Attracting the 

Next Generation

A Look at Federal

Entry-Level New Hires

A Report to the President and the Congress 

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

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

January 2008 

The President

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sirs:

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

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report, Attracting the Next Generation: A Look at 

Federal Entry-Level New Hires. The purpose of this report is to identify how the Government 

can improve its ability to recruit and hire entry-level professional and administrative employees.

To prepare for a potential retirement wave, Federal agencies will likely increase their 

entry-level hiring to rebuild the pipeline from entry-level positions through the journey-level and 

beyond. Given this context, it is important to assess how well the Federal hiring process is 

working, particularly in terms of the Government’s ability to recruit entry-level new hires from all 

segments of society and select employees on the basis of merit after fair and open competition. 

Our research points to a number of positive conclusions about the Federal 

Government’s ability to attract the best and the brightest. New hires were highly motivated to 

obtain jobs specifically with the Federal Government, and many plan to spend a significant 

portion of their career with the Government. They had favorable impressions of the Federal 

Government when they applied for their first Government jobs, and a large percentage ran into 

few or no obstacles during the hiring process. 

However, there are some troublesome trends that could thwart merit-based hiring over 

time. For instance, agencies are increasingly using excepted service appointment authorities to 

hire new employees. These authorities should be used with caution because they can 

inadvertently circumvent recruitment from all segments of society, fair and open competition and 

selection based on relative ability. 

The recommendations in this report focus on how to improve entry-level hiring efforts 

while also protecting merit. I believe you will find this report useful as you consider issues 

affecting the Federal Government’s ability to recruit a highly qualified, diverse workforce.

Respectfully,

Neil A. G. McPhie
Attracting the

Next Generation:

A Look at Federal Entry-Level New Hires

Attracting the 

Next Generation:

A Report to the President and 

the Congress of the United States 

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Neil A. G. McPhie, Chairman

Mary M. Rose, Vice Chairman

Barbara J. Sapin, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Acting Director

John Crum, Ph.D.

Project Manager

Laura Shugrue

Project Analyst

Paul van Rijn, Ph.D.
Attracting the Next Generation

Attracting and Hiring New Employees 

in the Federal Government: A Series

Attracting and Hiring New Employees 

in the Federal Government: A Series

This report is part of a three-study series that explores how the Federal 

Government attracts and hires new employees. The purpose of the series 

is to identify potential improvements to recruiting and selecting applicants 

from all segments of society based on relative ability after fair and open competition, 

as prescribed by the merit system principles. Specifically, the series addresses the 

following topics: 

Agencies’ use of hiring authorities. As more hiring authorities become 

available to agencies, the use of competitive examining through the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management or a Delegated Examining Unit is decreasing. In response 

to this trend, this study examines the extent to which certain hiring authorities 

are being used, how they are used, and how well supervisors understand the 

responsibilities and consequences that come with their decision to use a 

particular authority.

Attracting entry-level employees. There is concern that the Federal 

Government is facing a “brain drain” as the result of an aging workforce and high 

retirement eligibility rates. Using input from new entry-level employees about 

why they chose to work for the Federal Government and what obstacles they faced 

in the job search, this study assesses how agencies can better attract and select 

qualified applicants for entry-level opportunities to build a sufficient pipeline for 

journey-level positions. 

Attracting upper level employees. Employees at the upper level grades in 

Government are critical to the efficient and effective operation of Government 

programs. They are the senior level specialists, analysts, and managers who develop, 

implement, and carry out Government- or agency-wide policies and programs. 

This study explores how agencies hire highly skilled or experienced workers from 

outside the Government and how agencies can improve these hiring practices. 
Table of Contents Table of Contents

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

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

 Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 Scope and Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Setting the Context: 

Past, Present and Future New Hire Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Aging Federal Workforce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Hiring Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 Demographic Profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

 Hiring Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Who They Are: Age and Experience 

of Entry-Level New Hires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

 Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

 Potential Factors to Explain Age and Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

What They Want: Interests, Influences and Intentions. . . . . . . . . . 31

 Employment Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Job Offer Attractors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

 Federal Employment Strengths. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

The “It” Factor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

 Intent to Stay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

What They Did to Get the Job: The Job Hunt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Learning About Jobs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Applications Sent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

 Obstacles Faced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Conclusions and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Appendix: Entry-Level Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
Executive Summary Executive Summary

The Federal Government hires a significant number of entry-level new hires in professional 

and administrative occupations every year. Because of the large number of impending 

retirements and the concurrent necessity to build career pipelines for these positions, the 

Federal Government is likely to increase its entry-level hiring at least through fiscal year 2010. 

Critics argue that the Government may not be up to this task. They say the Government has 

become less attractive to younger workers and that the length and complexity of the hiring process 

hampers applicant interest in Federal jobs. The overall results of this study show that while some 

of the criticisms hold true, the Government is actually better at attracting new hires than some 

might think. 

Background

There is concern that the Federal Government is facing a “brain drain” as the result 

of an aging workforce and high retirement eligibility rates for Federal employees. 

Recruiting a qualified stream of new hires is already a tough proposition for many 

occupations, locations and salary levels. It will become even more difficult as the 

Government competes with other sectors for qualified candidates as large numbers 

of the labor force retire. 

To properly prepare for this workforce “crisis,” agencies should practice a balanced 

approach to workforce planning that includes ensuring a sufficient pipeline from 

the entry-level through the journey-level in at least mission-critical positions. 

Entry-level employees are the fundamental building blocks of that pipeline. This 

crisis comes at a time when several studies indicate that the Federal Government has 

become less attractive as an employer, particularly to the younger, less experienced 

segment of the labor force that generally fills entry-level positions. 

To help agencies assess and improve their recruitment efforts, the U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board (MSPB) conducted a study of Federal entry-level new hires in 

professional and administrative occupations. The purpose of the study was to:

(1) Explore who Federal entry-level new hires are, why they came to work for the 

Government and what challenges they faced in applying for Federal jobs; 

(2) Determine any structural barriers to recruiting and selecting applicants from all 

segments of society, based on relative ability after fair and open competition;

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
ii Attracting the Next Generation

(3) Examine differences between new hires under 30 years of age and new hires 

30 and over to determine whether generational differences affect career decisions 

or motivations and the implications this has for recruitment; and

(4) Identify how the Government can improve its recruitment and hiring of 

entry-level employees. 

Findings

Our findings regarding the demographics and attitudes of Federal entry-level new 

hires have many implications for Federal recruitment and selection practices. 

Setting the Context. The traditional competitive examining process is no longer 

the dominant process for hiring entry-level employees. A growing number of new 

hires are being brought into the civil service through excepted service authorities, 

such as the Federal Career Intern Program. While these authorities provide agencies 

a number of advantages, they also make it easier to unnecessarily narrow the 

applicant pool, potentially short-circuiting fair and open competition. 

Who Entry-Level New Hires Are. Federal entry-level new hires in professional 

and administrative positions are not the young, inexperienced, recent college 

graduates many expect. On average, they are 33 years old and have at least 1 to 5 

years of prior full-time work experience. This is partly explained by recruitment 

and assessment practices agencies use that often favor older applicants who have 

more experience over younger applicants who may have more potential. Good 

recruitment and assessment practices will identify the best candidate for the job 

based on relative ability, regardless of age and years of experience.

What They Want. There was not a substantial difference between generations in 

terms of the employment features they seek, and most thought that the Government 

could provide these features. New hires of all ages had a strong desire for job 

security and traditional benefits such as health insurance, retirement and annual 

and sick leave. In addition, they were fairly interested in alternative benefits such as 

flexible work schedules and telecommuting. Contrary to popular belief, a significant 

portion of new hires, even those under 30, already plan to stay with the Government 

until they retire (45 percent of new hires under 30 and 36 percent of new hires who 

came to the Government directly from school). 

What They Did to Get the Job. New hires faced fewer obstacles in the hiring 

process than we had expected and were fairly determined to obtain a Federal job. 

Though lack of timeliness was the most cited obstacle, a large segment of new hires 

were hired relatively quickly (38 percent in 2 months or less) and cited facing no 

obstacles in searching for a Federal job (17 percent). They seemed to have a fair 

amount of awareness about the Government at the time they applied and tended to 

send few applications to other employment sectors; some were willing to wait a long 

time for a job offer (23 percent waited more than 6 months). 

Executive Summary
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board iii

Executive Summary

Recommendations 

This study demonstrates that the Federal Government can more ably compete for 

entry-level new hires than some might expect. Nonetheless, there are improvements 

agencies can make to their recruitment, marketing and assessment practices to reach 

an even wider pool of qualified applicants and address problems revealed by our 

data. Therefore, MSPB makes the following recommendations to help agencies 

strengthen their hiring efforts. 

Agencies should: 

Use more predictive applicant assessment tools. High-quality selections 

depend on good employee assessment tools. This study, along with other MSPB

research, indicates that agencies tend to use tools that are less predictive of future job 

performance, such as measures of training and experience. Agencies should develop 

and administer assessments that identify candidates who have the skills and abilities 

necessary for the job and that have a greater ability to predict future performance. 

Use a balanced set of recruitment strategies that promote fair and 

open competition. Agencies tend to rely on passive recruitment strategies, such 

as Internet postings, or recruitment strategies that target a narrow pool of applicants, 

such as college job fairs. Agencies should use a variety of recruitment sources to 

reach qualified applicants from all segments of society. 

Market what is important. The results of this study indicate that the 

Government has much to offer applicants that applicants want, including job 

security, good benefits, the ability to make a difference with the work and workplace 

flexibilities. Agencies should evaluate how and where they can maximize the use 

of these benefits and flexibilities and then market these job attractors to entice highquality applicants to apply. 

Evaluate the agency hiring process to ensure there are no unnecessary 

obstacles. Agencies’ internal hiring practices often create additional, unnecessary 

barriers that can add to the time it takes to make a job offer. Lack of timeliness was 

one of the obstacles to entry-level hiring cited most by new employees. Agencies 

should evaluate their hiring process, determine where improvements can be made 

and implement the needed changes to be successful in the competition for new, 

highly qualified workers. 

Avoid stereotyping applicants based on generational assumptions. 

This study indicates that there are similarities in what the different generations want 

in a job. However, generational stereotypes can lead human resources (HR) staff 

and selecting officials to treat employees differently based on generational category. 

Instead, those involved in the hiring process should treat applicants and employees 

as individuals with different needs, not simply as members of a “generation.” 
iv Attracting the Next Generation

Executive Summary

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) should:

Work with agencies to develop a Governmentwide framework for 

Federal hiring reform that simplifies hiring procedures by streamlining 

and consolidating appointing authorities while protecting merit-based 

hiring. Many agencies are opting out of the traditional competitive examining 

system, suggesting fundamental problems with the competitive process. OPM 

should work with agencies to identify how to systematically address flaws in the 

competitive process rather than rely on short-term stop gaps that may have their 

own problems with respect to their producing narrower applicant pools. 

Work with agencies to develop better assessment tools. OPM delegated 

agencies the responsibility to assess applicants, but agencies often do not have 

supporting resources to carry out this responsibility. OPM should present Congress 

with the business case to receive appropriated funds to centrally develop and validate 

assessment tools that agencies could acquire at little or no cost.

Implementing these recommendations should help agencies ensure that they 

are hiring qualified applicants from all segments of society after fair and open 

competition and that they are treating applicants fairly and equitably, as prescribed 

by the merit system principles.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Introduction Introduction

Purpose

W ho exactly are Federal agencies hiring to fill entry-level positions? 

Why do these new hires come to work for the Federal Government? 

What were they looking for in a job when the agency recruited them? 

Why should we care—so long as agencies find someone to do the work?

Anyone who has read a newspaper lately can probably understand that recruiting 

and hiring new Federal employees is going to get even tougher than it is now.1 

The problem goes by many names—the human capital crisis, retirement tsunami, 

brain drain—but its essence is the same. The Office of Personnel Management is 

projecting that about 230,000 Federal employees will retire between fiscal years 

(FY) 2007 and 2010.2 Recruiting a qualified stream of new hires is already a tough 

proposition for some occupations, locations and salary levels. Are agencies prepared 

to replace those who are leaving? 

All of the people retiring over the next few years will not be replaceable by entrylevel new hires. However, agencies need to practice a balanced approach to 

workforce planning to deal with the expected workforce crisis. They should have 

a sufficient pipeline from the entry-level through the journey-level and beyond in 

at least their mission-critical positions. Entry-level employees are the fundamental 

building blocks of that pipeline. Therefore, hiring a steady stream of entry-level 

new hires becomes an important piece of the workforce management puzzle. In 

particular, hiring “the right” entry-level employees—those who can change and grow 

with the agency and its mission—is especially important. Data presented later in 

this report indicate that once entry-level employees are hired by the Government, 

they often stay for their career. Having a well planned strategy for hiring entrylevel employees will help agencies avert the impending crisis and avoid creating new 

staffing problems in the future. 

This looming crisis comes at a time when several research studies have shown that 

the Federal service has become less attractive as an employer, particularly to the 

1 For a discussion of the current issues facing the Federal Government in terms of recruiting and 

hiring, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and Cheaper, 

Washington, DC, July 2006. 

2 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Retirement Projections, 2004, p. 50, downloaded from www.

opm.gov/feddata/retire/rs2004_projections.pdf.
 Attracting the Next Generation

younger workforce—the ones generally thought to fill entry-level positions.3 At the 

same time, competition for high-quality talent among American employment sectors 

is heating up. Some studies have shown that new entrants to the Nation’s overall 

workforce are not well prepared to take on the growing number of knowledge-based 

jobs, particularly those that require highly technical skills such as jobs in science and 

engineering.4 Therefore as the demand for these skills continues to increase (which 

it is predicted to do) and the supply of candidates with these skills continues to 

decrease (as it is expected to do unless some drastic action occurs), competition for 

these candidates will be fierce. 

Therefore, to help agencies’ efforts to effectively recruit for entry-level positions, the 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board conducted a study of Federal entry-level new 

hires. The purpose of the study was to:

(1) Explore who Federal entry-level new hires are, why they came to work for the 

Government and what challenges they faced in applying for Federal jobs; 

(2) Determine any structural barriers to recruiting and selecting applicants from all 

segments of society, based on relative ability after fair and open competition;

(3) Examine differences between new hires under 30 years of age and new hires 

30 and over to determine whether generational differences affect career decisions 

or motivations and the implications this has for recruitment; and

(4) Identify how the Government can improve its recruitment and hiring of entrylevel employees. 

MSPB conducted this study in accordance with our mandate to study Federal 

merit systems and determine if the workforce is managed in adherence with the 

merit system principles and is free of prohibited personnel practices. The research 

is intended to support merit system values, enhance human resources management 

practices and ensure the public interest in a merit-based civil service. 

Specifically, recruitment and assessment practices are a critical element in supporting 

the Federal merit system. They ensure that the Government attracts qualified 

applicants from all segments of society and hires them on the basis of relative ability 

after fair and open competition. In addition, they ensure that applicants are treated 

fairly and equitably regardless of factors such as political affiliation, race, color, 

Introduction

3 For instance, see (1) Carol Chetkovich, Winning the Best and the Brightest: Increasing the Attraction 

of Public Service, A Price Waterhouse Coopers Endowment for the Business of Government, 

Cambridge, Mass., July 2001; (2) Linda Bilmes and W. Scott Gould, “Getting the Federal Workers 

We Need,” Washington Post (from the forthcoming book The People Factor), Aug. 25, 2005; (3) Peter 

D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., on behalf of The Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute For Public Policy, 

Report Findings Based on a Survey Among American College Students, Washington, DC, June 13, 2006.

4 For instance, see (1) Thomas L. Friedman, “The Quiet Crisis,” The World Is Flat: A Brief History 

of the Twenty-first Century, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2006, pp. 323-359 and (2) The 

Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and 

the Society for Human Resources Management, Are They Really Ready to Work? Employers’ Perspectives on 

the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New Entrants to the 21st Century Workforce, October 2006.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and 

with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.5

Scope and Methodology

This study covers new Federal entry-level (General Schedule and Related Grades 

5, 7 and 9) employees who were appointed into full-time, nonseasonal, permanent 

positions in executive branch professional and administrative occupations. 

We chose to look at professional and administrative occupations because they make 

up the largest portion of the Federal workforce.6 In fact, as a percentage of the total 

workforce, these occupations grew significantly between FY 1990 and FY 2006, 

rising from 47 percent to 60 percent. This growth has occurred as the number of 

employees in other occupational categories, particularly blue-collar and clerical 

occupations, has declined. Further, we looked at professional and administrative 

occupations because when filled at the entry-level, they generally have a career track 

that progresses several levels beyond the grade into which the employee was hired. 

They therefore require a larger agency investment in development and preparation 

than positions with little or no established career progression. 

Researchers often define entry-level employees as those hired at General Schedule 

and Related Grades-5 and 7. This two-grade definition made sense at a time when 

the Government’s work was generally standardized and the needed skills were fairly 

basic. However, because the nature of Federal work has become more knowledgebased and the skills it requires have become more specialized, anecdotal evidence 

suggests that agencies need to recruit at a higher level of proficiency for entry-level 

positions than they once did. Therefore, we chose to include GS-9 new hires in 

the study.7

This study relied primarily on the following sources of information:

• OPM’s Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). The CPDF is a computerized 

database maintained by OPM and contains a record of personnel actions on 

Federal civilian employees, such as entrance on duty, promotions, transfers and 

separations.8 Using the CPDF, we are able to identify human capital trends in 

how agencies recruit, hire and manage their workforces. 

Introduction

5 Merit System Principles No. 1 and 2 (5 U.S.C. § 2301).

6 OPM’s Guide to Personnel Data Standards defines professional occupations as white collar 

occupations that require knowledge in a field of science or learning and administrative occupations 

as white collar occupations that involve the exercise of analytical ability, judgment, discretion, and 

personal responsibility, as well as the application of a body of knowledge related to one or more fields of 

administration or management. OPM’s Qualifications Standards for General Schedule Positions provides 

a list of the occupational series covered by each category.

7 From here, we refer to the General Schedule and Related Grades 5, 7 and 9 simply as GS-5, 7 and 9.

8 Some agencies, such as the U.S. Postal Service and intelligence agencies, are exempt from OPM’s 

personnel reporting requirements and are not included in the dataset. 
 Attracting the Next Generation

• Entry-level new hire survey. MSPB surveyed 1,863 randomly selected 

entry-level employees hired in FY 2005. “New hire” is defined as an employee 

who had no previous civilian Federal service personnel actions recorded in the 

CPDF. We used a stratified sample that allows a comparison of the responses 

from survey participants under 30 years old to those from participants 30 and 

over. A total of 1,115 survey participants returned the survey, for a response rate 

of 60 percent. We conducted the survey from February through May 2006. 

• Literature review. We conducted an extensive review of literature related 

to hiring entry-level employees. The literature covered topics including 

generational research, job choice decisions and risk taking, research describing 

what undergraduate and graduate students want in a job, college and university 

enrollment trends, issues related to the human capital crisis, and general 

hiring issues. 

Introduction


Setting the Context: Past, Present 

and Future New Hire Trends

Setting the Context: Past, Present 

and Future New Hire Trends

This report strives to help agencies improve their ability to attract and select 

professional and administrative entry-level new hires. A look at past, present 

and future hiring trends, particularly at the entry-level, can tell us if there 

are issues that might impact agencies’ ability to recruit from all segments of society 

and make selections based on relative ability after fair and open competition, as set 

forth by the merit system principles. Ultimately, this chapter is about providing the 

context in which to consider entry-level hiring. 

The Aging Federal Workforce

The Federal workforce is aging. As of September 2006, over 40 percent of 

permanent, full-time Federal employees were 50 years of age or older.9 In 2006, 

OPM estimated that approximately 60 percent of the Federal Government’s whitecollar employees will be eligible for retirement over the next 10 years.10 In terms of 

how many employees are actually expected to retire, OPM projected that 57,000 to 

59,000 would retire each fiscal year between 2006 and 2010.11 During that period, 

OPM estimated that some of the Government’s most populous professional and 

administrative occupations would have an average retirement rate of 13 to 18 percent:12

Occupation Retirement Projection

All 18.5%

Law Enforcement 13.4%

Scientist/Engineer 14.6%

Information Technology 16.9%

Acquisition 17.6%

Financial Management 17.9%

9 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Fedscope (www.fedscope.opm.gov). Age distribution of 

permanent full-time employees as of September 2006.

10 Statement of Nancy H. Kichak, Associate Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management before 

the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization, Committee on Government 

Reform, United States House of Representatives, July 25, 2006.

11 OPM, Retirement Projections, p. 3.

12 OPM, Retirement Projections, p. 4.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Attracting the Next Generation

These retirements come at a time when the media and many researchers predict that 

the Government will have a difficult time competing with other sectors for highquality applicants. They claim that the Federal hiring process takes too long, the 

process is overly bureaucratic, potential applicants do not think the Government can 

offer interesting and compelling work, Federal salaries are not competitive and entrylevel new hires think they can make a bigger difference in the nonprofit or private 

sectors. These issues will be addressed in more depth throughout this report. 

Hiring Trends 

In addition to the aging workforce, the Government has to contend with the fact 

that it did relatively little hiring during much of the 1990s, as shown in Figure 1. 

During this time, the Federal Government reduced its workforce by approximately 

400,000 employees and limited new hiring efforts.13 The Government did not 

significantly ramp up its hiring efforts again until the early 2000s—mostly in 

response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 

Figure 1. Number of All Full-Time, 

Permanent New Hires FY 1990-2005

Setting the Context: Past, Present and Future New Hire Trends

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

1990199119921993

19941995

1996

1997

1998

1999200020012002200320042005

Includes Professional, Administrative, Technical, Clerical, and Other Occupations 

Source: OPM, CPDF

As a result of the downsizing, many agencies scaled back their recruitment programs 

or abandoned them altogether.14 During this same time, agencies reduced the 

number of Federal HR professionals by 20 percent and therefore lost important 

13 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A 

Governmentwide Perspective, GAO-01-0241, Washington, DC, January 2001, pp. 20-21.

14 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Managing Federal Recruitment: Issues, Insights, and 

Illustrations, Washington, DC, September 2004, p. 5.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

historical knowledge related to effective recruitment and hiring practices.15 With 

this lack of practice and loss of expertise, agencies are re-learning some of the tools

 of the trade regarding how to best attract and select a high-quality workforce.

As previously noted, this report covers new Federal entry-level (GS-5, 7 and 9) 

employees who were appointed into full-time, nonseasonal, permanent positions in 

executive branch professional and administrative occupations.16 The hiring trends 

related to these new hires, as displayed in Figure 2, demonstrate two points. 

Figure 2. Entry-Level New Hires, FY 1990-2005

Setting the Context: Past, Present and Future New Hire Trends

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

1990199119921993

1994

1995

1996

1997

19981999

2000200120022003

20042005

5 7 9

Number of Entry-Level New Hires

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

1990199119921993

19941995

1996

1997

19981999200020012002

200320042005

Entry-Level New Hires as a Percent of All New Hires

Source: OPM, CPDF

15 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Federal Human Resources Employment Trends: An 

Occupation in Transition: A Comprehensive Study of the Federal Human Resources Community, MSE-9-5, 

Washington, DC, September 1999, p. 3.

16 From here, unless otherwise noted, the terms “entry-level new hire” and “new hire” refer to the 

entry-level new hires that meet this criteria. 
 Attracting the Next Generation

First, consistent with the overall Federal hiring pattern, the number of entry-level 

new hires dropped in the mid-1990s and began to rise toward the end of the 

1990s and early 2000s. Second, the proportion of entry-level new hires—as a 

percent of all new hires—stayed fairly stable from FY 1990 through FY 2005. 

Fluctuations have been no more than about 5 percent in each grade since 

approximately 1993. 

Demographic Profile

To gain a better understanding of the types of employees agencies are hiring into 

professional and administrative entry-level positions, it is helpful to look at some 

of their demographic characteristics. Below is a summary of Federal new hires’ 

demographic profile, as calculated from the FY 2005 CPDF (the same file from 

which our survey participants were randomly selected). 

Diversity. Entry-level new hires are fairly diverse. In FY 2005, Blacks represented 

13 percent of the new hires; Asians 6 percent; and Native Americans 1 percent. 

Blacks, Asians and Native Americans were at or above the Civilian Labor Force 

(CLF) representation for that year, as calculated by OPM.17 Hispanics and women 

were somewhat underrepresented. Hispanics represented 9 percent and women 

43 percent of the new hires but 13 and 46 percent of the CLF, respectively.18 

Military Service. Veterans are well represented in the professional and 

administrative entry-level population. They accounted for about 18 percent of the 

professional and administrative entry-level employees hired in FY 2005, compared 

with 21.5 percent of all Federal new hires—which includes technical and blue-collar 

occupations that are popular occupational categories for veterans.19 

Education. Entry-level new hires are well educated. CPDF data show that 

56 percent of the FY 2005 new hires had an undergraduate degree and 19 percent 

had education beyond the undergraduate level. 

Grade Level. CPDF data show that entry-level new hires are generally hired at 

GS-7, and agencies hire more at GS-9 than at GS-5 level. A comparison of FY

2005 new hires indicates that 13 percent were hired at GS-5, 50 percent at GS-7 

and 32 percent at GS-9. As seen above in Figure 2, this is a historical trend. There 

are several potential explanations. Agencies may be looking for people with higher 

skill levels for these positions than can be found at GS-5. They may face difficulties 

in recruiting at the GS-5 salary. Or they may be hiring at GS-9 to avoid some of 

17 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Annual Report to Congress: Federal Equal Opportunity 

Recruitment Program, Fiscal Year 2005.

18 MSPB is looking more closely at gender and minority hiring and advancement issues in an 

upcoming study.

19 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Report to Congress: The Employment of Veterans in the Federal 

Government FY 2005, November 2006, p. 16.

Setting the Context: Past, Present and Future New Hire Trends
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

the assessment requirements for select GS-5 and 7 professional and administrative 

occupations.20 

Occupations. Notably, the Government was fairly consistent from FY 1990 

through FY 2005 regarding the occupations into which it hired entry-level 

employees. The top 10 occupations for FY 2005 are listed in Table 1. Of these 

top 10 occupations, 6 (nursing, contracting, information technology management, 

auditing, criminal investigator and miscellaneous administration) were also in the 

top 10 most populous occupations for fiscal years 2000, 1995 and 1990. 

Table 1. Top 10 Occupations for Which the Federal Government Hired 

Professional and Administrative Entry-Level New Hires, FY 2005

Occupation Occupational Series Percent of 

Entry-Level New Hires

	 1.	 Social Insurance Administration 0105 13.5

	 2.	 Customs and Border Protection Officer 1895 6.1

	 3.	 Miscellaneous Administration 0301 5.5

	 4.	 Contracting 1102 4.7

	 5.	 Auditing 0511 4.3

	 6.	 Information Technology Management 2210 3.6

	 7.	 Natural Resources/Biological Sciences 0401 3.4

	 8.	 Nurse 0610 3.3

	 9. 	Criminal Investigator 1811 3.0

	10.	 Management/Program Analyst 0343 2.6

Source: OPM, CPDF

Agencies. The Government has also been rather consistent as to which agencies 

do the most hiring. The top hiring agencies for FY 2005 are shown in Table 2. 

Seven of them (Army, Air Force, Navy, Veterans Affairs, Treasury, Commerce and 

Justice) were also among the top 10 hiring agencies for fiscal years 2000, 1995 and 

1990. These seven agencies have historically been among the largest in Government, 

so it is not surprising that they would consistently hire the highest percentages of 

new hires. SSA, which was reinstated as an independent agency in 1995, was among 

the top 10 hiring agencies in 2000 and 2005 as it has tried to deal with its retiring 

workforce while getting ready to handle its mission to serve the upcoming surge of 

American retirees. 

Setting the Context: Past, Present and Future New Hire Trends

20 The Luevano consent decree requires agencies to use court-approved assessment procedures for 

about 120 entry-level occupations at the GS-5/7 grades. Generally, agencies use the Administrative 

Careers with America (ACWA) self-rating schedule, but there are complaints that the administration 

of the rating schedule is untimely, burdensome and hinders their ability to reach applicants they 

spent time and resources recruiting. This has led some agencies to hire at the GS-9 level to avoid 

the requirement to use the court-approved assessment procedures.
10 Attracting the Next Generation

Table 2. Top Hiring Agencies for Professional 

and Administrative Entry-Level Hires, FY 2005

Agency Percent of

Entry-Level New Hires

	 1.	 Social Security Administration 16.2

	 2.	 Department of the Army 15.0

	 3.	 Department of Homeland Security 10.9

	 4.	 Department of the Air Force 7.6

	 5.	 Department of the Navy 7.4

	 6.	 Department of Veterans Affairs 6.7

	 7.	 Department of Defense 6.1

	 8.	 Department of the Treasury 5.2

	 9. 	Department of Commerce 3.2

	10.	 Departments of Justice and Agriculture 3.0

Source: OPM, CPDF

Hiring Authorities

The hiring authorities used to bring entry-level hires on board say a lot about how 

the protection of merit is actually practiced in the Federal civil service. The merit 

system principles call for recruitment from all segments of society and selection 

based on relative ability after fair and open competition. The competitive examining 

process was designed to help meet these goals.21 However, that examining process 

has been criticized for being too long, too complicated and not user-friendly. Hiring 

trends over the 16 year period of 1990 to 2005 indicate that for entry-level hires, 

agencies prefer to use authorities that provide streamlined procedures with fewer 

eligibility requirements than competitive examining. In the 1990s, Outstanding 

Scholar was the preferred authority; in the 2000s, it is the Federal Career Intern 

Program. While these authorities may result in faster hires and make it easier to hire 

applicants identified through targeted recruitment activities, if used improperly, they 

may also undermine fair and open competition, as explained below.

Outstanding Scholar

The Outstanding Scholar program was established by the Luevano consent decree, 

which was approved by the United States District Court for the District of 

21 As defined by OPM’s Operating Manual for Qualification Standards, the competitive examination is 

open to all applicants and “may consist of a written test, an evaluation of an applicant’s education and 

experience, and/or an evaluation of other attributes necessary for successful performance in the position 

to be filled.” This examination process is used to fill civil service positions and enables candidates who 

apply from outside the Federal workforce, as well as Federal employees without civil service status, to 

compete for a permanent appointment in the civil service. 

Setting the Context: Past, Present and Future New Hire Trends
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11

Columbia on November 19, 1981. The decree resolved a law suit alleging that the 

Government’s Professional and Administrative Career Examination, used to assess 

applicants for about 120 occupations at GS-5 and GS-7 levels, had an adverse 

impact on African American and Hispanic applicants. As part of the decree, the 

court created the Outstanding Scholar program as a temporary competitive hiring 

authority to be used while OPM developed valid alternative examinations for the 

affected occupations. 

To be eligible for an Outstanding Scholar appointment, candidates must have earned 

an undergraduate grade point average of 3.45 or above (on a 4.0 scale) or be in the 

top 10 percent of their graduating class. While positions must be publicly posted, 

appointments are not subject to veterans’ preference and can be made without 

assessing candidates’ relative ability against other applicants. 

Outstanding Scholar was meant to be a supplement to competitive examining to 

help agencies better target minority candidates. However, because the authority 

could be used to easily recruit and hire college graduates, it became the primary 

means of entry-level hiring for the 120 occupations covered by the consent decree. 

At its peak in 1994, Outstanding Scholar accounted for 46 percent of new hire 

appointments versus 11 percent for competitive examining.22 

In 1998, the Department of Justice and OPM became concerned that Outstanding 

Scholar had become the primary hiring vehicle for GS-5 and 7 professional and 

administrative positions. They strongly urged agencies to evaluate their use of this 

authority to determine if they were using it within the intended parameters.23 

In 2000, MSPB published a study showing that the program not only fails to 

help agencies achieve representation, but it also conflicts with the idea of merit. 

The report demonstrated that Outstanding Scholar hiring limits fair and open 

competition because only college graduates can be considered for positions that 

often do not require a college degree. It limits selection based on relative ability 

because it relies on grade point average as the primary assessment. Research 

presented later in this report shows that grade point average is not a good predictor 

of job performance. Although the intent of the program was to supplement 

competitive examining, many agencies were using it instead of competitive 

examining. Finally, the study found that minority candidates benefited more from 

competitive examining than Outstanding Scholar.24 

Since the publication of these warnings by OPM, Justice and MSPB, agencies’ 

use of the Outstanding Scholar program has declined dramatically. By the end of 

FY 2005, Outstanding Scholar accounted for less than 5 percent of all entry-level 

22 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring: Why Two Special Hiring 

Programs Should Be Ended, Washington, DC, January 2000, p. 7.

23 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Memorandum for Directors of Personnel from Carol J. 

Okin, Outstanding Scholar Program Authorities,” July 13, 1998.

24 MSPB, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring.

Setting the Context: Past, Present and Future New Hire Trends
12 Attracting the Next Generation

appointments. Then, in 2005, MSPB issued two decisions related to Outstanding 

Scholar—Dean v. Department of Agriculture, 99 M.S.P.R. 533 (2005), and Olson v. 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 100 M.S.P.R. 322 (2005). The Board held that the 

agencies had violated the applicants’ veterans’ preference rights by using Outstanding 

Scholar to hire candidates with no veterans’ preference into competitive positions. 

In response to those decisions, OPM has strongly advised agencies against further 

use of the Outstanding Scholar hiring authority. 

Excepted Service and the Federal Career Intern Program

As the use of the Outstanding Scholar authority has decreased, the number of entrylevel new hires being brought into the Government through excepted appointments 

has increased.25 It is not clear whether there is a “cause and effect” relationship 

between the two, but excepted appointments do provide some of the same perceived 

advantages as Outstanding Scholar. 

Historically, competitive examining appointments were the primary authority 

used for entry-level hiring. Excepted appointments, however, now exceed the 

number of new hires brought in through competitive examining career-conditional 

appointments. Figure 3 shows the percent of new hires brought in under the two 

types of appointments between 1990 and 2005.

Figure 3. Percent of Career Conditional vs. Excepted 

Appointments for Entry-Level New Hires, FY 1990-2005

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1990199119921993

19941995

1996

1997

19981999

20002001

200220032004

2005

Source: OPM, CPDF Career Conditional Expected

Setting the Context: Past, Present and Future New Hire Trends

25 Excepted service appointments are exempted from the competitive examining process when 

competitive examining is deemed impracticable for the position or agency. Applicants’ qualifications 

are evaluated against what is needed to perform the job, but not necessarily against the qualifications 

of other applicants, making recruitment and assessment rules less proscriptive than those in the 

competitive service. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13

The primary driver of this new trend was the establishment of the excepted 

service Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP) in 2000. As an alternative to the 

competitive examining process, the FCIP provides streamlined hiring procedures 

with relatively few eligibility and procedural requirements. These procedures give 

agencies flexibility in recruiting, assessing and selecting candidates. Agencies can 

then convert interns to the competitive service if the interns successfully complete 

a 2-year training and development program. In addition, the Board has found 

that the FCIP, unlike Outstanding Scholar, is a valid exception to the competitive 

examination requirement set out in 5 U.S.C. § 3304 because it was expressly 

authorized by an Executive Order promulgated under 5 U.S.C. § 3302.26 

The use of FCIP has skyrocketed since its inception. By FY 2005, FCIP

appointments accounted for about 45 percent of the new hires covered by this 

study and for over 60 percent of the study’s GS-5 and 7 new hires, which are the 

two grades generally hired for using this authority. Delegated examining (the 

typical authority used for competitive appointments) accounted for just under 

20 percent of all entry-level hires GS-5, 7 and 9.27 All other hiring authorities—

including Veterans’ Employment Opportunity Act, Outstanding Scholar, Veterans 

Recruitment Appointment and Direct Hire—were each in the single digits.28 

Excepted service hiring, such as that occurring with FCIP, can address many of the 

perceived flaws in the competitive process. As noted in previous MSPB research 

reports, it can streamline recruitment and assessment practices, allow for faster hiring 

decisions and provide agencies the ability to tailor their recruitment procedures to 

meet mission requirements.29 On the other hand, the streamlined processes can 

negatively impact merit if agencies are not careful in how they use the authorities. 

Fair and Open Competition. In the competitive service, fair and open 

competition is achieved through “public notice.” Public notice requires agencies 

to notify OPM of vacancies for which applicants outside of the agency may 

apply, and they are required to post those jobs on USAJOBs—the Government’s 

official employment Web site. Excepted service positions are not subject to these 

public notice requirements. However, they are still subject to the merit system 

principles, so agencies must interpret what “fair and open” means for excepted 

appointments.30 

26 Gingery v. Department of Defense, 105 M.S.P.R. 671 (2007).

27 As defined by OPM’s Delegated Examining Operations Handbook, the delegated examining 

authority is “an authority OPM grants to agencies to fill competitive civil service jobs with: applicants 

applying from outside the Federal workforce, Federal employees who do not have competitive service 

status, or Federal employees with competitive service status. Appointments made by agencies through 

delegated examining authority are subject to civil service laws and regulations.”

28 For a broader discussion regarding the Federal Government’s use of hiring authorities in all grades 

and occupations, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Hiring Authorities: Cutting Through 

the Confusion, Washington, DC, 2007.

29 MSPB, Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and Cheaper, pp. 31-32. 

30 5 U.S.C. § 3327 and 3330. 

Setting the Context: Past, Present and Future New Hire Trends
14 Attracting the Next Generation

Choosing how to let applicants know about job vacancies can help agencies 

effectively target recruitment strategies and keep from being overwhelmed by 

applications from people who are not qualified for the position. However, as 

discussed above regarding the Outstanding Scholar Program, unnecessarily 

narrowing recruitment may hinder fair and open competition by precluding highly 

qualified individuals from learning about the jobs, affecting the long-term quality 

of the Federal workforce. In fact, MSPB’s research suggests that information about 

at least one type of excepted service position—the Federal Career Internship—is 

frequently difficult for potential applicants to find.31 

For instance, if an agency continually recruits from only one or two local colleges 

because those colleges provided good candidates in the past, the agency is likely to 

miss high-quality candidates from other potential sources. Furthermore, it would be 

inadvertently granting preference to college graduates from those specific schools. In 

addition, research has shown that just because a recruitment source has resulted in 

good selections in the past does not mean it will continually generate good selections 

over time.32 

When using excepted service appointments, agencies should be cautious in designing 

their recruitment strategies so that they do not unnecessarily narrow the pool of 

qualified applicants, thereby limiting fair and open competition.

Selection Based on Relative Ability. Because public notice is not required 

for excepted service positions, recruitment strategies to fill them can lead to smaller 

applicant pools. In addition, excepted service positions do not require the rating 

of candidate abilities and ranking them in order of the most highly qualified. With 

fewer applicants and fewer assessment requirements, the use of good assessment tools 

becomes even more important to ensure that the applicants have the skills necessary 

to perform the job. 

However, agencies tend to use assessment practices that are not good predictors of 

future performance. For instance, when hiring Federal Career Interns, selecting 

officials and HR staff tend to rely on interviews, evaluation of training and 

experience, recommendations and/or grade point average (GPA).33 These, we 

will see later, are not good at measuring candidates’ relative ability or predicting 

their future job performance. Even though excepted service authorities allow for 

streamlined assessment procedures, it is in the public’s best interest to ensure that the 

assessments used are adequate predictors of job performance. 

31 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Building a High-Quality Workforce: The Federal Career Intern 

Program, Washington, DC, September 2005, p. 23.

32 Kevin D. Carlson, Mary L. Connelly, and Ross L. Mecham III, “Recruitment Evaluation: The 

Case for Assessing the Quality of Applicants Attracted,” Personnel Psychology, 2002, vol. 55, Iss. 2, pp. 

461-490. 

33 MSPB, Building a High-Quality Workforce, p. 26.

Setting the Context: Past, Present and Future New Hire Trends
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15

In looking at the hiring trends and demographic profile of Federal entry-level 

new hires, we see the recent increase in the volume of hires but little change in 

the composition of new hires over the 16 years examined. The Government has 

continued hiring for many of the same occupations. Similar agencies have been 

doing the majority of the hiring. The percentage of entry-level hires to all new hires 

has not changed significantly, and the grades at which entry-level new hires enter 

have remained fairly consistent. 

In addition, agencies continue to look for hiring authorities that help make the 

process faster, more efficient and more capable of helping them meet mission 

requirements than the competitive examining process. Unfortunately, if not 

used properly, these authorities can short-circuit the principles of fair and open 

competition and selection based on relative ability. The fact that agencies 

continually opt out of the competitive examining process indicates that there are 

fundamental problems with the overall system. Therefore, while we urge agencies to 

evaluate their recruitment and selection practices to ensure that they adhere to the 

merit system principles, the Government needs to start thinking about longer term 

hiring reform that addresses problems associated with competitive examining.

Setting the Context: Past, Present and Future New Hire Trends

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17

Who They Are: Age and Experience 

of Entry-Level New Hires

Who They Are: Age and Experience 

of Entry-Level New Hires

R ecently, MSPB asked several groups of public human resources professionals 

 the question: When you think of an entry-level new hire, what 

 characteristics come to mind? They responded as most would probably 

expect—an entry-level new hire is a young, professionally inexperienced, recent 

college graduate. 

While that may be the popular perception, it is not the reality for Federal entry-level 

new hires. Rather, Federal entry-level new hires are much more diverse in terms of 

age, experience and background. 

This was a surprising finding, even to us. It made us want to explore more in depth 

the factors of age and experience to see if there are systemic barriers in the hiring 

process that might give an advantage or disadvantage to certain applicants based on 

nonmerit reasons.

Age

The age of Federal entry-level hires was the first indication that they are different 

from popular expectations. CPDF data show that the average age of the Federal 

new hire in FY 2005 was 33 years old, in contrast to the 22- and 23- year olds 

many would expect to see. 

The average age is largely affected by the range of new hires’ age, which was rather 

broad at 21 to 84 years old. Because of this variance, it is helpful to look at the 

median age, which was 29.34 This means that 50 percent of the hires appointed in 

FY 2005 were over age 29 and 50 percent were under age 29—still older than one 

might expect. 

We can reasonably expect GS-9 new hires to be older than those at GS-5 or GS-7 

because the higher grade requires either work experience or an advanced education. 

Therefore, we looked at the age of just GS-5 and 7 new hires in the CPDF for 

FY 2005. They too were older than expected, with an average age of 31 and a 

median age of 27. 

Hires 34 The median is found by arranging numeric data in order and selecting the number that falls in 

the middle of the range. The median is a particularly useful measure of central tendency when the 

distribution of the data has extreme values that would otherwise skew the average. 
18 Attracting the Next Generation

Table 3. Average and Median Ages of 

Professional and Administrative Entry-Level Hires

CPDF FY 2005 Data Average Age Median Age

All 33 29

Competitive 34 32

Excepted 31 28

FCIP 30 27

GS-5/7 31 27

Nonpreference-Eligible 31 28

CPDF Historical Data

FY 1990–2005—All 32 29

FY 1990—All 31 28

Quite often, agencies hire new employees who previously served in the military 

and have preference eligibility.35 Therefore, it might be reasonable to assume that 

these preference eligible new hires would be older because they generally served in 

the military for 2 years or more, and many retired from military service to begin 

new careers as civilians. So, we also looked at the age of new hires who did not 

have preference eligibility. According to the CPDF, new hires with no preference 

eligibility were still, on average, 31 years old with a median age of 28. 

In fact, this higher-than-expected-age for entry-level new hires is not a new 

phenomenon. The CPDF shows that the average age for new hires in FY 1990 

was 31, with a median of 28. While younger than today’s new hires, the 1990 

average age was still considerably older than most would expect for an entry-level 

new hire. And the average age from fiscal years 1990 through 2005 was 32, with a 

median of 29. 

The CPDF also indicates that new hires appointed through competitive examining 

procedures in FY 2005 were somewhat older than those appointed through excepted 

service procedures. The average age of a competitive service new hire was 34, and 

the median was 32. Excepted service new hires were, on average, 31 years old 

with a median age of 28. Even FCIP hires, who are largely recruited from college 

campuses, had an average age of 30 and a median age of 27. Recruitment and 

assessment practices are the key differences between the excepted and competitive 

service hiring processes. Therefore, in a later section, we look more closely at the 

effect Federal recruitment and assessment processes may have on age when hired. 

Who They Are: Age and Experience of Entry-Level New Hires

35 Veterans’ preference is a hiring benefit afforded to applicants who meet certain criteria related to 

military service. Qualifying criteria are listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2108.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19

Who They Are: Age and Experience of Entry-Level New Hires

Experience

Length of Experience

Contrary to popular perceptions, many entry-level new hires had some full-time 

work experience before joining the Government. Thirty-two percent of our survey 

participants reported having 1 to 5 years of full-time work experience before 

accepting a Federal job. Even more surprising, almost 20 percent reported more 

than 20 years of work experience before joining the Government, and 17 percent 

had 11 to 20 years. Conversely, only 17 percent had less than 1 year of full-time 

work experience. 

In addition to being younger, our survey’s excepted service new hires also tended 

to be less experienced than those hired under competitive examining procedures. 

About 21 percent of excepted service new hires reported having less than 1 year of 

full-time work experience, compared to only 10 percent of competitive service new 

hires. Only 14 percent had over 20 years of experience, compared to 26 percent of 

the competitive service hires. 

Type of Experience

In our new hire survey, we asked participants what they were doing immediately 

before they began working for the Federal Government. The responses to this 

question, shown in Table 4, again contradict the image of an inexperienced entrylevel employee. While almost a quarter of the participants (24 percent) indicated 

that they came to the Government directly after attending school, the largest 

segment of new hires (30 percent) were working for a private sector company that 

was not a Federal contractor. Another 36 percent were working for a state or local 

government; a Federal contractor; the military or the Coast Guard; a school, college, 

or university; a nonprofit organization; or for themselves. These responses indicate 

that many Federal new hires do in fact have some real world experience when they 

enter Government service. 

As with the length of experience, the type of experience differed for excepted service 

new hires compared with competitive service new hires. Excepted service new hires 

came predominantly from two sources—private sector companies (31 percent) and 

directly from school (29 percent). The third largest segment came from a state or 

local government at 9 percent. 
20 Attracting the Next Generation

Table 4. What Survey Participants Were Doing 

Prior to Their Federal Job

Type of Experience All Competitive Excepted 

Private company 30% 27% 31%

Attending school 24% 15% 29%

State/local government 10% 13% 9%

Federal contractor 8% 12% 6%

For a school/university 6% 6% 6%

Not employed 6% 8% 6%

Military/Coast Guard 6% 11% 4%

Nonprofit 4% 3% 5%

Other 3% 4% 3%

Self-employed 2% 3% 2%

Those hired under competitive service hiring authorities were much more diverse 

in their responses. Their most frequent response, at 27 percent, was a private sector 

company. In addition, the rest of their answers were more evenly distributed than 

the responses of the excepted service new hires: attending school (15 percent), state 

or local government (13 percent), Federal contractor (12 percent), military (11 

percent) and down from there. 

Not surprisingly, when broken out by age, a larger segment of the under 30 

participants (40 percent) came to the Government directly out of school. Thirty 

percent came from a private sector company. Participants 30 and over were more 

diverse in their responses, though the largest segment (29 percent) came from 

a private company. These responses are similar to those broken out by hiring 

authority, suggesting a link between hiring authority and new hires’ level of 

experience.

Potential Factors to Explain Age and Experience

The older, experienced entry-level worker is an interesting phenomenon who seems 

contrary to popular perceptions of what a new hire is. These attributes are not bad 

or inappropriate provided that selection was based on relative ability after fair and 

open competition. However, these findings do raise the question as to whether 

there may be barriers in the Federal hiring process that are a disadvantage for 

younger applicants who do not have work experience but may have great potential. 

Therefore, we explored several factors to help explain why the Government is 

attracting this group of unexpectedly older and more experienced new hires.

Who They Are: Age and Experience of Entry-Level New Hires
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21

Recruitment Strategies

To identify if different recruitment strategies attract different types of new hires, 

we asked survey participants how they first learned about their Federal job. In 

particular, we compared the responses of new hires under 30 to those new hires 

30 and over to identify any noteworthy differences that might help explain the 

unexpected age and experience levels of new hires.36 The answers are displayed in 

Figure 4. 

Figure 4. How Survey Participants First Learned 

of Their Federal Job

Friend or relative

USAJOBs

Agency’s Web site

College/university job fair

School placement office

Professional network

Ad in publication

Other job fair

Non-Government job site

Under 30 30 and Over

0 5 10

Percent

15 20 25 30 35

For both the younger (under 30) and older (30 and over) new hires, the largest 

portion of survey participants found out about their job through a friend or relative 

(32 percent and 31percent respectively). After that source, new hires 30 and over 

tended to rely on the Internet, such as USAJOBs (27 percent) and agency Web sites 

(11 percent). New hires under 30 relied on college-related sources, with college/

university job fairs and college placement officials combining for almost a third of 

the total responses (31 percent). This response was obviously driven by the survey 

participants who came to the Government directly after attending school—29 

percent of those heard about the job at a college fair and 23 percent from a school 

placement official. However, of those participants under 30 who did not come 

directly from school, 17 percent still cited college sources as how they first learned 

of their job.

Who They Are: Age and Experience of Entry-Level New Hires

36 We chose age 30 as the cut-off to compare “younger” and “older” new hires to ensure that we had 

a large enough sample of new hires in each group to draw valid conclusions. A cut-off age of 22 or 23 

would have resulted in too small a group to generalize the findings.
22 Attracting the Next Generation

These findings seem to indicate that younger new hires tend to rely more on personal 

recruitment sources, particularly those who come to them—such as a college 

recruiter or school placement official. Older new hires are more willing—or find it 

more necessary—to go in search of opportunities, using sources such as USAJOBs 

and agency Web sites. Generational research supports this finding. The Partnership 

for Public Service interviewed and surveyed a sample of college students and found 

that they clearly expect to be pursued by potential employers, including Federal 

agencies.37 

This may help explain why excepted service new hires are somewhat younger than 

competitive service new hires. Excepted service hiring rules are less proscriptive 

than competitive examining and make it easier to present job offers to the applicants 

whom agencies proactively recruit on college campuses. In fact, 80 percent of 

the new hires coming directly out of school were hired using excepted service 

authorities, thereby increasing the number of younger new hires with less experience 

and decreasing the average age of this group. 

On the other hand, the most cited recruitment method used by agencies, as 

reported in MSPB’s 2004 recruitment study, was posting announcements on 

USAJOBs and agency Web sites. In addition, agencies were just beginning to reestablish recruitment relationships with colleges and universities after a decade of 

downsizing.38 These factors may help explain why the Federal Government attracts 

older new hires. It has not yet become adept at seeking out younger applicants and 

relies on recruitment strategies that largely attract those 30 and over.

Agencies can use these data to inform their recruitment strategies. To ensure that 

they are reaching “all segments of society” with their recruitment efforts—including 

all age segments—agencies should use a balanced recruitment strategy. A balanced 

strategy includes not only passive recruitment sources, such as posting vacancy 

announcements to USAJOBs, but also proactive recruitment strategies, including 

visiting colleges and universities that have academic programs specific to the job 

being filled. Ultimately, a balanced recruitment strategy can help agencies reach 

applicants who have a more diverse set of skills, abilities and potential to help 

accomplish their missions. 

37 Partnership for Public Service, Back to School: Rethinking Federal Recruiting on College Campuses, 

Washington, DC, May 2006, p. 14.

38 MSPB, Managing Federal Recruitment, pp. 10-11.

Who They Are: Age and Experience of Entry-Level New Hires
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23

Federal Assessment Practices

Federal assessment practices may also affect the age and experience of entry-level 

new hires. We asked survey participants what steps they completed during the 

application process. Their responses are captured in Figure 5.

39 

Figure 5. Percent of Survey Participants Reporting the 

Following Steps Were Completed in the Hiring Process

Job interview

Educational transcripts

Reference checks

Paper resume

Online resume

Lengthy questionnaire

Narrative statement

Written examination

Writing sample

Job simulation

0 10 20

Percent

30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Who They Are: Age and Experience of Entry-Level New Hires

Much research has been conducted to compare the results of assessment methods 

with actual job performance. This research tells us that different applicant 

assessment tools vary in their ability to predict how well a job applicant will 

perform once on the job. Table 5 shows these validity scores for various applicant 

assessment tools.40 

39 Note that there is no significant difference between which steps were reportedly used most when 

the data are broken out by age or by excepted/competitive service positions.

40 The “validity score” refers to the ability of an assessment tool to predict how well an applicant will 

perform on the job—the closer the score is to +1, the stronger the relationship between the assessment 

tool results and future job performance.
24 Attracting the Next Generation

Table 5. Validity Scores of Selected Assessment Methods 41

Assessment Procedure Validity Score

Work Sample Tests 0.54

Structured Interviews 0.51

General Mental Ability Tests 0.51

Job Knowledge Tests 0.48

Training and Experience (behavioral consistency model) 0.45

Job Try-Out Procedure 0.44

Unstructured Interviews 0.38

Biographical Data Measures 0.35

Reference Checks 0.26

Grade Point Average 0.20

Years of Job Experience 0.18

Training and Experience (point method) 0.11

Years of Education 0.10

Graphology (handwriting analysis) 0.02

When comparing the steps used in the application process (Fig. 5) to the assessment 

method validity scores (Table 5), one thing is apparent: agencies are not using 

assessments that are good predictors of future performance.42 

For instance, the most popular assessment—the job interview—can be one of the 

most predictive assessments if it is conducted in a structured style. However, MSPB

research indicates that agencies generally rely on unstructured interviews, which 

have a lower predictive value.43 Also, educational transcripts (the second most cited 

assessment tool) may tell the employer the amount of education or grade point 

average of the applicant. However, these are not very predictive of job performance, 

particularly if there is a gap of time between the education and the entry on duty. 

41 The validity scores for all of the listed assessments except for GPA are from Frank L. Schmidt and 

John E. Hunter, “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Psychology: Practical 

and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings,” Psychological Bulletin, the American 

Psychological Association, Inc., vol. 124, No. 2, September 1998, p. 265. A short definition of 

each listed assessment can also be found in this article. The validity score for GPA is from MSPB, 

Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring: Why Two Special Hiring Programs Should Be Ended, p. 17. That report 

also contains an expanded discussion on why GPA is not considered to be a good predictor of job 

performance.

42 The differences in how well these assessments predict future performance are actually larger 

than might appear in Table 5. Squaring the validity score estimates the variability in an employee’s 

performance that can be predicted by an assessment tool. So, a structured interview predicts 26 percent 

of the variability in how well applicants will do on the job, whereas GPA predicts only 4 percent—

making structured interviews almost 7 times more predictive than GPA. 

43 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential, 

Washington, DC, February 2003.

Who They Are: Age and Experience of Entry-Level New Hires
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25

Agency assessments tend to rely on ratings of training and experience (point 

method), which research has found are not good predictors of future performance. 

For instance, when evaluating resumes, narrative statements and questionnaires 

regarding work, education, training and personal history, agencies generally 

give applicants points for exposure to certain training or experience rather than 

evaluating the actual skills developed during that training or work experience. This 

approach not only lowers the validity of the assessment, but it also favors those 

who have a certain level of training or experience over those who may have higher 

potential—thereby benefiting older, more experienced applicants simply by virtue 

of their having worked more years. 

Training and experience assessments are particularly unsuitable for entry-level jobs. 

The purpose of an entry-level position is not to hire someone who can come into 

the job and hit the ground running. The purpose is to hire someone the agency can 

prepare and develop for journey-level positions in the future. Therefore, selecting 

officials should be focusing on the long-term potential of the applicants, not just 

what jobs they have held in the past. 

The use of training and experience assessments is a particular problem for 

professional and administrative applicants applying for GS-5 and 7 positions covered 

by the previously discussed Luevano consent decree. They are generally required 

to complete the “Administrative Careers With America” (ACWA) rating schedule. 

Until recently, this rating schedule contained 156 multiple-choice items that asked 

applicants about their work, education and personal history. Sixty-two percent 

of our survey’s new hires who were hired into GS-5 and 7 occupations reported 

filling out “a lengthy questionnaire that contained questions concerning my work, 

education and personal history.” 

MSPB has identified several problems with the use of the ACWA rating schedule. 

In particular, the rating schedule generally assesses training and experience rather 

than potential. OPM recently announced the release of the Assessment Delivery 

System, which contains streamlined versions of the rating schedule that cover about 

80 percent of the Luevano occupations. The new versions reportedly contain about 

half as many questions but maintained the more highly predictive questions. It is 

unclear, however, as to whether the new versions of the rating schedule address issues 

surrounding how well the instrument measures skills and potential versus training 

and experience. Overall, the utility of the ACWA rating schedule in actually 

predicting job success has not been proven and may be quite limited. 

Ultimately, a good assessment strategy includes assessments with higher validity than 

those currently being used and that therefore better predict future job performance. 

For example, job simulation tests or written examinations have proven to be better 

indicators of how candidates will perform once on the job. However, Figure 5

demonstrates that these types of assessments are rarely used, most likely because 

they tend to be more expensive and require a certain level of expertise to develop. 

They also tend to take more time to administer and often place more burden on the 

applicant to complete. 

Who They Are: Age and Experience of Entry-Level New Hires
26 Attracting the Next Generation

Another obstacle may be managers’ propensity to prefer experience (a “known” 

quantity) to potential when making hiring decisions. For instance, a 1998 research 

study found that public managers only “somewhat agreed” that they would promote 

someone who showed great potential but only had limited experience over someone 

with more experience but less potential.44 

These data indicate that agencies should evaluate how they are assessing their 

entry-level applicants. If they are using assessments that are based on training and 

experience, they should determine which other assessments are available to them that 

are better predictors of future potential. Selecting officials should be focusing on the 

long-term goal of hiring an employee who can learn and grow with the organization, 

not the short-term goal of finding someone who can do the entry-level work right 

now. 

Job Requirements

Looking at the top occupations for which the Government hires entry-level 

employees helps clarify why new hires are more experienced than expected. Many of 

the top 10 entry-level occupations in FY 2005 required candidates to have specific 

education, experience or other special characteristics. Table 6 reminds us of these 

top 10 occupations. 

Table 6. Top Professional and Administrative 

Entry-Level Occupations for FY 2005

	 1.	 Social Insurance Administration

	 2.	 Customs and Border Protection Officer

	 3.	 Miscellaneous Administration

	 4.	 Contracting

	 5.	 Auditing

	 6.	 Information Technology Management

	 7.	 Natural Resources/Biological Sciences

	 8.	 Nurse

	 9. Criminal Investigator

	10.	 Management/Program Analyst

Source: OPM, CPDF

While these occupations look diverse and open to a broad degree of educational 

experience, a closer look reveals that they are more selective. Four of the ten 

occupations have minimum education requirements (contracting, auditing, nurse 

and natural resource/biological sciences), meaning that OPM has determined that 

44 Evan M. Berman and Jonathan P. West, “Responsible Risk-Taking,” Public Administration Review, 

July/August 1998, vol. 8, No. 4, p. 348. 

Who They Are: Age and Experience of Entry-Level New Hires
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27

the duties of the position cannot be performed by an individual who does not have 

the prescribed minimum education, generally in a particular field. Three more 

of the occupations have individual occupational requirements, such as specific 

technical education or experience for information technology positions and 

physical requirements for criminal investigators and Customs and Border 

Protection officers.45

Younger, inexperienced candidates can also have a hard time getting their foot in the 

door because agencies often hire at a higher grade. In 4 of the top 10 occupations 

(miscellaneous administration, management/program analyst, criminal investigator 

and information technology management), agencies hired about 50 percent or more 

of their entry-level employees at GS-9 or the equivalent—meaning that new hires 

had to have prior relevant work experience or a graduate-level degree. 

Hiring at higher grade levels favors candidates who have more experience or higher 

education levels. And candidates with more experience or higher education are 

generally older than 22 years. In addition, minimum education and individual 

occupational requirements often require specific undergraduate academic training. 

We see below that this factor might also explain why new hires are older. 

Education

Characteristics of the undergraduate population may also help explain why new hires 

are older and more experienced than expected. The National Center for Education 

Studies (NCES) points out that the undergraduate population is older than it once 

was. For instance, 39 percent of postsecondary students were 25 years or older in 

1999, compared to 28 percent in 1970.46

Furthermore, there are fewer “traditional” students on campus than “nontraditional” 

students. The “traditional” undergraduate is defined as someone who enrolls on a 

full-time basis directly after finishing high school, depends financially on his or her 

parents and either does not work or works part-time during the school year. Only 

27 percent of students in the 1999–2000 school year met all of these criteria.47 

Nontraditional undergraduates tend to defer enrollment, attend school parttime, work full-time and/or have dependents at home. Seventy-three percent of 

all undergraduates were in some way “nontraditional.”48 The prevalence of these 

characteristics in the undergraduate population would imply that those who 

finish their degrees do so at an older age than 22. In fact, the average age of a 

45 These requirements are all part of the qualification standards for Federal positions. In the near 

future, MSPB plans to look at the issue of minimum qualifications and whether factors such as 

minimum education requirements are the best way to ensure applicants are qualified for these positions 

or if there are better ways to measure for potential. 

46 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Nontraditional 

Undergraduates, NCES 2002–012, by Susan Choy, Washington, DC, 2002, pp. 1-3.

47 Education, Nontraditional Undergraduates, pp. 1-3. Data are not available to compare to previous 

school years.

48 Education, Nontraditional Undergraduates, pp. 1-3.

Who They Are: Age and Experience of Entry-Level New Hires
28 Attracting the Next Generation

student receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree, as we calculated from the National 

Postsecondary Student Aid database, was just over 26 years old.49 

These trends may help explain why at least a portion of Federal new hires are older 

and more experienced. Twenty-four percent of MSPB’s survey participants indicated 

that they completed their highest education level when they were over 30 years 

old. Almost 30 percent were 24 to 30 years old. And, as previously mentioned, a 

large number worked in the private sector prior to their first Federal job. Therefore, 

they may have deferred Federal employment until they completed their education, 

meanwhile working in another sector to support themselves while completing the 

coursework. 

Career Planning Decisions

Given the surprising proportion of surveyed new hires who had 20 years or more 

of work experience (20 percent), it seems that many new hires are starting a second 

career with the Federal Government. Generational research supports the premise 

that baby boomers (those born between the mid-1940s and the early 1960s and 

who are currently reaching or have reached retirement age) often define themselves 

by who they are at work and will therefore continue to work in alternative careers 

after their formal retirement.50 Even a significant number of traditionalists (the 

generation preceding boomers) expect to continue working either with the same 

company or in a new field of employment after retirement.51 Many of the survey 

participants’ narrative comments demonstrate this desire: 

o	 I spent more than 36 years in the military. I wanted to do something where 

I could support the men and women I once served with and still have the 

benefit of spending more time with my family.

o	 After many years of teaching school, including working evenings and 

weekends, I felt a great need for a change. As I learned more about 

working for the Federal Government, I was impressed with all it had to 

offer: service oriented, interesting work, benefits and time to myself at the 

end of each day. 

o	 As the world is constantly changing, so are its challenges. I feel that with 

my life experiences and knowledge I can tackle these challenges so that it 

benefits my family, friends and country.

49 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Data Analysis System, 

http://nces.ed.gov/dasol/tables.

50 Lynne C. Lancaster and David Stillman, When Generations Collide: Who They Are. Why They Clash. 

How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work, HarperCollins, New York, 2002, p. 129.

51 Lancaster and Stillman, When Generations Collide, p. 203.

Who They Are: Age and Experience of Entry-Level New Hires
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29

While some may be starting new careers, it is also apparent that many new hires are 

wrapping up their current careers and hoping to supplement their private retirement 

with Federal benefits. The Federal Government’s retirement package includes a fixed 

pension based on earnings and a tax-deferred retirement savings and investment plan 

(Thrift Savings Plan or TSP) similar to 401(k) plans offered in the private sector. 

In addition, retirees with 5 years of continuous enrollment immediately before their 

retirement continue to receive the full subsidy in the Federal Employees Health 

Benefits Program. These benefits are attractive to those nearing retirement or who 

have already retired from another sector and want to supplement their earnings, as 

demonstrated through some participants’ narrative comments:

o	 At this point, in my career I look forward to learning new things, working 

as a public servant and having stability and benefits as I plan for retirement 

in 10 years or so.

o	 This is a second career for me, so my considerations centered around 

ensuring that I had the opportunity for a good retirement. 401K plans have 

been lucrative for me, so the TSP was a selling point.

o	 I was looking for a position that offered health benefits along with a pension 

plan. [53 year old participant]

Who They Are: Age and Experience of Entry-Level New Hires

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

What They Want: Interests, 

Influences and Intentions

What They Want: Interests, 

Influences and Intentions

The previous section addressed several factors that could explain why Federal 

entry-level new hires are older and more experienced. In addition to 

those possibilities, several recent surveys suggest that interest in Federal 

employment is low, particularly among younger job applicants. The research shows 

that college graduates and public policy graduate students tend to view entry-level 

Government jobs as less challenging, rewarding and professionally beneficial than 

private and nonprofit sector jobs. They tend to believe that the private sector 

offers better compensation, more challenging work and better developmental 

opportunities, while the nonprofit sector offers more rewarding work. Furthermore, 

many applicants who are interested in Federal employment do not know enough 

about it to pursue opportunities.52 

A lack of interest in or information about Federal jobs will make it difficult for 

the Government to recruit a qualified workforce from all segments of society, as 

is essential in a merit system. Therefore, to explore whether the above sentiments 

are shared by the people the Government actually hires, we asked new hires about 

their impressions of Federal employment, what they were looking for in a job and 

ultimately what motivated them to accept a Federal job. While the views of the 

new hires’ we surveyed may not reflect the opinions of all potential applicants, 

they do reflect the views of those who were successful in the Federal hiring process. 

Therefore, their point of view can help agencies identify how to best market their 

jobs and attract a broader, more diversified applicant pool. 

52 For instance, see (1) Paul C. Light, The New Public Service, Brookings Institution Press, 

Washington, DC, 1999; (2) Linda J. Bilmes and Jeffrey R. Neal, “The People Factor: Human Resources 

Reform in Government,” For the People: Can We Fix Public Service?, John D. Donahue and Joseph S. 

Nye Jr, Editors, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, 2003; (3) A Peter D. Hart Research 

Study for the Council for Excellence in Government, Calling Young People to Government Service: From 

Ask Not to Not Asked, March 2004; (4) The Council for Excellence in Government and The Gallup 

Organization, Within Reach...But Out of Synch: The Possibilities and Challenges of Shaping Tomorrow’s 

Government Workforce, December 2006; (5) Partnership for Public Service, Back to School, Washington, 

DC, 2006.
32 Attracting the Next Generation

Employment Goals

Entry-level job seekers often have a set goal in mind when they undertake their 

job search. They might be looking for a job in a particular field or in a particular 

employment sector, or they may just be looking for the fastest pay check they can 

find. We asked Federal new hires to describe their employment goal when they 

applied for their first Federal job to determine how motivated they were to obtain a 

Federal job as opposed to “just a job.” 

Here, we see the first indication that entry-level new hires had rather positive 

attitudes toward the Federal Government at the time they applied. As shown in 

Table 7, almost one-third of the survey participants were specifically trying to 

obtain a job with the Federal Government. This answer was particularly popular 

among new hires who previously worked for a private sector company—potentially 

indicating that after spending time in the private sector, they were looking for a 

more promising situation in the Federal sector. 

Table 7. Survey Participants’ Employment Goal 

at the Time They Applied for Their Federal Job

Percent Employment Goal

31 Get a job with the Federal Government

28 Get a job in a particular occupation

22 Get a job in a particular agency

10 Get a job

8 Get a public service-oriented job

When combined with the participants interested in employment with specific 

Federal agencies (22 percent), over 50 percent of the survey participants were 

specifically looking for a Federal job when they applied. Another 8 percent were 

looking for a public service position. So while some of the literature suggests that 

the general population has low interest in Federal employment, a large percentage of 

the new hires who are actually hired set out to obtain Federal employment. 

What They Want: Interests, Influences and Intentions
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33

Job Offer Attractors

Many Federal stakeholders worry that the Federal Government cannot compete with 

private sector employers in terms of large salaries and signing bonuses. However, 

there are other ways to attract high-quality applicants. One way to help ensure 

that the Federal Government stays competitive is to offer candidates the benefits 

and work place flexibilities that are most important to them. To help agencies 

identify which benefits and flexibilities are the best attractors, we asked survey 

participants how important certain flexibilities were to them when they were 

considering job offers. 

In general, new hires were most interested in traditional benefits currently being 

offered by the Federal Government: 

o	 97 percent said yearly salary increases were important when considering 

job offers.

o	 94 percent said vacation and 89 percent said sick leave were important 

when considering job offers.

o	 88 percent said health insurance was important when considering job 

offers.

o	 84 percent said a 401(k)-type retirement plan and 77 percent said a 

fixed pension were important when considering job offers.

While the survey participants considered traditional benefits to be more important 

than nontraditional benefits, nontraditional benefits did have a significant following: 

o	 73 percent said structured training programs were important.

o	 71 percent wanted a flexible or alternative work schedule. 

o	 52 percent said the option of tuition reimbursement was important.

o	 39 percent wanted the ability to telecommute.

Much of the generational literature suggests that younger employees are less 

interested in structured, traditional benefits (such as insurance and retirement) 

and more interested in alternative benefits (such as alternative work schedules and 

telecommuting).53 Therefore, we thought that the interest in traditional benefits 

was perhaps being driven by the older new hires. However, when comparing the 

responses of the under 30 to those of the 30 and over new hires, we found that 

there was actually little difference between the two groups—and some traditional 

benefits were actually more important to younger new hires. The results are shown 

in Figure 6. 

What They Want: Interests, Influences and Intentions

53 For instance, Lancaster and Stillman, When Generations Collide, p. 160.
34 Attracting the Next Generation

Figure 6. Percent of Survey Participants Indicating Each Factor 

as Important to Job Offer Considerations 

Yearly salary increases

Vacation time

Sick leave

Health insurance

Portable retirement plan

Pension retirement plan

Structured training

Flexible work schedules

Tuition reimbursement

Telecommuting

Childcare subsidies

Childcare facilities

Elder care resources

Under 30 30 and Over

0 20 40

Percent

10 30 50 70 90 60 80 100

The only significant differences between the two groups were attitudes toward 

pensions, tuition reimbursement and health insurance. It is not surprising that 

the preference for pensions was driven by older new hires (10 percent more of the 

30 and over participants report it as being important), since a greater proportion 

of them are preparing for retirement. It is also not surprising that the preference 

for tuition reimbursement was driven by younger new hires (8 percent more of the 

under 30 participants reported it as being important), since a greater proportion of 

them came to the Government directly from school. However, 96 percent of new 

hires under the age of 30 said that health insurance was important to them when 

they were considering job offers, compared to 79 percent for the 30 and over group. 

As a result, health insurance came in second only to annual salary increases for the 

under 30 group and accounted for the largest difference between the two groups in 

terms of what is important to their job offer considerations. 

Overall, these findings demonstrate that entry-level new hires, regardless of age, 

consider long-term benefits such as health insurance, retirement and vacation to 

be important considerations in weighing job offers. This is good for the Federal 

Government because, as we will see shortly, new hires consider these kinds of 

benefits to also be a strength of Federal employment. Agencies just need to consider 

how they can market these traditional benefits when recruiting applicants. However, 

new hires of all ages are increasingly seeking more alternative work arrangements 

and nontraditional benefits as well. Therefore, Federal agencies should continue 

rethinking how they can best meet workforce needs and provide an organizational 

culture that values these kinds of flexibilities and other benefits as well. 

What They Want: Interests, Influences and Intentions
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

Federal Employment Strengths

As cited at the beginning of this chapter, there are a number of fairly recent studies 

that have asked younger Americans what they think of the Federal Government as 

an employer. Some of the research cites as detractors such factors as low Federal 

pay, slow career progression and an inability to make a difference because of the 

bureaucracy. To find out what Federal new hires thought about the Government at 

the time they applied for their job, we asked survey participants what they perceived 

to be the strengths and weaknesses of Federal employment. We found that Federal 

new hires—regardless of age—had rather positive impressions of the Government 

when they applied for their job. 

The factors that most participants saw as strengths of Federal employment were not 

surprising. They included items that are generally accepted as Federal strengths, 

such as job security (97 percent reported it to be a strength), benefits (89 percent) 

and the ability to make a difference with the work (84 percent). However, survey 

participants were fairly positive about issues that some research has identified as 

potential problem areas for the Federal Government. These include pay (71 percent 

reported it to be a strength), opportunities for advancement (86 percent), interesting 

work (85 percent) and reputation of the employing agency (80 percent). 

Even when broken out by age, there were few significant differences between the 

responses of participants under 30 and those 30 and over, as shown in Figure 7. 

Older new hires had slightly better impressions of issues such as challenging and 

interesting work, making a difference with their work and the ability to address a 

new family situation. But ultimately, the survey participants rated all of the factors 

rather positively. The ability to address a new family situation was the only factor to 

have a rating of less than 70 percent, but that particular factor had a higher rate of 

“don’t know” (32 percent) responses than the other categories.

Figure 7. Percent of Survey Participants Identifying 

Each Factor as a Strength of Federal Employment

Job security

Benefits

Advancement

Challenging and interesting work

Marking a difference

Ability to have a life outside of work

Training

Reputation of the employer

Locations

Positive work environment

Diversity of assignments

Pay

Ability to address a new family situation

Under 30 30 and Over

0 20 40

Percent

10 30 50 70 90 60 80 100

What They Want: Interests, Influences and Intentions
36 Attracting the Next Generation

The “It” Factor

So far, we have seen that many new hires set out to find a Federal job, they were 

attracted by the kinds of benefits the Government offered, and they had positive 

impressions of Federal employment when they applied. But we also wanted to know 

what the “it” factor was for new hires. In other words, what was the most important 

factor that influenced their decision to work for the Government? 

This question is particularly important today because the workplace is changing. 

Generational literature maintains that younger generations are no longer motivated 

by the notion of job security in terms of long-term employment, promotions up the 

organizational hierarchy, structured pay progression or other incentives that were 

popular with past generations.54 The old employment deal in which employees 

commit to organizational loyalty in exchange for lifetime employment is no longer 

applicable. In its place is a new employee contract of shared responsibility in which 

the employer provides developmental opportunities to make the employee more 

employable in exchange for the employee’s work.55 

However, the participants in our survey indicate that the old employment contract 

is not yet dead. When asked what the single most important factor was in their 

decision to work for the Government, new hires’ top answer was job security (28 

percent of all participants). It was the number one answer for new hires 30 and over 

(33 percent), under 30 (23 percent) and even for participants coming directly to the 

Government from school (21 percent). 

We also asked participants to describe in their own words why they chose to work 

for the Government at this point in their life or career. The written comments 

demonstrate a variety of compelling reasons for seeking job security: 

o	 Living on my own is very important to me because my family cannot 

financially support me. Working for the Federal Government allows me to 

provide financially for myself. I have seen close family members get laid off 

from private sector jobs and so I was looking for job security when I began 

working.

o	 At my age [22 years old] it seemed opportunistic. Working for the Federal 

Government will give me job security, education and growth. I have 

opportunities to advance within my career, save money and do a job that 

makes a difference.

o	 With small children it was important for me to work somewhere with 

excellent job security and benefits.

o	 Federal employment offers benefits, job security, opportunity for 

advancement and step salary increases—all of which are becoming 

increasingly more difficult to find in the private sector. 

54 Bruce Tulgan, Managing Generation X: How to Bring Out the Best in Young Talent, W.W. Norton & 

Company, New York, 2000, p. 272.

55 Jennifer Koch, “Employee Commitment: Embrace Today’s New Deal,” Workforce Management, 

downloaded from http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/22/18/56/index.php on March 15, 2007.

What They Want: Interests, Influences and Intentions
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37

Factors other than job security proved to be important to some new hires, though 

none of the other categories’ scores came close to job security. The answers for 

all participants are shown in Table 8. When broken out by age, there were no 

significant differences; the two groups’ responses did not differ by more than 5 

percent in any category except job security, as stated above. These findings indicate 

that job security is still an important job consideration, so agencies should not be 

afraid to use it in their marketing messages to potential applicants.

Table 8. Most Important Factors that Influenced Survey 

Participants’ Decision to Work for the Federal Government

Factor Percent of All Participants

Job security 28

Advancement opportunities 12

Challenging and interesting work 10

Pay 10

Making a difference with my work 9

Benefits 8

Other 7

Ability to have a life outside of work 5

Job site locations 4

Opportunities for training 3

Reputation of the employer 3

Ability to address a new family situation 2

Positive work environment 1

Diversity of assignments 1

Intent to Stay

Generational literature also suggests that, as a result of the change in the 

employment contract, younger generations are less likely than previous generations 

to stay with one employer for their entire career. Because they are no longer 

guaranteed the job security previous generations once were, they follow selfbuilding opportunities that help them develop their skills, enhance their resume and 

ultimately improve their “career security.”56 

The Government has tended to operate on the assumption that new hires will stay 

and grow with the agency even though the average tenure of all Federal employees 

(not just professional and administrative) has decreased from 11.5 years in 2000 

to 9.9 years in 2006.57 A large portion of this decrease was most likely caused by 

56 Tulgan, Managing Generation X, pp. 12-13.

57 Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employee Tenure in 2006,” News, USDL 06-1563, Sept. 8, 2006.

What They Want: Interests, Influences and Intentions
38 Attracting the Next Generation

the increase in new hires since 2001. Regardless, 10 years is still considerably more 

stable than the average 2006 private sector tenure of 3.6 years for all jobs and 5.2 

years for management, professional, and related occupations.58 So, we decided to 

explore whether younger Federal new hires are more likely to change employment 

sectors throughout their career. 

When asked how long they expected to work for the Federal Government when they 

joined, 62 percent of all new hires said until they retire. This response rate was not 

that surprising because it was largely driven by new hires aged 30 and over. Seventyeight percent of this group said they planned to stay until retirement, as shown in 

Figure 8. 

Figure 8. Number of Years Survey Participants Expected 

to Work in the Government When They Started Their Job

Less than 3

3-5

More than 5

Until I retire

No specific expectations

Under 30 30 and Over

0 10 20

Percent

30 40 50 60 70 80 90

What was surprising was the large number of younger new hires who responded 

the same. Forty-five percent of new hires under the age of 30 and 36 percent of 

new hires coming directly out of school said they planned to stay with the Federal 

Government until they retire. For those under 30, a total of 72 percent said either 

they planned to stay until they retire or they had no specific expectations when they 

started working—indicating no firm intentions to search out other employment 

sectors anytime soon. 

58 Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employee Tenure in 2006.” 

What They Want: Interests, Influences and Intentions
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 39

We also asked new hires whether they expect to work in other employment sectors 

in the next 5 to 10 years. The responses are shown in Figure 9. One-third of 

the under 30 new hires said they are likely to work in the private sector, while 

only about 16 percent of the 30 and over new hires responded the same. Many 

fewer reported being likely to work for a state or local government or nonprofit 

organization. These data do support the idea that younger new hires are slightly 

more interested in working in other sectors, but they are by no means running for 

the door. 

Figure 9. Percent of Survey Participants Expecting to Work 

in Another Sector in the Next 5 to 10 Years

Private sector

State and local government

Nonprofit

Under 30 30 and Over

0 5 10

Percent

15 20 25 30 35

What They Want: Interests, Influences and Intentions

Furthermore, research shows that once an employee enters the Federal Government, 

they are not likely to leave. Retention data from the Central Personnel Data File 

indicate that if Federal employees do not resign in their first year or two of 

employment, it becomes more unlikely that they will resign as time passes. 

This is shown in Figure 10. In fact, the pattern has remained consistent since 

the Government first started tracking it. So once Federal employees get in the 

door—regardless of generation—the Government may likely retain them through 

their career. 
40 Attracting the Next Generation

Figure 10. Resignation Rates FY 2002-2005

Based on Length of Service

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

Under

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Years of Service

In this chapter, we have seen that today’s Federal new hires do not necessarily 

conform to the typical generational stereotypes. They have favorable impressions 

of and interest in Federal employment when many general public surveys show 

little interest in such employment. Their job offer considerations are less driven by 

newer, alternative benefits than would be expected. Also, they are more interested in 

stability, job security and having a career with the Government than the generational 

research would imply. While all of this works in the Government’s favor, and 

agencies should use this information to better market careers to applicants, we 

should ask why all this might be so. 

Remember that the survey and CPDF data for this report focused on people who 

were successful in their Federal job search. Many of them specifically sought out 

a Federal position, and all of them stuck with the process, which we will see in the 

next section of this report can be rather lengthy and difficult. This implies that they 

were fairly determined to obtain a Federal job. Why? 

They told us that some of the key reasons were personal security factors such as 

job security, stability, pensions, annual raises and good benefits. This points to the 

possibility that the Federal Government attracts new hires who are more risk averse 

than the larger labor pool. 

There is research that supports this. For instance, researchers Don Bellante and 

Albert Link designed a 1981 study to investigate the relationship between risk 

aversion and the choice between public and private employment. Using a risk 

aversion index, they conducted a panel study and found that innately risk-averse 

individuals are more likely to choose public sector over private sector employment.59

What They Want: Interests, Influences and Intentions

59 Don Bellante and Albert N. Link, “Are Public Sector Workers More Risk Averse Than Private 

Sector Workers?” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 54, No. 5, April 1981, pp. 408-412. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41

While not conclusive evidence, that study—and others like it—suggest that 

applicants who are more risk averse may be attracted to Federal employment because 

they perceive the jobs to be more stable, with less risk attached. This does not 

mean, however, that they are less capable of successfully performing on the job. 

Studies also find that public sector employees work just as hard as private sector 

employees and may be even more likely to take responsible risks while carrying out 

their job duties.60 

In addition, various MSPB surveys reinforce the view that the Government is 

hiring talented employees with the skills necessary to carry out the agency’s mission. 

For example: 

o	 75 percent of Federal employees agreed that their agency’s workforce has 

the knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish its mission.61

o	 80 percent of supervisors supervising Federal Career Interns indicated that 

the quality of their interns was above average to excellent.62

o	 Almost 90 percent of supervisors supervising employees serving a 

probationary period indicated that they would hire the probationer again 

if they had to do it over again.63

o	 95 percent of supervisors who recently hired GS-12–15 employees from 

a non-Government source were satisfied with the quality of the new 

hires’ work.64 

It is also possible that rather than attracting applicants who are more risk-averse, it 

may be that the more risk-averse applicants simply prevail in the job hunt because 

they are more willing to endure the bureaucratic process necessary to obtain a 

Federal job. Therefore, the next chapter addresses the job search experiences of 

Federal new hires. 

60 For instance, see Sue A. Frank and Gregory B. Lewis, “Government Employees: Working Hard 

or Hardly Working,” The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 34, No. 1, 2004, pp. 36-54; 

Evan M. Berman and Jonathan P. West, “Responsible Risk Taking,” Public Administration Review, 

July/August 1998, vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 346-352.

61 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles 

Survey 2005, Washington, DC, February 2007, p. 9.

62 MSPB, Building a High-Quality Workforce, p. 16.

63 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity, 

Washington, DC, August 2005, p. 7.

64 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, In Search of Highly Skilled Professionals: A Study on the 

Hiring of Upper-Level Employees from Outside the Federal Government, Washington, DC, 2007.

What They Want: Interests, Influences and Intentions

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43

What They Did to Get the Job: 

The Job Hunt

What They Did to Get the Job: 

The Job Hunt

The job search experience plays a key role in who is selected for Federal 

positions. It determines who hears about job vacancies, what steps they 

take to apply for jobs and how long they must wait to be hired (or not). 

Some of the most common complaints about the Federal hiring process are that 

it is excessively long, complicated and bureaucratic. To learn from their job hunt 

experiences and identify ways to improve the process, we asked Federal new hires 

what steps they took to get their job and what obstacles they faced. 

Learning About Jobs

Earlier, we discussed how hiring authorities and the recruitment strategies that 

can be used under them may affect the age and experience of Federal new hires. 

Ultimately, recruitment strategies will affect who learns of job opportunities and 

therefore who applies. Here, we take a closer look at how new hires first learned 

about their Federal job to identify how specific recruitment strategies can be used 

more effectively. 

Figure 11. How Survey Participants First Learned 

of Their Federal Job

USAJOBs

Friend or relative

Agency’s Web site

College/university job fair

Professional network

School placement office

Non-Government job site

Ad in publication

Other job fair

0 5 10

Percent

15 20 25 30 35
44 Attracting the Next Generation

Friends and Relatives

When asked how they first learned about their Federal job, new hires’ top answer (31 

percent) was that a friend or relative told them about it (see Fig. 11), particularly 

one who works for the Federal Government. The importance of personal contacts 

and referrals in recruitment is consistent with findings of past MSPB research as 

well as other public administration research.65 In fact, a 2006 Booz Allen Hamilton 

recruitment-trends survey found that recruitment practitioners rated employee 

referrals as the top source not only in terms of applicant quantity but also in terms of 

applicant quality.66 

Federal agencies are actually in a fairly good position to take advantage of wordof-mouth recruitment strategies. MSPB’s Merit Principles Survey 2005 indicates 

that 76 percent of Federal employees would generally recommend the Government 

as a place to work, and almost as many employees (66 percent) would recommend 

their current agency.67 However, when MSPB asked agencies in 2004 what their 

most common recruitment methods were, less than 10 percent of the surveyed 

organizations indicated that they commonly used word-of-mouth or employee 

referral-type strategies.68 

Given the apparent low number of official referral programs in agencies, it is 

interesting that the largest proportion of new hires heard about their job through 

a friend or relative. MSPB’s 2004 recruitment report found that agencies rely 

heavily on passive recruitment strategies to fill vacancies, such as posting vacancy 

announcements to USAJOBs or agency Web sites. The implication could be that a 

passive approach to recruitment unintentionally heightens the importance of “whoyou-know” and insider contacts. This unintended result could give the perception 

that agency selections are, in fact, based on the “buddy system” rather than on 

relative ability after fair and open competition, as called for by the merit system 

principles. 

Employee referral programs definitely have a role in recruitment, and we encourage 

agencies to consider how to integrate a referral strategy into their recruitment 

programs. After all, potential job applicants are likely to give greater weight to 

informal information about an employer from someone they know and trust than 

from a formal job announcement. Agencies, however, should ensure that referral 

programs, as well as any other narrow strategy, do not hinder or even replace fair and 

open competition. They can do this in two ways. 

What They Did to Get the Job: The Job Hunt

65 For instance, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Competing for Federal Jobs: Job Search 

Experiences of New Hires, Washington, DC, February 2000, p. 7; and Gregory B. Lewis and Sue A. 

Frank, “Who Wants to Work for the Government,” Public Administration Review, vol. 62, No. 4, July/

August 2002, p. 398.

66 Booz Allen Hamilton, 2006 DirectEmployers Association Recruiting Trends Survey, February 2006, 

pp. 6, 8.

67 MSPB, Accomplishing Our Mission: Results of the Merit Principles Survey 2005, p. 11.

68 Note that the question provided participants a list of commonly used strategies from which to 

choose. Employee referrals was not on the list, but could be provided under the “other” category. It is 

probable that the response would be at least somewhat higher if it had been provided as part of the list. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45

First, do not rely on just one or two passive strategies to recruit for positions. 

Instead, use a balanced set of recruitment strategies that target qualified individuals 

from all segments of society. For instance, if an agency is hiring for a technical 

position, it can: post the vacancy on USAJOBs; use a referral program to encourage 

employees to spread the word among their personal and professional contacts; 

contact colleges that have respected programs in the technical area; and contact 

professional organizations associated with that particular specialty. Using a balanced 

set of strategies will not only help agencies adhere to the merit system principles, 

but it can also help them reach applicants who have a more diverse set of skills, 

competencies and potential to help accomplish their missions. 

Second, use applicant assessments that are good predictors of future performance. 

Using assessments that can make clear and defensible distinctions among applicants 

will help selecting officials avoid accusations of using the “buddy system” to hire 

their friends. 

USAJOBs

Does anyone remember what it was like trying to find out about Federal vacancies 

before the advent of the Internet? For the most part, an applicant had to locate 

and go to the closest OPM office to look through vacancy announcements, call 

individual agencies to find out about opportunities or pay to subscribe to periodicals 

that provided a list of Federal vacancies open at the time of publication. 

Now, OPM sponsors USAJOBs—the official Federal job site that provides 

potential applicants with full vacancy announcements for all competitive service 

and some excepted service job openings. With 20 percent of new hires reporting 

that USAJOBs was how they first heard of their job, the Web site is obviously an 

important recruitment source. USAJOBs is particularly important to new hires 30 

years of age and older, as previously discussed. 

USAJOBs has many advantages. It is open 24/7, is updated in real time and 

is available to anyone who can access the Internet. Applicants can search job 

opportunities using a variety of criteria, such as job title or key word, agency, 

location and pay. Applicants can create a Federal resume, store it on the site and, in 

many instances, use that one resume to apply online for multiple Federal jobs. 

However, there are still complaints about the user-friendliness of the site, and most 

of the problems actually fall under the purview of the agency advertising the job 

rather than OPM. For instance, vacancy announcements agencies develop to market 

the job and provide applicants the information necessary to apply for the job are 

often poorly written, difficult to understand and filled with jargon and unnecessary 

information. These are problems identified in a 2003 MSPB study that have not yet 

been resolved.69

What They Did to Get the Job: The Job Hunt

69 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Help Wanted: A Review of Federal Vacancy Announcements, 

Washington, DC, April 2003; MSPB, “Help Wanted for Vacancy Announcements,” Issues of Merit, 

January 2006, p. 6.
46 Attracting the Next Generation

Often, the application requirements are so labor intensive that they are likely to 

discourage some potential applicants from applying. A recent article from a popular 

Federal news Web site detailed a situation in which job applicants were instructed 

to rate themselves on 50 questions and provide a narrative explanation justifying 

each of the 50 ratings.70 This is an extreme example, but non-Federal applicants are 

not generally used to a process that involves the self-rating schedules and narrative 

statements frequently required for Federal applications. 

In addition, not all Federal jobs are posted on USAJOBs because posting is only 

required for competitive positions. Also, applicants’ resumes stored on USAJOBs 

often cannot be used for all Federal vacancies because some agencies use different 

online systems for application submission. Further, USAJOBs provides a useful 

feature to help applicants track the status of their application. However, when 

agencies do not make timely hiring decisions, the feature can actually frustrate 

applicants because their status does not change, reinforcing the impression that their 

application fell into a “black hole.” 

Finally, OPM needs to be careful not to oversell the availability of Federal jobs. 

While USAJOBs might display 20,000 open jobs at any one time, there may be 

only a limited number of entry-level jobs open nationwide. In addition, OPM 

has initiated a television advertising campaign designed to raise awareness about 

the unique and rewarding careers the Federal Government has to offer. The 

commercials, which are being aired in targeted locations throughout the country, 

direct interested applicants to USAJOBs to find out more about these opportunities 

and highlight the many technical occupations available in Government. As this 

study discusses, many Federal career opportunities require special skills and training, 

even at the entry-level. So while USAJOBs and the media campaign are tremendous 

opportunities to educate the public about the Federal Government, OPM needs to 

be careful not to create false expectations for job applicants who are not qualified for 

the highly skilled jobs the Federal Government seeks to fill. 

OPM has made much progress in recent years in implementing and continually 

improving USAJOBs. The site is an invaluable resource to applicants. However, 

as with many areas of the hiring process, there are still improvements to be made 

in areas of the hiring process that affect USAJOBs, particularly in agencies’ areas 

of responsibilities. Agencies are largely responsible for improving the content of 

their vacancy announcements, doing away with excessive application requirements, 

notifying the public of vacancies and improving the speed of hiring decisions. 

However, as the leader in ensuring that the Federal Government has an effective 

workforce, OPM is responsible for ensuring that the hiring process works in 

the public’s interest by working with agencies to design and implement these 

improvements. 

70 Timothy W. Cannon, “A Bad Recipe: The Irish Burgoo Vacancy Announcement,” FedSmith.com, 

Jan. 31, 2007.

What They Did to Get the Job: The Job Hunt
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 47

Agency Web Sites

Given that almost a quarter of the survey participants indicated that their 

employment goal was to get a job with a particular agency, it is surprising that only 

7 percent identified the agency Web site as the first place they learned of their job. 

In MSPB’s 2004 recruitment study, many agencies reported that their recruitment 

Web sites were a commonly used recruitment method and that they were investing 

substantial time and resources into redesigning these sites.71 The results of this study 

do not discount these efforts, but rather point to a potential need for some agencies 

to redirect the redesign efforts. 

While some agency Web sites may not be the first place a potential applicant will go 

to find a Federal job, they are probably a valuable secondary source of information. 

Once potential applicants have identified a specific job that interests them, they are 

likely to go to the agency Web site for more information about the agency, including 

its mission, organizational culture, career advancement opportunities, workplace 

flexibilities and other features. Agencies should consider this role of the Web site as 

they design the content of their recruitment Web sites. If the site is heavy on job 

postings and application materials but light on what it is like to work for the agency, 

agencies might want to consider refocusing the message and purpose of the site. 

College Fairs and Related Sources

College fairs and school placement officials proved to be a significant employment 

source for recently graduated new hires. Fifty-one percent of new hires who came 

to Government directly from school heard about their first job in this way. As 

discussed earlier, the Government did relatively little hiring in the late 1990s. As 

a result, many agencies reported losing touch with colleges and universities. It 

appears that agencies are increasing their campus recruitment efforts, but college 

students still report a lack of information regarding Federal employment.72 Given 

the importance of college recruitment to Federal new hires, agencies need to rebuild 

these campus relationships if they have not already done so. 

Applications Sent

As indicated earlier, over 50 percent of the Federal new hires surveyed were 

specifically looking for a position with the Federal Government. Where new hires 

send applications is another indication of their overall employment goal—and also a 

good indicator of what types of organizations the Government is competing with for 

talent. The survey asked new hires what employment sectors they sent applications 

to at the time they applied for their first Government job. The results are displayed 

in Table 9. 

What They Did to Get the Job: The Job Hunt

71 MSPB, Managing Federal Recruitment, p. 10.

72 MSPB, Managing Federal Recruitment, p. 37; Partnership, Back to School, p. 10.
48 Attracting the Next Generation

Table 9. Percent of Survey Participants Sending Applications 

to Each Employment Sector

Sector 0

Applications

1 to 5

Applications

6 to 10 

Applications

More Than 10 

Applications

Federal 11%73 73% 8% 8%

State/Local 60% 34% 3% 3%

Nonprofit 78% 17% 3% 3%

Private 34% 37% 13% 15%

Obviously the largest portion of participants sent applications to the Government. 

Only applications sent to the private sector came close to rivaling this number. The 

fact that the largest percentage of applications was sent to the Government seems to 

indicate that new hires were highly motivated to obtain a Federal job. 

It is interesting to note that a large majority of the participants (84 percent) reported 

submitting five or fewer Federal applications. Excepted service new hires were more 

likely to submit five or fewer (90 percent) whereas competitive service new hires 

tended to send more (74 percent sent 0 to 5 applications; 12 percent sent 6 to10; 

and 14 percent sent more than 10). This finding seems to indicate that successful 

Federal job seekers generally have a good idea of the job they want or have a good 

lead to a Government job. Therefore, they may not find it necessary to send a 

large number of applications throughout Government. This is particularly true 

for excepted service new hires—most likely because agencies recruit them more 

proactively through personal contacts and can hire them more quickly. 

Ultimately, based on the experiences of new hires, the Government’s main 

competition for high-quality talent is the private sector. Just over 20 percent of 

the survey participants sent applications to the nonprofit sector. State and local 

governments proved to be only slightly greater competition, with 40 percent of the 

participants sending applications to this sector. 

Over one-third of the survey participants sent one to five applications to the private 

sector, and over one-quarter sent six or more applications. And this comes from 

the applicants who were interested and successful in obtaining a Federal job. We 

can almost certainly assume that people who were unsuccessful or uninterested in 

the Federal job hunt were even more likely to apply to private sector organizations. 

While it is not a big surprise that the private sector is a key competitor, this result 

supports the premise that the Federal Government needs to ensure that it is 

competitive with the private sector—whether through pay, benefits, work flexibilities 

or other means—to recruit the candidates who are the best fit for the job. 

73 Eleven percent of the participants indicated that they sent zero applications to the Federal 

Government. It is likely that these participants thought we were asking how many applications they 

sent for Federal jobs other than the one they were offered. Narrative responses also indicate that at 

least some participants were contacted directly by the agency after they posted their resume on a job 

board or a professor or other source forwarded the resume. New hires may not have considered these 

activities to be “sending an application.”

What They Did to Get the Job: The Job Hunt
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 49

Obstacles Faced

To improve the hiring process, it is important to identify the obstacles applicants 

face and to try to improve in those areas. New hires can provide some insight into 

what works well and what does not. Therefore, we asked new hires the greatest 

obstacle they faced when searching for a Federal job. The answers are displayed 

in Figure 12. 

Figure 12. Greatest Obstacle Survey Participants Faced 

in Federal Job Search

The length of process

I did not face any obstacles

The complexity of application process

Finding out about opportunities

Qualifying for Federal positions

Other

Finding a competive job offer

0 5 10

Percent

15 20 25 30 35

The top obstacle, no matter how the data were broken out, was the length of the 

hiring process. This answer is not a surprise since lack of timeliness is a common 

criticism of the Federal hiring system. However, when new hires reported how 

long it took from the time they applied for their job until it was offered to them, 

a significant portion of participants (38 percent) said it took 2 months or less (see 

Table 10). Earlier MSPB research found that 2 months is generally perceived 

by Federal new hires to be a reasonable amount of time to wait for a job offer.74 

On the other hand, almost a quarter of the participants stated that it took over 6 

months from application to offer, and over one-third reported 5 months or more. 

In addition, while there was little difference when broken out by age, there was a 

noteworthy difference when broken out by hiring authority. Excepted service new 

hires had a higher percentage of job offers that occurred in 2 months or less (39 

percent) when compared to competitive service new hires (34 percent). However, 

a larger percentage of excepted service new hires waited over 6 months (27 percent) 

than competitive service new hires (17 percent). 

74 MSPB, Building a High-Quality Workforce, p. 16 and MSPB, Competing for Federal Jobs, p. 11.

What They Did to Get the Job: The Job Hunt
50 Attracting the Next Generation

Table 10. Percent of Survey Participants 

Reporting Time from Application to Offer

Time All Competitive Excepted

<1 month 10% 9% 11%

1–2 months 27% 25% 28%

3–4 months 28% 37% 23%

5–6 months 11% 12% 11%

>6 months 23% 17% 27%

It is possible that security background investigations played a role in the untimely 

job offers. However, candidates usually receive at least a tentative job offer before 

the investigations are begun. Another explanation could be the assessment process 

itself. Fifty-six percent of the new hires who waited over 6 months indicated that 

they went through six or more assessments in the hiring process. While MSPB has 

long advocated a multiple hurdle approach to assessment—using a set of relatively 

valid assessment procedures successively to manage and narrow the field of qualified 

candidates—we also warn against using an excessive number of hurdles that might 

result in applicant attrition. What this finding suggests is that while excepted service 

hiring may address many of the perceived flaws in the competitive process, it is by 

no means a panacea and can still result in a lengthy overall hiring process. 

Regardless of how the time lags came about, in a competitive job market these lags 

can be a severe detriment to the Federal Government. While the most determined 

candidates may wait 6 months or more for a job offer, agencies are likely to lose 

many other good candidates who are not willing or able to wait. Therefore, agencies 

need to evaluate their hiring processes, identify the cause of delays and make 

adjustments where necessary. In addition, they need to continually communicate 

with applicants to help them understand the process and keep them engaged while 

the agency makes the hiring decision. 

The second most prevalent response to the question about obstacles was that new 

hires faced no obstacles when searching for a Federal job. Seventeen percent of 

survey participants gave this response. Given the amount of criticism the Federal 

hiring system receives in the popular press and anecdotally, this was a surprising 

response. It should be noted that this response was driven by those who were hired 

in 2 months or less. It should also be noted that the respondents to this question are 

the candidates who were successful in the job search. We can reasonably expect that 

they ran into fewer obstacles than those who were not successful.

Finally, when asked about the greatest obstacle faced when searching for a Federal 

job, the response new hires cited least was finding a job offer that they considered 

to be competitive with offers of other employers. Only about 6 percent of the 

participants found this to be a problem. This is contrary to much of the current 

What They Did to Get the Job: The Job Hunt
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 51

research indicating that the Government cannot compete with other sectors for the 

best and the brightest. At least those whom the Government hired found the job 

offer to be competitive. 

As the research indicates, Federal new hires do not necessarily conform to typical 

expectations. They did not seem to have trouble finding job opportunities. They 

found out about their jobs largely through friends and family or the Internet. A 

large number of new hires sent only one to five applications to the Government, 

dispelling the impression that new hires have to send many applications before 

being hired. Because they sent the majority of their applications to the Federal 

sector—even though the size of the private sector is much larger—it appears, again, 

that they were highly motivated to obtain a Federal job. Finally, the new hires did 

not appear to face enormous obstacles in obtaining the Federal job. While some did 

have to wait a long time (6 months or more), they stuck with the process and found 

competitive offers. 

So why are Federal new hires so different from expectations? There are many 

potential explanations. For instance, the Government may be attractive to, known 

to, sought after by, or accessible to “certain” segments of society, rather than from 

“all” segments of society. In other words, the Government may be attracting new 

hires who already have knowledge of or some relationship to Federal employment, 

such as having a friend or relative who works for the Government. As we have 

seen, many agencies use a passive approach to recruitment and selection which may 

unintentionally garner a workforce that looks like itself—a “Federal family” of sorts. 

Another possibility is that the hiring process itself may be becoming an unintended 

selection factor. If an applicant can find out about the opportunities, follow the 

procedures and wait the required time, then they can successfully make it through 

the process. In other words, the process may have unintentionally become a test or 

an assessment in itself.

Again, this is not to say that the Government is not hiring qualified new hires. 

The data show that it is. But it may mean that the Government is missing out on 

applicants who do not buy in to the process, thereby limiting the potential diversity 

of the qualified applicant pool. 

What They Did to Get the Job: The Job Hunt

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 53

Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions and Recommendations

The Federal Government hires a significant number of entry-level new 

hires in professional and administrative occupations every year. Because 

of impending retirements and the concurrent necessity to build career 

pipelines for these positions, it is likely that the Government will need to increase 

its entry-level hiring over the next 5 to 10 years. There is much skepticism in public 

administration circles as to whether the Federal Government is up to this task. 

In particular, skeptics argue that the Government faces severe challenges in 

attracting high-quality applicants to apply for and fill the positions at issue. They 

claim the Government has become less attractive to younger workers and there does 

not appear to be sufficient applicant interest to build an appropriate pipeline for 

journey-level positions. The overall results of our study show that while some of the 

criticisms hold true, the Government is actually better at attracting new hires than 

some might think. 

Conclusions

This study explored the demographics and attitudes of Federal entry-level new 

hires in professional and administrative occupations to determine their implications 

for Federal recruitment and selection practices. The results lead us to a number

of conclusions.

The traditional competitive examining process is no longer the 

preferred process for hiring entry-level employees. Instead, a growing 

number of new hires are being brought into the civil service through excepted 

service authorities, particularly the Federal Career Intern Program. These authorities 

provide streamlined hiring procedures with relatively few eligibility and procedural 

requirements. Agencies are likely to be drawn to them because these authorities 

may result in faster hires and also make it easier to hire the applicants they targeted 

through recruitment activities. However, the survey data show that these authorities 

can still result in a lengthy overall hiring process. In addition, these authorities can 

make it easier to unnecessarily narrow the applicant pool, potentially short-circuiting 

fair and open competition. 
54 Attracting the Next Generation

Federal entry-level new hires are not the young, inexperienced, recent 

college graduates many expect. On average, Federal entry-level new hires 

in professional and administrative positions are 33 years old. The largest segment 

of our survey participants had 1 to 5 years of prior full-time work experience. The 

fact that they are older and more experienced may be attributed to a number of 

factors. In particular, there appear to be some systematic barriers imposed by agency 

recruitment and assessment practices that favor older applicants who have more 

experience over younger applicants who may have more potential. 

Federal job requirements, such as minimum education and individual occupational 

requirements for particular jobs, also favor older, more experienced applicants 

without considering future potential. This is not to suggest that agencies should in 

turn favor younger applicants. Rather, they should use recruitment and assessment 

practices designed to identify the best candidate for the job based on relative ability, 

regardless of age and years of experience.

The Federal Government offers what new hires, of all ages, want. 

Entry-level new hires had rather favorable impressions of Federal employment 

when they applied for their job and felt Federal employment offered them what 

they were looking for in a job and employer. In addition, there is not a substantial 

difference between generations in terms of the employment factors they seek. 

Particularly, younger new hires seek the same type of job security older new hires 

seek, and a significant number plan to stay with the Government until they retire 

(45 percent of new hires under the age of 30 and 36 percent of new hires who came 

to Government from school). 

New hires face fewer obstacles than expected in the hiring process 

and were fairly determined to obtain a Federal job. Perceived barriers 

to hiring new Federal employees include the lengthy, complicated hiring process, 

applicants’ ignorance of job opportunities and negative perceptions of the Federal 

Government. Our data show these perceptions are not necessarily held by new 

hires. Though timeliness was the largest obstacle cited, a large segment of new hires 

were hired relatively quickly (38 percent in 2 months or less). They seemed to have 

a fair amount of awareness about the Federal Government at the time they applied. 

For instance, they had friends or relatives who shared job prospects with them, or 

they knew enough about the Government to use USAJOBs as a job search tool. 

Finally, many new hires were particularly determined to get a job with the Federal 

Government. A relatively large number of new hires sent no applications to other 

employment sectors, and some were willing to wait a long time (23 percent waited 

more than 6 months) for a job offer. 

Conclusions and Recommendations
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 55

Recommendations 

The results of this study demonstrate that the Federal Government can more ably 

compete for entry-level new hires than some of the contemporary research suggests. 

Agencies can use the information gleaned from Federal new hires to develop 

improved recruitment, marketing and assessment strategies. Therefore, MSPB

makes the following recommendations to help agencies begin this process. 

Agencies should: 

Use more predictive applicant assessment tools. The merit system 

principles state that employee selection should be based on relative ability, 

knowledge and skills. In other words, the person(s) most able to perform well 

in the job should be hired. High quality assessment tools are needed to make 

the distinctions between those who will excel at the job and those who will not. 

This study, as well as other MSPB research, suggests that agencies are not using 

high quality assessment tools. Agencies should invest the resources necessary to 

develop and administer assessments that have a greater ability to predict future job 

performance and that make finer distinctions among candidates’ skills, abilities 

and potential than are made using typical training and experience assessments. 

Employing better assessments will not only ensure better adherence to the merit 

principles, it will also result in a higher quality workforce. 

Use a balanced set of recruitment strategies that promote fair and 

open competition. Applicants from different demographic groups have different 

ways of finding out about job vacancies, and they have different knowledge levels 

regarding how to get a Federal job. Therefore, agencies should use a variety of 

recruitment sources to reach applicants from all segments of society. If agencies 

rely solely on posting vacancies on USAJOBs or attending college job fairs to reach 

applicants, they will unnecessarily narrow the applicant pool. Conducting a proper 

job analysis and identifying the appropriate minimum qualifications will help 

agencies avoid attracting unqualified applicants, and using high-quality assessments 

will help them manage the existing applicant pool. Also, agencies should not 

forget the value of agency employees in helping attract good candidates and 

should consider implementing an employee referral program as part of their 

recruitment plans.

However, there are times when it is necessary to target recruitment strategies to 

particular applicant pools. This study points out that a number of jobs for which 

the Government hires require candidates to have specific education, skills or 

experience. When agencies target recruitment activities to the appropriate sources 

for their requirements, they should clearly communicate the necessary qualifications 

so as not to create unrealistic expectations for applicants who will not qualify for 

these positions. 

Conclusions and Recommendations
56 Attracting the Next Generation

Market what is important. The results of this study indicate that the 

Government has much to offer applicants that applicants are seeking in a job, 

including job security, good benefits and the ability to make a difference with the 

work. In addition, the Government offers nontraditional benefits and alternative 

work place benefits that are becoming increasingly important to applicants, such 

as telework, alternative work schedules and tuition reimbursement. Agencies 

should evaluate how and where they can maximize the use of these benefits and 

flexibilities—in line with the organization’s mission—and then market these job 

attractors to entice high-quality applicants to apply. In addition, agencies should 

ensure that recruitment materials, especially vacancy announcements, are clear, 

professional and represent the organization well. 

Evaluate the agency hiring process to ensure there are no unnecessary 

obstacles. Agencies’ internal hiring practices often create additional, unnecessary 

barriers that can add to the time it takes to hire. Lack of timeliness was one of 

most cited obstacles to entry-level hiring. Therefore, agencies should evaluate 

their hiring process to determine whether there are unnecessary steps that add to 

the time it takes to hire and then make improvements where possible. Because of 

some pre-appointment requirements, agencies cannot always ensure a fast process. 

Therefore, they should develop a good system for communicating with employees to 

explain the status of their applications. Keeping applicants engaged may help avoid 

some of the inevitable applicant attrition. 

Avoid stereotyping applicants based on generational assumptions. 

This study indicates that there are similarities in what the different generations want 

in a job—though there may be different levels of importance for workers of different 

generations. However, a recent survey conducted by Sirota Survey Intelligence 

found that 56 percent of HR professionals think there are “major differences” in 

what employees from different generations want from their jobs.75 Biases could lead 

HR staff and selecting officials to treat employees differently based on stereotypes 

that are not accurate. Therefore, those involved in the hiring process should treat 

applicants and employees as individuals and recognize that they may have different 

needs, regardless of their generational category.

OPM should:

Work with agencies to develop a Governmentwide framework for 

Federal hiring reform that simplifies hiring procedures by streamlining 

and consolidating appointing authorities while protecting merit-based 

hiring. Agencies continue to use hiring authorities for entry-level hires that 

purport to streamline the existing competitive examining process. For a number 

of years, agencies used the Outstanding Scholar Program as the primary vehicle 

for entry-level hiring and now it is the Federal Career Intern Program. These 

authorities, in some cases, help agencies by shortening the time it takes to hire 

Conclusions and Recommendations

75 Jessica Marquez, “HR’s Generation Generalizations,” News in Brief, workforce.com, 

October 18, 2005. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 57

and making it easier to reach applicants they have targeted through recruitment. 

However, used inappropriately, these same authorities can also undermine fair and 

open competition by narrowing the applicant pool and limiting selection based on 

relative ability by permitting reliance on inadequate assessment practices. Agencies’ 

opting out of competitive examining on such a large scale indicates that there are 

fundamental problems with the competitive process.

OPM should work with agencies to identify how to systematically address flaws in 

the competitive process rather than rely on short-term stop gaps that can have their 

own negative consequences. For instance, the Government Accountability Office 

and the National Commission on the Public Service held a forum in 2004 to discuss 

how to address human capital reform. They brought together stakeholders from 

Government, academia, professional organizations and unions to discuss establishing 

a Governmentwide framework to guide reform while still providing enough 

flexibility for agencies to address their own specific issues. OPM could sponsor a 

similar activity that focuses primarily on the Federal hiring system.76 

Work with agencies to develop better assessment tools. In the mid1990s, OPM delegated agencies the responsibility to assess applicants, but agencies 

did not receive supporting resources for this responsibility. While OPM provides 

assessment assistance to agencies on a reimbursable basis, many agencies do not 

have the necessary resources to pay for OPM’s services or to develop their own 

assessment tools. OPM should present Congress with the business case to receive 

appropriated funds to centrally develop and validate assessment tools that agencies 

could acquire at little or no cost, particularly for Governmentwide and missioncritical occupations.

Implementing these recommendations should help agencies ensure that they 

are hiring qualified applicants from all segments of society after fair and open 

competition and treating applicants fairly and equitably, as prescribed by the merit 

system principles.

Conclusions and Recommendations

76 U.S. Government Accountability Office and the National Commission on the Public Service 

Implementation Initiative, “Highlights of a Forum,” Human Capital: Principles, Criteria, and Processes 

for Governmentwide Federal Human Capital Reform, GAO-05-69SP, Washington, DC, December 2004.

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 59

Appendix: Entry-Level Survey

January 2006 

Dear Federal Employee: 

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent Federal agency that 

monitors and safeguards merit in the Federal civil service in part through Government-wide 

studies and reviews. Findings and recommendations from our periodic studies and reviews are 

reported to the President and Congress and made available to other Federal officials and 

employees. 

We are currently conducting a study to assess how Federal agencies can better attract and 

select qualified applicants for career-entry opportunities. You are one of a relatively small 

sample of new Federal employees that we selected to participate in this study. Attached is a 

questionnaire asking about why you chose to work for the Federal Government and about your 

experiences applying for your first Federal job. The survey is brief and should take about 10 

minutes to complete. Your responses to the questions will be kept confidential and reported only 

in the aggregate with other participants’ responses. We will use the information you provide to 

develop recommendations to help agencies improve their techniques for attracting high-quality 

job applicants. It is, therefore, very important that you complete and return the questionnaire. 

Please return your completed questionnaire in the envelope provided, or FAX it to 

(202) 653-7211, within 5 days after you receive it. If you wish to receive a copy of the report 

based on this study, please subscribe to our list-server at www.mspb.gov/studies/ or write to the 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, ATTN: OPE, Washington, DC 20419. 

If you have any questions about this questionnaire or the study, please call Ms. Laura 

Shugrue at (202) 653-6772, ext. 1124 or send an e-mail message to laura.shugrue@mspb.gov. 

Thank you very much for your assistance. 

 ,ylerecniS

 nosleN evetS

 noitaulavE dna yciloP ,rotceriD

Appendix: Entry-Level Survey
60 Attracting the Next Generation

Survey Continues on the 

Back of this Page 

NEW EMPLOYEE SURVEY 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Instructions: Please base your responses on your knowledge and experiences applying for the Federal 

position for which you were recently hired. Please write or mark your responses in the space provided 

and return the completed survey in the envelope provided or FAX it to (202) 653-7211.

1. Approximately how many years of fulltime work experience did you have before 

joining the Federal Government?

___________________________________ 

2. Which of the following best describes 

what you were doing at the time you applied 

for your Federal job? (Check only one) 

Attending school 

Serving in the military/Coast Guard 

Working for a Federal contractor 

Working for a private company (not a 

Federal contractor) 

Working for a non-profit organization 

Working for a school, college, or university 

Working for a state or local government 

Working for myself 

Not employed 

Other ______________________________ 

3. At the time you applied for your Federal 

job, approximately how many applications 

did you send to each of the following 

employment sectors? 

None 1-5 6-10 Over

10

Federal

Government

State/local

government 

Non-profit

sector

Private sector 

Other

4. At the time that you applied for your 

Federal job, which of the following best 

describes your employment goal? 

To get a job with a specific Federal agency 

To get a job with the Federal Government 

To get a public service-oriented job 

To get a job in a particular occupation 

To get a job 

5. How did you first learn about your 

Federal job? 

From the USAJOBS Web site 

From the agency’s Web site 

From a friend or relative 

From an ad in a newspaper, journal, or 

magazine

From a non-government Internet job site 

From a school placement office or official 

At a college/university job fair 

At a job fair not affiliated with a college or 

university 

From a professional network/association 

Other_______________________________

6. About how long did it take from the time 

you applied for your current job until it was 

offered to you? 

Less than 1 month 

1 - 2 months 

3 - 4 months 

5 - 6 months 

More than 6 months 

Don’t remember 

Appendix: Entry-Level Survey
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 61

Survey Continues on 

the Next Page 

7. Which of the following steps did you 

complete during the application process for 

your Federal job? (Check all that apply) 

Submitted an online resume/application 

Submitted a paper resume/application 

Submitted a narrative statement addressing 

specific qualifications

Submitted my educational transcripts 

Answered a lengthy questionnaire that 

contained questions concerning my work, 

education, and personal history 

Took a written, multiple-choice examination 

Submitted a writing sample 

Completed an exercise that simulated the 

work I would be doing in the job 

Provided references that were checked by 

my employer 

Went through at least one job interview 

None of the above 

8. What was the greatest obstacle you faced 

when searching for a Federal job?

Finding out about job opportunities 

The complexity of the application process 

Qualifying for Federal positions 

The length of the hiring process 

Finding a job offer that was competitive 

with other employers 

I did not face any obstacles 

Other_______________________________ 

9. When you joined the Federal workforce, 

which of the following best describes how 

long you expected to work in the Federal 

Government?

Less than 3 years 

3 - 5 years 

Over 5 years 

Until I retire

I had no specific expectations 

10. During the next 5 - 10 years, how likely is it that you will leave Federal employment to: 

11. Ultimately, which of the following was the single most important factor that influenced your 

decision to work for the Federal Government? (Check only one)

Pay 

Benefits

Job security 

Job site locations 

Diversity of assignments 

Opportunities for training 

Opportunity to advance 

Challenging and interesting work 

Making a difference with my work 

Positive work environment 

Reputation of the employer 

Ability to have a life outside of work 

Ability to address a new family situation (e.g., child, marital change, health change) 

Other ________________________________________________

 yreV

Likely

Somewhat

Likely

Somewhat

Unlikely

Very

Unlikely

Don’t

Know

Work in the private sector? 

Work in the nonprofit sector? 

Work for a state or local government? 

Appendix: Entry-Level Survey
62 Attracting the Next Generation

Survey Continues on the 

Back of this Page

12. At the time you applied for your Federal job, did you consider the following factors to be 

strengths or weaknesses of Federal employment? 

 rojaM

Strength

Moderate

Strength

Moderate

Weakness

Major

Weakness

Don’t

Know

Pay 

Benefits

Job security 

Job site locations 

Diversity of assignments 

Opportunities for training 

Opportunity to advance 

Challenging and interesting work 

Making a difference with my work 

Positive work environment 

Reputation of the employer 

Ability to have a life outside of work 

Ability to address a new family situation 

(e.g., child, marital change, health change) 

13. How important was the availability of each of the following to you when you were considering 

job offers? 

Very 

Important Important

Neither

Important/ 

Unimportant

Unimportant Very 

Unimportant

Structured training/development 

program (e.g., internship) 

Portable, 401K-type retirement 

plan

Fixed pension retirement plan 

Health insurance 

Yearly salary increases 

Vacation time 

Sick leave 

Tuition reimbursement 

Flexible or alternative work 

schedules

Opportunity to work at alternate 

work sites (i.e., telecommuting) 

Childcare subsidies 

Onsite or nearby childcare facilities 

Elder care resource and referral 

services

Appendix: Entry-Level Survey
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 63

Thank you for participating in this survey! 

Please return it in the self-addressed postage-paid envelope provided or FAX it to (202) 653-7211.

The following demographics information will not be used to personally identify you. We will combine 

your responses with other participant responses to compare different demographic groupings. 

14. How long have you been working for the 

Federal Government? 

Less than 1 year 

1 - 2 years 

Over 2 years 

15. What was your age when you began 

working for the Federal Government? 

_________________________________ 

16. At what grade level were you first 

appointed?

GS-05 (or equivalent) 

GS-07 (or equivalent) 

GS-09 (or equivalent) 

Don’t know/none of the above 

17. Please indicate the job series and position 

title of your first Federal job (this is listed on 

your pay statement).

_____________________________________

18. Do you work at your agency’s 

headquarters office (typically in Washington, 

DC) or in a field location? 

Headquarters

Field

19. What is your highest education degree 

completed to date? 

High school diploma, GED, or equivalent 

Associate’s degree 

Bachelor’s degree 

Master’s degree 

Professional degree (e.g., law degree) 

Doctorate or equivalent 

None of the above 

20. How old were you when you completed 

your highest education degree?

_____________________________________ 

21. What race or ethnic category do you 

consider yourself to be? (Mark all that 

apply)

American Indian/Alaskan Native 

Asian

Black/African American 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 

White

Hispanic or Latino 

22. In your own words, please briefly 

describe why you chose to work for the 

Federal Government at this point in your 

life/career. 

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

___________________________________________ 

Appendix: Entry-Level Survey
PRST STD

PERMIT NO. G-113

WASHINGTON, DC

US POSTAGE PAID

Washington DC 204191615 M Street, N.W.U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

A Look at Federal Entry-Level New HiresAttracting the Next Generation