see how well they work. So use it. And if they are good, 

they are good. Great. If they are not, bye-bye. That is how we 

should proceed in my view. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Now this question is for the panel. 

OPM has said that 85 percent of Federal agencies have met the 45- 

day model for hiring new employees. However, according to a recent MSPB report, applicants still complain about the lengthy process it takes to get hired. 

How long does it really take to hire a Federal employee from the 

date a vacancy is announced, an announcement is made and is 

posted? And if it is long, why does it take so long? Mr. Goldenkoff. 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Well, I think part of the answer to why there 

seems to be a disconnect between this 45-day hiring model and the 

perceptions of applicants is what the 45-day time period measures 

and what the applicants are expecting. The 45-day time period, in 

my understanding, is from when the announcement closes to when 

an offer is made. But the applicants, what they care about is when 

they actually come on board. And the vacancy announcement could 

have been open for months. So from that perspective, it is a much 

longer time frame, so I think that in developing these hiring models, the hiring models need to get in sync with the expectations of 

the applicants. So I think that would explain that disconnect. 

As far as how long it should take, I can only speak for my own 

agency where the vacancy announcement is open for several weeks. 

There is a first paper cut, and those who make that initial cut 

come in for job interviews, and we talk to them face to face. So 

rather than applying these lengthy KSAs, we have already established the competencies that make a successful GAO employee. It 

is critical thinking. It is writing. It is oral communication skills. 

So then, in the course of the interview, we ask questions that get 

at those competencies. We just hired a bunch of summer interns 

back in March. I know in some cases for people that I interviewed, 

we called them up the next day to make job offers. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. Let me add another question to this, and 

that is whether you have any recommendations about speeding up 

this process. Ms. Bailey. 

Ms. BAILEY. We are actually working with the Chief Human Capital Officers to develop this and look at it from end to end. You are 

absolutely right. The 45-day model is a nice start, but it is not 

truthful. And for employees, for potential applicants, what they are 

looking at is exactly as Mr. Goldenkoff has said, is that they are 

looking at when do they actually report on board. So it needs to 

be from the point that you drop the recruitment into the pipeline 

and then follow it the whole way through. 

The other thing that we need to do is improve the communications to the applicants. We fail at that mostly in that we use, 

again, as Mr. McDermott said, we are using automation to do some 

21 

of that rather than to reach out to the applicant and say to them, 

‘‘Here is exactly what to expect. If you are applying for this job 

within the Department of Homeland Security, Defense, or wherever, you can expect 30 to 45 days for your security background investigation. It is very important to us, because you are protecting 

the borders of the United States, that you meet certain qualifications within that regard.’’ 

So some of this is just managing people’s expectations. If I knew 

exactly how long it was going to take and you hit the mark on that, 

then I can plan my life around it. It is the inability of—or it is the 

surprise of not really ever knowing when you are going to get back 

to me that is the issue at hand. 

So part of the effort that we have with OPM that we are co-leading with the CHCO Council is to make sure that we establish a 

government-wide standard that talks about what exactly it is from 

end to end, not talking anymore about the 45-day model, but from 

end to end what can you expect, and what should agencies hire 

within that? We are looking at around 80 days right now for the 

government-wide standard from end to end, and that includes the 

security and the suitability process of this as well. 

The other government-wide standard is the communications 

standard. We have to establish that agencies provide some type of 

communications to applicants. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Crum. 

Mr. CRUM. First of all, the 45-day standard is 45 business days. 

That is not necessarily meaningful to applicants because that 

translates to 63 real days for them. So it is 2 months for them, not 

really a month and a half. 

When we ask people who have recently taken Federal jobs how 

long the right amount of time would be, two-thirds of them said 

about 2 months. So, again, if they are kept informed, 2 months 

seems to be a reasonable time, if we can meet that. When we asked 

the people, again, who came on board with us, we found that really 

only about 35 to 40 percent of them were, in fact, hired within that 

time frame. That illustrates to me that it can be done, but it often 

is not done, that, in fact, the process often does take longer even 

though it could be quicker. 

There are a lot of the reasons, I think, for the fact that it takes 

as long as it does. One main reason is because of a lack of management commitment to do things more quickly. What we have heard 

from all of the panel is that when there is management involvement and emphasis, things can be done quickly. Things can be 

done and prepared in advance that sometimes are not. For instance, crediting plans may not be developed until applicants have 

already applied for jobs. This wastes time. Management may not 

schedule interviews except at their convenience rather than in a 

timely way that meets the needs of applicants. So a lot of the 

scheduling of things can be better controlled, I think, by the agencies, should they choose to do so. But it requires that sort of management commitment to make that difference. 

All the while I have to echo the other point that I made earlier: 

It is critically important that we keep applicants informed of their 

status. We lose, I think, a lot of people because it is a black hole 

to them. Applications come in, they do not know what happens. 

22 

What we hear is that people are willing to take 2 months if they 

know where they are in the process, if they know they are being 

considered. When they do not know, even 2 months seems like a 

very long time. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. McDermott. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Well, I should say that I have been working 

with Angie and Howie Weizmann because I need things—there are 

things I can learn from them. They are finding out good stuff. I 

have a little system. We call it ‘‘Rats,’’ because it rats out managers. It says, ‘‘Where is the ball right now on this particular hiring case?’’ And I find out that the biggest place, is awaiting a management decision on the selection. So I get apoplectic, and I start 

pounding on people and say, ‘‘Come on.’’ 

We used to use an awful lot of panels where I didn’t think we 

needed a panel. I just needed a good reviewer of the case. So I 

would ask myself, ‘‘Who really wants to hire this person? Who 

needs the person?’’ That is the person that I would appoint to be 

the reviewing official. Funny how fast it got done then, and it did 

not get delayed and delayed. 

The other thing, everybody has to get the equivalent of a secret, 

or an L clearance, to get in the door at NRC. That is sort of the 

pig and the python problem. The pig used to be at the front end 

of the python, and OPM—thank you very much—has fixed it. They 

are getting the investigations back to us in a pretty timely fashion 

now. The pig has moved down the python, and I am yelling at my 

security people, ‘‘You need to hire more adjudicators.’’ When I am 

desperate, I say, ‘‘Would you go to that bookcase? I know that in 

that stack of files you have got one already back on so-and-so that 

I need today. So please pull that one and adjudicate it.’’ An hour 

later, I get the word they are cleared, they are fine, bring them on. 

We have to deal with all the applicants that way because—now, 

I do not have a problem with the college kids because I am hiring 

them, if I am smart, in November and December, and they are 

coming to work in May or June. I have enough problem to take 

care of that. But the mid-career person? They are not going to wait 

forever for the job. I have got to move them faster. So put them 

at the top of the pile. Those are the things we worry about. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. I just want to be clear, 

before I call on Senator Voinovich for other questions, that I am 

not suggesting that candidates should not be assessed. We need to 

break down barriers that deter candidates from applying, and I 

thank you folks for your responses. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions. I 

think you have done a good job. I think we should let these folks 

go and get to the next panel. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, I do have more questions, and I will submit them for the record. And I want to really thank you for your 

responses. It has been helpful, and we look forward to continuing 

to work with you and look for the best ways of improving the process. So let me thank our first panel very much. 

Senator VOINOVICH. May I just ask one question. 

Senator AKAKA. Senator Voinovich. 

23 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Gage appears in the Appendix on page 75. 

Senator VOINOVICH. How long do you need to get the strategic 

plan in our hands? 

Ms. BAILEY. Is 2 weeks OK? 

Senator VOINOVICH. That is fine. And if you cannot do it, then 

I would like you to call and say why you have not been able to do 

it. OK? 

Ms. BAILEY. I will, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Ms. BAILEY. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, again, thank you very much to our first 

panel. I will be calling up panel two. Thank you. 

We are happy to have our second panel here: John Gage, who is 

the National President, American Federation of Government Employees; Colleen Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees Union; Dan Solomon, Chief Executive Officer, Virilion, Incorporated; Max Stier, President, Partnership for Public Service; 

and Donna Mathews, Principal, Federal Sector Programs, Hewitt 

Associates LLC. 

Our Subcommittee rules, as you know, require that the witnesses 

testify under oath, so will you please rise and raise your right 

hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 

give the Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 

but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. GAGE. I do. 

Ms. KELLEY. I do. 

Mr. SOLOMON. I do. 

Mr. STIER. I do. 

Ms. MATHEWS. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Let it be noted in the record that the witnesses answered in the 

affirmative. Let me also remind you that although your oral statement is limited to 5 minutes, your full statement will be included 

in the record. 

Mr. Gage, will you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY JOHN GAGE,1 NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO 

Mr. GAGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify here today on the question of overcoming obstacles to the hiring of the next generation of Federal employees. It is important to 

remember that, despite notions to the contrary, the private sector’s 

hiring methods are neither instantaneous nor trouble-free. In addition, while the Federal Government has some problems in its hiring practices, it is not the bumbling caricature it is so often portrayed to be. Moreover, we do not believe that the problems with 

Federal hiring are caused by adherence to the merit system and 

veterans’ preference. 

Hiring the next generation of Federal employees is a serious undertaking. Those charged with the task have a legal and social responsibility to conduct hiring in the most open and fair way possible, and the plain fact is that openness and fairness take a little 

time. Federal agencies must honor veterans’ preference. Internal 

24 

candidates who were selected into career ladder positions must be 

given the opportunities they have been promised. Background 

checks and security clearances have to be conducted. Education 

and prior employment must be verified. Working for a Federal 

agency is not the same as working at a pizza parlor, and it takes 

time to make sure an applicant meets the standards and requirements our society expects the Federal Government to uphold. 

Another explanation for the slowness in Federal hiring is the fact 

that agency personnel offices have often been decimated. There are 

too few hiring personnel to handle the duties in the most expeditious way. Hiring more Federal employees to work in agency 

human resources offices would obviously speed up the hiring process. The application process could also be streamlined without sacrificing the high standards of the merit system. Many prospective 

employees point to the lengthy sections of employment applications 

that require them to describe in great detail their ‘‘knowledge, 

skills, and abilities.’’ Some suggest that only those who pass an initial level of scrutiny be invited to fill out those forms. If that procedural reform were adopted, those asked to reveal their ‘‘knowledge, 

skills, and abilities’’ would at least know that they had successfully 

navigated the first hurdle in their quest for Federal employment 

and may perhaps be somewhat less resentful of the task. 

The Federal Workplace Flexibilities Act of 2006 enabled agencies 

to entice both internal job candidates and candidates who were not 

yet Federal employees with large bonuses equal to as much as 100 

percent of salary for recruitment, retention, relocation, and promises of help with student loan repayment. But not only has there 

been no funding for those flexibilities, the Administration has been 

at war with its own workforce on issues ranging from pay to 

outsourcing to collective bargaining to politicizing what should be 

absolutely apolitical government work. 

The Administration’s pay policies have hurt both recruitment 

and retention. For the General Schedule and the Federal Wage 

System, the Administration has proposed insultingly low pay adjustments in every annual budget. Without Congressional intervention, the real inflation-adjusted value of the Federal paycheck 

would have fallen considerably over the last 7 years. In addition, 

there has been a constant drumbeat of Administration complaint 

that the employees who received Federal pay raises did nothing to 

deserve a salary adjustment beyond surviving the ‘‘passage of 

time.’’ They argue that a new system based upon a supervisor’s 

opinion of each employee’s performance was needed. Yet in the two 

agencies where the Bush Administration obtained authority to do, 

the impact has been even worse. In addition to low morale in numerous large agencies documented by the OPM’s biennial Human 

Capital Survey, the prospect of a corrupt and highly politicized 

pay-for-performance system has prompted many to plan to retire or 

transfer as soon as the new pay system is imposed upon them. 

Although much emphasis is placed upon external candidates for 

Federal jobs, the retention of current employees should also be a 

priority because they often make the best candidates for Federal 

job openings. The Federal Government’s policies should encourage 

the employees in whom it has already invested to look for career 

25 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley appears in the Appendix on page 81. 

development possibilities within the government rather than outside it. 

And every time I see or hear an advertisement on radio or television for the military, I wonder why Federal agencies are not permitted to do the same thing for civilian Federal employment. The 

commercials for the Army, Navy, and Marines are compelling, professionally produced, and placed on the air at times when they are 

likely to have the greatest impact. I have no doubt that these advertisements have contributed greatly to the military’s ability to recruit even in a time of war. In contrast, Federal agencies are limited to using relatively inexpensive media and placing their on-air 

advertisements at inauspicious times, with predictable results. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I heard a lot today that I think our 

union can get behind, and I would like to say that for AFGE, some 

of the ideas I have heard are good, and we would certainly like to 

be part of the solution rather than the problem. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Gage. 

Ms. Kelley, will you please proceed with your statement? 

TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY,1 NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 

Ms. KELLEY. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Voinovich. I appreciate the opportunity to be before 

you today to review the challenges to recruiting and hiring candidates for Federal Government jobs and to offer some recommendations. 

Because we have had no comprehensive approach to hiring in the 

government since the PACE exam was thrown out in 1979, agencies have been tinkering with ways to attract and hire new employees. Unfortunately, that tinkering has often resulted in a narrow 

applicant pool and the end of what should be fair and open competition for Federal jobs. MSPB has found that between 2001 and 

2004, competitive examining was used for only 29 percent of total 

hires. I will address this first problem in greater detail. 

One of the tools that agencies increasingly rely on is the Federal 

Career Intern Program. This FCIP was originally intended to be a 

special focus hiring tool, aimed at providing structured, 2-year 

training and development ‘‘internships.’’ FCIP is now the hiring authority of choice in many agencies in the Federal Government. 

Since 2002, Customs and Border Protection has hired all of its 

officers under this program. For fiscal year 2005 and 2006, that is 

close to 5,000 employees. The IRS now fills positions such as revenue officer and revenue agents using the FCIP, and the FDIC has 

begun filling most entry-level positions using FCIP. We believe that 

FCIP rules give agencies excessively broad discretion to depart 

from the carefully designed and statutorily mandated competitive 

examination and selection requirements for the Federal Civil Service. Vacancy announcements do not have to be posted under FCIP. 

Veterans’ preference rights are diminished under FCIP, and agencies have discretion to make selection decisions without following 

rating and ranking processes or merit promotion plans. These misVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:48 Oct 07, 2008 Jkt 043085 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43085.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
26 

named ‘‘interns’’ are hired into the accepted service, creating a de 

facto 2- or 3-year probationary period instead of the standard 1- 

year probationary period for entry-level positions in the competitive 

service. 

In addition, although the Homeland Security Act contained 

changes from using the rule of three to what they call ‘‘category 

hiring,’’ Homeland Security hardly uses this. As do most agencies, 

they ignore it. Instead, they are relying on the FCIP, which MSPB 

studies have shown can narrow the applicant pool and create the 

perception of ‘‘unfair, arbitrary, or inequitable treatment.’’ 

One of the most frustrating things I hear is that if only management had more flexibility, they could recruit and retain employees 

much easier. It is frustrating to me because there are already flexibilities available to managers that they rarely use, including recruitment and retention bonuses, student loan repayment programs, telework, and flexitime. With greater use of these flexibilities, I believe we can attract more workers. I understand that in 

many cases, agency budgets have been slashed so significantly that 

there is no money for these flexibilities. Maybe we need to consider 

mandating that funds be allocated to these accounts so that they 

can really be used 

In addition to hiring policies, we need to focus on how to retain 

good employees. Currently, Federal workers see their jobs threatened by contracting-out competitions, with money needlessly spent 

proving they can do their jobs efficiently; they see a continual assault on their benefits, paying more for less every year; and they 

feel that although they work in the Federal Government because 

they want to make a difference, often management does not respect 

that or their dedication. 

The Department of Homeland Security recently released its annual workforce survey. The employees of Homeland Security overwhelmingly believe in what they do and regard it as an important 

part of our Nation’s safety. Unfortunately, that is about the only 

good news in the survey. Just 30 percent of Customs and Border 

Protection employees responded that they were satisfied with their 

involvement in workplace decisions. Only 27.1 percent believe their 

leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment. At 

TSA, only 20 percent of employees believe that promotions are 

based on merit. Only 22 percent of TSA employees felt that creativity and innovation are rewarded, 

Our transportation security officers at our airports are subject to 

most of the human resource management flexibilities this Administration often points to as advancing the recruitment and retention 

of a high-quality workforce. Those ‘‘flexibilities’’ at TSA have resulted in one of the most egregious personnel systems in the government. With management given a free rein, promotion rules are 

unknown, bonus points are distributed by favoritism, scheduling is 

at the whim of management, and you can be fired and told to go 

home for the slightest infraction or maybe without even knowing 

why. Grievances, filed in accordance with their internal grievance 

rules, sit stacked on a desk. All this and the lowest pay in the government, the lowest morale, and the highest attrition rate and injury rate. TSA is no showcase for anything except the worst-case 

scenario when the merit system is not followed. 

27 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Solomon appears in the Appendix on page 89. 

I believe we have it in our power to fix these problems. I think 

that OPM has to take a leadership role with the agencies. In addition, we believe that OPM needs to step up to its marketing and 

outreach to workers of all age groups. We would like to see a blueprint put together and funded by Congress for younger workers 

that would include TV ads, college campus tours, and job fairs. We 

need a comprehensive plan to increase the odds that the Federal 

Government can attract the best and the brightest that this country has to offer. The Federal Government’s missions will be complicated in the years ahead. We need to attract and retain a workforce that will meet these challenges, and NTEU also stands ready 

to work with OPM and with Congress to put in place systems that 

will ensure that the Federal Government becomes the employer of 

the future. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Kelley. 

Good to have you, Dan Solomon. Please give your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DAN SOLOMON,1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

VIRILION, INC 

Mr. SOLOMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Voinovich. 

I very much appreciate this opportunity to testify today. I have 

been asked to present my views regarding how Federal agencies 

can improve their recruitment to be more friendly to those between 

the ages of 25 and 35 years old through new media techniques. 

At the outset, let me state my deep admiration for those who 

serve the public through their Federal service. Personally, I have 

been honored to hold civilian positions in all three branches of government. I learned a great deal from those professional experiences 

and hope that my efforts were beneficial to those I served. 

Also let me express my appreciation for those who have primary 

responsibility for recruiting younger people for Federal service. 

Younger people are a difficult group to reach and engage. 

I will not take the Subcommittee’s time to recount the substantial research that shows the shift in media consumption patterns, 

especially among those 25 to 35 years old, away from television to 

online. And online, these people have a vast array of outlets and 

activities presented to them—causing the audience to be highly 

fragmented. And it is this rapidly changing and increasingly rich 

media landscape that makes the recruiters’ job even more difficult. 

That said this new media environment gives government agencies a greater opportunity to reach people who are in the process 

of looking for new career opportunities and to reach people without 

geographic limitations. Bottom line: People are looking for jobs are 

online and the government needs to be there to attract the best. 

Government recruiters should be encouraged to deploy the appropriate new media techniques at each stage of a job search or career 

change: When a person might be exploring Federal service, when 

they are considering different options, and when they are actually 

making the employment decision. 

The Internet is now the most frequented place to look for a job. 

According to a survey conducted by the Conference Board and TNS, 

nearly three-quarters of workers who looked for a job between JanVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:48 Oct 07, 2008 Jkt 043085 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43085.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
28 

uary and September of last year did so online. But it is no easy 

task for government recruiters to decide where to go online to attract job seekers and career changers. 

Search engines, such as Google and Yahoo!, are the on-ramp online for most people. If one types in ‘‘Federal jobs’’ into a search engine, USAJOBS—the government’s official job site—comes up 

prominently. But the challenge for recruiters is how to reach those 

who are not specifically looking for a Federal job. 

There are over 50,000 job boards online in this country. These include sites that are affiliated with newspapers, independent career 

sites, geographic specific sites, and niche sites run by professional 

associations and industry groups. Where to post and how to use 

these sites is a challenge for government recruiters. 

Social networking sites, such as LinkedIn and those sponsored by 

alumni groups, are increasingly popular for job hunting. According 

to a survey done by SelectMinds and reported in eMarketer, nearly 

three-quarters of GenYers said they viewed these networks as very 

important, compared with 66 percent for those between 30 and 39 

and 61 percent of workers over the age of 40. The challenge for the 

government recruiter is to appropriately participate in these communities to attract the attention of talented people. 

The Federal recruiter also needs to use online techniques to support their more traditional efforts offline. Offline efforts are, in fact, 

important to attracting people’s attention. According to a 2007 

study, in-person networking was used by 40 percent of the people 

to find jobs, and university career centers were used by 37 percent 

of college students. And according to the previously mentioned Conference Board study, more than one-half of job seekers said they 

networked through friends and colleagues. 

In this regard, Federal recruiters need to be recruiters—actively 

following up on possible leads they have generated through their 

own networking efforts by the systematic use of e-mail. Over time, 

these techniques in the Federal recruiters’ arsenal will include the 

use of mobile devices. 

The Federal recruiters also need to use new media techniques to 

reach the people who might influence the career decisions of the 

25- and 35-year-olds offline—particularly their parents and their 

friends. Sometimes the primary audience is not the job seeker 

themselves. This will take creativity, but needs to be an important 

focus. 

One thing is certain: The career of a Federal recruiter is certain 

to change, and I encourage the Subcommittee to look not just at 

what agencies can do to improve their communication efforts and 

their processes, but also to help the recruiters themselves improve 

their skills and expertise. For the government to ultimately attract 

talented people, Federal recruiters need to embrace the online 

world and convey an excitement about public service. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Solomon. Mr. Stier. 

29 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Stier appears in the Appendix on page 92. 

TESTIMONY OF MAX STIER,1 PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE 

Mr. STIER. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Senator Voinovich, 

for inviting me here, and more importantly, thank you for focusing 

on this vital issue. 

If I could take a step back and give a sense of what I see as the 

overall problem: I agree with OPM this is an end-to-end issue. You 

have three big buckets. 

First, the talent market is unaware of the opportunities that 

exist in government service. They simply do not think about it. It 

is not on their radar screen. And our data shows that is true for 

young talent as well as more experienced talent. 

Second, as this hearing has been hearing a lot about, the hiring 

process is broken, and more on that in a bit. 

But third, and equally important, once talent arrives in government, it is not managed in a way either to keep it or to ensure that 

it gives of its discretionary energy. So we need to work on all three 

buckets in order to ultimately get the end result of better performance from government. 

Your work is already making a very big difference. You heard a 

little bit about that from the first panel. I also wanted to focus on 

another example, and that is in the area of student loan repayment. That is a new barrier to entry for talent coming into government, for younger folks in particular, and it is an increasing burden as the cost of college and graduate education goes up. The student loan repayment authority that the government has is very important, and you see its use is increasing dramatically, from a 

standing start of nothing in 2002, 16 agencies using it for $3 million and 690 employees being helped, to 2006 in which you had 34 

agencies and nearly 6,000 employees being helped to the tune of 

$36 million. 

Now, clearly, more can be done. It is very powerful. Our data 

shows that it actually works, and we need to see more resources 

being put into it. But the point here is your work already is making 

a real difference. 

You also have a number of items in the pipeline that are very 

important, including your work on the Chief Management Officer, 

Senator Akaka, your Federal Supervisor Training Act, GOFEDS 

legislation, and many other things. 

I want, however, to pull out three specific recommendations to 

highlight from my written testimony. There are a lot of others in 

there, but I will focus on those three for the remaining time of my 

statement. 

First, I think we need to rethink that hiring process, again, from 

the applicant perspective and envision a bill of rights, an applicant 

bill of rights for how they should be treated through that hiring 

process. It needs to be clear. Two, they need to understand the 

value of the jobs and why they should be interested in them. It 

should be easy. Your point about going to a resume, I think, is exactly right. You do not need the KSAs. It needs to be transparent. 

Three, You need to know where you are in the process. If FedEx 

and UPS can do that with a package, government ought to be able 

30 

to do that with someone in the hiring process. And, four, it needs 

to be timely, and it needs to be done in a time frame that is not 

going to chase away a lot of talent. 

Those I believe are the four elements of what the applicant bill 

of rights ought to be, and it is something that the government 

needs to commit to doing and that you can hold the government accountable for. 

Now, we also can’t lose sight of the assessment process, which is 

not part of the applicant experience, and right now, by and large, 

the government assessment process is broken. And if you hire 

quickly or slowly, it doesn’t much matter if at the end of the day 

you hire poorly. And so that is something that we need to make 

sure we keep an eye on. 

Second, we need improved metrics. Now, how are we going to ensure that the applicant bill of rights is actually taking place? Well, 

we need to measure it in a transparent way. It needs to be public 

information so we really do understand how long it takes. We need 

to give people an understanding of where they are in the process. 

You can do that through applicant interviews. You can do that 

through what I think is going to be absolutely vital on the assessment process, which is identifying a metric for whether we are getting the right talent. If you really want to make sure that agencies 

are better managing this process, measure them and make those 

measurements transparent and available to you and to the public 

more broadly. 

I also think we need to reinforce the work you have already done 

around employee surveys, which are quite vital, and I think we can 

improve the legislation such that it is done centrally on an annual 

basis rather than the current process, which is biennial and each 

agency doing it on those off years. 

Third, is the transition. We have heard some very important 

things out of OPM, work that they are doing right now. We all 

know that the typical cycle in government is for things to either 

slow down or stop and then be reinvented when the next folks 

come in. And I think that this Subcommittee has a very important 

role in ensuring at least three things around the transition process: 

One, that the good management work that is being done right 

now gets carried on, and is absolutely important that we simply do 

not see either a slowdown of work or a reinvention of things that 

do not need to be reinvented. 

Two, we need to ensure that we are selecting the right talent for, 

in particular, the management positions that are going to be politically appointed, but more generally, that all political appointees 

that have management responsibilities have management capacity. 

And, three, we need to focus on ensuring that whoever is selected 

for those political jobs is actually prepared to work effectively in 

this environment. And there is a lot of work that needs to be done, 

and that means that they have to be prepared to understand how 

the system works, what the management challenges are, and how 

it is that they can actually engage and work with the career workforce in a way to solve these problems that all of us believe need 

to be solved. 

So thank you very much again for this opportunity. I look forward to working with you going forward. 

31 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Mathews appears in the Appendix on page 102. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Stier. 

Now we will hear from Ms. Mathews. 

TESTIMONY OF DONNA MATHEWS,1 PRINCIPAL, FEDERAL 

SECTOR PROGRAMS, HEWITT ASSOCIATES LLC 

Ms. MATHEWS. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Senator 

Voinovich. Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today 

to talk about this important issue and how leading companies approach recruitment. 

As you have heard a lot of the other panel members say today, 

it is expected that the next 5 to 10 years are likely going to be the 

most difficult recruiting environment in history: One, because we 

are faced with a shrinking workforce. It is estimated that by the 

year 2010 there will be 10 million more jobs than workers. Two, 

the workforce is becoming and will continue to increasingly become 

more virtual. Three, the workforce will become more diverse even 

than it is today. The global competition for talent will continue to 

increase. And, last, when it comes to the recruiting process itself, 

each of the individual stakeholders’ needs are going to continue to 

change as we move forward into the future. 

So if organizations do not address these challenges, their results 

will include mediocre hires, long hiring cycles, higher than expected costs, low retention rates, and a negative impact on the organization’s employment brand. 

Hewitt has worked with many large, private sector organizations 

over the years, and we have found that there are a lot of effective 

processes that can be put in place to make for a successful recruiting process. There is no silver bullet, however, but successful organizations do have four themes going for them. 

First, these organizations make talent acquisition the lifeblood of 

their success. As Mr. McDermott said, their leaders are very heavily involved. They become recruiters for the organization, and they 

continually are talking about the mission of the organization and 

what kind of people they need and the results they need for the organization. 

The second theme is a clearly articulated employment brand. We 

think a lot about a company’s brand to the market, but this is the 

company’s brand to its employees. It is a unique message from the 

employer to its employee base reinforcing the commitment that 

that employer makes to the employees. It is used to guide all decisions around the human capital programs. And companies that 

have these employment brands—and not everybody does—have reported an increase in not only employee retention, but also employee engagement, which results ultimately in improved business 

results. 

The third aspect that leading organizations focus on is creating 

the process, this end-to-end process that you have heard a lot about 

today. The first thing they do is from a business perspective they 

develop workforce plans. Basically, they look at the business results that they desire, and they figure out what kind of talent they 

are going to need for the next 3 to 5 years to get to those desired 

business results. 

32 

They focus on sourcing in a lot of different ways, and that is 

changing, again, as we move forward into the future. They actually 

do sourcing campaigns like employee referral programs, vendor relationships, and even people that are in the job—that are seeking 

jobs today, they will use those as sourcing opportunities also. They 

target diversity groups, university alumni, veterans returning to 

the workforce, stay-at-home moms. They even target people that 

have left the organization maybe in good favor that might want to 

come back. 

And then there is the talent assessment process, which, again, 

you have heard a lot about today, but they look beyond just the job 

requirements and the current capability of the candidate to what 

future potential and what role could this candidate play for the organization. They are really looking for elusive, sort of ‘‘hungry’’ 

quality—the people who are always unsatisfied with the status 

quo, their achievements to date, and willing to out-work and outhustle the competitors. 

And they have a formal onboarding and orientation process, and 

the companies that do this successfully are not viewing the orientation as a 1-day event. It is an ongoing process, and senior leaders 

are very involved and very visible. They measure the performance, 

especially in the first year, but in an ongoing way, in a very formal 

way. And they have the courage to deploy people in the best jobs 

for those individuals. 

Finally, they use a lot of technology. They use technology for the 

entire recruiting process, and, again, technology does not fix broken 

practices, but it does speed up the process and helps employers 

measure the effectiveness. So as we know, employees are the lifeblood of the organization and how an organization recruits, who it 

recruits, the accountabilities in place in the process all have a dramatic impact on the business, whether it is public or private. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Mathews. 

You all have been listening to the first panel respond to concerns 

about the need to address better recruitment, length of hiring process, complicated requirements, and a lack of communication. I 

want to ask each of you what you think of the first panel’s recommendations and recommendations on how to improve the hiring 

programs. So let me start with Mr. Gage. 

Mr. GAGE. I think I agree with a lot of them, I especially like Mr. 

McDermott, who said if you want to get it done, get the operational 

manager who has to have the employee, get him involved in that 

process. And it is interesting because in internal promotions it is 

this operational manager in most cases who will make those selections. But it seems that external hiring, it will be an HR person 

that might do that. So I thought that was very interesting. 

But I think both of you are on the right road here. It is 

practicalities, assure the fairness, but speed it up through abandoning the KSAs, for instance, which are really a mess. I do not 

think there is any way you really can write qualifications for the 

job down to bathroom breaks and expect someone to come in and 

try to meet those. 

So I think your emphasis on real practical approaches is the way 

to go, and I thought I heard some during the first panel. 

33 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Ms. Kelley. 

Ms. KELLEY. It was very good to hear NRC talk about how they 

have used the flexibilities that they were given and that they have 

put them to good use for the success of the agency. I wish there 

were more agencies that were doing that. For the most part, what 

I see agencies doing is having more flexibilities but not using them. 

So that was good news, and I hope others would follow suit. 

What I think has to happen is there has to be leadership from 

OPM, and we heard Ms. Bailey talk a lot about that, about what 

they are doing. And while I take that as very good news, I do have 

to say I was a little bit struck when you were asking her who all 

they were working with, and she had a very long list. They are 

working with the Chief Human Capital Officer Council and the 

Partnership for Public Service and GAO and the agencies and the 

communities. She never mentioned the unions, and I can tell you 

that on this subject they are not working with the unions. 

It reminded me, actually, that late last week we received an invitation from OPM to attend a briefing they were holding yesterday 

on hiring. And I thought that was pretty interesting considering 

this hearing today. So we would have gone to the briefing anyway, 

so NTEU went to the briefing, and what we were told at the briefing was that OPM is going to publish a booklet of best practices, 

as they see it. They are going to publish this booklet in September 

on hiring, and we offered and requested to be involved in the process to provide input. And we were told no, that they were not interested in our input, that they were going to issue the booklet, and 

that they would send us a copy when they issued it in September. 

So while I would like to see OPM play a leadership role on this 

and take a leadership role, I would surely ask that they ensure 

that they have everyone involved in the conversation that should 

be. And I know that both you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator 

Voinovich would say that the unions should be in that conversation. And I hope the message from OPM changes on this. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Ms. Kelley. Mr. Solomon. 

Mr. SOLOMON. Yes, I was impressed by the testimony relating to 

the value and the importance of management passion rather than 

just systems and processes, because at the end of the day it has 

to be the human beings that are passionate about what they do 

that will convey it externally. So I like that. 

In terms of the OPM, I thought it was slightly misplaced in 

terms of that the objectives seemed to be internal collaboration and 

that all the bases were being touched and the voices of the applicant were not at that table, not active in seeing the value and making sure that the value of the process was used focused, applicant 

focused, rather than just meeting the needs of the internal stakeholders. 

And, finally, what I thought was somewhat missed by all the presenters was that they focused on the efficiencies of the hiring process rather than what is needed in the actual recruitment process 

to get people’s attention to become interested. It seems that much 

of the focus of the attention is that once somebody is at the Federal 

Government’s door, how do we process them and take advantage of 

their interest, rather than or in addition to—and this goes back to 

the three buckets—in addition to focusing on the period of time and 

34 

the effort that it is going to take to even get people to consider the 

Federal Government in the first place, and especially people between the ages of 25 and 35, who have demands in their lives, who 

have responsibility, who are probably looking for a career change 

and looking for a different type of opportunity. How to get those 

people’s attention is, I think, and needs to be as much of a focus 

as making sure that the hiring process itself is efficient. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Stier. 

Mr. STIER. Mr. Chairman, I concur with everything that has 

been said already. The one thing that I would just focus on is the 

fact that it has been a very long time that the hiring process and 

some of these issues has been noted as an issue, and yet we still 

find it to be a problem. And so what I would suggest, if we were 

to focus on a single item that would help generate change, it would 

be transparency and metrics, or metrics that provide transparency, 

because you will find examples that are terrific, like at NRC. You 

will find examples of agencies that meet the 45-day hiring model. 

But unless it is transparent for all agencies, we will not know 

where the problems are. They will not feel the heat of public shame 

as well as public accolades for good behavior, and that is what we 

need to see happen. We need to make sure that these processes, 

the consequence of these processes are being understood and the 

information is available. And I think that would provide a very important prod to see movement. A lot of this is about implementation more than anything else. Lots of good ideas, there are plenty 

of those, but getting things done, that is the rarity. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Ms. Mathews. 

Ms. MATHEWS. It sounds like the NRC is doing a really good job 

in a lot of different areas, and I want to commend them for that. 

But one of the things that I think they are doing that a lot of the 

other agencies and organizations really need to focus on is that 

they are defining up front what kind of employment experience or 

career a person is going to have with the NRC. 

So if you think about it, I mean, why should somebody come 

work for the government? You really need to define that and actually market that. So somebody coming out of college, some mid-career person, why should they choose the government over Google 

or over Microsoft? So defining sort of that brand for the government and what is in it for them actually is probably the first step, 

and then having the end-to-end process. Again, it is not about the 

processes as much as selling what the potential candidates are 

going to get out of this career with the government. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

In the interest of time, let me then ask my Ranking Member for 

his questions. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Is there a human capital crisis out there? 

Ms. MATHEWS. Absolutely. 

Mr. STIER. Yes. 

Mr. GAGE. Yes. 

Mr. SOLOMON. Yes. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And Ms. Kelley and Mr. Gage both feel that 

way about the Federal Government. You have a lot of your members at or nearing retirement. 

35 

Ms. KELLEY. I think there is a crisis today, and I think it will 

get worse in the future unless things change. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Gage, you questioned why it is that the 

Federal Government does advertising for the armed services and 

nothing for the civilian workforce in the Federal Government. I 

would like all of the panelists’ opinion on whether or not you think 

that we should ramp up an advertising campaign about the opportunities that one has through work with the Federal Government. 

I know that, Mr. Stier, you advertise at the college campuses, but 

I do not think there is enough of an appreciation currently with the 

public about the opportunities that one has to come to work for the 

Federal Government. 

Mr. GAGE. I do not see how it could possibly hurt, and I think 

it might correct a lot of things very quickly, certainly getting the 

proper applicant pool. I think the Federal Government still in this 

day and age has a real draw to not only students coming out of college, but also people in mid-careers. There is something about 

working for the government. There is a steadiness to it. There are 

predictable benefits, certainly in health care as well as in still a defined retirement benefit, which I think—plus the great work that 

government agencies do in showing a career in that agency, as one 

of the gentlemen mentioned, from the NRC, I think is something 

that would really increase the applicant pool and really let people 

know what they are getting into ahead of time. 

Ms. KELLEY. I would think it would help also, and I guess it depends on whether or not college students today watch a lot of TV, 

whether or not they catch the ads, but maybe their parents and 

their siblings would to call their attention to it. But I think it 

needs to be in a combination with other things, including the job 

fairs and being out on the campuses. I mean, I will use myself as 

an example. 

When I joined the IRS as a revenue agent—and it was many 

years ago, more years than I want reflected in the Congressional 

record, but I did that because they came to my college campus. I 

had never once considered a job with the Federal Government. I 

knew nothing about it. So it was not that I considered it and was 

not interested. I just did not have any information until they came 

there, and they talked to me, and they gave me information, they 

answered my questions. And that is where I got the application, 

and that is where I filled it out. 

I think that is what a lot of college students are looking for 

today, is unless they know specifically what they want to do in the 

next 5 years of their life, they are looking for what their options 

are. And I think it runs the whole gamut, from the TV ads to the 

face to face out there on the college campuses. 

Mr. SOLOMON. I think the simple answer is yes, especially for 

those who are between the ages of 25 to 35. It seems from the people who are testifying that a lot of attention is paid to people just 

entering the workforce rather than people who are experienced and 

seeking an alternative place to learn more and to apply their skills 

or to have career advancement. And it may be people who do not 

want to spend their entire career with the Federal Government but 

are willing to commit a period of years. And I think that the promotion needs to not just be traditional advertising, but to also unVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:48 Oct 07, 2008 Jkt 043085 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43085.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
36 

leash the recruiter to actually participate in the conversation somehow in the social media about the job opportunities and the career 

opportunities, and also encourage people who are actually doing 

the work to be actively engaged in recruitment, to talk to their 

neighbors, to use their online communities, to talk about the benefits of their job. 

I know in the private sector everyone in my office is part of the 

recruiting team. It is not an office down the hall. It is not left to 

somebody else’s budget. It is something that everyone actively does, 

and that is why we are successful. 

Mr. STIER. Senator, there is no doubt that this is very important, 

and our research shows that. We have done research on university 

campuses, and I would add that the only market research I am 

aware of shows only about 11 percent of college juniors and seniors 

feel they are reasonably well informed about government opportunities. 

It is the same case for older Americans, too. It is simply not on 

their radar screen. The good news is when they are told about the 

opportunities, they are very interested in them. They simply do not 

know about them, and filling that information gap is something 

that can be done. 

I would add, however, that it needs to be viewed, again, as part 

of this holistic system. So simply attracting a huge wave of new 

folks in, while very important, is going to run into a problem if the 

hiring process is unable to deal with them, and instead it might reinforce a stereotype of government being overly bureaucratic. 

I would also say that the Federal Government’s own capacity to 

recruit effectively needs to be built up as well. So as an example— 

the military is a great example. They have done the market research to understand how to attract the talent they need. But they 

also understand what exact talent they do need, and they know 

how to measure for what talent they are trying to receive. They 

know how much it is going to cost to train that talent. They invest 

in retaining that talent, and those are all processes that need to 

take place. 

We have done this research. We know the baseline, what needs 

to take place on university campuses. We know that relationships 

need to be created. By and large, it is transactional right now. 

Agencies go out when they think they need to hire someone. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You talk about the military, and they have 

got the big budget, all that money we pour into the Federal budget 

for the armed services. You are on the college campuses. Do you 

observe that these agencies have been given the wherewithal to 

hire the people to do the jobs that are out there? And do they have 

quality human capital officers working in the various agencies that 

get it? 

Mr. STIER. It is no and no, and they need more. There are other 

noes as well. They do not have the resources that are being dedicated to effectively recruit. They do not have the personnel to actually manage the process right. They do not have the leadership 

commitment because, again, as you heard from Mr. Solomon, the 

reality is the only way this worked is if the leadership cares about 

the talent that they are trying to recruit and develop, and they 

have to see that as a priority. 

37 

I would point to, as one example, GAO where they assign their 

senior managers who are responsible for relationships with different universities. They are held accountable. Their performance 

reviews include whether or not that talent is coming from those 

campuses and whether that talent is succeeding in GAO. And that 

is very important. So they have a commitment to make sure they 

get the right talent in and that that talent actually succeeds. And 

that is absolutely vital. 

The point here is that almost on any issue you will find agencies 

that are doing the right thing in some places, but, by and large, 

you will find that they are doing the wrong things in most places. 

And so the challenge here is how you ensure that those right practices are being adopted by a broader set of agencies. It will take 

more resources. It is going to take more than that. 

Ms. MATHEWS. I would expand on that just briefly. The leadership has to care. They also have to know. They have to know what 

talent they need, and if you are going to do more advertising, you 

have to know what messages to deliver to the different generations 

of people that you are trying to attract. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we did 

when we created the CHCO Council and elevated human capital 

was to try and get agencies to start paying attention to succession 

planning and transition. I wonder how many of them are really engaged in such activity today. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), never contained anything about the personnel 

that you needed to get the job done in the agencies. In spite of all 

the work that we have done, how many of these agencies are actually looking at what they need for the future? You have to first 

know what you need. Once you realize what you need, then you can 

go out and recruit a highly-skilled workforce. Any comment? 

Mr. STIER. You are right. And, Senator, I think you are asking 

questions—and this is my point about the data. You are asking a 

lot of very good questions, and you should have that information 

available to you. And, again, you cannot ask for too much information, but I think there are a set of questions that you reasonably 

asked that should be answerable on a regular basis so that you can 

hold agencies accountable. 

There is no doubt that the human resource function needs a significant investment in government, writ large. The actual head 

count is down something like 20 percent, but more importantly, the 

actual competencies that are needed are simply not represented 

today, and they are disappearing. And you can see that both among 

the senior leadership as well as within the ranks. You need to see 

a very substantial investment take place there in order to have the 

expertise to help the whole government and agencies individually 

get to where they need to go. 

Mr. SOLOMON. And I would like to add that I think although 

more resources are needed, you do so in the context of defined 

measurements that the Congress will hold the Executive Branch 

accountable for. You need to make your own job easier, not just 

bring stories to the fore, as Mr. Stier has said, but match it together with some accountability towards very certain objectives. 

Ms. KELLEY. And I would also add that this whole issue of resources is often part of the problem with the agencies, whether it 

38 

is about hiring or defining what work they want to do. I think it 

was Ms. Mathews who said that an agency has to decide what 

work they want done and then what staff they need to get that 

done and then to have a plan in place to go and hire that staff. 

Well, that works, unless you have an annual budget process that 

often results in appropriations bills not being passed for 3 or 4 

months into the year, which severely impacts an agency’s ability to 

do that. So they are really doing it in reverse. They need to know 

how much money they have so they know how many they can hire. 

Then they define what work they can get done with the staff that 

they have. 

And to that I would add that OMB prevents agencies from requesting the staffing that they need, for the personnel they need 

to get the job done. Every year we go through this annual budget 

process with agencies defining what they need, and then OMB adjusts the request and does not let them move forward with the 

budget request that they need. And then, like I said, invariably 

then it is 3, 4, 5 months into the budget year anyway. And I talk 

to agencies that we represent every day of every year, and they tell 

me that they cannot move forward with their hiring plans until 

they know what their budget is, because we are in a CR or some 

other situation. 

So there are very real problems that are compounded by all the 

things we talked about, about the application process. But it really 

is a lot more than that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, I want to thank Senator Voinovich for his 

questions, and we are right on time. There is a signal that there 

are votes being called. We were expecting it at noon. But I want 

to tell you that we heard many good recommendations today on 

ways agencies can improve recruitment and hiring. We have heard 

from our second panel on their thoughts and recommendations as 

to what can and should happen. 

Agencies must make reforming the recruitment and hiring process a top priority, and some of you have indicated that the Congress needs to also take a step in the direction of working with 

agencies for some of these strategies to be put in place. The future 

of the Federal workforce, of course, is depending on this, and we 

are looking for answers. 

The hearing record will remain open for one week for Members 

to submit additional statements or questions. Senator Voinovich 

and I have been, as he mentioned, working on this for several 

years. We will continue to do so, and we may be taking some harder steps than we have had in the past because you have offered 

some recommendations that can help us do that. Of course, we are 

doing this for the Federal workforce. We want it to be the best in 

the country. 

So thank you very much for being part of this, and we look forward to working with you. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 


43085.001
40 


43085.002
41 


43085.003
42 


43085.004
43 


43085.005
44 


43085.006
45 


43085.007
46 


43085.008
47 


43085.009
48 


43085.010
49 


43085.011
50 


43085.012
51 


43085.013
52 


43085.014
53 


43085.015
54 


43085.016
55 


43085.017
56 


43085.018
57 


43085.019
58 


43085.020
59 


43085.021
60 


43085.022
61 


43085.023
62 


43085.024
63 


43085.025
64 


43085.026
65 


43085.027
66 


43085.028
67 


43085.029
68 


43085.030
69 


43085.031
70 


43085.032
71 


43085.033
72 


43085.034
73 


43085.035
74 


43085.036
75 


43085.037
76 


43085.038
77 


43085.039
78 


43085.040
79 


43085.041
80 


43085.042
81 


43085.043
82 


43085.044
83 


43085.045
84 


43085.046
85 


43085.047
86 


43085.048
87 


43085.049
88 


43085.050
89 


43085.051
90 


43085.052
91 


43085.053
92 


43085.054
93 


43085.055
94 


43085.056
95 


43085.057
96 


43085.058
97 


43085.059
98 


43085.060
99 


43085.061
100 


43085.062
101 


43085.063
102 


43085.064
103 


43085.065
104 


43085.066
105 


43085.067
106 


43085.068
107 


43085.069
108 


43085.070
109 


43085.071
110 


43085.072
111 


43085.073
112 


43085.074
113 


43085.075
114 


43085.076
115 


43085.077
116 


43085.078
117 


43085.079
118 


43085.080
119 


43085.081
120 


43085.082
121 


43085.083
122 


43085.084
123 


43085.085
124 


43085.086
125 


43085.087
126 


43085.088
127 


43085.089
128 


43085.090
129 


43085.091
130 


43085.092
131 


43085.093
132 


43085.094
133 


43085.095
134 


43085.096
135 


43085.097
136 


43085.098
137 


43085.099
138 


43085.100
139 


43085.101
140 


43085.102
141 


43085.103
142 


43085.104
143 


43085.105
144 


43085.106
145 


43085.107
146 


43085.108
147 


43085.109
148 


43085.110
149 


43085.111
150 


43085.112
151 


43085.113
152 


43085.114
153 


43085.115
154 


43085.116
155 


43085.117
156 

Æ 


43085.118