United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Chairman, Subcommittee on

Civil Service, Committee on Government

Reform and Oversight, House of

Representatives

September 1998 OPM’S CENTRAL

PERSONNEL DATA FILE

Data Appear Sufficiently

Reliable to Meet Most

Customer Needs

GAO/GGD-98-199

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-276095 

September 30, 1998

The Honorable John L. Mica

Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This report presents the results of our review of the Office of Personnel Management’s database

of federal civilian employees, the Central Personnel Data File, which we undertook as part of

our basic legislative authority. Because of your continuing interest in the accuracy of this

database, you asked that we address this report to you. We know that you and other

decisionmakers use the information contained in this database to track statistics on federal

employees, and agencies’ compliance with governmentwide policies. Because this database is

the primary source of information on federal employees, the accuracy of its information is

critical for analyses of the federal civilian workforce.

We are sending copies of this report to other appropriate congressional committees and

executive branch agencies, including the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on

Civil Service, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the Chairman and

Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and

Federal Services, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; and the Director of the Office of

Personnel Management.

This report was prepared under the direction of Michael Brostek, Associate Director, Federal

Management and Workforce Issues, who may be reached on (202) 512-8676 if you have any

questions. Major contributors are listed in appendix VIII.

Sincerely yours,

L. Nye Stevens

Director, Federal Management

 and Workforce Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose Each year, hundreds of federal personnel offices process millions of

personnel actions, such as pay adjustments and promotions, that affect the

working lives of about 1.9 million federal civilian employees. The Office of

Personnel Management (OPM) collects data on these personnel actions and

processes them through its Central Personnel Data System (the System)

for entry into its personnel database, the Central Personnel Data File

(CPDF). Policymakers use CPDF data for such things as obtaining statistics

on federal employees, ensuring agencies’ compliance with

governmentwide policies, and making decisions on federal personnel

policy. Researchers use them in studies of the federal workforce.

In spite of the important uses of CPDF data, no independent evaluation of

the accuracy of the data has been done. Because GAO and others rely on

CPDF data to do governmentwide and agency evaluations, GAO undertook a

review of the CPDF and the Central Personnel Data System as part of its

basic legislative authority. GAO’s objectives were to determine (1) the

extent to which selected CPDF data elements are accurate, including the

data elements used by OPM’s Office of the Actuaries for estimating the

government’s liability for future payments of federal retirement programs;

(2) whether selected users of CPDF data believed that CPDF products met

their needs, including whether the products were current, accurate, and

complete and whether the cautions OPM provided to them on the

limitations associated with using the data were sufficient for them to

present the CPDF data correctly; and (3) whether OPM has documented

changes to the System and verified the System’s acceptance of those

changes, as recommended in applicable federal guidance, and whether the

System would implement CPDF edits as intended.

Background The CPDF is a database that contains individual records for most federal

employees and is the primary governmentwide source for information on

federal employees. The records are made up of data elements, such as

name, pay plan, and veterans status. As of February 1998, OPM organized

data in the CPDF into 95 separate data elements. OPM provides guidelines,

edit standards, and feedback to agencies on when and how to submit data

to the CPDF and what they can do to improve the data they are submitting.

CPDF edits are computer instructions that are designed to check the

validity of individual data elements. For example, the edit for the sex data

element checks that the character that is used to define the data element is

either “M” for male or “F” for female; the edit identifies other characters as

errors. After agencies submit their data, OPM uses the same CPDF edits it

expects agencies to use and other analyses to check that data submissions

Page 2 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Executive Summary

meet edit standards. When data submissions do not meet the CPDF edit

standards, OPM staff are to contact agencies to ask them to correct

problem data.

Results in Brief OPM does not have an official standard for the desired accuracy of CPDF

data elements. On a periodic basis, however, OPM measures CPDF data

accuracy by comparing certain data found in a sample of former federal

employees’ official personnel folders to data in the CPDF for the same

period. OPM generally makes the results of its measurements of CPDF data

accuracy available to users of CPDF data within OPM but not to non-OPM

users. Although the accuracy of the CPDF data GAO reviewed varied by data

element, about two-thirds of the selected CPDF data elements GAO reviewed

were 99-percent or more accurate. Among the data elements that were

99-percent accurate were those OPM’s Office of the Actuaries uses for

estimating the government’s liability for future retirement payments to

federal employees and their survivors, with the exception of one

element—adjusted basic pay—that was about 94-percent accurate

according to one GAO measurement method. Prior GAO work also showed

that CPDF data accuracy also varied by agency.

GAO surveyed all the requesters of CPDF products that OPM identified as

obtaining data directly from OPM for fiscal year 1996. Most of these CPDF

users reported that CPDF products met their needs, including the data being

current, accurate, and complete. The majority of surveyed users reported

that they believed that the caution statements OPM provided were

sufficient for them to use CPDF data correctly. However, OPM did not

provide these users of CPDF data with all 28 cautions that explain how CPDF

limitations could affect how they present or use CPDF data. For example,

some CPDF data (e.g., education level) are collected at the time of the

appointment and not routinely updated. Some users said that they would

have presented or used CPDF data differently if they had known about all 28

caution statements.

Although applicable federal guidance recommended that agencies

document the life cycle of an automated information system from its

initiation through installation and operation, OPM did not document

changes that it made to the System in 1986 when it did a major redesign of

the System’s software. OPM also did not have documentation to show that

acceptance testing of those changes was done and, according to OPM, the

testing was not done by an independent reviewer. However, OPM officials

said that to their knowledge the System has not had problems processing

Page 3 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Executive Summary

data reliably. GAO’s review of the computer instructions for most CPDF edits

used by the System showed that the System uses instructions that should

implement the CPDF edits reviewed as intended. OPM officials

acknowledged that for OPM to accomplish its future information

technology goals it will have to follow an approach that includes

documenting the development, modification, and management of its

automated information systems and their software applications. OPM has

committed to adopting this approach by no later than fiscal year 2002.

GAO is making recommendations to improve the availability of information

about CPDF data accuracy and limitations and to ensure that future changes

to the Central Personnel Data System are documented and independently

verified.

Principal Findings

Selected Data Appear to

Be Mostly Accurate in the

CPDF, but OPM Does Not

Report Results of Its

Accuracy Measurements to

Non-OPM Users

Although OPM screens data before accepting them, OPM relies on agencies

to submit accurate data. Thus, the ultimate accuracy of CPDF data depends

on the accuracy of the data that agencies submit. Errors in those data can

occur at various stages of the personnel process, such as when agency

personnel enter (1) data for newly hired employees; or (2) information on

personnel actions (e.g., performance appraisals) for submission to OPM.

OPM does not have an official accuracy standard for agencies’ submissions.

On a periodic basis, however, OPM measures CPDF data accuracy by

comparing certain data found in a sample of former federal employees’

official personnel folders to data in the CPDF for the same period. OPM

generally makes the results of its measurements of CPDF data accuracy

available to users of CPDF data within OPM but not to non-OPM users.

To measure the accuracy of CPDF data for its review, GAO asked a

generalizable sample of current federal employees to verify CPDF data as of

September 30, 1996 pertaining to them.1 GAO also compared data in the

official personnel folders and other records of a nongeneralizable sample

of current federal employees selected from six of the largest personnel

offices to fiscal year 1996 CPDF data.2

 Between the two methods GAO used

1

The complete results of GAO’s survey appear in appendix V.

2

Because they are among the eight largest personnel offices in the federal government, for its review

GAO selected personnel offices at the Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD; Department of

the Army, Fort Benning, GA; U.S. Customs Service, Washington, D.C.; National Institutes of Health,

Bethesda, MD; Department of State, Washington, D.C.; and Department of the Navy, Pensacola, FL.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Executive Summary

to measure CPDF data accuracy, variation existed in the accuracy of some

data elements, but at least 63 percent of CPDF data elements in both

samples were 99 percent or more accurate. The least accurate data

element, education level, was about 73 and 77 percent accurate according

to GAO’s two measurement methods. These results were broadly consistent

with OPM’s latest accuracy measurement.

Although both OPM’s and GAO’s reviews showed that most CPDF data

elements reviewed were 99 percent or more accurate on a

governmentwide basis, neither OPM nor GAO measured the accuracy of data

for individual agencies. However, GAO’s prior work has shown that specific

data elements for individual agencies can be much less accurate. For

example, in 1997 the House Committee on International Relations asked

GAO to examine a discrepancy between the number of certain political

appointees that the Agency for International Development (AID) reported

to Congress (17) and the number that appeared in the CPDF for the period

January 19, 1993, through November 14, 1995, (0). Through its analysis of

the CPDF data, GAO determined that AID misidentified the legal authority that

was used to appoint these individuals; as a result, the information in the

CPDF did not correctly identify any of the 17 individuals as political

appointees.

To estimate the government’s liability for future retirement payments,

OPM’s Office of the Actuaries uses CPDF data on adjusted basic pay, sex,

birth date, retirement plan, and service computation date. Except for

adjusted base pay, which was about 94-percent accurate in GAO’s

nongeneralizable accuracy measurement, GAO found all of these data to be

about 99-percent accurate. GAO shared these results with the actuary

responsible for calculating the federal government’s liability for future

retirement payments to federal employees and their survivors, and he said

that the CPDF data elements that the Office used were sufficiently accurate

for making this liability estimate.

Despite the high governmentwide accuracy GAO and OPM found for selected

CPDF data elements, the lower level of accuracy for some individual data

elements could affect the validity of studies relying on such data. For

instance, GAO’s finding that data on federal employee education levels are

about 23- and 27-percent inaccurate in its generalizable and

nongeneralizable measurements, respectively, suggests that analysts using

this data element would need to exercise caution in drawing conclusions

about federal employees’ education levels.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Executive Summary

Most CPDF Users Said

CPDF Products Met Their

Needs, but Some Said

Further Awareness of

Cautions on CPDF Data

Could Affect Use of Data

The questionnaire that GAO sent to 247 users of CPDF data showed that the

majority of respondents believed that CPDF products met their needs. GAO’s

questionnaire asked individuals who requested CPDF products from OPM in

fiscal year 1996 if they believed that (1) the CPDF products met their needs,

including the data being current, accurate, and complete; and (2) the

cautions OPM provided to them on the limitations associated with using

CPDF data or products were sufficient for them to present the CPDF data

correctly.

The majority of the 140 users who responded to our questionnaire said

that to a great or very great extent, CPDF products met their needs (67 to

81 percent, depending on the product); and CPDF data were current (70 to

73 percent), accurate (65 to 87 percent), and complete (71 to 89 percent).

The majority of respondents also reported that they received sufficient

cautions about the limitations of the CPDF data or products they used.

However, OPM officials said, and respondents’ answers to GAO’s

questionnaire indicated, that the extent to which OPM provided users with

all of the 28 known cautions on limitations associated with CPDF data

varied. In this regard, 29 of the 71 CPDF users said knowing about cautions

they were not made aware of would have affected the way they used or

presented CPDF data. In discussions with GAO, OPM officials reported they

were considering creating a CPDF web site on the Internet that would allow

OPM to make CPDF data more widely available and allow OPM to “bundle” or

link specific cautions about the limitations associated with specific data

sets.

System Software

Development Not

Documented According to

Applicable Federal

Guidance, but Software

Appears to Implement

Edits as Intended

From 1976 to 1995, federal guidance recommended that agencies use a

structured approach for operating and maintaining automated information

systems, such as the Central Personnel Data System, which includes the

computer applications that OPM uses to process data for the CPDF.

According to the guidelines, as part of a structured approach, agencies

were to document the life cycle of an automated information system from

its initiation through its installation and operation. Among other things,

such documentation helps agencies efficiently correct system problems

even after the system designers have left an agency.

Although applicable guidelines recommended such documentation, OPM

did not document changes that were made to the System in 1986 when it

did a major redesign of the System’s software or document that the testing

of these changes was independently done to verify that they worked as

intended. OPM officials said verification of the 1986 changes was done by

Page 6 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Executive Summary

staff in the unit responsible for designing those changes. As described in

GAO’s guidance on Year 2000 computer conversions, such testing should be

done by an independent reviewer. OPM officials said that although the 1986

changes were not documented, to their knowledge the System has not had

problems processing data reliably. GAO’s review of 718 of the 763 computer

instructions used by the CPDF showed that those instructions should

implement CPDF edits as intended.

OPM officials said that for OPM to accomplish its information technology

goals it will have to follow a structured approach for future computer

application development. The software development goal stated in OPM’s

Information Technology Architecture Vision would require that by 2002

newly developed, or newly modified, computer systems and programs

would be developed under a systematic, well-documented approach.

However, it is not clear how soon this requirement is to be implemented.

Recommendations GAO recommends that the Director of OPM

• make the results of its historical measurements of the CPDF’s accuracy

available to all users,

• make the 28 caution statements associated with CPDF data available to all

users, and

• document future CPDF computer system and software changes and

independently verify that those changes are working as intended.

Agency Comments OPM provided written comments on a draft of this report (see app. VII) that

are discussed at the end of chapters 2, 3, and 4.

The OPM Director did not specifically refer to GAO’s first two

recommendations—that she make the results of OPM’s historical

measurements of the CPDF’s accuracy available to all users and that she

make the 28 caution statements associated with CPDF data available to all

users. However, she said that OPM will make available appropriate

explanatory material to all CPDF users. She said that she agreed with GAO’s

third recommendation—that OPM document future CPDF computer system

and software changes and independently verify that those changes are

working as intended. She also said that OPM will fully document all future

computer system and software changes and perform independent

verification that the changes function as intended.

Page 7 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

12

Background 12

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 16

Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed

Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the

Aggregate

26

OPM Measures Historical Accuracy of CPDF, but Does Not

Report Results of Its Accuracy Measurements to Non-OPM Users

26

Most CPDF Data Tested Were Accurate and Agreed With

Agencies’ Personnel Records

27

Conclusion 37

Recommendation to the Director of OPM 37

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37

Chapter 3 

USERs Generally

Reported CPDF

Products Met Their

Needs, but Further

Awareness of

Cautions on CPDF

Data Could Affect Use

of the Data

39

USERs Generally Reported That CPDF Data Met Their Needs

Including Being Current, Accurate, and Complete

39

Most CPDF USERs Said Cautions OPM Provides on Data

Limitations Were Sufficient, but Some Said Further Awareness of

Cautions Could Affect Use of Data

41

Most CPDF USERs Surveyed Rated the Overall Quality of CPDF

Products as Excellent or Very Good

44

Conclusions 44

Recommendation to the Director of OPM 44

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 44

Page 8 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Contents

Chapter 4 

System Software

Development Not

Documented

According to

Applicable Federal

Guidance, but

Software Appears to

Implement Edits as

Intended

46

OPM Did Not Document an Upgrade of the System’s Software as

Recommended in Federal Guidance

46

The System Appears to Implement CPDF Data Edits Reliably 49

OPM Has Implicitly Committed to Adopt an SDLC Approach 50

Conclusions 52

Recommendation to the Director of OPM 52

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 53

Appendixes Appendix I: To Ensure CPDF Data Quality, OWI Provides

Guidance to Agencies and Checks Data Before Entering Them in

CPDF

54

Appendix II: Results of GAO and OPM Measurements of CPDF

Accuracy

63

Appendix III: CPDF Data Elements by File Location, as of

February 1998

64

Appendix IV: Data Elements With the Highest Rate of Inaccuracy 68

Appendix V: GAO’s CPDF Employee Verification of Personnel

Information Questionnaire

70

Appendix VI: GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey 76

Appendix VII: Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

88

Appendix VIII: Major Contributors 91

Tables Table 1.1: List of Data Elements Used in Employee Questionnaire

and Comparison of CPDF Data With Official Personnel Folders

17

Table 1.2: Breakdown of Sampled Employees Responding and

Not Responding to the Questionnaire

20

Table 2.1: Questionnaire Respondents Reported Most Data

Elements Were Generally Accurate

29

 Table 2.2: Number of Differences Between 113 Employees’

Official Personnel Folders and Agency Records and the CPDF

30

Table 2.3: Errors Identified by GAO’s and OPM’s Measurements

of CPDF Data Accuracy Grouped by Percent of Errors

33

Page 9 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Contents

Figure Figure I.1: OWI’s Acceptance Process 56

Abbreviations

AID Agency for International Development

CMM Capability MaturityModelSM

CPDF Central Personnel Data File

DOD Department of Defense

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards

HHS Health and Human Services

ILDRS Installation Level Data Retrieval System

IT Information Technology

NBS National Bureau of Standards

OIT Office of Information Technology

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPF Official Personnel Folder

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OWI Office of Workforce Information

SDLC System Development Life Cycle

SSA Social Security Administration

USER User Simple and Efficient Retrieval

Page 10 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Page 11 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

According to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Guide to the

Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), the CPDF is the federal government’s

central personnel automated database that contains statistically accurate

demographic information on about 1.9 million federal civilian employees.

The CPDF’s primary objective is to provide a readily accessible database for

meeting the workforce information needs of the White House, Congress,

OPM, other federal agencies, researchers, and the public. A second

objective is to relieve agencies that submit personnel data to the CPDF of

the need to provide separate data or reports to meet a variety of reporting

requirements. Data that agencies submit to the CPDF represent their official

workforce statistics.

OPM’s Office of Workforce Information (OWI) is responsible for accepting

and entering data into the CPDF and processes the data using the Central

Personnel Data System. OWI also prepares reports using CPDF data and

distributes CPDF data to both OPM and non-OPM users.

In order to safeguard the privacy of federal civilian employees as required

under the Privacy Act of 1974, OPM must protect CPDF data from

unauthorized disclosure. For example, at OPM access to agencies’ CPDF

submissions is limited to OPM staff responsible for determining if the data

meet OPM’s guidelines for acceptance into the CPDF. When disseminating

CPDF data, OPM is to protect the privacy of individuals. For example, OPM is

not to provide employees’ names, Social Security numbers, or birth dates

to requesters or to make this information available to the federal agencies3

that are allowed to access the CPDF via OPM’s electronic User Simple and

Efficient Retrieval (USER) system to retrieve personnel data to do their

work.4

Background The CPDF contains personnel data for most of the executive branch

departments and agencies as well as a few agencies in the legislative

branch. Included are all of the cabinet departments (e.g., State, Treasury,

Justice); the independent agencies (e.g., Environmental Protection

Agency, Small Business Administration, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration); commissions, councils, and boards (e.g., National Council

3

According to OPM, GAO, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems

Protection Board, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, Environmental Protection

Agency, National Guard, National Security Agency, Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of

Management and Budget were trained and given access to this system by OPM.

4

OPM will provide such data to GAO, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission to survey federal employees about their opinions and experiences, but those

agencies are to have their own procedures for protecting the privacy of survey respondents.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

on the Handicapped); and selected legislative branch agencies, such as the

Government Printing Office.

The CPDF does not contain employee data for the Central Intelligence

Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, the Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System, National Security Agency, Office of the Vice

President, Postal Rate Commission, Tennessee Valley Authority, U.S.

Postal Service, or the White House Office. The CPDF also excludes from

coverage non-U.S. citizens working for federal agencies in foreign

countries; most nonappropriated fund personnel;5

 commissioned officers

in the Department of Commerce, Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS), and the Environmental Protection Agency; and all

employees of the judicial branch.6

The History of the CPDF The Civil Service Commission, OPM’s predecessor, decided it would install

a type of central personnel database—the CPDF—in 1972 to provide a

source that was capable of (1) satisfying minimum essential statistical data

needs for central management agencies and the public; (2) meeting

reporting requirements, such as periodic surveys of affirmative

employment programs and semiannual turnover reports; and

(3) alleviating the need for agencies to individually report similar

information separately to requesters. The CPDF also expanded and replaced

the Federal Personnel Statistics Program Sample File, which was

established in 1962. The File contained a continuous work history on each

federal employee whose Social Security account number ended in the digit

“5,” a population that constituted a 10-percent sample of the federal

workforce.

How the CPDF Operates OPM builds six files from agency-submitted data. These are the longitudinal

history (a record of personnel actions arranged by date within Social

Security number), organizational component (a listing of the codes used

by each agency to identify its various work units, e.g., regions, divisions,

branches); personnel office identifier (contains the mailing address and

telephone number for personnel offices that report to the CPDF); name (a

cross-reference listing of names, Social Security numbers, accession dates,

and applicable separation dates of employees reported to the CPDF); status;

5

Nonappropriated fund personnel are employees of activities that do not receive congressional

appropriations, e.g., the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Commissary Service.

6

OPM has proposed that Congress grant it authority over any executive agency subject to the merit

system principles set forth in 5 U.S.C. 2301, or their equivalent.

Page 13 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

and dynamics files. Of the six, this report focuses on the status and

dynamics files. They are the source of the demographic information used

by OWI to write reports and to respond to data requests by users of CPDF

data.

The status file consists of data elements describing each employee as of

the date of the file. Agencies are required to submit these files on a

quarterly basis, with the submissions due at OPM no later than the 22nd of

the month following the end of the quarter (e.g., input for the quarter

ending December 31 must be submitted by January 22). All of the

employees covered by the CPDF are to be included in each file. The data

elements include information on the type of work; the employee’s pay; and

personal information, such as gender and birth date.

The dynamics file consists of data elements describing each personnel

action taken by an agency during the period covered by the file. Personnel

actions are the official records of employees’ careers, such as hires,

promotions, reassignments, pay changes, resignations, and retirements.

The file includes information about the action taken, the

agency/subelement, the position, pay, and the individual employee. The

normal reporting period is a calendar month but may end as of the last full

biweekly pay period of the month. Submissions are due at OPM as soon as

possible following completion of agency processing but no later than 22

days following the end of a monthly reporting period. As of February 1998,

the CPDF consisted of 95 separate data elements. Of this number, 68 are to

be reported by agencies in their monthly and quarterly dynamics and

status file submissions.

OPM relies on agencies to ensure that the data they submit are timely,

accurate, complete, and edited in accordance with OPM standards. OPM

provides agencies with guidance, the Guide to the CPDF, which says

agencies are to test the data they provide to the CPDF to ensure that the

data are accurate and complete. To help agencies ensure the quality of

their data, OPM provides them with the CPDF Edit Manual, which prescribes

the data values to which agencies’ data are to conform before they are

submitted. To test the values of their data, agencies are to use OPM’s CPDF

edits. These edits are computer instructions that are to check the validity

of individual data elements as well as the proper relationship of values

among associated data elements. For example, the edit for the sex data

element checks that the character used to define the data element is either

“M” for male or “F” for female; the edit identifies other characters as

errors. OPM expects agencies to incorporate these CPDF edits into their

Page 14 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

internal personnel data systems. These edits constitute the minimum level

of quality control OPM expects the agencies to employ. Agencies have the

option of incorporating additional quality controls, such as testing a

sample of the data for accuracy before submitting it, in addition to

applying the CPDF edits.

The CPDF edits cannot detect all types of errors. For example, an edit for

the sex data element would not be able to detect if the character “M” was

incorrectly used to identify a female employee. According to OWI officials,

although they provide agencies with the edits, errors still occur in

submissions, which OPM strives to identify through OWI’s quality review

process. The officials also said that errors in pay-related data elements

often occur at the beginning of the year because agencies make their

beginning-of-the-year submissions before they install edits that reflect

annual cost-of-living pay increases. The Guide to the CPDF also informs

agencies about what data elements should be included in their CPDF data

submissions and the frequency and timing of the submissions. As

mentioned earlier, frequency and timing requirements differ for the status

and dynamics data files.

After agencies submit the personnel data, OPM puts the submissions

through an acceptance process before the data can be entered into the

CPDF. This process includes putting the data through the same CPDF edits

the agencies were to use before submitting the data as well as other

analyses. OWI manages the process. Its staff are to provide agencies with

feedback on their submissions, requesting, as needed, corrections to

submissions that fail edit checks or other analyses and preventing data

that are not within the acceptable range of data values from being entered

into the CPDF. OWI is to make the final decision about what data are entered

into the CPDF. At the time of our review, the Central Personnel Data System

was operated by OPM’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) for OWI. The

CPDF Quality Control team that monitored agencies’ data submissions was

part of OIT. However, operation of the System was transferred to OPM’s

Retirement and Insurance Service in 1997, and the Quality Control team

were reassigned to OWI.

OPM Has Authority to

Request Agency Data for

the CPDF

OPM may require agencies under 5 C.F.R. section 7.2 to report “in such

manner and at such times as OPM may prescribe, such personnel

information as it may request.” On the basis of this authority, OPM is able to

direct agencies to submit selected personnel data to the CPDF. However,

although the OPM Director can request data, she cannot ensure that

Page 15 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

agencies provide accurate information in a timely manner. The

responsibility for providing timely, accurate information remains with the

head of the agency providing the information. OPM officials rely on federal

agencies to voluntarily comply with CPDF guidelines and correct problem

submissions.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

For this review, we had three objectives:

(1) determine the extent to which selected CPDF data elements are

accurate, including the data elements used by OPM’s Office of the Actuaries

for estimating the government’s liability for future payments of federal

retirement programs;

(2) determine whether selected users of CPDF data believed CPDF products

met their needs, including whether the products were current, accurate,

and complete and whether the cautions OPM provided to them on the

limitations associated with using the data were sufficient for them to

present the CPDF data correctly; and

(3) determine whether OPM has documented changes to the System and

verified the System’s acceptance of those changes, as recommended in

applicable federal guidance, and whether the System would implement

CPDF edits as intended.

Objective 1 To determine the extent to which selected CPDF data elements are

accurate, including the data elements used by OPM’s Office of the Actuaries

for estimating the government’s liability for future payments of federal

retirement programs, we (1) designed and sent questionnaires to a random

sample of federal employees to have them verify some of their CPDF data

and (2) compared CPDF data with information in randomly selected official

personnel folders and in other agency records at selected personnel

offices. Table 1.1 presents a list of the CPDF data elements we used in our

employee questionnaire and comparison of CPDF data with information in

official personnel folders.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Table 1.1: List of Data Elements Used in Employee Questionnaire and Comparison of CPDF Data With Official Personnel

Folders

Location in CPDF GAO’s approaches

Data element Status file Dynamics file Questionnaire Comparison

Adjusted basic pay • • • •

Agency/Subelement • • • •

Annuitant indicator • • •

Birth date • • • •

Current appointment authority • • •

Duty station • • • •

Education level • • • •

Effective date of action • •

Handicap • • • •

Legal authority code • •

Employee namea • •

Nature of action code • •

Occupation • • • •

Pay plan/gradeb • • • •

Pay rate determinant • • •

Personnel office identifier • • •

Position occupied • • •

Race or national origin • • • •

Rating of record • • • •

Retirement plan • • • •

Service computation date • • • •

Sex • • • •

Social Security number • • • •

Tenure • • •

Veterans preference • • • •

Veterans status • • • •

Work schedule • • • •

aTo protect the confidentiality of employee records, OPM stores employee names separately from

the major CPDF databases in the CPDF name file.

bPay plan and grade are separate data elements. We combined these two data elements into one

on the questionnaire to make it easier for employees to respond.

Source: OPM’s Office of Workforce Information and GAO.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

We used two approaches, i.e., a questionnaire (see app. V) and a

comparison of data in official personnel folders and agency records to

CPDF data, to measure the accuracy of CPDF data. We sent the questionnaire

to a sample of employees, because OPM studies show that official

personnel files or agency records may be in error. We compared the

results of both approaches to develop our findings.

We also reviewed past OPM accuracy measurements, examined CPDF data

for missing and unusable information, and interviewed an official of OPM’s

Office of the Actuaries to discuss the accuracy of the data elements the

Office uses for estimating the government’s liability for future retirement

payments. These steps are more fully described in the following sections.

Questionnaire As part of our evaluation of the accuracy of CPDF data, we selected a

stratified random sample of 565 federal employees and attempted to send

each a questionnaire containing 20 data elements about themselves

obtained from the CPDF (see app. V for a copy of our questionnaire). The

data elements that we included in the questionnaire were among those we

most frequently use to do our work, those OPM analysts use most

frequently in preparing CPDF reports, and those used by OPM’s Office of the

Actuaries to estimate the government’s liability for future payments of

federal retirement programs. We selected those data elements that we

believed employees would be able to verify. We included in each

individual’s questionnaire data elements from the September 1996 CPDF

status file about that individual. The elements consisted of (1) Social

Security number, (2) employing agency/subelement, (3) adjusted basic pay

(including locality pay), (4) month and year of birth, (5) duty station,

(6) pay plan, (7) grade, (8) handicap, (9) occupation, (10) race or national

origin, (11) service computation date, (12) sex, (13) veterans preference,

(14) veterans status, (15) work schedule, (16) education level, (17) rating

of record, (18) retirement plan, (19) annuitant indicator, and

(20) employee name. We asked the respondents to verify the accuracy of

each data element, indicating whether it was correct or incorrect as of

September 30, 1996. When a respondent indicated that a data element was

incorrect, we asked the respondent to enter the correct information.

We pretested the questionnaire to assure ourselves that respondents could

interpret the questions correctly and could provide the information

requested. We modified question wording and questionnaire format on the

basis of what we learned from five pretests.

Page 18 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The random sample of 565 was drawn from 7 strata to represent a study

population of 1,905,787 non-Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) federal

employees whose names were contained in the CPDF database as of

September 30, 1996.7

 Random samples of 30 selections each were drawn

from 6 smaller strata, each of which comprised a single personnel office.

These six personnel offices were among the eight largest personnel offices

in the federal government.8

 These offices were the Social Security

Administration (SSA), Baltimore, MD; Department of the Army, Fort

Benning, GA; U.S. Customs Service, Washington, D.C.; National Institutes

of Health, Bethesda, MD; Department of State, Washington, D.C.; and

Department of the Navy, Pensacola, FL. We selected these personnel

offices because of their size and because our work at the offices could

then be representative of a relatively large portion of records contained in

the CPDF. The 6 personnel offices were among 1,425 in the government and

served over 8 percent of the employees whose data were contained in the

CPDF as of September 30, 1996. We used the selections from these six

personnel offices for both the employee questionnaire and a review of

official personnel folders. The remainder of the sample—385

selections—was randomly drawn to represent the remaining stratum of

1,746,592 employees from all other personnel offices. The total sample of

565 was designed to ensure that it approximately mirrored the population

distribution with respect to type of appointment (career or noncareer),

work schedule (full-time or non-full-time), type of service (competitive or

excepted), and location (stationed in or outside the United States).

Because the CPDF does not contain mailing addresses for employees, we

mailed most of our questionnaires to personnel officers whom were

identified in the CPDF as serving the employees in our sample. In all, 562 of

the 565 sampled employees were covered by 280 personnel officers. We

were not able to identify the personnel officers for three of the sampled

employees. We asked the personnel officers to whom we sent

questionnaires to forward them to the sampled employees. In addition, we

asked them to provide us with the direct mailing address of each sampled

employee so that we would be able to mail follow-up questionnaires

directly to sampled employees who did not return a questionnaire to us

within 45 days. We also asked the personnel officers to furnish us with

reasons why any of the questionnaires could not be forwarded to the

7

Although the FBI submits data to the CPDF, it does not provide certain information, such as duty

station, that we wanted to review.

8

Although the Department of Veterans Affairs is the executive branch agency with the most employees

after DOD, its personnel offices are not among the largest. We also did not include the Postal Service

in our study because it does not submit data to the CPDF.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

sampled employees. After an initial and a follow-up mailing, we received

407 usable questionnaires out of 565, for a 72 percent response rate. Table

1.2 presents a breakdown of the number of sampled federal employees

responding to our questionnaire as well as the various reasons why some

sampled employees did not respond.

Table 1.2: Breakdown of Sampled

Employees Responding and Not

Responding to the Questionnaire

Employees in initial sample 565

Respondents 407a

Nonrespondents

Refusal (questionnaire not returned or returned blank) 81

Employee resigned 16

Employee retired 15

Employee deceased 3

Employee transferred from agency 9

Employee on extended leave 4

Personnel officer could not locate employee 13

GAO could not locate personnel officer 3

POIb address unknown-returned by Postal Service 3

Questionnaires returned after the closeout date 3

Other miscellaneous reasons 8

Total nonrespondents 158

aThe response rate was 72 percent.

bPersonnel Office Identifier.

Source: GAO questionnaire.

We edited the questionnaires received from respondents to identify data

elements marked as incorrect. In cases where a respondent indicated that

a data element from the CPDF was incorrect, the editor then made an effort

to determine if the correction entered onto the questionnaire by the

respondent was logical. For example, a number of respondents indicated

that the annual pay amount shown on the questionnaire was incorrect.

However, in researching the “correct” amount entered by the respondent,

it was determined that the amount entered was his or her current annual

pay, not the annual pay as of September 30, 1996, as indicated in the

question. In these cases, the response was changed from incorrect to

correct by the editor.

Page 20 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The 407 returned questionnaires from the 7 strata were weighted to

represent the population of 1,905,787 federal employees for all results

presented in this report. Sampling errors have been calculated to take into

account the different weights assigned to each stratum. Unless otherwise

noted, the 95 percent confidence intervals around all reported results are

plus or minus 5 percentage points or less.

In addition to sampling errors, the practical difficulties of administering

any questionnaire may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred

to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular

question is interpreted by the questionnaire respondents could introduce

unwanted variability in the questionnaire’s results. We took steps in the

development of the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data editing

and analysis to minimize nonsampling errors.

Comparison of Official

Personnel Folders and Agency

Records With CPDF Data

We also compared data contained in official personnel folders and other

agency records with data in the CPDF for the same period at the six

selected personnel offices. For each of the 6 personnel offices we selected,

we chose 30 employees at random from the September 1996 CPDF status

file. The employees were those who were reported by the CPDF as being

served by the six respective personnel offices. At each of the 6 personnel

offices, we asked for official personnel folders for the 30 employees. We

also asked for information from the personnel offices’ automated files on

ratings, handicap, and race or national origin because such information is

not necessarily contained in personnel folders. We then selected 20

employees at random from those whose official personnel folders were

available. We over-sampled by 10 employees in our initial sample for each

personnel office because we anticipated that some folders would be

unavailable because of employee departures or other reasons. At SSA, we

reviewed official personnel folders and other agency records for only 13

employees because the official personnel folders for 17 of the 30

employees we chose at random were located in offices throughout the

country and not in a central location as we initially expected. In total, we

reviewed folders and other agency records for 113 employees for the 6

personnel offices.

For each of the 113 employees in our sample, we obtained information

from the September 1996 CPDF status and dynamics files. The information

we obtained consisted of the 20 data elements we used for our

questionnaire and the data elements that we most frequently use to do our

work, including key status and dynamics data elements. The eight data

elements that were in addition to the data elements used for the

Page 21 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

questionnaire were current appointment authority, effective date of action,

legal authority code, nature of action code, pay rate determinant,

personnel office identifier, position occupied, and tenure. We reviewed a

total of 28 data elements: 23 data elements common to both the status and

dynamics files, 1 element found only in the status file, 3 elements found

only in the dynamics file, and employee name (see table 1.1 for the CPDF

data elements we reviewed and their file locations).

For each employee, we compared the CPDF data with relevant documents,

such as Standard Forms 50 (notification of personnel action) and

employment applications, in official personnel folders. We also compared

the CPDF data with automated files on those employees’ ratings, handicap,

and race or national origin. We discussed any mismatches we found with

personnel officials in an attempt to determine how differences can occur

between the CPDF and agency documentation.

Past OPM Accuracy

Measurements

OPM conducts periodic measurements of CPDF accuracy by comparing data

in the official personnel folders of separated employees with data in the

CPDF. We reviewed the six measurements of CPDF accuracy OPM did from

April 1984 to July 1996 and compared the results of our evaluation of CPDF

accuracy with the results of OPM’s last two measurements, which were

issued in January 1992 and July 1996.

Data Used by OPM’s Office of

the Actuaries

To determine if the CPDF data used by OPM’s Office of the Actuaries to

estimate the government’s liability for future retirement payments are

sufficiently accurate for use by the Office, we first met with the actuary

responsible for calculating this liability to determine the CPDF data

elements used in the estimate. After our analysis of the employee

questionnaire and our comparison of personnel folders and other agency

records to CPDF data, we again interviewed the actuary to discuss the

results of our two approaches and the impact of errors on the estimate.

Additional Methodological

Characteristics

The results of our employee questionnaire are generalizable to the

universe of 1,905,787 employees included in the CPDF’s September 1996

status file. Table 2.1 shows the generalized results as a percentage of

records in the September 1996 status file. The results of our comparison of

employees’ official personnel folders and other agency records to CPDF

data are not generalizable to the CPDF as a whole, although they may be

indicative of the personnel offices at which we performed our work.

The CPDF data elements measured for accuracy generally were among

those identified by OPM as key to the accuracy of its recurring reports. We

Page 22 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

cannot determine from the work we did the accuracy of data elements we

did not review. We did not independently verify educational levels

reported by employees or any of the responses of employees.

Our accuracy findings are for CPDF data in the September 30, 1996, status

file and the fiscal year 1996 dynamics file. The accuracy might differ for

previous and future CPDF files, especially when agency procedures or

information processing technology change.

Our accuracy measurement was not designed to evaluate the reliability of

CPDF data from individual agencies or specific subsets of employees, such

as those on leave without pay. OPM reports on the percentage of data

elements in agency submissions that do not pass standard CPDF edits show

considerable variation across agencies.

Objective 2 To determine whether selected users of CPDF data believed CPDF products

met their needs including whether the products were current, accurate,

and complete and whether the cautions OPM provided to them on the

limitations associated with using the data were sufficient for them to

present the CPDF data correctly, we designed, with advice from OPM, a CPDF

customer questionnaire (see app. VI for a copy of our questionnaire). We

mailed the questionnaires to 247 individuals identified by OPM’s OWI as

representing all the requesters of CPDF products in fiscal year 1996 who

obtained data directly from OPM.

We mailed the customer questionnaires in May 1997 to the return

addresses on letters in OWI’s fiscal year 1996 correspondence files that had

requested CPDF products and to recipients of recurring CPDF-based reports

in 1996. We followed up our initial mailing with a second one in June and a

third one in July. We did not include in our analysis any questionnaires

received after August 6, 1997.

After August 6, 1997, we made follow-up telephone calls to all

nonrespondents and determined that 40 of the original 247 individuals we

sent the questionnaire to were either not CPDF users or had left their

organizations. Of the remaining 207 individuals who were CPDF users, 140

(or 68 percent) responded to the mail questionnaire, and an additional 21

responded to an abbreviated version of the mail questionnaire we used in

follow-up telephone calls to nonrespondents. The combined response rate

for the mail-out questionnaire and the telephone follow-up was 78 percent.

Page 23 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

After we received the questionnaires from the respondents, we edited

them for completeness and consistency. All of the data from the

questionnaires were double-keyed and verified during data entry. In

addition, a random sample of these data was verified back to the source

questionnaires.

Additional Methodological

Characteristics

The results of our customer questionnaire are not generalizable to the

universe of users of CPDF data and products for 1996 because we could not

define the universe of users necessary to draw a representative sample.

The distribution of CPDF products, such as recurring reports, is not

controlled. These products are available through various outlets, such as

libraries, that do not track customers. Therefore, we relied on OWI to

identify those customers who corresponded with it in 1996 to request CPDF

data and sent our questionnaire to this defined but nonrepresentative

subset of the 1996 universe of CPDF users.

Objective 3 To determine whether OPM has documented changes to the Central

Personnel Data System and verified the System’s acceptance of those

changes, as recommended in applicable federal guidance, and whether the

System would implement CPDF edits as intended, we first reviewed federal

guidance on managing automated information systems. To determine the

extent to which OPM’s OIT followed the guidance in managing the

development of the System, we conducted interviews at OIT, which was

responsible for operating the System, and OWI, which is the System’s

owner, about their basis for determining the System’s reliability. From

these officials, we requested available documentation relating to

modifications and upgrades of software used by the System to process

CPDF data and documentation relating to verification that these

modifications and upgrades worked as planned. We also reviewed

available documentation on OPM’s current Information Technology

Strategy to determine whether it includes procedures for managing the

System in the future. To determine whether the System would implement

CPDF edits OPM uses to screen the 68 data elements reported by agencies to

OPM as intended, we reviewed 18 of the 63 validity9 and all 700 of the

call-relational10 edits the System uses to screen agencies’ data

submissions.

9

Validity edits check data against a defined range of acceptable values to identify data that fall outside

the range.

10The call-relational edits are a series of subroutines or programs within the “Dynamics Main Edit

Module” and the “Status Main Edit Module” that control the editing of an agency’s dynamics and status

submission files. These edits do not make corrections to any of the data elements. They produce

reports that show which fields or data elements are incorrect or failed validity checks.

Page 24 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Additional Methodological

Characteristics

We judgmentally selected only the 18 validity edits OWI uses to screen the

data elements it considers critical; therefore, the findings of our review of

these 18 edits cannot be generalized to all 63 validity edits. Because we did

not actually put test data through the System or otherwise test the

reliability of the System’s hardware and software under operating

conditions, we cannot verify the reliability of the System. We did not

assess the likelihood that the CPDF would be Year 2000 compliant by

December 31, 1999.

We conducted our work between November 1996 and June 1998, in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The

employee CPDF data verification questionnaire and CPDF customer survey

were administered between May 1997 and September 1997; thus, the data

are as of those dates.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Director of OPM.

OPM provided written comments on a draft of this report (see app. VII) that

are discussed at the end of chapters 2, 3, and 4.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

The accuracy of the data the CPDF contains depends on the accuracy of the

data that agencies submit. Errors in those data can occur at various stages

of the personnel process, such as when agency personnel clerks enter data

for newly hired employees or when they code information on personnel

actions (e.g., performance appraisals). OPM does not have an official

accuracy standard for agencies’ submissions. On a periodic basis,

however, OPM draws a governmentwide sample of CPDF records and

measures CPDF data accuracy by comparing selected data in former federal

employees’ official personnel folders to data in the CPDF for the same

period. OPM generally makes the results of its measurements of CPDF

accuracy available to OPM users of CPDF data but not to non-OPM users. In

spite of the important uses of CPDF data, no independent evaluation of the

accuracy of the data has been done. Our work showed that most of the

CPDF data elements we reviewed were 99 percent or more accurate on a

governmentwide basis. The rating of record and education level data

elements had the highest error rates, at about 5 and 16 percent for rating

of record, and 23 and 27 percent for education level based on our

questionnaire and comparison, respectively. Our overall findings are

broadly similar to what OPM found when it measured historical accuracy11

in 1996 by comparing 1994 data in former employees’ official personnel

folders with the data in the CPDF. We shared the results of our work with

the actuary responsible for calculating the federal government’s liability

for future retirement payments to retired federal employees and their

survivors, and he said that the CPDF data elements were sufficiently

accurate for making this estimate.

OPM Measures

Historical Accuracy of

CPDF, but Does Not

Report Results of Its

Accuracy

Measurements to

Non-OPM Users

OPM periodically measures the accuracy of selected data that are in the

CPDF. As we said earlier, OPM relies on agency data passing CPDF edits to

eliminate errors that would result in inaccurate data being entered in the

CPDF. For example, the edits are to identify a salary amount that is too high

for a particular pay plan or grade. However, the edits are not able to

identify an error in salary that is within the range of that pay plan or grade.

Thus, inaccurate data can get into the CPDF.

To measure the historical accuracy of CPDF data, OPM periodically

compares certain data found in a sample of former federal employees’

official personnel folders to data in the CPDF for the same period. From

April 1984 to July 1996, OPM conducted six such measurements. OPM

analysts used a sample of former employees and compared certain data

11The CPDF/OPF Accuracy Survey, which has been done every few years (the most recent is for fiscal

year 1994 CPDF data and was issued in July 1996), identifies historical error rates.

Page 26 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

elements in their official personnel folders to information in the CPDF’s

status and dynamics files. For example, the latest measurement, which

was released in 1996 for fiscal year 1994 data, used a sample of 135 former

employees and compared 35 status file and 40 dynamics file data elements

to information in the official personnel folders. An error was defined as a

value found in the CPDF that was not the same as that found in the

employee’s official personnel folder.12 OPM officials told us—and OPM’s

accuracy surveys state—that the surveys were designed to measure the

accuracy of governmentwide data only and not the accuracy of data from

individual agencies. OPM generally makes the results of its measurements

of CPDF data accuracy available to CPDF data users within OPM but not to

non-OPM users.

In five of the historical accuracy measurements, OPM found that most CPDF

data were generally accurate, and in most cases the selected data elements

matched the corresponding official personnel folder entries 99 percent or

more of the time. However, OPM did not make that statement for its

December 1990 measurement of 1988 CPDF data. Instead, it advised OPM

users of CPDF data to review the results of the accuracy measurement and

determine for themselves whether the data were sufficiently accurate for

their use. OPM officials said that OPM does not routinely inform non-OPM

users of the results of its measurements of historical accuracy.

OPM has not promulgated a standard for the accuracy of CPDF data. To our

knowledge, no federal agency has promulgated accuracy standards that

are generally applicable to federal databases. In general, the level of

accuracy for data must be balanced against what the data are to be used

for and the cost of obtaining a greater level of accuracy.

Most CPDF Data

Tested Were Accurate

and Agreed With

Agencies’ Personnel

Records

To measure the accuracy of the CPDF, we (1) sent a questionnaire to a

random sample of federal employees to gather information about the

accuracy of 20 of the 68 CPDF data elements reported by agencies and

(2) compared data for 28 data elements in the CPDF with the data contained

in the official personnel folders and other agency records for 113 randomly

selected employees at 6 of the largest federal personnel offices.13 We

found that most CPDF data elements we tested were accurate and agreed

12OPM does not count asterisks or missing data as errors. OPM analysts insert asterisks into the CPDF

when submitted data elements do not pass edit checks and agencies do not provide corrected data.

13These offices were SSA, Baltimore, MD; Department of the Army, Fort Benning, GA; U.S. Customs

Service, Washington, D.C.; National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Department of State,

Washington, D.C.; and Department of the Navy, Pensacola, FL. Although the Department of Veterans’

Affairs is the executive branch agency with the most employees after DOD, its personnel offices are

not among the largest. And, we did not include the Post Office in our study because it does not submit

data to the CPDF.

Page 27 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

with information in employees’ official personnel folders and other agency

personnel records. Although our methodology differed from the one OPM

uses in its measurements of historical accuracy, the results of our review

were broadly similar to OPM’s results.

Questionnaire Results and

Comparison of Selected

CPDF Data to Employee

Records Showed Most

Data Were Accurate and

Agreed With Agencies’

Personnel Records

To determine the accuracy of 20 selected CPDF data elements, we sent a

questionnaire to a random sample of federal employees that was

representative of federal employees governmentwide (see ch. 1 for a

description of our sampling methodology). We asked them to review

information about themselves that we obtained from the September 1996

CPDF. The data elements we asked about were those about which we

believed employees would be most familiar, including employee name,14

birth date, and Social Security number. The results of our questionnaire

showed that 14 of the 20 data elements, or 70 percent, matched data in the

CPDF in 99 percent or more of the cases (see table 2.1). There were no

inaccuracies for seven of these data elements and the other seven data

elements had error rates of less than 1 percent. The remaining six data

elements had error rates greater than 1 percent (see table 2.1).

The two most error-prone data elements were education level and rating

of record. Education level had a 26.7 percent error rate and rating of

record had a 4.7 percent error rate. The education level data element is

intended to reflect the highest education level that a federal employee

achieved. The rating of record data element indicates an employee’s most

recent rating or performance appraisal. The results of our employee

questionnaire are generalizable to the universe of 1,905,787 employees

included in the CPDF’s September 1996 status file. Table 2.1 shows the

generalized results as a percentage of records in the September 1996

status file.

14OPM provided us with employee names for the purposes of this review.

Page 28 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

Table 2.1: Questionnaire Respondents

Reported Most Data Elements Were

Generally Accurate

95% Confidence

interval for federal

civilian workforce

Data element

Percentage of

errors in our

sample

Lower

boundary

Upper

boundary

Annuitant indicator 0.0% 0.00% 0.9%

Birth date (month and year) 0.0 0.00 0.9

Agency/Subelement 0.0 0.00 0.9

Occupation 0.0 0.00 0.9

Retirement plan 0.0 0.00 0.9

Social Security number 0.0 0.00 0.9

Work schedule 0.0 0.00 0.9

Sex 0.1 0.00 1.34

Duty station 0.3 0.01 1.95

Service computation date (month and

year) 0.4 0.01 1.95

Pay plan/grade 0.7 0.09 2.48

Veterans preference 0.7 0.09 2.48

Employee name a 0.9 0.09 2.48

Adjusted basic pay 1.2 0.24 2.98

Race or national origin 2.0 0.64 3.91

Veterans status 2.2 0.88 4.36

Handicap 2.7 2.16 6.51

Rating of record 4.7 2.37 6.77

Education level 26.7 21.50 31.14

Note 1: The returned questionnaires were weighted to represent the population of 1,905,787

federal employees for the results presented in this table. The percentages are generalizable to

the universe of federal employees in the CPDF as of September 1996, excluding employees of

the FBI.

Note 2: Because the questionnaire results come from a sample of employees, all questionnaire

results are subject to sampling error. We are 95-percent confident that the percentage of error for

the federal civilian workforce as a whole falls between the lower and upper boundaries listed for

each data element. The percentages of errors for the questionnaire results in our sample are

reported in the table.

Note 3: Pay plan and grade data elements are combined; therefore, although we checked the

accuracy of 20 data elements, the table shows 19 data elements.

aTo protect the confidentiality of employee records, OPM stores employees’ names separately

from the major CPDF databases.

Source: GAO questionnaire.

Page 29 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

We also compared data in employees’ personnel folders or other agency

records with data in the CPDF for 113 randomly selected employees at 6 of

the largest federal personnel offices (see the Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology section in ch. 1 for a discussion of our selection process).

For this comparison, we reviewed a total of 28 data elements: 23 data

elements common to both the status and dynamics files, 1 element found

only in the status file, 3 elements found only in the dynamics file, and the

employee name data element found in the CPDF name file. (See table 1.1 in

the Objectives, Scope, and Methodology section in ch. 1 for the CPDF data

elements we reviewed and their file locations.)

In our review of official personnel folders and agency records, we found

no inconsistencies among the 23 data elements we included in our

comparison that were common to both the status and dynamics files. For

example, if the status file data element showed an erroneous education

level for a given employee, the dynamics file element showed the same

erroneous code. Our review of official personnel folders showed that

personnel actions reflected in the CPDF dynamics file appeared to be

generally complete.15 There were no inaccuracies for 12 of the data

elements. For another five data elements, our comparison showed error

rates of less than 1 percent. The remaining nine data elements had error

rates greater than 1 percent. For the legal authority code data element, we

could not determine the error rate because some employees had no

transactions for fiscal year 1996. Table 2.2 shows the results of our

comparison.

Table 2.2: Number of Differences

Between 113 Employees’ Official

Personnel Folders and Agency

Records and the CPDF

Data element

Number of

differences

Percentage of

errorsa

Annuitant indicator 0 0.0%

Effective date of action 0 0.0

Duty station 0 0.0

Agency/Subelement 0 0.0

Handicap 0 0.0

Nature of action code 0 0.0

Position occupied 0 0.0

Race or national origin 0 0.0

Retirement plan 0 0.0

Social Security number 0 0.0

Tenure 0 0.0

(continued)

15We found two instances of personnel actions in official personnel folders not being recorded in the

CPDF dynamics file. These two missing personnel actions are not reflected in the table.

Page 30 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

Data element

Number of

differences

Percentage of

errorsa

Work schedule 0 0.0

Birth date (month and year) 1 0.9

Occupation 1 0.9

Personnel office identifier 1 0.9

Service computation date (month and year) 1 0.9

Sex 1 0.9

Employee nameb 2 1.8

Pay rate determinant 2 1.8

Legal authority code 3 c

Pay plan/ grade 3 2.7

Veterans preference 4 3.5

Adjusted basic pay 7 6.2

Veterans status 8 7.1

Current appointment authority 11 9.7

Rating of record 18 15.9

Education 26 23.0

Note 1: The percentages reported in this table are based on a random sample of official

personnel folders at six of the largest personnel offices in the federal government and cannot be

generalized governmentwide.

Note 2: Pay plan and grade data elements are combined; therefore, the table shows 27 data

elements rather than 28.

aThe percentage of errors is based on the number of folders reviewed rather than on the number

of personnel transactions documented in the folders.

bTo protect the confidentiality of employee records, OPM stores employee name separately from

the major CPDF databases. In the two cases where the name was incorrect, the employees’

names had changed due to a change in their marital status.

cFor this data element, we could not determine the percentage of errors using the universe of 113

employees because some employees had no transactions for fiscal year 1996.

Source: GAO analysis of agency records and the CPDF.

Concerning the most error-prone data elements, our review of employees’

official personnel folders and agency records showed results similar to

those of our questionnaire—education level and rating of record were the

most error-prone data elements. (See app. III for a more detailed

discussion of the data elements that contained the highest rates of error.)

However, the results of our comparison between the data in the official

personnel folders and the CPDF differ somewhat from those of our

questionnaire. For example, the results of the questionnaire showed

Page 31 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

education level to have a 26.7 percent error rate and rating of record to

have a 4.7 percent error rate. The results of the comparison showed

education level to have a 23.0 percent error rate and rating of record to

have a 15.9 percent error rate. Although we did not try to determine the

reason for these differences, two reasons appear most likely. First, the

results of the questionnaire are generalizable governmentwide, although

the results of the comparison are not because the sample of the

comparison is not generalizable. Second, the information in the

employees’ official personnel folders might not be current. In particular,

employees may not have informed their personnel offices of additional

education completed, so this information may not be in the official

personnel folder. Thus, the information in the official personnel folder

might match the CPDF, but neither would be current.

The Results of Our Review

Were Broadly Consistent

With Those of OPM’s

Historical Accuracy

Measurements

In its measurements of historical accuracy of CPDF data, OPM has reported

results broadly consistent with ours. That is, OPM has found that most data

elements it reviewed were 99 percent or more accurate but has found high

error rates for rating of record and education level. Table 2.3 groups by

percent of errors the error rates identified by our two methods for

measuring CPDF status and dynamics file data accuracy and OPM’s

measurement of the historical accuracy of fiscal year 1994 CPDF status file

data. The table shows that between the two methods we used to measure

CPDF data accuracy (although variation existed in the accuracy of some

data elements) at least 63 percent of CPDF data elements were 99 percent

or more accurate.

Page 32 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

Table 2.3: Errors Identified by GAO’s and OPM’s Measurements of CPDF Data Accuracy Grouped by Percent of Errors

Questionnaire Comparison

OPM’s accuracy

measurement for fiscal year

1994

GAO approachesa

Percentage of errors Percent

Number of data

elements Percent

Number of data

elementsb Percent

Number of data

elements

0 35% 7 44% 12 44% 8

<1 35 7 19 5 28 5

1 and above 30 6 37 10 28 5

Note: GAO’s questionnaire and comparison approaches included status and dynamics file data.

The OPM accuracy measurement for fiscal year 1994 results used in the table are for status file

data only.

aAlthough we combined pay plan and grade when we surveyed employees, we counted these

two data elements separately when determining how many data elements were 99 percent or

more accurate.

bAlthough we compared 28 data elements, this table includes 27. These numbers do not include

the legal authority code data element because we were not able to calculate an error rate for it.

Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.

Although OPM’s and our results were broadly consistent, there are

important differences between OPM’s methodology and ours. First, we sent

our questionnaire to a generalizable sample of current federal employees

and reviewed a random sample of official personnel files of current federal

employees. In contrast, OPM reviewed centrally located records of former

employees. Second, OPM’s methodology in comparing CPDF data with those

in employees’ official personnel folders differed from ours. We often relied

on agency records (e.g., records maintained separately from official

personnel folders for race, national origin, and handicap) in cases where

data were not in official personnel folders, but OPM generally limited its

review to documents that were in personnel folders. Third, the way we

determined errors differed in part from OPM’s. OPM did not determine if the

official personnel folder data element itself was correct, but we did so by

researching available agency personnel records.

The Accuracy of CPDF

Data Varied by Agency

Our review of employees’ official personnel folders and other agency

records was intended to evaluate CPDF accuracy in general, not to compare

CPDF data accuracy among individual agencies. Such a review would have

required a much larger sample to represent each agency. But during our

review, we did find circumstances that demonstrated how accuracy varied

by agency and why. For example, although the five other agencies we

Page 33 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

reviewed were routinely providing information on employee performance

ratings to the CPDF, SSA had not updated rating information in the CPDF for

over 2 years at the time of our review. SSA officials told us this lapse

occurred because temporary procedures that had been established to

correct SSA’s difficulty in providing appraisal data to HHS proved to be

cumbersome; as a result, SSA did not provide its appraisal data to HHS for

HHS to submit the data to the CPDF for 1995. According to SSA officials, SSA

continued to capture these data in its human resource management

information system, but HHS did not ask for the data, and SSA was not

aware that it was to report them to the CPDF.

The importance of a data element to an agency can affect the level of

effort that the agency gives to ensuring the data element’s accuracy. For

example, some personnelists in the offices we visited said that the

accuracy of education level information was “of little concern” to them. In

contrast, two other personnel offices reported taking steps to improve the

accuracy of this information. Officials in one of these offices (the

Pensacola Naval Air Station) told us they had updated the education level

information on their employees as part of an overall records review. An

official in the other office (State) told us that promotions for certain of

their employees are based, in part, on education levels. Therefore, the

official said that employees are asked to review such information

maintained by the agency and report needed changes.

We also observed in previous work that agency-specific CPDF data could be

inaccurate. For example, in 1997 the House Committee on International

Relations asked us to examine a discrepancy between the number (17) of

Schedule C political appointees16 reported to Congress by the Agency for

International Development (AID) and the number (0) that appeared in the

CPDF for the period January 19, 1993, through November 14, 1995. Through

our analysis of the CPDF data, we determined that AID used the wrong legal

authority when coding the appointing authority for these individuals. As a

result, the information in the CPDF (0) did not correctly identify any of the

17 individuals as political appointees.

Inaccuracies in specific agencies’ CPDF data, such as SSA not submitting

current rating of record data for 2 years and AID using the wrong legal

authority code for Schedule C political appointees, can distort users’

analyses, findings, and conclusions and result in OPM’s reporting on federal

agencies that misinforms policymakers and the public. These examples

16Upon specific authorization by OPM, agencies may make Schedule C appointments to positions

excepted from the competitive service that are policy-determining or that involve a close and

confidential working relationship with the head of an agency or other key appointed officials.

Page 34 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

also show that errors in agency-specific data may go unnoticed for several

years and that the accuracy of a particular data element can vary from

year to year for a particular agency.

OPM officials told us that they believe that the periodic accuracy

measurements that OPM does are a good indicator of problematic data

elements governmentwide. For example, OPM’s measurement of historical

accuracy for fiscal year 1994 discusses why errors occurred and gives

error rates for status and dynamics file data elements governmentwide.

However, as we said earlier, OPM does not provide the results of these

measurements to non-OPM users of CPDF data. Therefore, non-OPM users of

CPDF data are most likely not aware of the findings of OPM’s accuracy

measurements. In addition, OPM officials said that their periodic accuracy

measurements are not useful for identifying errors in CPDF data elements at

individual agencies. OPM officials said they sometimes become aware of

agency-specific inaccuracies in the CPDF when non-OPM users of the data,

such as us or the agencies affected, contact OPM about the inaccuracies.

For example, OPM said that after it discovered that AID Schedule C

appointees were not identified in the CPDF, it began working with AID to

improve the future reporting on political appointees.

Awareness of inaccuracies in specific data elements and variation in data

accuracy among agencies is important because OPM and non-OPM users rely

on CPDF data to monitor and report on individual agencies’ demographics,

compliance with government policies, or other characteristics. For

example:

• OPM’s Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness uses CPDF data

to monitor and report on individual agencies’ compliance with selected

Merit Systems Principles set out in title 5 of the United States Code;17

• the National Performance Review used CPDF data in a 1993 report on

Transforming Organizational Structures to compare the numbers of

federal personnel by occupation;

• the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission used CPDF data in its

fiscal year 1991 report to the President and Congress on affirmative

employment programs for minorities and women and for hiring,

placement, and advancement of people with disabilities in the federal

government; and

• we use the data in some of our reports to Congress.

175 U.S.C. 2301.

Page 35 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

According to these officials, OPM’s current approach for measuring CPDF

data accuracy is not designed to include representative samples for

individual agencies, and such a sample would be significantly larger than

the 135 official personnel folders OPM examined to do its latest

measurement for fiscal year 1994 data. OPM officials recognize that the

results of rigorous measurements of CPDF data accuracy, i.e.,

measurements designed to test the accuracy of individual agencies’ data,

could help users of CPDF data determine if the data are sufficiently

accurate for their purposes. However, OPM officials believe the cost of

doing such measurements would be prohibitive and would not guarantee

that users would consider the measurements when working with CPDF data

or that agencies would use the results of the measurements to improve the

accuracy of their CPDF data submissions.

OPM’s Office of the

Actuaries Reported That

CPDF Data Are Sufficiently

Accurate for Estimating

the Government’s Liability

for Future Retirement

Payments

OPM’s Office of the Actuaries uses CPDF data to help estimate the federal

government’s liability for future payments of federal retirement programs.

According to the actuary responsible for calculating the federal

government’s liability for future retirement payments to federal employees

and their survivors, the office uses CPDF data on adjusted basic pay, sex,

birth date, retirement plan, and service computation date in calculating the

estimate of this liability.

We discussed with the actuary the error rates we found for these data

elements both as measured in our employee questionnaire and in

comparison to official personnel folders and records. Except for adjusted

base pay, which was about 94-percent accurate in our nongeneralizable

comparison of official personnel folders and CPDF data, we found all of

these data to be 99 percent or more accurate. We shared these results with

the actuary, and he told us that the CPDF data elements were sufficiently

accurate for making the liability estimate. The actuary also told us that

erroneous national economic assumptions were much more likely to affect

his estimate than inaccuracies in the CPDF data. For instance, the actuary

said that slight variances in estimated future interest rates or rates of

return on investment could have a significant impact on the government’s

estimated liability for future payments. Furthermore, the actuary said that

the CPDF is not the only source of information for certain information the

office uses for its estimate.18 For example, the actuary told us that he

makes independent calculations of salaries by using data on contributions

18The CPDF is only one of three major databases the office uses for liability calculation. The other two

databases are the Postal Data File and the Annuitant File.

Page 36 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

to pension plans. In addition, OPM received an unqualified opinion on its

retirement program financial statements for fiscal year 1997.

Conclusion Most of the 28 data elements we reviewed were 99 percent or more

accurate in the aggregate. A minority of data elements we reviewed,

especially education level and rating of record, was much less accurate.

OPM has found broadly similar results in its accuracy measurements but

has not informed non-OPM users of CPDF data of these results even though

the lower level of accuracy for some data elements could affect the

validity of analyses relying on those data elements. Further, the accuracy

levels that both OPM and we have found are generalizable only

governmentwide. Anecdotal evidence from this review and our prior work

illustrates that the accuracy of CPDF data elements can vary significantly

among agencies. Nevertheless, OPM and non-OPM analysts rely on CPDF data

to monitor and report on individual agencies’ demographics, compliance

with government policies, and other characteristics. OPM officials said that

gauging the accuracy of individual data elements by agency would require

a significantly larger measurement sample and thus increase its

measurement costs. Informing users of CPDF data of the governmentwide

accuracy results and a specific caution that individual agencies’ results

may vary significantly could nevertheless be useful. This would allow

analysts and those using CPDF products to make better informed judgments

before using agency-specific CPDF data and perhaps to seek information to

corroborate the CPDF data.

Recommendation to

the Director of OPM

We recommend that the Director of OPM make the results of OPM’s

measurements of historical accuracy available to all users. To make this

information available OPM could post the results of its accuracy

measurements on its Internet web site including cautionary language

indicating that the accuracy of CPDF data elements may vary by agency.

OPM could also inform users of the availability of this information

whenever it distributes CPDF data or reports.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In a letter dated September 11, 1998, (see app. VII), the OPM Director said

our findings are consistent with OPM’s internal quality measures. In

particular, the OPM Director cited our draft report’s findings that CPDF data,

including the data used by OPM’s Office of the Actuaries to estimate the

government’s liability for future retirement payments, were accurate.

Page 37 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 2 

CPDF Data Reviewed Appear to Be Mostly

Accurate in the Aggregate

The OPM Director also said that although our findings were positive, she

believed many of the report’s headings tended to obscure rather than

clarify the findings. In addition, she said that the Results in Brief

discussion of CPDF accuracy standards and error rates in education level

data is so limited that it presents only our view of CPDF limitations.

According to the OPM Director, for “complete and accurate information

that provides a more balanced rationale for CPDF specifications, one must

look beyond the Results in Brief” to the body of the report.

We believe the view presented in the Results in Brief is balanced. For

example, in the first paragraph, we report that about two-thirds of the

selected CPDF data elements it reviewed were at least 99-percent accurate.

We also disagree that the report’s headings tend to obscure rather than

clarify the findings. The report’s title, chapter titles, and main captions

note the positive findings of our review. We believe, as the OPM Director

acknowledged, that our report clearly states that most of the CPDF data we

reviewed were accurate.

The OPM Director did not specifically refer to our recommendation that she

make the results of OPM’s historical measurements of the CPDF’s accuracy

available to all users. However, she said that OPM will make available

appropriate explanatory material to all CPDF users. As stated in this

chapter, we believe that this explanatory material should include the

accuracy measurements.

Page 38 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 3 

USERs Generally Reported CPDF Products

Met Their Needs, but Further Awareness of

Cautions on CPDF Data Could Affect Use of

the Data

We used a questionnaire19 to determine the extent to which selected CPDF

users believed (1) the CPDF data they used met their needs, including

whether the products were current, accurate, and complete; and (2) they

received sufficient cautions about the limitations of CPDF data to use or

present the CPDF data correctly. OPM officials identified 247 CPDF users as

representing all of the requesters of CPDF data products who corresponded

directly with OPM in 1996. We surveyed those 247, and 40 said they did not

use CPDF products. Of the remaining 207, 161 responded to our

questionnaire as users of the CPDF. The results of our CPDF customer

questionnaire showed that the majority of CPDF users responding believed

that CPDF products met their needs, including being sufficiently current,

accurate, and complete. However, 29 of the 71 CPDF users said knowing

about cautions they were not made aware of would have affected the way

they used or presented CPDF data. OPM officials said, and respondents’

answers to our questionnaire indicated, that the extent to which OPM

provided users cautions about the general limitations of the CPDF varied.

OPM officials said they were considering creating a CPDF web site that

would allow OPM to make CPDF data more widely available and to “bundle”

or link specific cautions on limitations associated with specific sets of

data.

USERs Generally

Reported That CPDF

Data Met Their Needs

Including Being

Current, Accurate,

and Complete

OPM distributes a variety of CPDF-based products, including data extracts

that consist of selected data elements, e.g., “service computation date” or

“duty station,” which are provided on tape or diskette to users; recurring

reports, such as the Demographic Profile of the Federal Workforce;

20 ad

hoc reports containing specific information from the CPDF, such as results

of matching CPDF data with other data; and the User Simple and Efficient

Retrieval (USER) system, which is an information retrieval system that

provides electronic access to the CPDF’s status and dynamics files. The

majority of the respondents to our questionnaire reported that the data in

the CPDF products they used met their needs, including being current,

accurate, and complete.

For example, when asked about the extent to which CPDF products that

they used over the past 2 years (i.e., data extracts, recurring reports, ad

hoc reports, and the USER system) met their needs, depending on the type

of product, 67 to 81 percent of respondents rated CPDF products as meeting

19The complete results of GAO’s questionnaire appear in appendix V.

20The Demographic Profile of the Federal Workforce report is published biennially by OPM. It replaces

the Equal Employment Opportunity Statistics series (1963-1980), and the biennial Affirmative

Employment Statistics report last published for September 1990.

Page 39 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 3 

USERs Generally Reported CPDF Products

Met Their Needs, but Further Awareness of

Cautions on CPDF Data Could Affect Use of

the Data

their needs to a great or very great extent. When asked about the extent

that these products were current enough to meet their needs, the majority

of CPDF users responding to this question reported that the CPDF was, to a

great or very great extent, current enough to meet their needs. Seventy to

73 percent of the users who answered this question rated the data

products we asked about as current enough for their needs to a great or

very great extent.

When asked about the extent to which they believed the CPDF products

that they used over the past 2 years were accurate, the majority (65 to

87 percent) of users responding to this question rated the products we

asked about as accurate to a great or very great extent. Similarly, the

majority (71 to 89 percent) of the users responding to our question about

the completeness of CPDF data said they believe the products listed were

complete to a great or very great extent. Of those users of CPDF products

who reported that specific products met their needs to a great or very

great extent, a large majority also reported that those products were

accurate and complete.

In addition to the data products that we asked about, 15 respondents to

our questionnaire reported they used the Installation Level Data Retrieval

System (ILDRS)—a database system that uses CPDF data to provide a “snap

shot” of a federal agency’s personnel.21 When asked about the extent to

which ILDRS was current enough to meet their needs over the past 2 years,

unlike the response we got from most users about the currency of CPDF

products, only 4 of these 15 respondents rated it as being current enough

to meet their needs to a great or very great extent. Eight of the 15

respondents rated ILDRS as being accurate to a great or very great extent,

and 9 of the 15 rated ILDRS as being complete to a great or very great

extent.

21ILDRS is used by evaluators in OPM’s Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness in

preparing for on-site evaluation activities; preparing for the analysis of installation personnel activity

off-site; and producing a variety of statistical indicators to measure the performance of human

resource management systems at the bureau, agency, and governmentwide levels.

Page 40 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 3 

USERs Generally Reported CPDF Products

Met Their Needs, but Further Awareness of

Cautions on CPDF Data Could Affect Use of

the Data

Most CPDF USERs

Said Cautions OPM

Provides on Data

Limitations Were

Sufficient, but Some

Said Further

Awareness of

Cautions Could Affect

Use of Data

OWI does not provide users of CPDF products with a uniform set of cautions

about the limitations of the data elements contained in the CPDF. The

extent of the cautions OPM provides about the limitations of CPDF data to

users of CPDF-based products varies because, according to OPM officials,

the cautions are tailored to the CPDF product being requested. Users

responding to our questionnaire demonstrated a wide range of awareness

of caution statements about the CPDF data’s limitations. The majority of

users responding to our questionnaire reported that they were aware of

the limitations of the data they received and that the caution statements on

limitations provided by OPM were sufficient for them to correctly use the

data.

OPM Does Not Disclose to

Users All the Cautions

About the CPDF’s

Limitations

Although OPM’s CPDF-based governmentwide and ad hoc reports contained

some cautions on limitations, none of the reports we reviewed disclosed

all of the cautions on the CPDF. We observed that CPDF products, such as ad

hoc reports, that OPM prepares to respond to requests for specific

information do not fully disclose all 28 cautions about the limitations of

the CPDF that OPM officials identified for us.22 For example, OPM’s response

to a state’s request for CPDF data that were to be used in a data match to

identify federal employees by selected data elements, such as pay grade,

who graduated from state education and training programs cautioned the

requester that the CPDF contains records of personnel only in executive

branch agencies. OPM did not warn the requester that OPM’s quality

assurance procedures cannot detect agency miscoding of certain data

elements, such as pay grade (e.g., submission of grade 11 when the grade

is actually 12). In contrast, the recurring reports that are widely distributed

and that contain governmentwide statistics, such as OPM’s Biennial Report

of Employment by Geographic Area, contained quality measurements of

the data in the reports and error rates (i.e., estimated percentage of data

elements that failed edit checks) for each of the data elements reported.

OWI analysts routinely monitor and report to agencies submitting data

about the quality of their own submissions, that is, the degree to which

their data submissions fall within OWI’s acceptable range of data values, or

edit standards. This information is also made available within OPM and to

certain non-OPM users. For example, information on the percentage of data

elements not passing CPDF edits and the quality of the CPDF status and

dynamics files is currently available through OPM’s USER system. According

to OPM, we, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit

22A copy of our questionnaire containing the results from respondents is in appendix VI. For a

complete list of the 28 caution statements about the limitations of the CPDF, see question 6.

Page 41 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 3 

USERs Generally Reported CPDF Products

Met Their Needs, but Further Awareness of

Cautions on CPDF Data Could Affect Use of

the Data

Systems Protection Board, the Department of Agriculture, Department of

Labor, Environmental Protection Agency, National Guard, National

Security Agency, Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of

Management and Budget were trained and given access to this system by

them. OPM officials reported that they do not know to what extent these

agencies use the quality reports available through the USER system.

Although OPM does not make information about the quality of individual

agencies’ CPDF submissions directly available to nonfederal and most

federal users, it bases some caution statements to users about the

limitations of CPDF data on this information. For example, in its

Demographic Profile of the Federal Workforce as of September 30, 1996,

OPM informed users that about 0.4 percent of the total CPDF records

available for the report were rejected because they failed edits on key data

elements. OPM also cautions users in correspondence responding to

requests for information and in its recurring CPDF-based reports, such as

OPM’s Biennial Report of Employment by Geographic Area, about certain

general limitations of the data, such as the exclusion of certain agencies’

employees from the CPDF’s population coverage. However, OPM does not

caution users about other limitations, such as that OPM may change

submitted values that are missing or known to be in error.

Most CPDF Users Said

CPDF Products Met Their

Needs, but Some Said

Further Awareness of

Cautions on CPDF Data

Could Affect Use of Data

In our questionnaire to CPDF customers, we asked them to indicate how

many of the 28 cautions about the CPDF OPM made them aware of.23 The

CPDF users responding to our questionnaire showed a wide range of

awareness of the cautions. For example, more than 95 percent of those

answering our question about CPDF cautions said they were cautioned by

OPM that certain agencies are exempt from reporting to the CPDF. However,

only about 34 percent of those answering the question said they were

made aware that OPM may change submitted values that are missing or

known to be in error by matching records to older files or making values

consistent with statistical assumptions. According to OPM officials, these

changes rarely happen; and, when they do, they affect only one or two

agencies once every four quarterly status files. Overall, from 72 to

86 percent of the users reported that the caution statements on limitations

provided by OPM were sufficient for them to correctly use or present the

data contained in the various CPDF products they used to a great or very

great extent. However, 29 of the 71 CPDF users said knowing about

23A copy of our questionnaire containing the results from respondents is in appendix VI. For a

complete list of the 28 caution statements about the limitations of the CPDF, see question 6.

Page 42 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 3 

USERs Generally Reported CPDF Products

Met Their Needs, but Further Awareness of

Cautions on CPDF Data Could Affect Use of

the Data

cautions they were not made aware of would have affected the way they

used or presented CPDF data.

Of the 28 caution statements about limitations of the CPDF listed on our

questionnaire, the 5 that respondents were least aware of were the

following: (1) a small number (0.2 percent) of employees have more than 1

record in a CPDF status file; (2) the FBI does not report duty station location

for employees outside of the District of Columbia; (3) OPM may change

submitted values that are missing or known to be in error by matching

records to older files or making values consistent with statistical

assumptions; (4) there is no CPDF standard format for submitting employee

names; and (5) CPDF status files are generally considered to reflect

employment at the end of the quarter, but they might actually reflect

employment at the end of the pay period just prior to the end of the

quarter.

OWI officials reported that OPM provides information about the specific

limitations of a data product to requesters but does not provide

information about other limitations, such as the list of 28 caution

statements about CPDF data, to all requesters. OPM officials said that making

caution statements about CPDF data limitations more widely available

might be useful to some users of the data. However, OWI officials believe

this alone would not prevent the possible misinterpretation of a specific

set of data by a third-party user, i.e., someone who does not receive CPDF

data directly from OPM reports or OPM. Because OPM officials are not always

aware of the intended use of data requested by users, these officials may

not be aware of which of the 28 caution statements would be most

beneficial to those users. For example, if a user intended to derive the

average education level of the employees of a particular agency but only

requested status file data as of a particular date from OPM, OPM officials

might not provide the user with the caution statement that some data were

collected at the time of appointment, e.g., education level data, but not

routinely updated. Therefore, the average education level derived for the

agency would not be current and most likely be understated. OWI officials

reported they have been considering creating a CPDF web site that would

allow OPM to make CPDF data more widely available and allow OPM to

bundle specific caution statements on limitations with the sets of data.

Page 43 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 3 

USERs Generally Reported CPDF Products

Met Their Needs, but Further Awareness of

Cautions on CPDF Data Could Affect Use of

the Data

Most CPDF USERs

Surveyed Rated the

Overall Quality of

CPDF Products as

Excellent or Very

Good

OPM sends customer feedback questionnaires to its CPDF users to determine

if it is meeting their needs and to solicit suggestions for improvement. We

reviewed 149 OPM customer feedback questionnaires for the period

covering March 27, 1990, through February 28, 1994, and determined that

140 of the 149 (94 percent) of the CPDF users responding rated the overall

quality of the CPDF products they received as very good or excellent. The

majority (from about 72 to 84 percent) of the CPDF users responding to our

questionnaire also rated the overall quality of the specific CPDF products

they used as very good or excellent.

Conclusions Most of the users of CPDF data we surveyed reported that they believed

that the data in those CPDF-based products they used met their needs,

including being current, accurate, and complete. The majority of users we

sent questionnaires to reported they had received sufficient cautions about

the CPDF’s limitations to use or present the data correctly. However,

although OPM highlighted cautions about CPDF data that are most likely to

be applicable to the interests of a particular requester of those data, it did

not make all 28 caution statements available to each of those requesters.

Some users reported that knowing about cautions they were not made

aware of would have affected the way they used or presented CPDF data. In

addition, users who obtain CPDF data regularly without a specific request

to OPM may not be cautioned about the limitations associated with using

the data.

Recommendation to

the Director of OPM

We recommend that the Director of OPM ensure that OPM make all 28

caution statements about limitations associated with CPDF data available to

all users. In addition, it may be useful for OPM to continue its practice of

highlighting cautions on the data limitations of the CPDF that are most

likely to be applicable to the interests of a particular requester of CPDF

data. To make this information available to all users, OPM could (1) post,

on its Internet web site, a complete listing of the 28 caution statements

about limitations associated with CPDF data, (2) apprise all recipients of

CPDF data of the availability of the caution statements, and (3) implement

its proposal to bundle specific cautions on limitations associated with

specific sets of data.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In a letter dated September 11, 1998, (see app. VII), the OPM Director said

our findings were consistent with OPM’s internal quality measures. The OPM

Director cited our draft report’s findings that most of the users of CPDF

Page 44 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 3 

USERs Generally Reported CPDF Products

Met Their Needs, but Further Awareness of

Cautions on CPDF Data Could Affect Use of

the Data

data we surveyed rated the overall quality of the data excellent to very

good and believed they received explanatory material that enabled them to

use the data correctly.

The OPM Director also said that although our findings were positive, she

believed the Results in Brief section was too skimpy and that many of the

report’s headings tended to obscure rather than clarify the findings. We

believe the view presented in the Results in Brief is balanced. We also

disagree that the report’s headings tend to obscure rather than clarify the

findings. The report’s title, chapter titles, and main captions note the

positive findings of our review. We believe, as the OPM Director

acknowledged, that our report clearly states that most CPDF users’ needs

were met.

The OPM Director did not specifically refer to our recommendation that she

make all 28 caution statements about limitations associated with CPDF data

available to all users. However, she said that OPM will make available

appropriate explanatory material to all CPDF users. As stated in this

chapter, we believe that this explanatory material should include all 28

caution statements about limitations associated with CPDF data. In

addition, the OPM Director identified additional agencies that have access

to OPM’s USER system, which we added to the report where appropriate.

Page 45 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 4 

System Software Development Not

Documented According to Applicable

Federal Guidance, but Software Appears to

Implement Edits as Intended

From 1976 to 1995 applicable federal guidance recommended that

agencies use a structured approach for operating and maintaining

automated information systems, such as the Central Personnel Data

System. The guidance suggested that agencies document the life cycle of

an automated information system from its initiation through installation

and operation. Although the guidance was issued before OPM’s major

redesign of the System software in 1986, OPM’s OIT did not document

changes that were made to the System or have independent testing done to

ensure that changes to the software would perform as intended. OIT

officials said that to their knowledge the System has not had problems

processing data reliably and that the System’s owner, OPM’s OWI, concurred.

Our review of 718 of the 763 computer instructions used by the CPDF

showed that the System uses instructions that should implement CPDF

edits as intended. OIT officials said that for OPM to accomplish its future

information technology (IT) goals it will have to follow a structured

approach for computer application development. Toward this end, OPM has

adopted a software development goal that would require such an approach

no later than fiscal year 2002.

OPM Did Not

Document an Upgrade

of the System’s

Software as

Recommended in

Federal Guidance

From 1976 to 1995, federal guidance issued by the National Bureau of

Standards24 and other federal agencies said that sufficient planning and

documentation are needed for cost-effective operation and maintenance of

information systems. This guidance described the need for organizations

to adopt a structured, or System Development Life Cycle (SDLC), approach.

An SDLC approach requires organizations to document the phases of the

development life cycle for automated information systems and their

software applications, including any changes that are made to the systems

or their software. Although federal guidance recommending that agencies

follow best practices for automated information systems’ best practices

were issued before OPM’s major redesign of the System’s software in 1986,

OIT did not document changes that were made to the System. OIT officials

said that to their knowledge there was no effect on the System from their

not having used the SDLC approach because they believe the System was

still reliable without it.

24The National Bureau of Standards has been replaced by the National Institute of Standards and

Technology.

Page 46 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 4 

System Software Development Not

Documented According to Applicable

Federal Guidance, but Software Appears to

Implement Edits as Intended

Federal Guidance

Recommended Using a

Structured Approach to

System’s Software

Development

From 1976 to 1995, federal guidance existed to assist agencies as they

developed computer software applications and made changes in their

automated information systems from initiation through operation. For

example, on February 15, 1976, the Department of Commerce’s National

Bureau of Standards issued the Federal Information Processing Standards

(FIPS) Publication 38, which provided basic guidance for the preparation of

10 document types that agencies were to use in the development of

computer software. FIPS Publication 64, which was issued on August 1,

1979, provided guidance for determining the content and extent of

documentation needed for the initiation phase of the software life cycle. In

1995 the Secretary of Commerce approved the withdrawal of nine such

guidelines, including FIPS Publications 38 and 64. However, agencies that

find these guidelines useful may continue to use them.

The National Bureau of Standards’ 1988 Guide to Auditing for Controls and

Security: A System Development Life Cycle Approach, was to be used as

an audit program for auditing automated information systems under

development. It included many guidelines that were published from 1976

through 1984 that described the SDLC approach and its requirements,

including documentation. This guide also referenced other federal sources

that required documentation, including federal information resource

management reports and OMB Circular A-130.25

The federal government does not follow a single SDLC approach, but an

SDLC approach generally includes the following phases: (1) initiation (the

recognition of a problem and the identification of a need); (2) definition

(the specification of functional requirements and the start of detailed

planning); (3) system design (specification of the problem solution);

(4) programming and training (the start of testing, evaluation, certification,

and installation of programs); (5) evaluation and acceptance (the

integration and testing of the system or software); and (6) installation and

operation (the implementation and operation of the system or software,

the budgeting for it, and the controlling of all changes and the

maintenance and modification of the system during its life).

SDLC documentation is important because it provides a basis for

(1) systematically making decisions while moving through a system’s

life-cycle phases and establishing a baseline for future changes to the

system and (2) auditing systems that are under development. According to

federal guidance, software acceptance testing, like other testing of the

25OMB Circular No. A-130 provides uniform governmentwide information resources management

policies as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

Page 47 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 4 

System Software Development Not

Documented According to Applicable

Federal Guidance, but Software Appears to

Implement Edits as Intended

automated information system, must be documented carefully, with

traceability of test cases to the system requirements and the acceptance

criteria. Without acceptance testing, changes to an automated information

system cannot be verified as working as intended.

Ensuring an information system’s reliability is not the only reason for

following an SDLC approach. The National Bureau of Standards’ Guide to

Auditing for Controls and Security: A System Development Life Cycle

Approach states that if agencies use a structured approach to systems

development, the probability increases for a well-defined life cycle and

compliance to such a cycle. According to the Guide, an unstructured

approach leads to free-form system development that may result in serious

omissions. Without a structured approach to software applications

development, no assurance exists that adequate testing, verification,

validation, and certification will be done; resources will be appropriately

expended; the anticipated return on investment will be achieved; or user

requirements will be met. In addition, without documentation, the history

of system changes can be lost if staff changes occur, thus making future

system modifications or problem corrections more time-consuming and

costly.

During the evaluation and acceptance phase, the computer instructions

that have been written or modified undergo testing to verify that they will

perform according to user specifications. Although federal guidance said

that some changes to the SDLC may be appropriate “if the subject to be

addressed is a major modification to a system rather than the development

of a new one,” it also said that “the need to continually assess the user’s

needs (validation) and to ensure the conceptual integrity of the design

(verification) are not arguable.” Thus, evaluation and acceptance testing is

a phase that no agency should leave out of an SDLC. As we have described

in guidance for the Year 2000 computing challenge, acceptance testing

should be done by an independent reviewer.26 An independent review

helps to ensure that internal controls and security are adequate to produce

consistently reliable results.

OPM Did Not Document

Upgrade of the System’s

Software as Recommended

in Federal Guidance

According to OPM officials, since the System’s development in 1972, it has

gone through only one major software upgrade, which was done in

conjunction with the replacement of the System’s hardware. According to

an OIT official, in 1985, OPM replaced its existing Honeywell computer with

an IBM computer and converted CPDF application programs to run on the

26Year 2000 Computing Crisis: A Testing Guide, Exposure draft, (GAO/AIMD-10.1.21, June 1998).

Page 48 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 4 

System Software Development Not

Documented According to Applicable

Federal Guidance, but Software Appears to

Implement Edits as Intended

new hardware. He also reported that at about the same time, OPM decided

to upgrade CPDF capabilities by procuring several commercial software

packages as well as designing customized software. According to OIT

managers, the software upgrade was done in 1986 to improve the

timeliness and accuracy of the CPDF because it was not working efficiently.

The OIT managers who were responsible for the System at that time told us

that OPM did not document the phases of this major system software

modification as recommended in applicable federal guidance under an

SDLC approach. Other OIT officials also told us that OPM did not follow an

SDLC approach for these 1986 CPDF changes or have documentation that

would show that acceptance testing was done. In addition, the testing that

was done was not done by an independent reviewer. OPM officials said that

because of time constraints, OIT staff who designed the software

modifications also did the acceptance testing and did not document it.

Although OIT did not follow an SDLC approach and did not have

documentation to show that the 1986 software upgrade passed acceptance

tests or that subsequent modifications to the System’s software

applications worked as intended, its managers said that they believe the

System is reliable. They said that they base their beliefs on the fact that

OPM’s OWI, the System’s owner, has not complained that the System is not

meeting its needs.

The System Appears

to Implement CPDF

Data Edits Reliably

Because OIT did not document software upgrades and modifications to the

System, we could not review this type of documentation as a basis for

independently evaluating the extent to which the System is operating as

intended. As an alternative, of the 763 total edits (700 call-relational27 and

63 validity28) that the system used at the time we did our work, we

reviewed the computer instructions written to implement the 700 (470

dynamic file and 230 status file) call-relational edits and 18 of the 63

validity edits that together check the key status and dynamics data fields.

This approach allowed us to indirectly determine if the System would

reliably implement CPDF data edits, the computer instructions that are to

check the validity of individual data elements.

27The call-relational edits are a series of subroutines or programs within the “Dynamics Main Edit

Module” and the “Status Main Edit Module” that control the editing of an agency’s dynamics and status

submission files. These edits do not “edit” or make corrections to any of the data elements. They

produce reports that show which fields or data elements are incorrect or failed validity checks.

28Validity edits check data against a defined range of acceptable values to identify data that fall outside

the range.

Page 49 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 4 

System Software Development Not

Documented According to Applicable

Federal Guidance, but Software Appears to

Implement Edits as Intended

Putting test data through the System or otherwise testing the reliability of

the System’s hardware and software under operating conditions would

have allowed us to directly test the reliability of the System. However, we

did not attempt to directly test the System’s reliability. OPM officials raised

a concern about the possible adverse effects of putting test data through

the System. They were concerned that putting test data through the

System could disrupt its production schedule and introduce “bad” data

that could have unforeseeable consequences on the System’s operations.

Because of the lack of any indications that routine System operations to

process agencies’ data submissions had caused data errors and the

concern raised by OPM, we decided to limit our test of the System’s

reliability to a review of the computer instructions the System uses to

implement edits.

Through our review, we determined that the computer instructions the

System uses would implement as intended the selected CPDF call-relational

edits and the validity edits used to identify data inconsistencies in the data

elements submitted by agencies. We found only one true error. The

computer instructions for a dynamics file call-relational edit that is 1 of 20

subprograms used to edit the prior basic pay data element was written in

1995 but was not applied to agencies’ dynamics file submissions. CPDF

programmers attributed this error to a mistake and oversight on their part

and not to a lack of documentation.

OPM Has Implicitly

Committed to Adopt

an SDLC Approach

In January 1997, OPM initiated a project to develop and implement an

Information Technology Architecture Vision, which describes the

hardware, software, network, and systems management components of

the technical infrastructure required to support OPM business applications

and data. This project was initiated in response to various federal

government initiatives intended to help ensure that government agencies

achieve their missions by changing management practices concerning IT

investment and operational decisions.

The first phase of this project was the development of an OPM IT

architecture vision, which is intended to provide the framework within

which OPM can make IT decisions. OPM published its IT architecture vision

in December 1997 and has as one of its components a description of the

technology infrastructure that will be needed to support OPM’s data and

application needs. Under this technology infrastructure component, OPM is

to adopt standards for application development and plans to provide

training to staff with the goal of reaching a specified software

Page 50 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 4 

System Software Development Not

Documented According to Applicable

Federal Guidance, but Software Appears to

Implement Edits as Intended

development level of process maturity as described in the Capability

Maturity ModelSM (CMM).29

CMM was developed by the Software Engineering Institute, which is a

federally funded research and development center operated by Carnegie

Mellon University. It has as a major purpose guiding process improvement

efforts in a software organization. CMM uses five maturity

levels—(1) initial, (2) repeatable, (3) defined, (4) managed, and

(5) optimizing—to represent evolutionary plateaus on the road to a high

level of software process capability. Each maturity level after the first

defines several key process areas—groups of related software

practices—all of which must be satisfied for an organization to attain that

level. An OIT official reported that OPM’s IT is at level 1 and has a goal under

its IT architecture vision of reaching level 2 or higher by fiscal year 2002.

CMM recommends that an organization use specific software development

practices, tools, and methodologies. It does not stipulate how the

organization must perform software development or management

activities.

For level 2 and higher, CMM requires an agency to define and document an

SDLC approach that is to be used in the development, modification, and

management of automated information systems and their software

applications. Therefore, by adopting level 2 as a goal, OPM also is

committing to follow an SDLC approach by fiscal year 2002. Because an

SDLC approach under CMM applies to the development, modification, and

management of all significant systems, once OPM has adopted an SDLC

approach, it would need to make changes to the CPDF that would conform

to an SDLC approach.

Successfully adopting an SDLC approach would be a significant change for

OPM because it said in its IT architecture vision that OPM’s application

development style has been situational, with few common approaches to

system development. The lack of an SDLC was a repeat material weakness

reported in independent audits of the financial statements for fiscal years

1996 and 1997 of the retirement program that was administered by OPM’s

Retirement and Insurance Service.

OIT officials told us that they recognize the importance of having an SDLC

approach for accomplishing the applications development goals OPM’s IT

architecture vision and in its strategic plan for fiscal years 1997 to 2002. In

29Capability Maturity ModelSM is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University, and CMM is registered

in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Page 51 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 4 

System Software Development Not

Documented According to Applicable

Federal Guidance, but Software Appears to

Implement Edits as Intended

the strategic plan, OPM includes a strategy for ensuring that OPM’s

mission-critical computer systems, of which the CPDF is one, are Year 2000

compliant in time to ensure that services to customers are not interrupted.

This strategy includes detailed tracking of progress on renovation and

testing of each IT system and validating and testing that software changes

are working as intended. These steps generally conform to SDLC

requirements.

Other than efforts for making its information systems Year 2000 compliant,

it is not clear whether OPM would follow an SDLC approach when modifying

any other systems, including the CPDF, before fiscal year 2002. Neither the

IT architecture vision nor the strategic plan specifically identifies when OPM

plans to adopt an agencywide SDLC approach.

Conclusions OPM has not followed an SDLC approach to software development that

includes documenting the phases of such development as recommended in

applicable federal guidance. OPM also has not documented the testing of

changes to software to verify that those changes worked as intended or

had such changes tested by an independent reviewer. Nevertheless,

although we did not directly test the System’s hardware and software

under operating conditions, our review of the computer instructions the

System uses to implement CPDF call-relational and validity edits shows that

the System should implement these edits reliably.

OPM has adopted a goal of achieving at least a CMM level 2 by 2002, and

doing so would require OPM to define and document an agencywide SDLC

approach. OPM’s current significant modification to CPDF and other

mission-critical systems to be Year 2000 compliant is following a

structured approach like an SDLC, but it is unclear when OPM might adopt

an SDLC approach for other future system changes.

Documentation of system changes in part helps agencies make any future

system modifications more quickly and cost effectively, and independent

review of system or software changes helps ensure that they will work as

intended. Therefore, following these procedures for any changes to the

CPDF before OPM adopts an agencywide SDLC could be beneficial.

Recommendation to

the Director of OPM

We recommend that the Director of OPM document any changes to the CPDF

before OPM adopts an agencywide SDLC approach as specified in CMM

Page 52 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Chapter 4 

System Software Development Not

Documented According to Applicable

Federal Guidance, but Software Appears to

Implement Edits as Intended

guidelines and that such changes be independently verified to ensure that

they will work as intended.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In a letter dated September 11, 1998, (see app. VII), the OPM Director said

our findings are consistent with OPM’s internal quality measures. The OPM

Director cited our draft report’s findings that the CPDF edit programs

should function well.

The OPM Director also said that although our findings were positive, she

believed many of the report’s headings tended to obscure rather than

clarify the findings. According to the OPM Director, for “complete and

accurate information that provides a more balanced rationale for CPDF

specifications, one must look beyond the Results in Brief” to the body of

the report.

We believe the view presented in the Results in Brief is balanced. We also

disagree that the report’s headings tend to obscure rather than clarify the

findings. The report’s title, chapter titles, and main captions note the

positive findings of our review. We believe, as the OPM Director

acknowledged, that our report clearly states that the System’s edit

programs should operate as intended.

The OPM Director agrees with our recommendation that OPM document all

future computer system and software changes and perform independent

verification that the changes function as intended. She said that OPM is

committed to adopting a formal SDLC methodology and is currently in the

process of implementing interim measures to ensure that the System is

fully documented and continues to function reliably. As an enclosure to

her comments, the Director provided OPM’s plans for implementing an SDLC

methodology.

Page 53 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix I 

To Ensure CPDF Data Quality, OWI Provides

Guidance to Agencies and Checks Data

Before Entering Them in CPDF

This appendix contains an explanation of the process that the Office of

Personnel Management’s (OPM) Office of Workforce Information (OWI)

reported it follows to ensure the quality of the data it enters into the

Central Personnel Data File (CPDF).

OWI Says It Provides

Agencies With

Guidelines on How to

Submit Data to the

CPDF

According to OWI officials, OWI provides agencies with guidelines on which

data elements and personnel transactions are to be reported, when data

submissions are to be made, and how the data must be formatted and

edited. These guidelines are mostly contained in the following OPM

operating manuals: (1) the Guide to the Central Personnel Data File, which

lists the data elements, such as current appointment authority and Social

Security number that OPM expects agencies to submit from their personnel

systems to the CPDF; (2) the CPDF Edit Manual, which provides the edit

standards (i.e., specifications and logic for computer instructions) needed

for software that checks data quality; (3) the Guide to Personnel Data

Standards, which lists data elements and the meanings of their values; and

(4) the Guide to Processing Personnel Actions, which provides guidance

for the processing of individual personnel actions. Under the guidelines,

agencies are responsible for collecting personnel data; editing them for

validity, accuracy, and completeness; and furnishing them to the CPDF.

According to the Guide to the CPDF, agencies are to test the data they

provide to the CPDF to ensure that the data are accurate and complete. To

help agencies ensure the quality of their data, OWI officials told us they

provide agencies with the CPDF Edit Manual, which prescribes the data

values to which agencies’ data are to conform before they are submitted.

To test their data’s values, agencies are to use the CPDF edits. Agencies are

responsible for installing the edits on their automated personnel systems.

These CPDF edits are to check the validity of individual data elements as

well as the proper relationship of values among associated data elements.

For example, the edit for the sex data element checks that the character

used to define the data element is either “M” for male or “F” for female; the

edit identifies other characters as errors. OWI expects agencies to

incorporate these CPDF edits into their internal personnel data systems.

According to OWI officials, these edits constitute the minimum level of

quality control; i.e, agencies have the option of incorporating additional

quality controls, such as testing the data for accuracy before submitting

them, in addition to applying the CPDF edits.

Page 54 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix I 

To Ensure CPDF Data Quality, OWI

Provides Guidance to Agencies and Checks

Data Before Entering Them in CPDF

However, the CPDF edits cannot detect all types of errors. For example, an

edit for the sex data element would not be able to detect if the character

“M” was incorrectly used to identify a female employee. According to OWI

officials, even though they provide agencies with the edits, errors still

occur in submissions and are identified by OWI’s quality review process.

According to OWI officials, errors in pay-related data elements often occur

at the beginning of the year because agencies make their

beginning-of-the-year submissions before they install edits that reflect

annual cost-of-living pay increases. The Guide to the CPDF also informs

agencies about what data elements should be included in their CPDF data

submissions and the frequency and timing of the submissions. Coverage,

frequency, and timing differ for two of the CPDF’s databases, or data

files—status and dynamics.

Purpose of OWI’S

Acceptance Process Is

to Ensure CPDF Data

Qquality

According to OWI officials, when OWI receives agencies’ data submissions,

its CPDF team initiates the data acceptance process. OWI reported that the

process consists of (1) verifying the number of records30 and

agency/subelements, (2) doing edit checks of the data, (3) assessing the

aggregate consistency of the data, (4) doing final acceptance reviews of

the data, and (5) making the decision to accept the data. Figure I.1

illustrates OWI’s acceptance process.

30Each status record submitted represents one employee. Each dynamics record submitted represents

one personnel action. In dynamics submissions, one employee may have no records or have several

records.

Page 55 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix I 

To Ensure CPDF Data Quality, OWI

Provides Guidance to Agencies and Checks

Data Before Entering Them in CPDF

Figure I.1: OWI’s Acceptance Process

A

No

Start

OPM's CPDF team receives

agencies' quarterly status file and

monthly dynamics file data tape

submissions and compares record

and agency subelement counts to

those contained on CPDF

transmittal sheet to verify the 

number of records.

CPDF team contacts

agencies to correct or

resubmit data within 15

days.

The CPDF team runs agency

data through CPDF edits and

determines whether agencies meet

edit standards. OPM provides 

agencies with six routine

error reports.

Do counts from

tape match reported

transmittal sheet 

counts?

Yes Do individual

agencies' submissions 

meet OPM's edit 

standards?

CPDF team contacts

agencies to correct or

resubmit data within 15

days.

Yes

No

Page 56 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix I 

To Ensure CPDF Data Quality, OWI

Provides Guidance to Agencies and Checks

Data Before Entering Them in CPDF

The CPDF team assesses

the aggregate consistency

of data and produces

Known Problems Reports

for OWI's Assistant

Director's attention.

Do overall

submissions meet OWI

management's quality

standards for release

for acceptance

review?

OWI management does final

acceptance reviews of 

submissions. OWI does a 

trend analysis and other

evaluations of the data.

Do data

pass final acceptance

test?

OWI's Assistant Director

decides to accept data

formally in the CPDF.

OWI management asks

 the CPDF team to work

 with agencies to get

resubmissions.

CPDF team contacts

agencies to correct or

resubmit data within 15

days.

End

Yes

No

Submissions are returned

to CPDF team with

instructions to continue 

working with agencies to

improve data.

No

Yes A

Source: OPM.

Page 57 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix I 

To Ensure CPDF Data Quality, OWI

Provides Guidance to Agencies and Checks

Data Before Entering Them in CPDF

Verifying Number of

Records

The CPDF team told us that they verify the number of records the agencies

send by comparing the number of records and agency/subelements on the

agencies’ tape submissions to the number on the transmittal sheets

(prepared by the agencies) accompanying the submissions. According to

the CPDF team members, if there is a discrepancy, a member of the team

usually informally contacts the agency to determine why the discrepancy

exists. If the discrepancy is not satisfactorily resolved, the team told us

they ask the agency to resubmit its data within 15 days.

Doing Edit Checks According to the CPDF team, after they verify the number of records and

agency/subelements, they analyze individual agencies’ submissions using

the same set of CPDF edits the agencies were expected to use to prepare

their submissions. In addition, OWI also produces a Quality Control Action

Report that it uses for each status file submission that displays employee

population changes, key fields with error rates of more than 1 percent, and

changes in data element codes and values. According to OWI officials, OWI

produces such a report to evaluate the quality of submissions.

According to OWI, it also provides the results of the edit checks to agencies

in reports on their status and dynamics file submissions. These reports

are:

• the Status Submission Quality Control Report, which displays the overall

quality of the submission, the data elements with errors of more than

1.5 percent, and the 10 most frequently occurring types of errors;

• the Status File Overview Report/Unreleased Status File, which shows the

count and percentage of records containing invalid data for those data

elements for which a specific count by data value is not provided;

• the CPDF Error File, which shows each incorrect record with codes that

identify the errors;

• the Dynamics Submission Quality Control Report, which shows the data

elements with errors of more than 1 percent, the 20 most frequently

occurring error codes, and the 5 most frequently occurring error codes by

nature of action31 category;

• the Dynamics Volume and Currency Report, which shows the volume and

currency of transactions, cancellations, and corrections; and

• the CPDF Quality Control Report (Unreleased Dynamics Overview), which

shows, by data element (or data element group within Nature of Action

group) and for all Nature of Actions, the count of records that contain

valid data values, the count of records that contain invalid data values, and

31The specific personnel action used to create or change a civilian personnel record.

Page 58 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix I 

To Ensure CPDF Data Quality, OWI

Provides Guidance to Agencies and Checks

Data Before Entering Them in CPDF

the percentage of error for all records for which data were required or

submitted. OWI officials told us these reports are also produced when an

agency’s resubmission is received.

According to OWI officials, agencies’ status files and dynamics files

submissions are both reported on, and the CPDF team members told us that

they may refer to the reports when they contact agencies about correcting

problems with their submissions. Although all the agency personnelists we

spoke with said their agencies regularly receive reports from OWI on the

quality of their status and dynamics files submissions, only Department of

Defense (DOD) officials said they use them as a basis for improving future

submissions.

When problems are found with agencies’ submissions during edit checks,

the CPDF team members told us they ask agencies to fix the problems.

Team members and OWI managers and analysts reported that in practice

agencies do not always respond to OWI’s initial request for corrections, and

trying to get agencies to improve their submissions is an ongoing process

that includes informal and formal contacts with agencies. CPDF team

members said they examine the results of edit checks for individual

agency submissions to determine if (1) key status file data elements

exceed error thresholds spelled out in the Guide to the CPDF or (2) key

dynamics file data elements and non-key data elements exceed the team’s

judgmental thresholds for allowable error rates.32 Key data elements are

the data elements that OPM analysts use most frequently in preparing CPDF

reports. The Guide to the CPDF specifically provides that agencies’ status

file submissions may not be accepted if they contain records with errors,

in any of the key status file data fields, that exceed the percentage

allowable based on the size of the agency. If the agency’s population is

1,000 or greater, no more than 3 percent of the records may have errors or

unusable data in any of the 23 key fields identified by OPM. For agencies

with populations between 50 and 1,000, no more than 5 percent of the

records may have errors or unusable data in any of the key fields (see app.

III).

According to the Guide to the CPDF, OWI may reject a dynamics file

submission if, in its judgment, the file contains significant errors.

32The key status file fields are agency/subelement; basic pay; current appointment authority; date of

birth; duty station; grade, level, class, rank, or pay band; handicap; health plan; locality adjustment;

occupation; pay basis; pay plan; pay status; position occupied; race or national origin; service

computation date; sex; special pay table identifier; supervisory status; tenure; veterans preference;

veterans status (active military service); and work schedule. The key dynamics file fields are nature of

action, effective date of action, Social Security number, and agency/subelement code.

Page 59 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix I 

To Ensure CPDF Data Quality, OWI

Provides Guidance to Agencies and Checks

Data Before Entering Them in CPDF

Examples of such errors are the total absence of certain categories of

actions (such as accessions or separations) or the total absence of a key

data element, such as agency/subelement. CPDF team members reported

that in practice, the judgmental threshold for dynamics file submissions is

that no more than 50 percent of records can have errors in any of the four

key data fields.

OWI officials also reported that the acceptance requirements contained in

the Guide to the CPDF are minimum requirements. That is, according to OWI

officials, OWI can and does ask for corrections and resubmissions for

submissions that meet these requirements but have significant errors in

non key fields. CPDF team members told us that dynamics submissions may

also be rejected if they exceed the team’s judgmental thresholds for

allowable error rates. Examples of such errors are failure of any edit by

over 20 percent of the records when the number of records is greater than

20, failure of any 2 or more related edits by 10 to 20 percent, or a

significant number or percent of fatal errors (those that result in rejection

of a record instead of the placement of asterisks in data fields within the

record). According to OWI officials, they may also ask agencies to resubmit

dynamics data if the dynamics submission does not contain what they

believe is a reasonable volume of current records.

If a status or a dynamic file is rejected, OWI officials are to notify the

agency’s Director of Personnel. Agencies are to correct and resubmit

rejected files within 15 calendar days following receipt of the OWI notice.

However, the agency officials we spoke with told us they sometimes may

not respond to the CPDF team’s inquiries about problem submissions

because sufficient staff may not be available, or the agency may have

higher priorities. However, according to OWI officials the computer

software instructions that do the CPDF edit checks place asterisks in those

status and dynamics data fields that contain erroneous data to ensure that

incorrect data are not knowingly entered into the CPDF.

Assessing the Aggregate

Consistency of the Data

While waiting for agencies to respond to CPDF team members’ requests for

data corrections or resubmissions, OWI officials told us it places all

agencies’ submissions in a holding status on the system. According to

these officials, the amount of time the data are kept in the holding status

varies, depending on how long it takes agencies to fix initially identified

problems and any additional problems that may be identified as a result of

further team analyses. However, OWI officials told us, OWI’s internal

guidelines establish processing goals of 49 calendar days for status file

Page 60 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix I 

To Ensure CPDF Data Quality, OWI

Provides Guidance to Agencies and Checks

Data Before Entering Them in CPDF

submissions and 101 days for dynamics file submissions, from the time

they are received by OWI to the time they are entered into the CPDF. OWI’s

Assistant Director told us he considers these guidelines along with (1) the

CPDF team’s recommendation; and (2) the Known Problems reports, which

are produced by the CPDF team members. These reports summarize the

results of agency file submissions and may include a description of

significant improvements, a listing of agencies that have not yet submitted

data, the status of OWI’s requests for those submissions, a summary of any

problems with the data identified in earlier reports, and the results of

efforts to resolve these problems. According to the Assistant Director, he

and his team leaders review the Known Problems reports and decide

whether or not to proceed to the next step in creating the file, i.e.,

combining the submissions into a single file. According to OWI officials, the

Known Problems reports may be revised if the CPDF team has planned to

continue to work with one or more agencies or if the Assistant Director

asks the CPDF team to continue to work with the agencies to get file

resubmissions.

Doing Final Acceptance

Reviews

According to OWI’s Assistant Director, he decides when the data are ready

to be released from the holding area on the system for acceptance review.

The Assistant Director told us the data are released in the aggregate along

with several reports. According to him, the reports include the latest

version of the Known Problems reports, which has been updated to show

the extent to which status or dynamics file submissions’ problems have

been solved. In addition, he said these status file reports are released: the

CPDF Overview-Released Status File, Status Change, and SF 113-A

Benchmarking reports. Three reports are released for the dynamics file as

well: the Released Dynamics Volume and Currency, Released Dynamic

Overview,33 and Quarterly Status/Dynamics Compare reports. According

to OWI officials, OWI statisticians use these reports along with their own

reviews of the files to determine if the file should be made available for

general use.

According to OWI officials, OWI statisticians do a trend analysis of the data,

which looks for variances. For example, does the number of status file

records for agency employees change unexplainably from one reporting

period to the next? OWI officials told us that OWI also compares the data to

the agencies’ Monthly Report of Federal Civilian Employment (SF 113-A) it

receives. The SF 113-A report covers all federal civilian hires. In addition,

33The Released Dynamics Overview report is an updated version of the Unreleased Dynamics

Overview report.

Page 61 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix I 

To Ensure CPDF Data Quality, OWI

Provides Guidance to Agencies and Checks

Data Before Entering Them in CPDF

according to OWI, the data are compared to the agency profiles to identify

variances, and data in status files may be compared to interim dynamics

file submissions in the status release process. For example, when an

employee’s pay grade changes between an agency’s December and March

status file submissions, analysts review the interim dynamics file

submissions to determine if the change is reflected. According to OWI

officials, the comparison between status and dynamics files is done

routinely, producing a standard report, as part of the dynamics release

process. They also said that variances or inconsistencies identified

through trend analysis, SF 113-A comparison, or status and dynamics file

comparison may result in OWI statisticians asking the CPDF team to go back

and work with the agencies to improve the files.

Making the Decision to

Accept

According to OWI officials, after considering the results of the acceptance

review; consulting with internal OPM users of CPDF data (e.g., the Office of

Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness) and OWI subject area experts

and statisticians; and weighing the possible benefit of giving agencies

more time to correct data problems versus the cost of delaying the data’s

release into the CPDF, OWI’s Assistant Director makes the final decision

about whether or when to allow the data to be added to the CPDF. The

Assistant Director said the key consideration in delaying the entry of the

data into the CPDF is whether possible improvements in the quality of the

data submission warrant the delay. That decision, according to the

Assistant Director, is not based on well-defined or well-documented

criteria; it is a judgment call he makes.

Although OWI’s Assistant Director said that meeting timeliness standards

plays a part in making his decision about how much effort and time OWI

will spend to improve the data, he told us that data quality is not sacrificed

for the sake of timeliness. However, according to the Assistant Director, if

the CPDF team and OWI are unable to get an agency to correct the data in a

timely manner, the release of file data may be delayed; OWI may substitute

status file data from a previous submission instead of the incorrect or

problem status file data; or, on rare occasions, in order to maintain a file’s

useability, OWI may change submitted values that are missing or known to

be in error. OWI officials reported that they do not knowingly accept wrong

or miscoded data into the CPDF because the edit check process replaces

agency data that do not pass the edits with asterisks.

Page 62 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix II 

Results of GAO and OPM Measurements of

CPDF Accuracy

Percentage of errors found by

GAO approaches

Data element

Results of

comparison

Results of employee

verification

questionnaire

Percentage of errors

found by

OPM’s accuracy

measurement for

fiscal year 1994

Annuitant indicator 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Effective date of action 0.0 a a

Duty station 0.0 0.3 0.0

Agency/Subelement 0.0 0.0 0.7

Handicap 0.0 2.7 a

Nature of action code 0.0 a a

Position occupied 0.0 a 0.0

Race or national origin 0.0 2.0 a

Retirement plan 0.0 0.0 0.0

Social Security number 0.0 0.0 a

Tenure 0.0 a 0.7

Work schedule 0.0 0.0 0.7

Birth date (month and year) 0.9 0.0 0.0

Occupation 0.9 0.0 0.0

Personnel office identifier 0.9 a 0.7

Service computation date (month and year) 0.9 0.4 0.7

Sex 0.9 0.1 1.5

Employee nameb 1.8 0.9 a

Pay rate determinant 1.8 a 0.0

Legal authority code b a a

Pay plan/grade 2.7 0.7 a

Veterans preference 3.5 0.7 0.0

Adjusted basic pay 6.2 1.2 a

Veterans status 7.1 2.2 5.2

Current appointment authority 9.7 a 4.5

Rating of record 15.9 4.7 5.1

Education 23.0 26.7 8.2

Note: GAO’s questionnaire and comparison included status and dynamics file data. The OPM

accuracy measurement for fiscal year 1994 results in the table are for status file data only.

aThis data element was not included in GAO’s comparison of the CPDF and agency personnel

records.

bFor this data element, we could not determine the percentage of errors using the universe of 113

employees because some employees had no transactions for fiscal year 1996.

Source: GAO’s analysis and OPM’s accuracy measurement of 1994 CPDF data.

Page 63 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix III 

CPDF Data Elements by File Location, as of

February 1998

As of February 1998, the CPDF consisted of 95 separate data elements. Of

this number, 68 are reported by agencies in their monthly and quarterly

dynamics and status file submissions. Of the remaining 27 data elements,

23 are computer generated and are used by OPM and others in longitudinal

surveys and other analyses of federal employees. Agencies use three data

elements (effective date of personnel action being corrected, nature of

action being corrected, and Social Security number being corrected) only

when there are corrections to these key data elements in the dynamics file.

Agencies report a final data element, organizational title, in the CPDF’s

Organizational Component Translation database.

File where located

Data element Reported by agency Status Dynamics

Adjusted basic pay a • •

Agency/subelementb • K K

Annuitant indicator • •

As of date a •

Award amount • •

Bargaining unit • •

Basic pay • K •

Benefit amount • •

Consolidated metropolitan

statistical area

a • •

Cost of living allowance a • •

Creditable military service • • •

Current appointment authority • K •

Date of birth • K •

Duty station • K •

Dynamics category a •

Education level • • •

Effective date of personnel action • K

Effective date of personnel action

being corrected

c

Employee named •

Fair Labor Standards Act

Category

• •

Federal employees’ group life

insurance

• •

Federal employees’ retirement

system coverage

• •

Frozen service • • •

(continued)

Page 64 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix III 

CPDF Data Elements by File Location, as of

February 1998

File where located

Data element Reported by agency Status Dynamics

Functional classification • •

Grade, level, class, rank, or pay

band

• K •

General Schedule (GS) related

grade

a • •

Handicap • K •

Health plane • K

Individual/group award • •

Instructional program • • •

Legal authority • •

Law enforcement officer

geographic pay area

a • •

Locality adjustment • K •

Locality adjustment indicator a

Locality pay area a • •

Metropolitan statistical area a • •

Nature of action • K

Nature of action being corrected b

Occupation • K •

Occupational category a • •

OPM oversight office a • •

OPM service center a • •

Organizational component • • •

Organizational title f

Pay basis • K •

Pay plan • K •

Pay rate determinant • • •

Pay status • K

Personnel office identifier • • •

Position occupied • K •

Previous retirement coverage • •

Prior adjusted basic pay a •

Prior basic pay • •

Prior duty station • •

Prior grade, level, class, rank, or

pay band

• •

Prior law enforcement officer

geographic pay area

a •

Prior locality adjustment • •

(continued)

Page 65 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix III 

CPDF Data Elements by File Location, as of

February 1998

File where located

Data element Reported by agency Status Dynamics

Prior locality pay area a •

Prior occupation • •

Prior pay basis • •

Prior pay plan • •

Prior pay rate determinant • •

Prior step or rate • •

Prior work schedule • •

Processing flag a •

Race or national origin • K •

Rating of record (level) • • •

Rating of record (pattern) • • •

Rating of record (period) • • •

Retained grade • •

Retained pay plan • •

Retained step • •

Retention allowance • • •

Retention allowance indicator a, g

Retirement plan • • •

Senior pay levels indicator a • •

Service computation date (leave) • K •

Sex • K •

Social security number • • K

Social security number being

corrected

b

Special pay table identifier • K

Staffing differential • • •

Staffing differential indicator a, g

Step or rate • • •

Supervisory differential • • •

Supervisory differential indicator a, g

Supervisory status • K •

Tenure • K •

Total pay a • •

Type of appointment a • •

U.S. citizenship • •

Veterans preference • K •

Veterans status (active military

service)

• K •

(continued)

Page 66 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix III 

CPDF Data Elements by File Location, as of

February 1998

File where located

Data element Reported by agency Status Dynamics

Work schedule • K •

Year degree or certificate attained • • •

Total 95 68 23 key 4 key

Note: Key data elements are indicated by the letter “K.” The data elements of the status and

dynamics files are not mutually exclusive. As the table indicates, in many cases the same data

element applies to both files.

aSome data elements are computer-generated and are used by OPM and others for longitudinal

studies or other analysis of federal employees and are not reported by agencies.

bOnly the two coded positions of this data element that designate the agency are considered key.

cAgencies use this data element to correct entries made to the preceding data element.

dAlthough reported in agencies’ dynamics submission, to protect the confidentially of employee

records OPM stores names separately from the major CPDF data bases.

eHealth Plan is required to be submitted only in March and September and is considered key for

those submissions.

f

This data element is reported in a separate CPDF data file called the “Organizational Component

Translation” database.

gThis data element is reported in a separate CPDF data file called the “Longitudinal History File.”

Page 67 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix IV 

Data Elements With the Highest Rate of

Inaccuracy

According to our review, the following data elements had the highest level

of inaccuracy.

Rating of Record The rating of record indicates an employee’s most recent rating or

performance appraisal. We found 18 rating of record mismatches in our

review, which compared the 113 employees’ official personnel folders or

agency records with the CPDF. In one case, the CPDF status file showed that

an employee had not been rated when agency records showed a rating. In

another example, the CPDF did not reflect the most current rating for seven

employees at one personnel office. A human resources official from that

office told us that it takes about 2 months from the end of a rating period

for a rating to be prepared and entered into the CPDF. Ten Social Security

Administration employees had obsolete ratings information in the CPDF.

We were informed that the agency had inadvertently failed to update

ratings information in the CPDF since fiscal year 1995, but the agency was

in the process of correcting the problem.

OPM found a similar situation in a 1992 CPDF accuracy survey. In that

survey, OPM noted that “agencies commonly submit . . . rating of record

actions to CPDF several months after the ending date of the rating period to

which they apply. We believe that most of the errors for rating of record in

the CPDF are due to the presence of obsolete or superseded ratings

resulting from agency inattention to timely processing of rating of record

data.”

Education Level The education level data element is intended to reflect the highest

education level achieved by a federal employee. In our review of official

personnel folders, we found education level to be inaccurate for 26 of the

113 employees whose records we reviewed. The inaccuracies varied from

one personnel office to another. We found inaccuracies ranging from 9 of

20 employees at 1 personnel office to 2 of 20 at another. In 24 of the 26

cases, education levels were understated in the CPDF.

Human resource officials at the personnel offices we visited attributed the

relatively high number of errors to several reasons. For example,

personnel offices do not always update education level coding for

employees who obtain additional education after being hired by the

government. Although the higher level of education may be reflected in the

employees’ personnel folders (e.g., on updated applications for federal

employment when employees apply for promotions), the coding is not

Page 68 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix IV 

Data Elements With the Highest Rate of

Inaccuracy

necessarily changed in the agencies’ automated records or in the CPDF.

This may occur because human resource staff are initially concerned

about employees meeting the minimum education requirements for their

jobs. Any additional education gained by the employees after being hired

is of less importance and may not always be reflected when education

levels are being coded for agency files and the CPDF. In addition, the CPDF

contains 22 education level codes, many of which describe levels of

education between formal degree programs. For example, one code is to

be used for employees who have had some college courses but less than

30 semester hours; another code is to be used for those who have done

some work at a level higher than a 6-year degree but have no additional

higher degree. According to some personnel officials, when coding

education levels, some personnelists may be more concerned about the

employee having a high school diploma or a Bachelor’s, Master’s, or

Doctorate degree and not the levels between degrees. According to the

officials, the reason for this may be because education level codes in

automated agency files and in the CPDF do not affect pay or any other

personnel matter. Therefore, due care is not always exercised when

education levels are coded.

In a 1996 CPDF accuracy survey, OPM also noted a relatively high error rate

in the CPDF for education level. OPM noted that “education level values

appear reliable for determining general educational groupings (e.g., less

than high school, high school graduate, some college) but less reliable

when used to determine the precise education level.”

We also found that data were missing in over 1.0 percent of the records in

the September 1996 CPDF status file for education level. Under certain

circumstances, agencies may leave some blanks in their data submissions

if they do not have complete information on an employee. Also, OPM may

delete data that do not pass its edits and replace the data with asterisks.

We reviewed the frequency of blank or asterisk-filled data fields in the

September 1996 CPDF status file. The highest occurrence of blank or

asterisk-filled fields—1.07 percent—was in education level.

Page 69 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix V 

GAO’s CPDF Employee Verification of

Personnel Information Questionnaire

Page 70 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix V 

GAO’s CPDF Employee Verification of

Personnel Information Questionnaire

Page 71 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix V 

GAO’s CPDF Employee Verification of

Personnel Information Questionnaire

Page 72 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix V 

GAO’s CPDF Employee Verification of

Personnel Information Questionnaire

Page 73 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix V 

GAO’s CPDF Employee Verification of

Personnel Information Questionnaire

Page 74 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix V 

GAO’s CPDF Employee Verification of

Personnel Information Questionnaire

Page 75 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VI 

GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey

Page 76 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VI 

GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey

Page 77 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VI 

GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey

Page 78 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VI 

GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey

Page 79 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VI 

GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey

Page 80 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VI 

GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey

Page 81 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VI 

GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey

Page 82 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VI 

GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey

Page 83 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VI 

GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey

Page 84 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VI 

GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey

Page 85 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VI 

GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey

Page 86 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VI 

GAO’s CPDF Customer Survey

Page 87 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

Page 88 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

Page 89 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VII 

Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

Page 90 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Appendix VIII 

Major Contributors

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Steven J. Wozny, Assistant Director (202) 512-5767

Domingo Nieves, Evaluator-in-Charge

Jeffrey W. Dawson, Evaluator

Michael J. O’Donnell, Advisor

Gregory H. Wilmoth, Supervisory Social Science Analyst

Stuart M. Kaufman, Senior Social Science Analyst

Kiki Theodoropoulos, Senior Evaluator

George H. Quinn, Jr., Computer Analyst

Accounting and

Information

Management Division,

Washington, D.C.

Brian C. Spencer, Technical Assistant Director

Denver Regional

Office

Joseph J. Buschy, Senior Evaluator

(410071) Page 91 GAO/GGD-98-199 Central Personnel Data File
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100