The Impact of 

Recruitment Strategy on 

Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs

A Report to the President

and the Congress of the United States

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

January 2015

THE CHAIRMAN

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

The President

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sirs:

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

Merit Systems Protection Board report, The Impact of Recruitment Strategy on Fair and Open Competition for 

Federal Jobs. The purpose of our study was to examine how external factors such as a proliferation of 

hiring authorities and the decentralization of the Federal hiring process affect the implementation of fair 

and open competition for filling jobs in the Federal Government.

Since the Pendleton Act of 1883, it has been a basic precept that entry into the federal civil 

service should be based on merit after fair and open competition. Congress codified this ideal as part of 

the first merit principle in 1978 via the Civil Service Reform Act. However, the complexities of Federal 

civil service laws, regulations, and practices make it difficult to define what constitutes “fair and open 

competition.” 

While what is “fair” or “open” often depends on one’s perception, there are some factors that 

threaten the principle of fair and open competition. These include: a proliferation of hiring authorities 

that restrict the size and composition of the applicant pool; overuse of restrictive hiring authorities and 

practices; the possibility that some managers may deliberately misuse hiring flexibilities to select favored

candidates; and some human resource staff placing customer service to individual supervisors over 

service to the agency and its obligations to protect merit and avoid prohibited personnel practices. To 

protect fairness and openness in the Government’s recruitment activities, agencies should create a 

culture that values fair and open competition and examine hiring practices to identify and eliminate 

barriers to fair and open competition.

Additionally, since 2000, the use of restrictive hiring authorities has increased, while traditional 

competitive examining has decreased. This may be a warning that there may be some difficulty with the 

competitive examining authority. We recommend the Office of Personnel Management closely monitor 

how agencies are using restrictive hiring authorities. It also may be helpful for Congress to reexamine 

the role of competitive examining in Federal hiring and consider changes to make it simpler, more 

transparent and more widely used.

Respectfully,

Susan Tsui Grundmann 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

The President

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sirs:

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

Merit Systems Protection Board report, The Impact of Recruitment Strategy on Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs. The purpose of our study was to examine how external factors such as a proliferation of 

hiring authorities and the decentralization of the Federal hiring process affect the implementation of fair 

and open competition for filling jobs in the Federal Government.

Since the Pendleton Act of 1883, it has been a basic precept that entry into the federal civil 

service should be based on merit after fair and open competition. Congress codified this ideal as part of 

the first merit principle in 1978 via the Civil Service Reform Act. However, the complexities of Federal 

civil service laws, regulations, and practices make it difficult to define what constitutes “fair and open 

competition.” 

While what is “fair” or “open” often depends on one’s perception, there are some factors that 

threaten the principle of fair and open competition. These include: a proliferation of hiring authorities 

that restrict the size and composition of the applicant pool; overuse of restrictive hiring authorities and 

practices; the possibility that some managers may deliberately misuse hiring flexibilities to select favored 

candidates; and some human resources’ staff placing customer service to individual supervisors over service 

to the agency and its obligations to protect merit and avoid prohibited personnel practices. To protect 

fairness and openness in the Government’s recruitment activities, agencies should create a culture that 

values fair and open competition and examine hiring practices to identify and eliminate barriers to fair and 

open competition.

Additionally, since 2000, the use of restrictive hiring authorities has increased, while traditional 

competitive examining has decreased. This may be a warning that there may be some difficulty with the 

competitive examining authority. We recommend the Office of Personnel Management closely monitor 

how agencies are using restrictive hiring authorities. It also may be helpful for Congress to reexamine the 

role of competitive examining in Federal hiring and consider changes to make it simpler, more transparent 

and more widely used.

Respectfully,

Susan Tsui Grundmann 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Director

James M. Read

Deputy Director

James J. Tsugawa

Project Manager

Allison Wiley

Project Analysts

Doug Nierle

J. Peter Leeds, Ph.D.

Sharon Roth

The Impact of 

Recruitment Strategy on 

Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose.........................................................................................................................................................2

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................2

Chapter 2: Why is Fair and Open Competition Important? ......................................................................... 3

Beginnings....................................................................................................................................................3

First Reforms................................................................................................................................................5

Merit Hiring Matures...................................................................................................................................6

CSRA of 1978 and Beyond ..........................................................................................................................8

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition................................................................................................ 11

Shaping the Applicant Pool ..........................................................................................................................11

Length of the Open Window........................................................................................................................12

Internal Versus External Hiring ....................................................................................................................12

Announcing Jobs..........................................................................................................................................14

To Competitively Examine Or Not? .............................................................................................................15

Special Hiring Authorities ............................................................................................................................17

Assessment Methods.....................................................................................................................................21

Chapter 4: Case Study—Practices and Results ............................................................................................. 27

Comparing “Pre-selection” Perceptions.........................................................................................................27

Comparing Applicant Pools..........................................................................................................................28

Comparing Open Periods.............................................................................................................................29

Comparing Workforce Compositions...........................................................................................................30

Chapter 5: External Pressures on Hiring Systems......................................................................................... 33

The Prohibited Personnel Practices ...............................................................................................................33

The Evolving Role of Human Resources in the Federal Government ............................................................35

Supervisors’/Managers’ Intentions and Training............................................................................................37

Chapter 6: Findings and Recommendations................................................................................................. 39

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................39

Recommendations........................................................................................................................................39

Appendix A: Multiple Hurdle Approach....................................................................................................... 41

Appendix B: Title 38.................................................................................................................................... 45

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

The Impact of 

Recruitment Strategy on 

Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs

Executive Summary

Since the Pendleton Act in 1883, it has been a basic precept that entry into the Federal 

civil service should be based on merit after fair and open competition. In 1978, Congress 

made “fair and open competition” a part of the first merit system principle, codified at 5 

U.S.C. § 2301. Agencies achieve this principle through guidelines that govern how they 

hire and prohibitions1 on what they can do. However, the complexities of the Federal civil 

service laws, regulations, and practices make it difficult to define what constitutes “fair and 

open competition.” Also opinions as to whether a particular action comports with “fair 

and open competition” vary.

Our findings and recommendations in this report are based upon data from surveys of 

Federal employees and human resources (HR) specialists along with data from the Central 

Personnel Data File (CPDF) and include:

•	 Overall, fair and open competition is healthy in Federal hiring.2 However, some 

challenges remain. This is in part because fair and open competition is not 

explicitly defined—it is relative, not absolute. Existing laws and regulations do 

set a floor3 but also give agencies much discretion in the extent to which they 

allow open competition for vacancies. It is important for Federal agencies to 

operate in a manner that is both compliant with law and promotes confidence in 

the integrity of the hiring process.

•	 The hiring authorities and flexibilities that are available to Federal agencies when 

filling positions in the competitive service have both benefits and risks. Such 

flexibility is necessary to allow agencies to efficiently and effectively recruit 

and assess job candidates. However, it is possible for that flexibility to be used 

improperly, either knowingly or unknowingly. There are several key decision 

points where managers should weigh the benefits and risks of how they hire an 

employee. For example, when determining the area of consideration (to whom 

the job is open) for vacancy announcements, managers may legitimately consider 

limiting the recruitment pool to be able to efficiently manage the hiring process. 

1 The prohibited personnel practices (PPPs) can be found at 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b).

2 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Merit Principles Survey (MPS) 2010, question 01b, 30 percent of respondents believe their 

agencies did not hold fair and open competition for job vacancies.

3 The PPPs prohibit employers from: influencing a person to withdraw from competition; granting any advantage to a person to improve 

or injure the “prospects of any particular person for employment;” and deceiving or willfully obstructing “any person with respect 

to such person’s right to compete for employment.” In addition, 5 U.S.C. §§ 3327 and 3330 require public notice for competitive 

examining positions.
ii The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Executive Summary

Yet, they should not overly rely on restricted applicant pools when other hiring 

methods have a reasonable potential to attract quality candidates. A closed 

system not only appears unfair but may hinder the introduction of new thoughts 

and ideas into the workplace. Agencies also have the obligation to ensure that 

their workforce remains representative of society, which may not be possible if 

the applicant pool is routinely limited. There also is a strong business case for 

fair and open competition in hiring. The more agencies practice strong, fair, and 

open competition, the more engaged their workforce.

•	 Changes in the role of HR staff may have made it more difficult for HR to 

assist agencies to conduct healthy, fair, and open competitions. Providing good 

customer service to hiring managers and helping agencies prevent the commission 

of PPPs should be seen as complementary, not conflicting, goals. Agencies must 

create cultures in which HR staff can help managers avoid committing improper 

personnel actions and report improprieties without fear that doing so will be 

viewed as a failure to provide good customer service.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1

The Impact of 

Recruitment Strategy on 

Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

The principle of fair and open competition for Federal jobs is fundamental to Federal merit 

systems. It is intended to promote efficient and effective Government by ensuring that 

Federal employees are hired on the basis of their competence, rather than their connections. 

That principle generally has been implemented through requirements for public notice and 

acceptance of applications from the public, and history shows a trend toward increasing the 

coverage of this requirement. Nevertheless, fair and open competition is neither universal 

nor absolute. For example, there are continuing exemptions from open competition for 

certain Federal positions, and hiring preferences for certain groups are a longstanding 

element of Federal merit systems. Also, we now see the confluence of a near-complete 

decentralization of the Federal hiring process with a proliferation of hiring authorities.4

By ensuring fairness and openness in hiring, the Federal Government incurs costs that are 

not borne by private employers. For example, the Federal Government may require more 

time and effort to fill a job than a private employer, even with reforms aimed at simplifying 

the process and reducing time to hire. Reasons include: (1) public notice, as required by 

principles of fair and open competition and the goal of attaining a workforce from all 

segments of society; (2) an abundance of applications; (3) fair and rigorous assessment of 

applicants, consistent with the merit system principles of equal opportunity and selection 

based on relative ability; and (4) adjudication and documentation of applicant entitlements 

(including veterans’ preference) and eligibility, to ensure that hiring processes and outcomes 

comply with law and public policy.

These management costs are necessary to the ultimate goal of a strong, highly qualified, 

stable merit-based civil service that serves the public’s interest over the long term rather 

than at the pleasure of current political leaders. For example, effective assessment of 

candidates improves the overall quality of the workforce and reduces the likelihood that 

the Government will need to undertake the process to remove that employee later.

4 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Appointing Authorities: Cutting through the Confusion, June 2008.
2 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 1: Introduction

Purpose

This study examines the extent to which factors such as a proliferation of hiring authorities 

and exemptions to competition may threaten the ideal of fair and open competition for 

Federal employment. It also examines the ability of HR staff to help agencies protect 

merit-based hiring and avoid PPPs related to fair and open competition.

Methodology

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) conducted a survey from June-August 

2011, of all Federal HR Specialists and Assistants (over 30,000 employees) to ask their 

perceptions of current agency hiring practices. The response rate for this survey was 

approximately 30 percent (almost 10,000 responses).

In addition to the survey of HR staff, we analyzed information from the CPDF,5 performed 

a literature review, and requested vacancy announcement information from the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM). To show how the gamut of decisions made in the hiring 

process can affect the resultant workforce, we identified two particular agencies that made 

very different choices in the hiring process which resulted in pronounced differences in 

the composition of the resultant workforces. We also analyzed results from MSPB’s 2010 

Merit Principle Survey to determine if the perception of fair and open competition was 

related to employee engagement.

5 For this study, the CPDF data was limited to Title 5 (which covers ~1.2 million employees), permanent full-time employees only. In 

addition, our review did not include Schedule A Attorney positions. Title 38 employees were excluded. For more information of Title 38 

employees, please see Appendix B. Our examination of new hires included employees who received the following appointments: career, 

career conditional, excepted and excepted not-to-exceed.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3

The Impact of 

Recruitment Strategy on 

Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA)6 codified a set of principles that constitutes 

the framework for Federal HR management. The first of these Merit System Principles 

(MSPs) states that “recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate 

sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection 

and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, 

and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.”7

However, the CSRA does not specifically define what “fair” or “open” means. Given 

the myriad occupations, geographic locations, and pay levels, not to mention changing 

external circumstances, that exist in the Federal civilian service, perhaps this was a wise 

omission—but an omission nonetheless. Although fair and open competition for Federal 

jobs is an important democratic principle, what constitutes “fair” and “open” may differ 

among those who do and those who do not obtain Federal jobs.

To be sure, even before the passage of the CSRA, the U.S. Civil Service Commission 

(CSC) and, later, OPM, issued guidelines for what fair and open competition should look 

like. In addition, since the rise of scientific management in the early twentieth century, 

organizations, including the Federal Government, have searched for ways to screen for the 

best candidates to fill job vacancies. But any discussion of these concepts—indeed why 

it is important to have this merit system principle in the first place—should be rooted in 

an understanding of the ways jobs have been filled throughout the history of the Federal 

civilian service. There was a time when a fair assessment of job seekers or an open call 

for applications was not considered. In addition, given that certain groups have always 

received preference in Federal hiring, the competition for Federal jobs has never been 

completely fair or open. This makes the first MSP even more difficult to interpret.

Beginnings

Although President George Washington’s principal requirements for holders of office were 

character, competence, and loyalty to the Constitution, he also realized that the new nation 

needed as much support as possible to survive. To ensure that support, when doling out 

offices, he paid deference to a desirable geographic distribution of appointments and to the 

opinions of Senators, Congressmen, and Governors. His appointees often lived up to his 

6 Public Law No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111.

7 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1).

Chapter 2: Why is Fair and Open 

Competition Important?
4 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 2: Why is Fair and Open Competition Important?

standards, which resulted in the development of a public service for which the new nation 

need not apologize.8

Washington and his successor, President John Adams, did not require that office-seekers 

have prior political experience, but they both (especially Adams) often required them to 

have the proper political opinion. This requirement led to exclusiveness among those who 

received the offices that prepared the way for future objections. President Washington also 

occasionally gave preference to officers of the Revolutionary Army as long as they met his 

standards of character and competence.9

The Presidential campaign that ended with Andrew Jackson’s election in 1828 was one of 

the most bitter the country had seen to that point. During this campaign, Senator William 

L. Marcy famously quoted that there is “nothing wrong in the rule that to the victor belong 

the spoils of the enemy.”10 Most people justified this idea based on the belief that there was 

a real need to democratize the civil service, as the first six Presidents had restricted most 

of the appointments to the educated members of well-to-do families. Now was the time 

to bring into the civil service people from all strata of the country.11 In addition, political 

parties had become much more powerful and the need for patronage as both a “weapon 

in political warfare [and] as financial support for party treasuries”12 intensified. Everyone 

who received his position through the party machinery was required to pay a political 

assessment—a certain percentage of his salary—back to the party.

By the last part of the nineteenth century, the care and feeding of the spoils system came 

to overwhelm the holders of the Presidency:

It has come to pass that the work of paying political debts and 

discharging political obligations, of rewarding personal friends and 

punishing personal foes, is the first to confront each President on 

assuming the duties of his office, and is ever present with him even to 

the last moment of his official term, giving him no rest and little time 

for the transaction of any other business, or for the study of any higher 

or grander problems of statesmanship. He is compelled to give daily 

audience to those who personally seek place, or to the army of those 

who back them... The Executive Mansion is besieged, if not sacked, 

and its corridors and chambers are crowded each day with the everchanging, but never-ending, throng.13

8 Van Riper, Paul P., History of the United States Civil Service, Row, Patterson and Company, Evanston, IL, 1958, pp. 18-19.

9 U. S. Office of Personnel Management, Biography of an Ideal, Washington, DC, 1973, p. 7.

10 Id., pp. 16-17.

11 Id., pp. 14, 17.

12 Id., p. 14.

13 Report by the Senate Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment, to accompany Bill S. 133, May 15, 1882.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5

Chapter 2: Why is Fair and Open Competition Important?

A bleak assessment, to be sure, but one that a Senate Committee arrived at only after a 

frustrated office-seeker shot President James A. Garfield in 1881. The assassin, Charles 

Guiteau, was incensed after not receiving the ambassadorial post to which he believed he 

was entitled, and for which he had hounded the President, Secretary of State James G. 

Blaine, and other officials. Secretary Blaine would later recall, “Probably if I had never seen 

but one office seeker I should have thought [Guiteau] was very persistent, but I had seen 

so many of the same kind that I was not surprised.”14

First Reforms

A number of legislative attempts at reforming the Federal hiring process were made between 

1861 and 1882. In fact, 64 civil service reform bills were proposed and failed during 

this period—none successfully made it through either chamber of Congress.15 However, 

President Garfield’s assassination was an event reformers could use to galvanize public 

opinion against the corrupt spoils system. In January 1883, President Chester A. Arthur 

completed the first significant step of civil service reform by signing the Pendleton Act into 

law.16

The major provisions of the Pendleton Act were eloquently summarized by the Senate 

Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment which stated, upon reporting the Pendleton 

measure:

The single, simple, fundamental, pivotal idea of the whole bill is, that 

whenever, hereafter, a new appointment or a promotion shall be made 

in the subordinate civil service in the departments or larger offices, 

such appointment or promotion shall be given to the man who is best 

fitted to discharge the duties of the position, and that such fitness 

should be ascertained by open, fair, honest, impartial, competitive 

examination. The impartiality of these examinations is to be secured 

by every possible safeguard. They are to be open to all who choose to 

present themselves.17

While affirming veterans’ preference provisions already in statute, the Pendleton Act gave 

the Government for the first time a democratic hiring system. It required Federal positions 

to be filled by competitive examinations open to the public as well as the selection of the 

best qualified applicants without regard to political affiliation. In other words, merit, as 

14 Ackerman, Kenneth D., Dark Horse—The Surprise Election and Political Murder of James A. Garfield, Carroll and Graf Publishers, 

New York, 2003, p. 298.

15 Theriault, Sean M., “Patronage, The Pendleton Act and the Power of the People,” The Journal of Politics, Vol. 65, No. 1, February 2003, 

p. 55.

16 Id., p. 57.

17 Report by the Senate Committee on Civil Service and Retrenchment, to accompany Bill S. 133, May 15, 1882.
6 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 2: Why is Fair and Open Competition Important?

the basis for hiring, was now required by law.18 In addition, merit-based selection would 

serve the cause of good government and increase the prestige of the Federal civil service.19

However, the Act only covered about 10 percent of the positions in the Federal civil 

service—the remaining 90 percent continued to be staffed under the spoils system. Over 

the following years, the Act’s coverage was gradually extended to an increasing number 

of civil service positions and parallel merit systems were created to accommodate unique 

government entities, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Atomic Energy 

Commission.20

Merit Hiring Matures

By the time of the Administration of Theodore Roosevelt, the percentage of positions 

subject to the merit system surpassed for the first time the percentage that remained under 

the spoils system.21 When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Ramspeck Act in 

1940, the competitive service was extended to almost all of the non-policy determining 

positions in the executive branch. This Act swept away virtually all of the exceptions 

that had accumulated since the Pendleton Act and extended the merit system to unskilled 

laborer positions, which the Pendleton Act had expressly excepted.22 By 1952, 86 percent 

of civil service positions were covered by competitive procedures.23

The Pendleton Act created the CSC as the central Federal agency responsible for translating 

into reality the ideals set forth in the Act. One of the ways that the Commission did 

this was by setting up local boards of examiners in post offices and customs houses to 

examine applicants for Federal employment.24 The Commission developed standards 

and procedures for testing and provided the boards with the actual examinations, but 

employees in the various agencies accomplished the daily examining work. In 1961, the 

Commission ended this arrangement by transferring the functions of the now 668 agency 

boards of examiners to 65 newly-created interagency boards staffed by CSC employees. 

This marked the beginning of the gradual centralization of examining authority that was 

to continue until the next major legislative overhaul of the civil service system.25

18 OPM, Biography of an Ideal, 1973, p. 45.

19 OPM, Biography of an Ideal, 2003, p. 207.

20 OPM, Biography of an Ideal, 1973, p. 45.

21 OPM, Biography of an Ideal, 2003, p. 216.

22 Id., p. 230.

23 Id., p. 243.

24 Id., pp. 207-208.

25 Id., p. 256.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7

Chapter 2: Why is Fair and Open Competition Important?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 focused the attention of both public and private sector 

employers on the issue of ensuring that their employee selection procedures were valid. 

This means that the relationship between the method used to select employees and the 

subsequent performance of those employees on the job could actually be proven. Of course, 

tests used to screen job applicants cannot be designed, intended, or used to discriminate on 

any prohibited ground.26

In 1972, the CSC issued guidelines on the selection procedures for Federal jobs, which 

included that such procedures should be: professionally developed, objective, reliable, jobrelated, valid, nondiscriminatory, practical, and administratively feasible.27 The following 

year, the Commission published a document to acquaint newly-appointed agency political 

leaders with the requirements of fair and open competition within the competitive service 

that provided the following elements:

1. Adequate publicity. Job openings and requirements must be made public so that 

interested citizens have a reasonable opportunity to know about them.

2. Opportunity to apply. Citizens who are interested must have a chance to make 

their interest known and to receive consideration.

3. Realistic standards. Qualification standards must be reasonably related to the job 

to be filled and must be applied impartially to all who make their interest known.

4. Absence of discrimination. The standards used must contain factors which relate 

only to ability and fitness for employment.

5. Ranking on the basis of ability. The very essence of competition implies a ranking of candidates on the basis of a relative evaluation of their ability and fitness, 

and a selection process which gives effect to this ranking.

6. Knowledge of results. The public must be able to find out how the process 

works, and anyone who believes that the process has not been applied properly in 

his or her own case must have a chance for administrative review.28

After the passage of the Pendleton Act and throughout the intervening years, public 

policy interests occasionally mitigated the interests of merit. Special hiring authorities 

were created to allow exceptions to the practices of merit such as for veterans’ preference, 

disability appointments, and student appointments. The authorities and exceptions exist 

for a variety of reasons: public policy (e.g., veterans, persons with disabilities), efficiency 

(some position-based Schedule A authorities), and the nature and role of the position 

(Schedule C authorities).

26 Id., p. 268.

27 Id.

28 Stahl, Glenn O., Public Personnel Administration, Harper Row Publishers, New York, 1976 p. 42.
8 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 2: Why is Fair and Open Competition Important?

CSRA of 1978 and Beyond

By the mid-1970s, the various principles that underpinned the current merit systems 

had yet to be made explicit. However, these principles were implicit in many executive 

orders, rules, and regulations that dealt with administering the Federal personnel system. 

The framers of the CSRA formally set down a series of principles that would guide the 

management of personnel under the merit systems. As we noted above, among the nine 

MSPs that were codified by the CSRA, the first dealt with fair and open competition for 

Federal jobs:

Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate 

sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of 

society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on 

the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open 

competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.29

In addition, the CSRA permitted OPM to begin to decentralize the hiring process by 

delegating to agencies the function of filling various positions, those not covered by the 

Professionals and Administrative Careers Examination (PACE).30 The then newly-created 

OPM would maintain control and oversight of this delegation of hiring authority to guard 

against PPPs as well as the use of unsound practices by the agencies.31 In giving individual 

agencies greater control over the hiring process, the aim of the CSRA was to both expedite 

the hiring process and make that process more responsive to managers’ needs.32 With this 

delegation of hiring authority to the agencies, the uniform approach to HR management 

within the Federal Government began to deteriorate.

In response to concerns that the PACE resulted in an adverse impact on certain groups, 

the Carter Administration entered into a consent decree that established procedures 

for monitoring hiring into occupations subject to PACE.33 The decree also provided 

guidelines for creating replacement examinations. It also called for the then newly-created 

Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual-Bicultural hiring authorities to operate under court 

supervision as supplements to the examinations that would eventually replace the PACE.34

29 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1).

30 Prior to the passage of the CSRA, the PACE was administered centrally by the CSC to qualify individuals for many entry-level 

positions. “That system was based on a core value, the merit system, but defined merit in a narrow way, as a score on a single test.” 

Ban, Carolyn, “Hiring in the Federal Government: Political and Technological Sources of Reform”, in Norma Riccucci, ed. Public Personnel 

Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges, 4th ed. Longman, 2006.

31 5 U.S.C. § 1104.

32 Ban, Carolyn, “Hiring in the Federal Government: Political and Technological Sources of Reform”, p. 147.

33 Luevano v. Campbell, 93 F.R.D. 68 (D.D.C. 1981).

34 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Restoring Merit to Federal Hiring; Why Two Special Hiring Programs Should be Ended, January 

2000. Also see Ban, Carolyn, “Hiring in the Federal Government,” p. 147.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9

Chapter 2: Why is Fair and Open Competition Important?

Fewer centralized registers of qualified job candidates existed during this time period. 

Each agency announced and recruited for its own openings. Federal job seekers could 

learn about available jobs by telephoning agencies to inquire about current vacancies. In 

addition, OPM staffed Federal job information centers where the public could call to ask 

about a range of agency openings. Job vacancies also might be listed in local newspapers 

or posted in the lobbies of Federal buildings where the passing public could peruse the 

opportunities.

Today, agencies are able to announce vacancies to a much wider audience via the internet 

but preference in hiring is still granted to certain individuals.35 Other individuals may 

be hired through noncompetitive procedures established for reasons of public policy, 

efficiency, or a combination of both.36 In addition, positions of a confidential or policydetermining nature or those for which there is a shortage of candidates or a critical hiring 

need also may be exempt from competitive hiring procedures.37

Perceptions vary regarding the extent to which the Federal hiring process is fair. For example, 

frustrated job seekers may believe it is a closed system that relies on internal contacts for 

success. Federal HR professionals who are inundated with thousands of applications for 

job vacancies that are routinely posted on the internet may believe the system is fairer and 

more open than ever.

Agencies and hiring managers have as much autonomy as ever in the hiring process. This 

autonomy can be used well or improperly. Meanwhile, it has become more challenging 

for agency HR staff to provide critical support to managers and supervisors in upholding 

the merit principles due to downsizing, restructuring of the HR function, and increased 

pressure to focus on timeliness and customer service, as well as compliance with laws and 

regulations. Given these pressures on the Federal hiring system, what is the state of fair 

and open competition for Federal jobs today, and what actions can agencies take to uphold 

the first merit principle?

35 For example, 5 C.F.R. Part 211 provides for veterans’ preference in hiring.

36 Hiring authorities such as Schedule A disability, specific agency hiring authorities, certain veterans’ authorities, which allow for noncompetitive hiring, will be discussed later in this report.

37 Direct hire authority. 5 C.F.R. Part 337, Subpart B.
10 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11

The Impact of 

Recruitment Strategy on 

Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs

Chapter 3: Decisions 

Affecting Competition

Each step in the recruitment process is an opportunity to keep the recruitment action fair 

and open—or to close it to some degree. However, it is often ambiguous, at any step, 

which choice best serves the principle of fair and open competition and the broader public 

interest. For example, an agency operating under a tight budget may not have sufficient 

funds to support an additional employee, and therefore it may decide to limit consideration 

for jobs to internal employees. Some positions are unique to the Federal sector and are 

therefore unlikely to have a natural labor pool outside of Government. Others are likely to 

have an unmanageably large labor pool, making geographic or other restrictions necessary 

for effective recruitment. Some assessment methods are more valid (and thus more fair) 

than others, but they may not be practical for certain positions or at particular stages in the 

recruitment process. In this chapter we discuss different decision points in the recruitment 

process and identify the challenges inherent in each step to keeping that process fair and 

open.

Shaping the Applicant Pool

Before recruiting for a position, agency management must perform a job analysis38 to 

determine the core duties of a job and the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) needed by 

the candidate to successfully perform the duties of the position.39 The job analysis should 

center on the competencies needed for the job. However, managers should take care not 

to select candidates based on a narrow skills set that may be easily trainable (for example, 

knowledge of a specific agency travel system).

Once a job analysis is performed, managers, in conjunction with HR, should decide the 

area of consideration for the position—to whom the job vacancy will be “open.” The 

area of consideration can be as broad as allowing all U.S. citizens to apply or as narrow as 

permitting only members of a specific organizational unit within an agency to apply. Once 

the area of consideration is determined, no one from outside that area can be selected to 

fill that particular vacancy. The majority of HR staff (78 percent) we surveyed did not 

believe they worked on recruitment actions where the area of consideration provided an 

unfair advantage to specific candidates. However, 22 percent were either neutral on this 

question or believed it did provide an unfair advantage in at least one instance over the past 

38 A job analysis will determine the relative importance of the job’s duties and identify the KSAs to perform the job. It will ultimately 

tell managers the “relationship between the duties and tasks...and the competencies and KSAs required to perform the tasks.” Job 

analysis of the position being recruited for should be fair, objective and accurate. Jobs should not be tailored to a specific individual. 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Job Simulations: Trying out for Federal Jobs, 2009, p. 26.

39U. S. Office of Personnel Management, “Delegated Examining (DE) Operations Handbook”, Chapter 2, Section B.
12 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

year. As the first step in the process, deciding what the area of consideration will be is very 

important—it is difficult to have “fair” competition from an unfair pool of candidates or 

an “open” competition from a closed pool of candidates.

Length of the Open Window

In addition to determining the area of consideration, managers (in consultation with their 

HR staff) determine the length of time to keep the vacancy “open” to receiving applications. 

Typically, the longer the open period, the greater the number of applications received. If 

the job is very specialized or hard to fill, then management might want to keep the vacancy 

open longer. If there is a belief of an abundance of qualified applicants for a position, the 

open period may be shorter to make the number of applications more manageable.

In response to our survey, only 33 percent of HR staff reported that the vacancy 

announcements in their agencies are typically open for less than two weeks. There is no 

set rule for how long a vacancy must remain open, but two weeks seems to be the standard 

minimum amount of time.40 Agencies should be cautious in opening announcements for 

short periods of time for at least two reasons: opportunity and appearance. Individuals 

within the area of consideration should be afforded a reasonable amount of time to learn 

of the job opportunity, and to prepare and submit their application materials. In addition, 

a short open period may create an impression that the position has been earmarked for 

someone or that the agency seeks applications only from individuals who have been 

expressly recruited. This may discourage qualified individuals from applying, especially 

if the job is highly specialized, the application requirements are complex, or the agency 

has not made efforts to market broadly its employment opportunities. Intentionally 

discouraging applicants by unduly limiting the length of time the vacancy is open would 

certainly be contrary to fair and open competition.

Internal Versus External Hiring

Whether agencies recruit internally or externally (or use a mixture of both) is a critical issue 

in determining what their workforce will look like over time. Too much external hiring 

may mean a loss of institutional knowledge or a workforce that may be seeking short-term 

opportunities instead of building the skills and knowledge for a career. Too much internal 

hiring can lead to a deficiency of openness—both in making job opportunities accessible 

to the public, and to the new ideas and perspectives that are important for innovative and 

responsive government. An over-reliance on internal hiring may also lead to a lack of 

diversity. Neither is healthy for the civil service.

40 Some collective bargaining agreements or agency policies may set a specific minimum time period.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

External—Competitive Examining (CE)

The broadest option for an area of consideration is to open the job opportunity via CE to 

all U.S. citizens. Agencies often do this through the CE authority delegated to them by 

OPM. This is called “external” hiring and it enables anyone qualified for appointment to 

be considered. CE is also the most labor intensive of the hiring authorities, because it can 

result in more applications than agencies can effectively manage.

When CE is used, most veterans41 are—by law—given an advantage over other candidates. 

In competitive examining, a veteran cannot be passed over in order to select a nonveteran 

for the most part.42 In addition, veterans with preference based on the nature of their 

prior military service or injuries are given an additional advantage in how they are placed 

in relation to others on the list of qualified candidates from which managers select to fill 

a vacancy. To some applicants for Federal jobs, this may seem less “fair” than placing all 

on an equal footing, but these preferences reflect long-standing public policy and must be 

fully complied with.43 This is one example of competing public policy goals—providing 

preference to veterans in Federal hiring while ensuring equal opportunity to all—which 

must be balanced.44 For agencies, hiring managers, and HR staff, effectively maintaining 

this balance is not always easy.

Internal—Merit Promotion (MP)

Managers also can recruit for positions via an agency MP plan. Recruitment under agency 

MP plans allows only applicants who have some type of “status” to apply. Individuals 

gain “status” through being a current or a former Federal employee with reinstatement 

eligibility.45 When announcing a job opening via MP procedures, managers, with advice 

from their HR staff, can decide how large the area of consideration will be. It may be as 

narrow as a work unit, or as broad as the entire civil service. Merit Promotion procedures 

allow the inclusion of applicants from other merit systems with an interchange agreement 

and/or employees who left the civil service but are eligible for reinstatement.46 The area 

of consideration also may be limited geographically to a small area (such as a single city), 

world-wide, or somewhere in between. Each agency has its own MP plan describing the 

41 For this report, “veteran” is used to describe a veteran who receives preference for hiring under Title 5. For more information, please 

see OPM’s Vet Guide (http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/veterans-services/vet-guide/).

42 In order to “pass-over” a veteran (except 30 percent disabled veterans), hiring managers must submit documentation to the proper 

office (usually their HR office) that shows a “proper or adequate reason” for the pass-over. Agencies must request permission from OPM 

to “pass-over” a 30 percent disabled veteran. OPM, “DE Handbook”.

43 For more on how veterans are treated under CE and perceptions of fair treatment, see our 2014 report, Veterans’ Hiring in the Civil 

Service: Practices and Perceptions, which describes various veteran hiring authorities and survey data regarding perceived denials of 

preference rights as well as perceived favoritism toward veterans.

44 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(1).

45 5 C.F.R. § 212.301.

46 For example, the non-appropriated fund instrumentalities (NAFIs) in the Department of Defense (DoD) have an agreement with 

OPM that enables agencies to hire NAFI employees under MP. A copy of the agreement is contained in DoD Instruction 1400.25-M, 

December 1996, available at: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/1400.25_SC1403.pdf.
14 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

scope of management’s options. Collective bargaining agreements also may place limits on 

how narrow or broad the area of consideration may be.

Similar to CE preference, veterans are given a type of “status” under MP procedures. The 

Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA)47 entitles veterans48 to compete 

for the vacancy if the area of consideration includes individuals from outside the agency. 

However, VEOA candidates are assessed on an equal footing with other candidates and no 

additional preference is applied.

Announcing Jobs

When hiring managers are not certain if they will select internally or externally, it is 

common for them to issue announcements under CE procedures and under MP procedures 

simultaneously.49 If the announcement is open to applicants outside of the agency, it must 

be posted to OPM’s USAJobs website (www.usajobs.gov).50 Though not required, merit 

promotion announcements that are open to only agency employees are also typically posted 

to USAJobs which has become the central portal for finding such opportunities. When 

agencies do not use USAJobs to announce a position, concerns may be raised about the 

openness of the opportunity. Declining to post a vacancy to USAJobs might be perceived 

among some observers that the agency might be trying to limit the applicant pool for the 

announcement.

As part of this study, we examined how many vacancies were posted on USAJobs in 2011 

and 2012 and whether they were posted under MP or CE procedures. There were 345,823 

job announcements posted on USAJobs in 2011, and 279,624 postings in 2012. Because 

more than one announcement can be used for a single job vacancy or one announcement 

can be used to advertise for several jobs, we cannot determine exactly how many positions 

these vacancies represented. For example, a vacant position could be advertised to all U.S. 

citizens and all current Federal employees via two separate, simultaneous announcements.

As shown in Figure 1, agencies announced jobs using CE and MP procedures at about the 

same rate. Vacancies announced during these two years that were only open to current 

agency employees were far less common.

47 Public Law105-339.

48 To be considered a veteran under VEOA, applicants must “be a preference eligible OR veteran separated from the armed forces after 3 

or more years of continuous active service performed under honorable conditions. Veterans who were released shortly before completing 

a 3-year tour are considered to be eligible.” OPM Vet Guide available at http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/veterans-services/

vet-guide/.

49 As discussed earlier, by law, use of MP for candidates outside of the agency mandates the inclusion of VEOA candidates.

50 5 C.F.R. § 330.103(b).
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

Figure 1. Methods used to announce job vacancies in 2011 and 2012.

In addition, our 2011 survey asked HR staff how often vacancies were announced to “all 

sources” (CE) and to “all federal employees” (MP). Forty-eight percent of the HR staff 

surveyed reported that vacancies were advertised to all sources all or most of the time, while 

66 percent of HR staff reported that vacancies were advertised to all Federal employees all 

or most of the time.51

To Competitively Examine Or Not?

As stated earlier, how agencies announce their vacancies affects every part of the recruitment 

process. There are several reasons why broad, CE for Federal jobs is important. First, 

broad, CE increases the diversity of the applicant pool. This is especially important when 

recruiting for entry-level positions which are the pipeline for MP hiring. Second, it 

increases the probability that exceptional candidates will apply.

Nonetheless, there can be legitimate business reasons not to announce job vacancies as 

broadly as possible, such as a lack of resources to handle an avalanche of applications, the 

fact that many candidates will not relocate to a different geographic area (especially for lowlevel positions), and the likelihood that there are already many well-qualified candidates 

within a single agency or group of agencies within the immediate area.

In our 2011 survey of HR staff, we asked why agencies did not announce positions using 

CE procedures. The reason most frequently cited was that there were plenty of internal 

candidates. With millions of applications received each year for vacancies posted on 

USAJobs, agencies may be appropriately limiting the announcements when they believe 

51 Note: as we mentioned earlier, one vacancy can have two announcements - CE and MP.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

2011 2012

CE MP Agency Only
16 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

there is a sufficient number of highly-qualified internal candidates.52 Some other reasons 

cited for limiting the area of consideration were that the expertise required by the position 

does not exist in the private sector and that applicants are not willing to relocate (see Figure 

2).

Figure 2. Reasons why vacancies are not announced using CE procedures.

Notably, the second most common reason (38 percent) given by HR staff for not using 

CE procedures is that the hiring managers already had someone in particular in mind to 

fill the vacancy. In response to a different question on our survey, 79 percent of HR staff 

reported a perception that at least some of the time management had someone in mind 

to fill the position prior to advertising the vacancy. While it is not illegal for a manager 

to be impressed by the quality of employees that he or she has personally observed, hiring 

managers need to ensure they are not tailoring the job, announcement, assessment, or 

any other part of the hiring process to favor a particular candidate. Valuable and jobrelated KSAs, and other characteristics that may be held by individuals can and should be 

deliberately sought—specific individuals cannot and should not be deliberately sought.53

If an agency concludes that it has an adequate pool of internal candidates, using only MP 

procedures may be appropriate. But, limiting the area of consideration to MP in order 

to favor an individual is not acceptable.54 Sometimes there may be a fine line between 

strategically recruiting for needed skills and actually misusing hiring flexibilities and 

52 In 2011, there were 19,395,360 applications for jobs using USAJobs, in 2012, there were 18,526,252.

53 In our 2010 MPS, 78 percent of Federal employees said an official in their work unit had not defined the scope of a recruitment to 

improve the chances of a particular person.

54 See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6) (prohibiting officials from deliberately designing a recruitment action to favor an individual).

15%

18%

18%

28%

29%

38%

51%

Unacceptable vacancy opening period

Applicants will not move

Expertise does not exist in private sector

A veteran may block the list

Too many applications

Hiring managers have someone in mind

Plenty of highly-qualied internal candidates
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

committing a PPP. Hiring managers and HR staff should both be well trained in the MSPs 

and PPPs and be committed to avoiding any improprieties.

Another problematic practice occurs when agencies attempt to circumvent the hiring 

of veterans by choosing not to announce vacancies via CE .55 It is true that, under 

CE procedures, well-qualified nonveterans cannot be readily selected over minimallyqualified veterans56 (a situation some refer to as the veteran “blocking” the list of eligible 

candidates).57 Our survey of HR staff found that 28 percent said they do not announce 

with CE because a veteran may “block the list.” On another survey question, 24 percent of 

HR staff reported that veterans’ preference hampered their ability to hire the most qualified 

applicant. However, hiring managers and HR staff should not limit a vacancy’s area of 

consideration in order to circumvent this long-standing public policy goal of providing 

preference to veterans in Federal hiring.

Special Hiring Authorities

While both CE and MP procedures contain requirements for competition, the law and 

regulations provide the ability for managers to choose to fill vacancies under a number of 

special hiring authorities that do not require competition. These include:

•	 Thirty-percent disabled veteran.58 Agencies make a noncompetitive appointment 

leading to conversion to career or career-conditional employment of a disabled 

veteran who has a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or 

more.

•	 Schedule A.59 This is an excepted service authority which enables “agencies to 

hire when it is not feasible or practical to use traditional competitive hiring 

procedures, and can streamline hiring.”60

•	 Veteran’s Recruitment Appointment (VRA).61 Agencies can use this authority 

to hire any eligible veteran for positions at the GS-11 level and below without 

competition.

55 Thirty percent disabled vets who are minimally qualified float to the top of the list for all positions in the competitive service, except 

professional and scientific positions at the GS-9 level and above. OPM, “DE Handbook.”

56 To pass-over a veteran in order to select a nonveteran, managers must justify and obtain approval. Agency approval is sufficient for 

any veterans who are not 30 percent disabled. In order to pass-over a 30 percent disabled veteran, managers must obtain OPM approval. 

Id.

57 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Rule of Three in Federal Hiring: Boon or Bane, 1995.

58 5 C.F.R. § 315.707.

59 5 C.F.R. § 213.3102.

60 OPM (http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-authorities/excepted-service/).

61 38 U.S.C. § 4214.
18 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

•	 Pathways Program.62 This is a relatively new authority that enables agencies to 

hire students and recent graduates. It replaced the Federal Career Intern Program 

(FCIP), the Student Career Experience Program, and the Student Temporary 

Employment Program.

•	 Direct hire.63 Agencies may request from OPM the ability to hire employees 

without competition when a critical hiring need or severe shortage of candidates 

exists. There still must be public notice for these vacancies, but category rating 

procedures and veterans’ preference requirements are not required.

•	 Specific agency authorities. These authorities are similar to direct hire, but are 

granted by Congress to specific individual agencies.64

What authorities were used to hire new employees?

According to OPM’s CPDF, in 2012, there were over 77,000 employees either newly 

appointed or reinstated to a Federal position. This is significantly less than 2011, in which 

over 103,000 employees were appointed or reinstated. The difference is more than likely 

due to the effects that sequestration had on Federal hiring in 2012. In 2000 and 2001, over 

half of the new appointments or reinstatements to Federal positions were accomplished 

through CE procedures. Although job vacancies are frequently announced to a wide 

audience, in 2012, only 37 percent of new hires were appointed via CE authorities.65 As 

shown in Figure 3, the general trend since 2000 is toward less use of CE procedures and 

greater use of special appointing authorities to hire new employees.

62 Executive Order 13562.

63 5 C.F.R. Part 337, Subpart B.

64 An example of an agency-specific hiring authority is the now-expired NASA excepted authority, which allowed NASA to hire certain 

GS-15 positions for a time-limited appointment. 42 U.S.C. § 2473.

65 There was an 8 percent increase in the use of CE procedures from 2011 to 2012. We cannot determine if this is a random occurrence 

or if the elimination of the FCIP authority contributed to this.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

Figure 3. Authorities used to hire new employees, 2000-2012.66

The increased use of special hiring authorities may be both a warning and a problem. For 

CE to be disfavored is a warning that there may be some difficulty with the authority 

itself. That is, agencies may perceive some difficulty or inefficiency with CE, such that 

approximately two out of every three hiring actions avoid using it to make a selection. The 

decreased use of CE is a problem because CE is the only hiring authority that is open to all 

qualified U.S. citizens. As a result, as more restrictive authorities are used to hire Federal 

employees, the less fair and open the system may appear to be.

Consequences of using different hiring authorities

The choices agencies make during the hiring process may have far-reaching consequences 

for the future composition of its workforce. Data from the CPDF show that in 2000, 43 

percent of the employees newly hired into the Federal Government were female.67 By 2012, 

the proportion of newly-hired employees who were female had dropped to 37 percent—a 

six percentage point decrease in new female hires.68

Many factors affect the proportion of women in the applicant pool and, ultimately, the 

representation of women among new hires. As we discussed in a previous report,69 there 

66 In 2003, The Department of Homeland Security was created. The spike of “other authorities” that year is due in part to this, 

specifically, hiring at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

67 In FY 2000, approximately 63,000 employees were newly hired into Title 5 positions.

68 In FY 2012, approximately 77,000 employees were newly hired into Title 5. Also, as of FY 2012, per OPM FedScope, 43 percent of 

the workforce was female.

69 U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and Achievements, May 2011.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

CE

VRA/VEOA

Direct Hires

Students

FCIP Recent Graduates

Others
20 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

are many occupations in the American labor force in which men predominate. This is 

evident in CE and student hiring, where males represented most of the new hires into 

the information technology, engineering, and police officer occupations (males accounted 

for 80 percent, 83 percent, and 92 percent, respectively, of the new hires into these 

occupations).70 It is also evident that in the direct hire authority, women were hired more 

frequently into what has been the traditionally female-dominated nursing occupations.

Figure 4. Gender of new hires by appointing authority in 2012.

However, occupation does not explain everything. Appointing authority matters too, as 

illustrated in the figure above. Most of the methods used to hire new employees in 2012 

resulted in a greater proportion of males than females entering the Federal workforce. This 

disparity is most notable for the VEOA and VRA authorities, which is not surprising given 

that the active duty military is over 80 percent male.71 Our research shows that as use of 

veterans authorities increased, the percentage of female new hires decreased. In addition, 

we found over 35 percent of those hired under CE were veterans.

Just as agencies should not circumvent veterans’ preference requirements (as those 

requirements represent important public policy), neither should they over-rely on any one 

method of hiring—including veterans hiring authorities. Such over-reliance may result in 

70 CPDF Data. Permanent full-time employees. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) the male Relevant Civilian Labor 

Force had the following ranges: information technology – 60-80 percent; engineers – 83-93 percent, and law enforcement – 73-87 

percent. http://bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm.

71 Population Representation in Military Services FY 2011, Department of Defense (DoD), p. 22.

20%

24%

36%

45% 45%

61%

80% 76%

64%

55% 55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

VEOA VRA / 30%

Disabled

CE Students Others Direct Hires

F

M

39%
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

agency workforces that are skewed toward a certain group—in this case, males. Agencies 

must balance the competing public policy goals of fairness and openness in hiring, granting 

preference to veterans, and recruiting a workforce that is representative of all segments of 

society within their hiring strategies.

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of employees hired under the VEOA and VRA 

authorities were hired into just a few agencies—87 percent of veterans were hired into 

DoD and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The hiring of veterans in these agencies may 

contribute to mission accomplishment, as well as to the faith that their customers place 

in these organizations. However, the nature of the challenge—to balance effectively the 

diverse demands of the MSPs and public policies—appears to differ across agencies. For 

example, within DoD, as a high percentage of hires were made using veterans authorities, 

the department may need to monitor its hiring strategy to ensure use of authorities that 

are open to nonveterans or it might take care to select a more diverse group of candidates 

who are veterans. In contrast, other agencies may need to improve outreach to veterans 

and make full use of veteran hiring authorities.

As noted, an over-reliance on too few hiring authorities may not be healthy for an 

organization’s culture, as the resultant workforce may not be representative of society. 

In fact, some Chief Human Capital Officers believe “veterans’ preference clashes with 

diversity hiring goals, since most veterans are white males.”72 As we have stated previously, 

agencies need to take care when hiring the majority of their employees through just one 

or two authorities that favor one group of people over another.73 In the next chapter, we 

discuss in more detail the consequences of the decisions made during the hiring process. 

In the recommendations chapter, we discuss measures to promote a balanced use of hiring 

authorities.

Assessment Methods

The methods of assessing job applicants used in the hiring process are an important 

component in implementing and maintaining fair and open competition. The objective of a 

merit-based hiring system is a qualified and representative workforce, obtained through the 

systematic identification of the best person(s) for the job.74 The assessment process—how 

agencies distinguish among applicants—is key to this objective. The criteria developed to 

assess applicants should first and foremost be job-related, which is critical to the perceived 

fairness of the process.75 The methods used to assess candidates should be transparent—

clearly communicated in the vacancy announcement and throughout the hiring process.

72 Partnership for Public Service, Bracing for Change, Washington, DC, August 2012, p.18.

73 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal Appointing Authorities: Cutting through the Confusion, 2008, p. 11.

74 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and Cheaper, 2006, p. 17.

75 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Identifying Talent through Technology, 2004, p. 16.
22 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

With the continued decentralization of personnel authorities, agencies have been tasked 

with developing and administering their own assessment tools. There are several ways 

of assessing applicants. Different assessments have differing abilities to predict job 

performance (an assessment’s validity)76 and may even have an adverse impact on certain 

groups of applicants.77 Agencies, when determining which assessments to use, should be 

aware of such issues as well as the burden that certain assessments place on applicants.78

In our survey of HR staff, we asked what assessments agencies used to determine the bestqualified candidates. The most commonly used assessment by agencies was the resume 

and cover letter. Other commonly used assessments included structured interviews, 

occupational questionnaires, reference checks, and KSA narratives.79

Figure 5. Extent of use of different assessments.

76 Validity: “The extent to which assessment scores are related to current or future job performance (or some other work-related 

outcome such as training success, productivity, absenteeism, turnover).” OPM, “Assessment Decision Guide” (http://apps.opm.gov/adt/

Content.aspx?page=5_Glossary#Validity).

77 Adverse impact: “A substantially different rate of selection in hiring which works to the disadvantage of members of any race, sex, or 

ethnic group.” Id.

78 MSPB has long advocated for using the multiple hurdle approach to assessing applicants. For more information on this approach, 

please see Appendix A.

79 On May11, 2010, President Barack Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum which eliminated the use of KSAs in the initial 

screening process. Presidential Memorandum – Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cognitive Ability Test

Job Knowledge Tests

Work Sample/Job Simulation

Biographical Data

Situational Judgment Tests

Unstructured Interview

College GPA

Accomplishment Records

Education Level

Ratings of KSA Narratives

Reference Checks

Occupational Questionnaire

Structured Interview

Resume and Cover Letter

Little/No

Some

Great
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

Resumes are often used to assess training and experience (T&E) as opposed to assessing 

accomplishments and transferable skills such as the ability to adapt rapidly to change. 

Training and experience assessments are commonly used because they are cheaper, widely 

available, and more convenient to administer than more accurate assessment methods. 

They also put a lot of work on the applicant, saving scarce HR staff time.80

Of more concern than the emphasis placed on T&E assessments is that 78 percent of HR 

staff reported that education level is used at least some of the time as an assessment tool. 

Years of education has a low validity score (.10) in predicting job performance.81 Agencies 

may rely on education level because for some positions, a particular level of education is 

needed to meet minimum qualifications at the lower grades. However, 52 percent of HR 

staff said that grade point average (GPA) is used at least some of the time. GPA also has a low 

validity score (.17).82 GPA is a far easier tool for making distinctions between candidates 

than evaluating actual accomplishments—particularly for individuals just beginning their 

careers. This makes it attractive as an assessment method, although not necessarily wise 

given its low ability to predict future job performance.

The validity of the assessment tools and the rigor with which they are applied, can 

determine both the perceived and actual fairness of the process, as well as how “open” 

recruitment actually is. If an agency habitually uses education as a proxy for assessment 

of the qualifications of candidates for positions, the system becomes closed to those who 

lack that education. For this reason, it is important that agencies determine if there is a 

real connection between education and the position being filled prior to making education 

a permanent bar on the window of recruitment. To do otherwise creates a system that 

is neither fair nor open. It also can—for some positions—be contrary to the law, which 

states:

The Office of Personnel Management or other examining agency may 

not prescribe a minimum educational requirement for an examination 

for the competitive service except when the Office decides that the 

duties of a scientific, technical, or professional position cannot be 

performed by an individual who does not have a prescribed minimum 

education.83

Another assessment tool is the use of questions requiring an essay style response, or KSAs. 

In 2010, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum eliminating KSAs from 

the initial step in the application process. The intent of eliminating KSAs was to “further 

80 For an in-depth analysis of T&E assessments, see our 2014 report, Evaluating Job Applicants: The Role of Training and Experience in 

Hiring, available at www.mspb.gov/studies.

81 U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Reforming Federal Hiring: Beyond Faster and Cheaper, 2006, p. 19.

82 Id.

83 5 U.S.C. § 3308.
24 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

strengthen” the Federal workforce; allow Americans the ability to “apply for Federal jobs 

through a commonsense hiring process”; and give agencies the ability to “select high-quality 

candidates efficiently and quickly.”84 Prior to this memorandum, agencies most often relied 

on applicants to answer KSAs to determine the best qualified applicants. This process was 

criticized by many as being too burdensome on applicants. Some well-qualified applicants 

may have chosen to not apply for positions rather than prepare lengthy KSA narratives.

Our survey asked HR staff for their thoughts on the elimination of KSAs. While 43 percent 

of HR staff believed eliminating KSAs increased the number of unqualified applicants, only 

21 percent believed it helped their agency make better hires. Further, responses were nearly 

equally divided regarding the impact of KSAs on identifying the best candidate. Thirtytwo percent of HR staff surveyed agreed that eliminating KSAs improved identification of 

the best candidate, while 31 percent disagreed.

These perceptions of HR staff reflect the continuing importance of several functions that 

KSA narratives served, if imperfectly.

•	 Managing the applicant pool. For many jobs, applicants now merely click a few 

buttons on a webpage to apply, rather than write lengthy responses to questions. 

Because the process has been made easier, applicants may apply for many more 

vacancies than they would have if they were required to write KSA narratives. 

Some applicants may “blanket the world” with their resumes and simply hope 

for the best, even concerning vacancies for which they clearly are not qualified. 

The process became easier for applicants, but not necessarily fairer, especially if 

agencies feel compelled to use less-effective but more resource-efficient assessment 

tools to winnow an overly-large applicant pool. An example of this is when HR 

does not verify resume content or uses no additional assessment method such as a 

structured interview to verify applicant qualifications.

•	 Transparency. KSA narratives also promoted a fair playing field by informing 

all interested individuals what it was that management sought in a candidate. 

Without language of a similar nature in the announcement, people who are closer 

to the position or to people near the position may have an unfair advantage. 

They may be in a better position to know what to highlight in their resumes and 

cover letters than others who may only know what the job entails based on broad 

statements in a vacancy announcement.

•	 Realistic job preview. KSAs gave important information about the job that 

enabled individuals to not only assess whether they were a good match for the 

job, but also whether the job was a good match for their own career ambitions. 

By asking candidates to describe their specific knowledge, skills, and abilities, the 

KSA announcements helped potential applicants understand what it would take 

84 Presidential Memorandum, May 11, 2010, Presidential Memorandum – Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25

Chapter 3: Decisions Affecting Competition

to succeed in the job—a clearer process than simply soliciting applications. This 

may have been a good technique for screening out those who were not qualified 

and even qualified people who simply would not have enjoyed the job.

•	 Follow the rules of competition. KSAs also encouraged applicants to follow 

the “rules of the competition.” They discouraged exaggeration by requiring 

applicants to describe their relevant experience and accomplishments, with at 

least the possibility of these claims being verified via interviews and reference 

checks.

Agencies should address the continuing need to develop and use assessments that can 

accomplish the goals listed above. Some agencies continue to use vacancy announcements 

to inform candidates of the KSAs that the agency seeks, without requiring the KSA essay as 

part of the initial application process. We encourage the continuation of this notification 

process, as it adds to the fairness and openness of the competition.

Every hiring process decision, from area of consideration to applicant assessment, is critical 

to the principle of fair and open competition. Agencies, hiring managers and HR staff 

should adhere to the spirit of the MSPs and serve the public interest. When considering 

recruitment, they should think about merit (selection based on competence) at both the 

individual (the particular recruitment action at hand) and the organizational/agency (how 

the agency meets the workforce needs and whether the individual hires add up to a diverse, 

high quality workforce) levels.
26 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27

The Impact of 

Recruitment Strategy on 

Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs

No two agencies are exactly alike. Mission affects the occupations being filled. Agency 

size and number of open positions affect economies of scale. The size and composition 

of the available labor pool varies by location. In the process of analyzing the HR staff 

survey data, we noted that the recruitment process decisions varied greatly by agency 

and we examined whether those variations coincided with any particular outcomes for 

the workforce composition. In this chapter, we compare two specific agencies that made 

very different choices in filling vacancies. We refer to the two agencies as “Agency A” 

and “Agency B” in order de-personalize the discussion. Our purpose is twofold: first, 

to illustrate the potential consequences of restrictive competition and the importance 

of agencies monitoring what is happening to their workforce; and second, to evaluate 

recruiting strategies that may have contributed to a workforce that is not reflective of the 

society all agencies were created to serve.85

Both agencies we selected are large executive agencies with over 100,000 employees each. 

The appointing authorities discussed in this chapter are ones that are used to hire employees 

from outside of government.

Comparing “Pre-selection” Perceptions

Managers have a lot of discretion in choosing how and to whom they advertise vacancies. 

While this flexibility is valuable and often provides for more efficient and effective 

recruiting, it also can provide opportunities to abuse the system. While most HR staff 

we surveyed (84 percent), believed their work unit holds fair and open competition for 

Federal jobs, there are some who believe managers might be a hindrance to this goal. As 

shown in Figure 6, in Agency A, 92 percent of HR staff surveyed said that managers had 

someone in mind at least some of the time prior to announcing a vacancy, which can be 

perceived as pre-selection. In comparison, in Agency B, 68 percent reported perceiving a 

pre-selection as frequently.

85 In 2012, Agency A hired over 7000 employees and Agency B hired almost 1500.

Chapter 4: Case Study—

Practices and Results
28 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 4: Case Study—Practices and Results

Figure 6. Responses to “Hiring manager has someone in mind,” among selected agencies.

As explained below, the agency with more perceptions of pre-selection also had more 

perceptions of restrictive hiring practices.

Comparing Applicant Pools

We asked HR staff how often their positions are open to “all sources,” the term used 

by HR to describe a CE recruitment. In Agency A, only 31 percent of HR staff said 

that their vacancies were announced via CE procedures most of the time or always. In 

contrast, in Agency B, 61 percent of HR staff said vacancies were announced to all sources 

most of the time or always. The overall average across Government was 48 percent. This 

means that more than two-thirds of the time, Agency A limits its applicant pool to people 

with some sort of “status.” We wanted to determine if Agency A might be limiting the 

area of consideration of its announcements for any mission-related reason. Therefore, we 

examined the survey results from HR staff from a third agency, which had a similar mission 

as Agency A. Forty percent of HR staff in the third agency reported that their organizations 

announced jobs via CE procedures most of the time or always. Thus, it appears that 

limiting the applicant pool that frequently by Agency A may not be for mission-related 

reasons.

As shown in Figure 7, in Agency A, the most common hiring authority used was VEOA, 

a highly restrictive authority for which most U.S. citizens do not qualify. In contrast, 

Agency B’s most common hiring authority was CE, the authority open to all qualified U.S. 

citizens. However, only a very small proportion of 2012 hires were veterans in Agency B. 

As noted, agencies should balance their hiring strategies to accomplish the competing goals 

of fair and open competition, granting preference to veterans, and achieving a workforce 

that resembles the society agencies serve.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Rarely/Never Some of the time Most of the

time/Always

All Agencies

Agency A

Agency B
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29

Chapter 4: Case Study—Practices and Results

Figure 7. Agency A and Agency B method of hiring in 2012.86

Comparing Open Periods

As shown in Figure 8, Agencies A and B also differed in how long they announced their 

positions. We asked HR staff how often their organizations announced positions for a 

period of fewer than two weeks. In Agency A, the most common response, by far, was 

that they used this short open period most of the time or always. In Agency B, the most 

common answer was that it was done rarely or never.

86 In 2011, Agency A hired 43 percent of its newly-appointed employees through VEOA. In 2012, this number dropped to 37 percent. 

It also hired almost 50 percent fewer employees in 2012 than in 2011. We can only assume that this was due to the current fiscal climate.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Other CE Direct

Hire

Student VEOA VRA

Agency A

Agency B
30 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 4: Case Study—Practices and Results

Figure 8. How often are vacancies open for fewer than two weeks?

Given that Agency A rarely opens announcements via CE, hires a significant amount of 

employees through veterans authorities, and usually opens vacancies for fewer than two 

weeks, an outside observer may wonder if fair and open competition is suffering within the 

overall agency hiring strategy. Agencies should look for such patterns to determine if the 

competing goals of Federal hiring are being properly balanced within their overall hiring 

strategies.

Comparing Workforce Compositions

In Table 1, we compare the demographics of the individuals hired by both of our sample 

agencies in fiscal year 2012. In the case of Agency A, higher perceptions of pre-selection, 

more frequent use of restrictive hiring authorities, and shorter recruitment windows 

coincided with a workforce that was less representative of society at large. In comparison, 

lower perceptions of pre-selection, more frequent use of broad hiring authorities, and 

longer recruitment windows coincided with a more representative workforce in Agency B.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Rarely/Never Some of the time Most of the

time/Always

All Agencies

Agency A

Agency B
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31

Chapter 4: Case Study—Practices and Results

Table 1. Demographics by percent of 2012 new hires.

Race and National Origin and Gender Agency A Agency B

Multi-Racial 1% 1%

American Indian 1% 0%

Asian 4% 11%

Black 11% 16%

Hispanic 5% 5%

White 78% 66%

Male 71% 64%

Female 29% 36%

In 2012, 71 percent of the hires in Agency A were male, compared to 64 percent for 

Agency B. If we review the overall population of each agency in 2012, Agency A was 28 

percent female while Agency B was 61 percent female. The overall government average is 

43 percent female.87

In terms of race and national origin, Agency A (78 percent white) was less diverse than 

Agency B (60 percent white), and for that matter the Federal government as a whole (66 

percent white). Obviously, since Agency A’s hiring was less diverse, its resultant population 

also will be less diverse.

It is important to recognize that Agency A and Agency B have different missions and 

employ individuals in different occupations. In recognition of these differences we looked 

at jobs in the administrative and professional categories common to all agencies. Table 2 

compares hiring by race in Agencies A and B for these occupations. As the table shows, 

the hiring in these two similar workforce segments produced different racial compositions.

87 OPM, Fedscope (http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/.)
32 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 4: Case Study—Practices and Results

Table 2. Administrative and Professional Hiring by Race in Agencies A and B (Percent of New Hires)

Race and 

National Origin

Administrative Positions Professional Positions

Agency A Agency B Agency A Agency B

Multi-Racial 1% 1% 1% 2%

American Indian 1% 0% 1% 0%

Asian 3% 12% 6% 17%

Black 12% 16% 8% 7%

Hispanic 4% 5% 4% 4%

White 80% 66% 80% 70%

Apparently, more restrictive hiring may provide a less diverse workforce. As we have said 

before, agencies need to ensure they adhere to the first merit principle which aspires to hire 

a diverse segment of applicants who are representative of society. Also, as we have stated 

throughout this report, we believe all agencies and OPM should evaluate hiring practices 

and their effects on fair and open competition and workforce demographics.88 Examining 

this data can help determine if there is a systemic problem with agency recruiting programs.

88 Mandated internal reviews under 5 C.F.R. Part 250, Subpart B. The Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework can 

serve this purpose.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33

The Impact of 

Recruitment Strategy on 

Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs

As subject matter experts for hiring and promoting Federal employees, HR specialists play 

a critical role in ensuring that the hiring process is fair and open. However, the changing 

role of HR staff within agencies as well as changes in how HR services are rendered to 

Federal managers complicate how this role is performed.

The Prohibited Personnel Practices

The PPPs are a list of prohibited activities, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b). 89 Their primary 

purpose is to ensure that personnel actions are not taken for improper reasons.90

As advisors to managers and being those who process personnel actions, HR staff are 

responsible for educating their customers on the PPPs and alerting them when their 

conduct approaches or crosses the line between an action permitted within managerial 

discretion and a PPP.

For instance, it is a PPP to deliberately seek to improve the chances of any specific individual 

to be selected for an employment opportunity unless that advantage is expressly authorized 

by a law, rule, or regulation. Such conduct would also be contrary to the merit systems 

principle of fair and open competition. The PPPs apply to any Federal employee who has 

authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action—

which means the PPPs apply to HR staff, as well as leaders, managers, and supervisors.

The responsibility of HR specialists to prevent PPPs is illustrated by the case of Special 

Counsel v. Lee91. In Lee, the Office of Special Counsel charged that two U.S. Coast Guard 

HR specialists, Mr. Lee and Ms. Beatrez, had violated 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6) by helping a 

manager to manipulate the hiring process in order to advance the candidacy of a particular 

person for a promotion opportunity. Following a hearing, the Board found that Mr. Lee 

had knowingly instructed Ms. Beatrez to cancel a referral list and re-announce a vacancy 

for the purpose of obtaining a referral list that included the name of a certain individual 

89 An employee may be suspended, reduced in grade, removed, debarred from Federal service, and/or fined for the commission of a 

PPP. Employing agencies cannot grant permission to commit a PPP and cannot protect employees from the penalties imposed for their 

having committed a PPP. For more on the PPPs and how they are enforced, please see, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Prohibited 

Personnel Practices: Employee Perceptions (2011), available at www.mspb.gov/studies.

90 Humberson v. U.S. Attorney’s Office for District of Columbia, 236 F.Supp.2d 28, 32 (D. D.C. 2003), aff’d, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 14481 

(D.C. Cir. 2003) (holding that the purpose of the PPPs is to “forbid employers from imposing” personnel actions “out of particular illicit 

motivations”).

91 Special Counsel vs. Lee, 114 M.S.P.R. 57 (2010).

Chapter 5: External 

Pressures on Hiring Systems
34 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 5: External Pressures on Hiring Systems

who had not been referred previously. Mr. Lee was held responsible for committing a PPP 

under section 2302(b)(6) because he knowingly helped the manager to achieve her improper 

goal. Ms. Beatrez was not disciplined because the administrative judge determined that 

Ms. Beatrez did not know that the reason for the cancellation and re-announcement was 

to aid a particular candidate.92

Because of the importance of HR specialists in ensuring that recruitment is fair and open, 

and the prohibition on designing or redesigning recruitment actions around a particular 

individual, we asked our HR survey respondents how often they had been asked to readvertise a vacancy because the selecting official wanted to hire someone who was not 

on the referral list. Only 60 percent of our respondents said that this was rare or never 

happened, while 40 percent reported that this happened always, most of the time, or some 

of the time. When there is a law that specifically prohibits this activity, and case law that 

says HR specialists can be held accountable for “aiding and abetting” managers trying to 

manipulate the system in this way, it is concerning that over a third of HR respondents 

believe positions were re-advertised for this reason at least some of the time.

Generally, an employee must obey an order—even if there is reason to believe it is 

improper—and grieve it later unless obedience would place the employee in a clearly 

dangerous situation or compliance would cause the employee irreparable harm.93 However, 

in Special Counsel v. Lee, the Board distinguished situations involving supervisory orders 

from those involving a customer with no direct supervisory authority over the HR specialist 

requesting a particular HR action.94 When a customer requests assistance with an HR 

action that appears to constitute a PPP, the HR specialist is prohibited from intentionally 

assisting that customer to achieve the improper goal.95 Instead, the specialist is expected to 

exercise his or her “independent judgment and challenge local management’s fairly obvious 

efforts to grant a preference” not authorized by law.96

We asked our HR staff survey respondents whether their supervisors would support them 

if they refused to help a customer commit a PPP. Only 74 percent agreed that their 

supervisor would support them in their refusal. HR employees ought to be able to expect 

that their supervisors will support them in meeting this obligation. It is a serious problem 

that a quarter of respondents perceive that this support may not be there for them.

92 Compare Special Counsel v. Lee, 114 M.S.P.R. 57, ¶¶ 23, 26, 34 (2010) (holding Mr. Lee accountable) with Beatrez v. Merit Systems 

Protection Board, 413 F. App’x 298, 304-06 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding that because the administrative judge concluded Ms. Beatrez’s 

cooperation was unknowing, she could not be found liable for having committed the PPP).

93 See, e.g., Bowen v. Department of the Navy, 112 M.S.P.R. 607, ¶ 15 (2009); Pedeleose v. Department of Defense, 110 M.S.P.R. 508, ¶¶ 

16-18, aff’d, 343 F. App’x 605 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Cooke v. U.S. Postal Service, 67 M.S.P.R. 401, 407-08, aff’d, 73 F.3d 380 (Fed. Cir. 

1995) (Table).

94 Lee, 114 M.S.P.R. at ¶¶ 32-35.

95 Lee, 114 M.S.P.R. at ¶ 34.

96 Id.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

Chapter 5: External Pressures on Hiring Systems

Part of the problem may be that HR employees have been encouraged to provide better 

“customer service” to the managers they serve, perhaps at the expense of upholding the 

values of the MSPs. Permitting or aiding a situation in which agency officials commit 

PPPs with impunity is not in an agency’s best interest and should be considered bad 

customer service by the agency. We asked our HR staff survey participants whether their 

supervisors would consider it to be “bad customer service” on the respondent’s part if 

the respondent reported that one of his or her customers had committed a PPP. One in 

five respondents said their supervisors would consider such a report to be an act of bad 

customer service. This is troubling, as HR supervisors and managers should support their 

employees in refusing to commit a PPP.

The Evolving Role of Human Resources in the Federal Government

In the 1990s, during the Clinton Administration, the National Performance Review (NPR), 

commonly referred to as “Reinventing Government,” was introduced to “improve the 

quality of management throughout the Federal government.”97 As part of the NPR, major 

changes happened in the HR field that had an effect on hiring in the Federal government:

•	 OPM delegated “almost all” CE authority to agencies.98

•	 The NPR led to dramatic cuts in HR staff, which declined by 18 percent in a 

four-year period.99

•	 The NPR eliminated the Federal Personnel Manual (FPM), a guide HR staff used 

to implement Title 5 and the Code of Federal Regulations.100

•	 Managers were delegated more authority in HR functions.

Reinventing Government resulted in OPM abandoning “its traditional role of gatekeeper 

of the civil service system.”101 As hiring authority was delegated to agencies OPM stopped 

maintaining a central register and conducting central exams.102 With this delegation and 

loss of economies of scale, agencies had to develop their own assessment tools which might 

have led to less rigorous methods of assessment.

When the size of the HR workforce was reduced in the 1990s, the hope was that technology 

could offer efficiencies that would make up for the loss of employees. However, technology 

97 Ban, Carolyn, “Hiring in the Federal Government: Political and Technological Sources of Reform”, p. 148.

98 Id.

99 Id.

100 Id.

101 Id.

102 Id.
36 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 5: External Pressures on Hiring Systems

cannot replace ethics or close relationships in which an HR official will feel able to inform 

a manager that he or she is crossing the line and harming fair and open competition.

Additionally, with the elimination of the FPM, it was more difficult for HR staff to point 

directly to a reference explaining why a manager could or could not do something in the 

hiring process. The FPM provided thousands of pages of intricate guidance on what could 

be done legally and not be done. Without the FPM, the focus of HR became more one 

of customer service as opposed to a “policing” role. HR was to give managers the best 

customer service, more quickly and more efficiently, as long as it was not illegal.

The strategy of improved customer service also had to compete with the goal of cost savings. 

In the 1990s, many agencies moved towards greater centralization of HR functions. Prior 

to NPR, it was common for managers to have someone on site to talk with about their 

hiring needs. With centralization, many HR functions moved off-site into a central 

location, often in a different metropolitan area than where the managers worked. In recent 

years, there has been an emphasis on further centralization through the use of shared 

service centers, in which HR providers serve multiple agencies with the expectation that 

an economy of scale will result in enhanced expertise and revenue savings.103 However, 

the enhanced expertise may not have arrived for many HR staffers. Of those respondents 

who reported performing staffing duties (carrying out operations to fill vacant positions 

such as writing or reviewing vacancy announcements and determining the qualifications 

of candidates), 41 percent indicated they spent one-quarter or less of their time on staffing, 

while less than one-third spent more than half of their time performing staffing duties.

In addition to requiring HR employees to be knowledgeable and perform services in 

multiple HR disciplines, servicing customers from outside the agency and/or at a distance 

has become a common practice. More than half of the survey respondents reported that 

their HR office services more than one department or agency. For those who spend at 

least one-quarter of their time on staffing functions, 58 percent reported serving customers 

outside their metropolitan area and 52 percent reported serving more than one cabinet 

department or agency.

Managing relationships with those outside the agency or at a distance can be challenging. 

While communication can occur at a distance, it requires more commitment to fostering 

meaningful contact. Such communication can be especially delicate when a manager 

purportedly seeks something that may be appropriate, but appears to possibly be driven by 

an improper motive. Yet, candid communication with hiring managers is a critical aspect 

of the job of HR advisors and processors.

103 OPM, HR IT Transformation leads the HR Lines of Business initiative. http://www.opm.gov/services-for-agencies/hr-line-ofbusiness.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37

Chapter 5: External Pressures on Hiring Systems

We asked those respondents who served customers in other agencies and other locations 

whether they agreed that they had worked on actions where they thought the recruitment 

action was manipulated to provide an advantage to a candidate through:

•	 the period the vacancy was open;

•	 the area of consideration;

•	 the qualifications required of candidates;

•	 the duties of the position;

•	 the grade-level of the position;

•	 the use of selective factors;

•	 influencing other applicants to withdraw; or

•	 circumvention of veterans’ preference.

While agreement ranged from three to seven percent across these eight items, for every item, 

the perception that recruitment actions were manipulated were higher in the population 

who served more than one agency or department. Similarly, agreement was higher for each 

item among respondents who served customers outside the metropolitan area compared 

to those who did not.

The size of the difference in views varied by question, but the consistency of this pattern 

is a source of concern. We cannot state definitively that organizational or geographical 

distance between HR offices and their customers reduces the fairness or openness of 

recruitment actions. But, the pattern of such perceptions should be a concern for agencies 

using these business models and is worth further investigation by those agencies to identify 

and address the causes for such perceptions.

Supervisors’/Managers’ Intentions and Training

Seventy-six percent of our survey respondents reported that supervisors and managers in 

their agencies have a good understanding of the PPPs. Only 50 percent believe supervisors 

and managers are trained on the PPPs to a great extent. Sixteen percent said managers 

have little or no training on the PPPs. When asked about training on the MSPs, HR 

staff conveyed greater doubt—46 percent believe managers are trained to a great extent; 

whereas 18 percent had little or no training. Knowing and understanding the MSPs and 

PPPs is key to being a good supervisor and manager. Agencies need to ensure that all 

supervisors and managers receive training on both.
38 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 5: External Pressures on Hiring Systems

As discussed throughout this report, recruitment decisions made by hiring officials can 

either impede or enhance fair and open competition. Thirty percent of the HR staff we 

surveyed believed supervisors showed favoritism in hiring decisions. Also, the biggest 

threat to fair and open competition, according to our survey, is managers who base their 

hiring on favoritism.104

As we have stated several times, the first merit principle states that “recruitment should be 

from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force 

from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely 

on the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and open competition which 

assures that all receive equal opportunity”.105 Hiring officials and HR staff make decisions 

during the recruitment process which can either comply with or violate this principle. 

Everyone involved in the process needs to adhere to the spirit of the first merit principle by 

making appropriate decisions.

104 For more information on favoritism, please see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit 

Systems: Understanding and Addressing Perceptions of Favoritism, December 2013.

105 5 U.S.C. §2301-Merit system principles.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 39

The Impact of 

Recruitment Strategy on 

Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs

Findings

Although what is “fair” or “open” often depends on one’s perception, there are some factors 

that threaten the principle of fair and open competition. These include:

•	 Proliferation of hiring authorities that restrict the size and composition of the 

applicant pool;

•	 Overuse of restrictive hiring authorities and practices that, among other 

problems, may lead to a workforce that is not representative of society;

•	 The possibility that some managers may deliberately or undeliberately misuse 

hiring flexibilities to select particular candidates, thereby impeding fair and open 

competition;

•	 Some HR managers and staff choosing to place customer service to individual 

supervisors over service to the agency and its obligations to protect merit and 

avoid PPPs; and

•	 A lack of training for supervisors and managers on the MSPs and PPPs.

Recommendations

We recommend that agencies, HR, OPM, and Congress take action to better protect 

fairness and openness in the Government’s recruitment activities.

Recommendations for agencies:

1. Create a culture that values fair and open competition. Managers should be 

encouraged to avoid restricting the applicant pool unless there is a strong business case for the restriction, such as a need for specialized skill sets unlikely to be 

found in the private sector. Restrictions for entry-level positions in particular 

should be closely scrutinized for a business case, as such positions are the pipeline 

for later merit promotion hiring, which pulls from the agency’s own workforce 

based on a need for particular experience.

2. Examine the results of agency hiring practices in the aggregate to identify and 

eliminate (or reduce to the greatest extent feasible) barriers to fair and open 

competition. Agencies also should monitor their use of restrictive hiring practices 

Chapter 6: Findings and 

Recommendations
40 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Chapter 6: Findings and Recommendations

even if their workforce is already representative of the gender, race, disability 

status, and other aspects of society. This is needed to ensure that hiring practices 

on the whole are fair and open. Separate from the issue of discrimination against 

protected classes, there is a need to bring in new ideas and maintain the faith of 

the American people that the civil service is equally open to everyone.

3. Prevent the commission of prohibited personnel practices. Agency leadership has 

a statutory obligation to prevent the commission of PPPs. Human Resources can 

be a vital partner in this process, but only if agencies make that a part of human 

resources’ portfolio. Human resources’ staff are in a unique position to see PPPs 

and prevent them by warning managers who may begin to go astray, and reporting those who refuse to comply. But, this only works if human resources is 

empowered to perform this function and is protected from retaliation for doing 

their jobs. We recommend that agencies clearly define human resources’ role in 

the prevention of PPPs and create a culture that protects human resources when 

performing that role.

4. Ensure that all managers, supervisors, and human resources’ staff are well-trained 

and well-versed in the MSPs and PPPs. This training should cover what each 

MSP and PPP is and why each one is vital to a merit-based workforce.

Recommendations for Human Resources:

1. Advise managers and supervisors on recruitment matters including the ramifications of repeated use of restrictive hiring practices as well as their joint obligation 

to avoid the commission of prohibited personnel pratices.

2. Ensure that human resources supervisors and managers support their employees 

in refusing to commit prohibited personnel practices.

Recommendations for The Office of Personnel Management:

Closely monitor how agencies use restrictive hiring authorities. We suggest, as part of 

OPM’s oversight function, that it examine available data to ensure that agencies are not 

over-using certain hiring authorities. If the data indicate a potential problem, OPM should 

investigate further (including, if necessary, surveying agency human resources employees) 

to help identify what may be causing the over-use of those authorities.

Recommendations for Congress:

Reexamine the role of competitive examining in Federal hiring, and consider changes to 

make the process simpler, more transparent, and more widely used.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41

The Impact of 

Recruitment Strategy on 

Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs

This report contains a brief discussion of assessment tools to promote fairness in 

competitions. The Merit Systems Protection Board has long advocated for a multiple 

hurdle approach to applicant assessment, in order to facilitate good selection by using a 

set of “valid assessment procedures successively to manage the candidate pool and narrow 

the field of qualified candidates.”106 We provide below a more detailed description of the 

findings we have previously reported in this area.

There are four key steps in the multiple hurdle approach:

•	 Evaluate minimum qualifications

•	 Evaluate relative qualifications

•	 Select the best-qualified candidates

•	 Final assessment

All assessments used in this approach should be developed and administered carefully. 

They should not replicate one another but should be used to complement one another. 

Each assessment will look for slightly different characteristics needed for the job.107 Below 

are some examples for each “hurdle.”

Evaluate minimum qualifications

Most commonly, resumes are evaluated to determine minimum qualifications. Automated 

systems are being heavily relied on to perform this first hurdle. In fact, 90 percent of our 

HR survey respondents use an automated job application process. With the elimination 

of KSAs, automation is being relied on even more. There still remains a need for human 

intervention in this step as HR staff need to check that the resumes are being sorted 

appropriately. As no computer system is perfect, HR still needs to verify that applicants 

are or are not being appropriately referred. This is a key step, because usually applicants are 

referred via certificates after this step. The HR staff we surveyed believe that automated 

systems have improved the recruitment process (74 percent); made the recruitment process 

more fair and open (53 percent); and improved applicant screening (58 percent). Yet only 

43 percent believe it has made the selection process more fair and open.

106 U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Beyond Faster and Cheaper, (2006), p. 27.

107 Id., p. 28.

Appendix A: Multiple 

Hurdle Approach
42 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Appendix A: Multiple Hurdle Approach

OPM, in response to our study questions, voiced some concern about an 

over-reliance on automated systems to screen applicants. Some agencies 

are relying on occupational questionnaires to determine minimum 

qualifications. However, with the amount of applications that come in and 

the pressure of timeliness, it is no wonder HR is relying on such systems. 

Agencies should determine whether their HR staff have the resources 

they need in order to review occupational questionnaires against resumes 

submitted.

Evaluate relative qualifications

The next hurdles are typically handled via interviews and/or job tests/

simulations. Two-thirds of our survey respondents said structured 

interviews were used to assess applicants. A structured interview uses 

mechanisms such as questions based on job analysis and pre-defined rating 

scales, which create a strong relationship between the interview and job 

performance.108 However, some organizations are still using unstructured 

interviews at least some of the time.109 As shown in Table 3, structured 

interviews can be excellent assessment tools and relatively good predictors 

of performance.110

Table 3. Characteristics of Unstructured and Structured Interviews1

Unstructured Structured

The factors are evaluated by 

the interviewer and vary across 

candidates.

The factors evaluated are explicit, 

based on job analysis, and are the 

same for each candidate.

Questions are not necessarily jobrelated.Questions are job-related.

Questions vary from interview to 

interview for the same job.

The same questions are asked of all 

candidates for the same job.

There is no system or guide for 

evaluating interview results.

There is a pre-developed system for 

evaluating interview results.

Interviewers may be untrained. Interviewers have received the same 

training.

108 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Selection Interview: Unrealized Potential, 2003, p. 5.

109 Forty-three percent of HR staff surveyed said their organizations use unstructured interviews at least some of the 

time.

110 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Beyond Faster and Cheaper, 2006, p. 22.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43

Appendix A: Multiple Hurdle Approach

Structured interviews, when implemented correctly, treat candidates fairly 

with little to no adverse impact. They can guard against judgment errors. 

We continue to recommend that organizations utilize structured interviews 

to obtain/maintain a fair and open hiring process.

Select the best qualified candidate

Less than half of our survey respondents (46 percent) said reference checks 

were used to a great extent as an assessment with 24 percent reporting they 

used them little if at all. As we have stated in previous reports, reference 

checking is a key part of the assessment process and can improve the quality 

of new hires. It is important for hiring managers to verify what is in the 

applicant’s resume. While it is not cost-effective to conduct reference 

checks on all candidates, hiring managers should conduct them on the top 

candidates to assist with better hiring decisions and to demonstrate fairness 

and equal treatment of all applicants.111

Final assessment

The final hurdle occurs after the employee is hired—the probationary 

period. However, our research has shown that Federal managers do not 

typically use the probationary period as an additional assessment. Less than 

two percent of competitive service employees are removed in their first year 

of service.112 If this is to be an effective assessment tool, supervisors need to 

be willing to separate employees during their probationary periods if they 

are not successfully performing the duties of their jobs.

111 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Reference Checking in the Federal Government: Making the Call, 2005.

112 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Probationary Period: A Critical Assessment Opportunity, 2005, p. ii.
44 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45

The Impact of 

Recruitment Strategy on 

Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs

As noted in our report, Veterans’ Hiring in the Civil Service: Practices and Perceptions, “it 

is useful to remember that the federal government is not the ‘single employer’ it is widely 

reputed to be.”113 One example of this is the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) 

within the Department of Veterans Affairs. VHA hires many of its medical staff under 

Title 38, while the majority of the civil service is hired under Title 5.114

Following World War II, there was a perception that the Civil Service Commission, 

operating under the rules set forth in Title 5, could not adequately recruit the doctors, 

nurses, and dentists needed to care for the Nation’s recovering veterans. Congress 

authorized an exception to the rules for such positions, codified in Title 38. Over the 

years, the categories of positions covered have been repeatedly expanded. As recently as 

1991 there were 12 occupations covered by Title 38.115 Today there are approximately 40 

occupations listed in the statute, in addition to the “catch all” category of “other classes of 

health care occupations [that] the Secretary considers necessary for the recruitment and 

retention needs of the Department[.]”116

The civil service requirements in Title 5 “do not govern the process for appointing physicians 

and other health-care professionals” under Title 38.117 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit has specifically addressed the question of veterans preference in VHA’s 

hiring of medical staff and held that VHA is not required to apply traditional veterans’ 

113 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Veterans’ Hiring in the Civil Service: Practices and Perceptions 2014, at 21, available at www.

mpsb.gov/studies (quoting the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (then called the General Accounting Office), The Excepted 

Service: A Research Profile, GGD-97-72 (May 1, 1997), at 1).

114 There are other agencies that hire large portions of their workforce under a different Title. For example, the Department of State 

hires its Foreign Service employees under Title 22.

115 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Title 38 Personnel System in the Department of Veterans Affairs: An Alternate Approach, 1991, at 

1, 5, available at www.mpsb.gov/studies.

116 Positions within VHA covered by Title 38 – and therefore not by Title 5 – include: (1) “physicians, dentists, podiatrists, 

chiropractors, optometrists, registered nurses, physician assistants, and expanded-function dental auxiliaries; (2) scientific and 

professional personnel, such as microbiologists, chemists, and biostatisticians; and (3) audiologists, speech pathologists, and audiologistspeech pathologists, biomedical engineers, certified or registered respiratory therapists, dietitians, licensed physical therapists, licensed 

practical or vocational nurses, nurse assistants, medical instrument technicians, medical records administrators or specialists, medical 

records technicians, medical technologists, dental hygienists, dental assistants, nuclear medicine technologists, occupational therapists, 

occupational therapy assistants, kinesiotherapists, orthotist-prosthetists, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, physical therapy assistants, 

prosthetic representatives, psychologists, diagnostic radiologic technologists, therapeutic radiologic technologists, social workers, 

marriage and family therapists, licensed professional mental health counselors, blind rehabilitation specialists, blind rehabilitation 

outpatient specialists, and such other classes of health care occupations as the Secretary considers necessary for the recruitment and 

retention needs of the Department[.]” 38 U.S.C. § 7401 (1)-(3).

117 Scarnati v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 344 F.3d 1246, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted).

Appendix B: Title 38
46 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Appendix B: Title 38

preference when it uses Title 38.118 The court has also made it clear that, 

“competitive examination is the touchstone of the competitive service” 

and that because medical staff appointed to VHA under Title 38 “are 

appointed without a competitive examination [, they] are excluded from 

the competitive service.”119

For these reasons, the data and discussion in the body of this report have 

excluded hires made under Title 38. However, these positions account for 

nearly 95,000 employees hired in the period of FY 2002 – FY 2012 and 

OPM has informed us that they include these positions when reporting 

on the Government’s progress towards its diversity goals. Accordingly, we 

have added this appendix briefly discussing Title 38 hiring to help readers 

understand the effect of Title 38 hiring on the composition of the overall 

Federal workforce.

The nature of the positions covered by Title 38 affects the composition of 

that workforce. For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

which includes both public and private employers in its data, the following 

occupational groups (covered by Title 38) are predominantly filled by 

women:

•	 Medical transcriptionists (98 percent)

•	 Medical assistants (94 percent)

•	 Licensed practical and licensed vocational nurses (92 percent)

•	 Medical records and health information technicians (92 percent)

•	 Registered nurses (90 percent)

•	 Occupational therapy assistants and aides (89 percent)

•	 Phlebotomists (82 percent)

•	 Health practitioner support technologists and technicians (81 

percent)120

118 Id. at 1249. VHA uses veterans’ preference as a tie breaker, but unlike Title 5 hiring, a veteran who is less 

qualified than a nonveteran is not able to “block” the selection of a nonveteran. For more on how blocking works in 

Title 5, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Veterans’ Hiring in the Civil Service: Practices and Perceptions, 2014.

119 Khan v. United States, 201 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted).

120 Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (2013)” available at http://

www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 47

Appendix B: Title 38

One medical occupational category in which men still dramatically 

outnumber women is “physicians and surgeons,” where only 36 percent of 

the workforce is comprised of women.121

Occupation also can play a role in the race of the labor pool from which 

the Government makes its selections. For example, 36 percent of all 

occupational therapy assistants and aides are African-American, as are 25 

percent of all licensed practical and vocational nurses and 22 percent of all 

medical records and health information technicians. Asians make up 22 

percent of the “physicians and surgeons” category as well as 22 percent of 

pharmacists.122

Government-wide data contains far more occupations than are represented 

when looking strictly at medical positions. As a result, the Title 38 data 

is more heavily influenced by differences in the occupations that various 

demographic groups pursue.

The Title 38 workforce is also quite educated, which makes sense given 

the positions involved. Research has shown that women are more likely 

than men to attend college and more likely to graduate with higher grades 

and academic honors.123 Additionally, according to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, young white adults are more than twice as likely to have a 

bachelor’s degree as their African-American or Hispanic counterparts.124

Because of the feeder pool from which qualified candidates may be 

drawn for Title 38 positions, and Title 38’s exceptions from the rules 

of competitive examining (including veterans’ preference), the Title 38 

employee population has a somewhat different demographic composition 

than the rest of Government.

121 Id.

122 Id.

123 Mark Hugo Lopez and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, “Women’s College Enrollment Gains Leave Men Behind,” Pew 

Research Center, Mar. 6, 2014, available at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/womens-collegeenrollment-gains-leave-men-behind/; Tamar Lewin, “At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust,” New York 

Times, Jul. 9, 2006, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?pagewanted=all&_

r=0.

124 Bureau of Labor Statistics, “America’s Young Adults at 27: Labor Market Activity, Education, and Household 

Composition: Results From a Longitudinal Survey Summary,” Mar. 26, 2014, available at http://www.bls.gov/news.

release/nlsyth.nr0.htm.
48 The Impact of Recruitment Strategy On Fair and Open Competition For Federal Jobs

Appendix B: Title 38

Table 4 compares the gender and race for Title 38 employees and for those 

employees we discussed in the body of this report (FY 2002 – FY 2012). 

Table 4. Gender and Race of New Hires: Title 38 vs. Title 5

Gender Title 38 New Hires Title 5 New Hires

Male 31% 62%

Female 69% 38%

Race and National Origin Title 38 New Hires Title 5 New Hires

American Indian or Alaskan 

Native

0.8% 0.6%

Asian or Pacific Islander 8.5% 5.2%

Black 16.3% 16.5%

Hispanic 5.0% 8.1%

White 67.7% 67.0%

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20419

Official Business

Penalty For Private Use $300

THE IMPACT OF RECRUITMENT STRATEGY ON FAIR 

AND OPEN COMPETITION FOR FEDERAL JOBS

PRSRT STD

U.S. POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

WASHINGTON DC

PERMIT NO. G-113

The Impact of 

Recruitment Strategy on 

Fair and Open Competition 

for Federal Jobs