Federal Hiring: OPM Needs to Improve Management and Oversight of Hiring Authorities
Published: 2016-08-02T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Federal agencies face human capital challenges as a large percentage of employees become eligible to retire and agencies compete with the private sector for critical skills. To acquire needed talent, agencies need a hiring process that is applicant friendly, flexible, and meets policy requirements, such as hiring on the basis of merit.
GAO was asked to review the extent to which federal hiring authorities were meeting agency needs. This report examines (1) the hiring authorities agencies used in fiscal year 2014 (the most recent data at the time of the review), (2) the extent to which case study agencies and OPM assessed the effectiveness of hiring authorities, and (3) how OPM ensured that agencies understood how to use hiring authorities effectively.
To meet these objectives, GAO analyzed OPM data and documents, and interviewed OPM and officials from three agencies selected on the basis of recent high hiring levels in critical skill occupations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: A hiring authority is the law, executive order, or regulation that allows an agency to hire a person into the federal civil service. Of the 105 hiring authorities used in fiscal year 2014, agencies relied on 20 for 91 percent of the 196,226 new appointments made that year. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) officials said they do not know if agencies rely on a small number of authorities because agencies are unfamiliar with other authorities, or if they have found other authorities to be less effective. The competitive examining hiring authority, generally seen as the traditional method for federal hiring, was the single most used authority in fiscal year 2014, but accounted for less than 25 percent of all new appointments.
Agencies Relied on 20 Hiring Authorities for Nearly All New Hires in Fiscal Year 2014
While OPM—the agency responsible for overseeing the delegated hiring authority and managing federal civilian personnel data—tracks data on agency time-to-hire, manager and applicant survey results, and compliance audits to assess the hiring process, this information is not used by OPM or agencies to analyze the effectiveness of hiring authorities. As a result, OPM and agencies do not know if authorities are meeting their intended purposes. By analyzing hiring authorities, OPM and agencies could identify improvements that could be used to refine authorities, expand access to specific authorities found to be highly efficient and effective, and eliminate those found to be less effective.
OPM's Hiring Excellence Campaign consists of a number of multi-agency, in-person events and is OPM's latest initiative designed to address long-standing challenges with federal hiring. OPM officials described the objectives, strategies, and measures by which the campaign will be measured and sustained. Going forward it will be important for OPM to sustain the campaign's efforts and incorporate lessons learned, if any, from similar prior or existing efforts to improve federal hiring.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Director of OPM, working with agencies, strengthen hiring efforts by (1) analyzing the extent to which federal hiring authorities are meeting agencies' needs; (2) using this information to explore opportunities to refine, eliminate, or expand authorities as needed, and (3) sustain the Hiring Excellence Campaign's efforts to improve agency hiring and leverage prior initiatives, as appropriate. OPM generally concurred with these recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Federal agencies face a number of long-standing human capital  management challenges. For example, a large percentage of employees  will become eligible to retire in the near future which could produce gaps  in an agency’s institutional knowledge and leadership if not effectively  managed. Addressing those gaps could be difficult as agencies also face  stiff competition for critical skills from the private sector. To ensure  agencies have the talent they need to meet their vital missions, federal  agencies must have a hiring process that is simultaneously applicant  friendly, sufficiently flexible to enable agencies to meet their needs, and  consistent with statutory requirements, such as hiring on the basis of  merit.
An important component of the hiring process is the hiring authority used  to bring applicants onboard. A hiring authority is the law, executive order,  or regulation that allows an agency to hire a person into the federal civil  service. Amongst other roles, hiring authorities determine the rules (or a  subset of rules within a broader set) that agencies must follow throughout  the hiring process. These rules may include whether a vacancy must be  announced, who is eligible to apply, how the applicant will be assessed,  whether veterans’ preference applies, and how long the employee may  stay in federal service.
In our 2002 report on human capital flexibilities, we noted that for many  years prior, federal managers had complained that federal hiring  procedures—particularly those associated with the most commonly used  hiring authority, “competitive examining”—were rigid and complex. These  managers often expressed the need for more flexibility within a system  that has traditionally been based on a “one-size-fits-all approach” with  uniform rules across government set forth in Title 5 of the United States  Code (Title 5). More agencies have sought approval to use additional  hiring authorities from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and  from the Congress that allow for greater flexibility from the competitive  examination process under Title 5.
Our 2002 report also found that it is important for agencies to assess  which human capital flexibilities—including hiring authorities—are the  most appropriate and effective for managing their workforces and  addressing their human capital challenges. However, we have found that  agency officials may not be aware of which hiring authorities are available  or when best to use them. For example, in 2011 we reported that  agencies could not provide data on whether the different hiring authorities  they used allowed them to hire more or better qualified cybersecurity  professionals, or whether the hiring authority chosen allowed them to  bring the applicants on board more quickly.
If agency officials are not taking a strategic approach in determining  which hiring authorities are most effective at meeting merit, policy, and  mission goals, they risk significantly hindering their ability to recruit, hire,  retain, and manage their human capital. You asked us to examine the  extent to which hiring flexibilities were meeting agency needs. This report  examines (1) the hiring authorities agencies used in fiscal year 2014 (the  most recent year for available data when we began our review), (2) the  extent to which selected agencies and OPM assessed the effectiveness  of hiring authorities used for selected occupations in helping meet hiring  needs, and (3) how OPM ensured that agencies have the assistance and  information needed to use the hiring authorities effectively.
To address our first objective, we analyzed data from OPM’s Enterprise  Human Resources Integration (EHRI) personnel database for fiscal year  2014, which was the most recent year that data were available. We used  EHRI’s “current appointment authority” code to identify the hiring  authorities agencies used for a particular hiring action. To calculate the  new appointments made with each hiring authority, we aggregated the  hiring actions using EHRI’s “nature of action” codes for new appointments  in the competitive or excepted services, including full- and part-time, and  permanent and non-permanent staff. Additionally, we used OPM  documentation to match the current appointment authority codes with a  name and citation to applicable laws, regulations, and executive orders.  We also examined laws, regulations, and additional OPM materials to  obtain a description of the most frequently used hiring authorities  government-wide in fiscal year 2014.
To address our second objective, we focused on three critical skill  occupational areas at three agencies as illustrative case examples:  Information Technology Specialists; Contract Specialists; and Science,  Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) occupations. We  selected these areas because our prior work on mission critical  occupations, identified these as skills gaps. Using OPM’s EHRI database,  we selected three agencies—the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC),  Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)  because they hired the selected occupations in fiscal year 2014 and used  a variety of hiring authorities to fill those vacancies.
At each agency we interviewed case study agency officials to learn about  which hiring authorities agencies used for our selected occupations,  reasons for using these authorities, and the extent to which agencies  were measuring their effectiveness. Additionally, we identified and  reviewed OPM and selected agency policies for, and documentation of,  hiring authority oversight. To obtain a broader, government-wide  perspective on the hiring process, we reviewed such information as  OPM’s time-to-hire data and the Chief Human Capital Officers’ (CHCO)  applicant and management satisfaction surveys. We also interviewed  knowledgeable officials at OPM and the Merit Systems Protection Board  about the effectiveness of federal hiring authorities.
To address our third objective, we reviewed online tools and guidance  from the OPM website as well as OPM documents, training resources,  handbooks, and fact sheets. We interviewed knowledgeable officials from  OPM about the resources they provide to agencies, as well as officials  from our selected case agencies about their experiences and satisfaction  with OPM’s resources. Further, we reviewed documents and reports on  prior federal hiring reform efforts that included changes to hiring  authorities. We interviewed OPM and Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) officials about the impact of these previous reform efforts and  current efforts, such as the fiscal year 2015 Cross Agency Priority Goal  on People and Culture. See appendix I for a more detailed discussion of  our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2015 through August  2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Selecting applicants based on their qualifications instead of patronage  has been the foundation of the federal hiring system for more than 130  years. Congress passed the Pendleton Act in 1883, establishing that  federal employment should be based on merit. The nine merit system  principles were later codified as part of the Civil Service Reform Act of  1978. The first merit principle requires that agencies recruit qualified  individuals from appropriate sources to achieve a work-force from all  segments of society. It also requires that selection and advancement  should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge,  and skills after fair and open competition. This assures that all receive  equal opportunity.
In this report, “Title 5” refers to the government-wide personnel  management laws and related provisions generally applicable to federal  employment.
subsections: section_title: Competitive Examining Has Been the Traditional Method of Hiring
paragraphs: Title 5 outlines the rules agencies must follow to hire employees, such as  the competitive examining hiring authority. Competitive examining has  been the traditional method for making appointments to competitive  service positions. The competitive examining process requires agencies  to notify the public that the government will accept applications for a job,  screen applications against minimum qualification standards, apply  selection priorities such as veterans’ preference, and assess applicants’  relative competencies or knowledge, skills, and abilities against job- related criteria to identify the most qualified applicants. Federal agencies  typically assess applicants by rating and ranking them based on their  experience, training, and education.
section_title: Congress and the President have Created Alternatives to Competitive Examining
paragraphs: Congress and the President have created a number of additional hiring  authorities—beyond competitive examining—to expedite the hiring  process or to achieve certain public policy goals. In some cases,  Congress created hiring authorities outside of Title 5 granting access  directly to specific agencies. For example, provisions under Title 42 of the  United States Code provide authority for the Department of Health and  Human Services to hire individuals to fill mission critical positions in  science and medicine. In other cases, Congress and the President  created authorities under Title 5 which permitted hiring actions to be  taken by means other than competitive examining. Through authority  delegated by the President, OPM has authorized excepted service  appointment authorities for when it is not feasible or practical to use  competitive examining. Examples of some exceptions to the competitive  hiring process include the following:
Filling critical skills gaps. Congress created “direct hire authority” to  help agencies fill vacancies in the competitive service under certain  circumstances. Congress authorized OPM to permit agencies to use  direct hire authority for a position or group of positions where OPM  has determined that there is either a severe shortage of candidates or  a critical hiring need for such positions. This direct hire authority  expedites the typical hiring process associated with the competitive  examining hiring authority in Title 5 by eliminating competitive rating  and ranking procedures and veterans’ preference. Congress has  also provided direct-hire authority directly to agencies for specified  purposes.
Employment of veterans. Congress created a hiring authority called  the Veterans’ Recruitment Appointment authority that allows for  certain exceptions from the competitive examining process.  Specifically, agencies may appoint eligible veterans without  competition under limited circumstances or otherwise through  excepted service hiring procedures.
Employment of students and recent graduates. To ensure that the  federal government continued to compete effectively for students and  recent graduates, a 2010 executive order created the Pathways  Program. Pathways replaced two former student programs and  incorporated the Presidential Management Fellows program.
section_title: OPM and Agency Coordination and Oversight Roles
paragraphs: OPM decentralized and delegated many personnel decisions to federal  agencies. It also has encouraged agencies to use human capital  flexibilities, such as hiring authorities, to help tailor their personnel  approaches to accomplish their missions. In January 1996, for example,  OPM delegated competitive examining authority to federal agencies for  virtually all positions in the competitive service. OPM is responsible for  ensuring that the personnel management functions it delegates to  agencies are conducted in accordance with merit system principles, and  the standards established by OPM for conducting those functions.
The exceptions authorized under Title 5 to the competitive examining  process, and the creation of exceptions to hiring rules through new  agency-specific non-Title 5 hiring authorities mentioned above, also affect  oversight responsibilities. Oversight of hiring actions depends on the  origin of the authorized exception. For example, if the position was  excepted from the competitive service by OPM, OPM is responsible for  ensuring that the hiring actions taken to fill those positions are consistent  with merit principles and other relevant Title 5 laws and regulations.  However, if Congress directly granted an agency authority to appoint  individuals into the excepted service without regard to Title 5 and OPM  authority, generally the agency (rather than OPM) must ensure that it is  meeting relevant standards under that grant of authority or additional  oversight provisions detailed by Congress.
Further, the Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Act of 2002  established the CHCO Council to advise and coordinate the activities of  member agencies on such matters as the modernization of human  resources systems, improved quality of human resources information,  and legislation affecting human resources operations and organizations.  The CHCO Council is chaired by the Director of OPM and serves to  coordinate and collaborate on the development and implementation of  federal human capital policies.
section_title: Agencies Relied on 20 Authorities for Over 90 Percent of New Hires in Fiscal Year 2014
paragraphs: Our analysis of OPM data found that overall, agencies used a relatively  small number of hiring authorities to fill nearly all of the vacancies in 2014,  and a large number of hiring authorities to fill the small proportion of  positions that remained. Specifically, we found that agencies used 105  hiring authority codes for 196,226 new appointments in fiscal year 2014.  These appointments were for competitive service positions, as well as for  excepted service positions, made under both Title 5 and agency-specific  non-Title 5 authorities. However, of these 105 authorities, agencies used  just 20 hiring authority codes for more than 178,000 (91 percent) of the  new appointments, while using 85 hiring authority codes for the 18,000 (9  percent) remaining new appointments (see fig. 1).
As noted, Congress and the President have created a number of  additional hiring authorities—beyond competitive examining—intended to  address positions that cannot be filled through competitive examining in  order to expedite the hiring process or to achieve certain public policy  goals, such as facilitating the entrance of certain groups into the civil  service.
Importantly, our analysis provides only a snapshot of a single fiscal year.  The use of hiring authorities was influenced by particular hiring levels at  certain agencies. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)  used the Title 38 hiring authority—the second most used authority—to  hire almost 8,000 nurses and more than 3,000 medical officers in fiscal  year 2014 in response to increased demands for healthcare providers.
Of the 20 top-used hiring authorities, agencies relied most heavily on  three types of authorities: (1) the competitive examining hiring authority,  (2) other Title 5 hiring authorities, and (3) agency-specific hiring  authorities (non-Title 5 as well as Title 5). Each of these is discussed in  greater detail below (see table 1 for a description of all 20 hiring authority  codes most commonly used in fiscal year 2014).
Competitive examining hiring authority. While the Title 5 competitive  examining hiring authority—has been the traditional method for federal  hiring—was the single most used hiring authority in fiscal year 2014, it  accounted for less than a quarter of all new appointments government- wide. Further, only 3 of the 24 agencies covered under the Chief  Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended—the Department of  Justice, the Small Business Administration, and the Department of the  Treasury—used the competitive examining hiring authority for a majority  of their new appointments in fiscal year 2014. At the same time, 6 of the  24 CFO Act agencies used competitive examining for less than 10  percent of all new appointments in fiscal year 2014. They include the  Departments of Agriculture, and Transportation, VA, U.S. Agency for  International Development, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the  National Science Foundation.
Other Title 5 hiring authorities. In addition to competitive examining, in  fiscal year 2014, agencies often used other Title 5 hiring authorities  available to all agencies. For example, agencies used direct hire—which  waives the rating and ranking process and the application of veterans’  preference under competitive examining for certain critical needs, or  when there is a severe shortage of candidates. In other instances,  agencies used special hiring authorities to hire veterans, students, and  recent graduates.
With respect to direct hire, OPM provided agencies with government-wide  direct hire authorities for certain IT specialists and medical occupations,  among other critical needs occupations. This enables an agency with  delegated examining authority to hire, after public notice is provided, any  qualified applicant without regard to certain competitive hiring  requirements such as category rating and veterans’ preference.  Additionally, agencies often used hiring authorities related to hiring  veterans and students or recent graduates. For example, the Veterans  Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA), a competitive service  appointment authority, was the fifth most frequently used hiring authority  code for new appointments in fiscal year 2014. One of our case agency  officials told us that they used VEOA to recruit veterans eligible to apply  for positions announced under merit promotion procedures.
Fiscal year 2014 was one of the first years agencies used two new  Pathways excepted service hiring authorities for interns and recent  graduates. These authorities are to be used as a supplement to, not a  substitute for, the competitive hiring process. Pathways Programs are  tools for agencies because of their focus on students and recent  graduates. For example, nearly all of the 24 CFO Act agencies used at  least one of the three Pathways Programs (the third being the  Presidential Management Fellowship), and two agencies—the National  Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science  Foundation—used the Pathways Internship authority for more than 50  percent and 30 percent, respectively, of their new hires. At the same time,  7 of the 24 CFO Act agencies that used at least one of the Pathways  authorities used it for less than 5 percent of their new appointments in  fiscal year 2014.
Agency-specific hiring authorities. Agencies also relied heavily on  hiring authorities that are only available to specific agencies. As shown in  figure 2, in fiscal year 2014, 38 percent of all new federal appointments  were made using hiring authorities designated only for specific agencies.
Agency-specific hiring authorities can be authorized directly by Congress  or may be provided to the agency by OPM. As previously noted, VA used  Title 38 hiring authorities—attributable to the second most used hiring  authority code—to hire for medical occupations in fiscal year 2014. In  addition, two of the most used non-Title 5 hiring authorities related to  entire agency-components—the Transportation Security Administration  and Federal Aviation Administration—were provided by Congress with  additional flexibility in hiring agency personnel for all occupations.
OPM also provided special Title 5 excepted service hiring authorities to  certain agencies. OPM annually publishes a consolidated listing of all  agency specific Title 5 excepted service hiring authorities granted under  Schedules A, B, or C in the Federal Register. Schedules A, B, C, and D  refer to distinct suites of authorities that enable agencies to hire in those  circumstances when it is not practicable to use competitive service  qualification standards or to rate applicants using traditional competitive  examining procedures, when recruiting certain types of students (or  others who have recently completed certain educational programs), or to  fill positions of a confidential or policy-determining nature. For example,  OPM granted a Schedule A hiring authority to the General Services  Administration and Office of Management and Budget to hire digital  services staff as a part of the President’s Management Agenda’s Smarter  Information Technology (IT) Delivery Initiative through September 2017  and 2016, respectively. In May 2015, OPM approved government-wide  Schedule A hiring authority for digital services staff for all agencies  working on IT projects as part of this initiative, also through September  2017.
section_title: Three Selected Agencies and OPM Need to Better Assess the Effectiveness of Hiring Authorities to Strengthen Hiring Efforts
subsections: section_title: Selected Agencies and OPM Do Not Measure the Effectiveness of Individual Hiring Authorities in Meeting Agencies’ Needs
paragraphs: In our 2002 report, we found that to address their human capital  challenges, it is important for agencies to assess and determine which  human capital flexibilities, including hiring authorities, are the most  appropriate and effective for managing their workforces. Among other  things, such assessments help ensure that agencies use hiring authorities  as part of an overall human capital strategy. By helping agencies to better  understand the impact that different authorities have on the pool of  available candidates, agencies could use hiring authorities more  strategically to achieve specific talent management and public policy  goals such as closing mission critical skills gaps, employment of veterans,  and increased workforce diversity. Assessments can also better ensure  that agencies first identify and use the flexibilities already available under  existing laws and regulations and only seek additional flexibilities when  necessary based on sound business cases.
Moreover, given agencies’ reliance on a relatively small number of  authorities in 2014, assessments of authorities’ effectiveness could help  inform whether there are opportunities to refine, consolidate, or reduce  the number of available authorities to simplify the hiring process, or  whether provisions of some agency-specific authorities should be  expanded to more agencies. Indeed, OPM officials said they do not know  if agencies rely on a small number of authorities because agencies are  unfamiliar with other authorities, or if they have found other authorities to  be less effective in meeting their needs.
As part of its hiring reform efforts, in 2010 the administration launched the  Hiring Reform Initiative, which was aimed at improving the effectiveness  of the hiring process. To gauge agencies’ progress in meeting those  goals, OPM tracked improvements in time-to-hire and manager and  applicant satisfaction levels as key indicators for jobs posted on the USA  jobs website. Time-to-hire and satisfaction surveys are useful metrics of  the effectiveness of the hiring process as a whole. Neither OPM nor the  selected agencies used or explored the potential for this information to  analyze the effectiveness of individual, or the different types, of hiring  authorities. Without this information, it is difficult for OPM and agencies to  assess the impact specific hiring authorities are having on the  administration’s reform efforts and other goals.
As one example, OPM requires agencies to report time-to-hire  information for all job announcements posted on USAjobs.gov.  However, neither OPM nor officials from our selected agencies said they  used this data to analyze the effectiveness of individual hiring authorities.  Likewise, OPM surveys managers and applicants to gauge their opinions  of the application process. OPM officials said while they conduct some  government-wide analysis of these surveys and brief the CHCO Council  on trends and findings, they have not analyzed the relative effectiveness  of individual hiring authorities.
OPM officials said that the time-to-hire, manager satisfaction, and  applicant satisfaction databases were located in different systems, thus  making it difficult to analyze or identify trends. Further, OPM officials said  they view the use of hiring authorities as case-specific and in some cases  tied to agency-specific goals, which makes it difficult to compare them to  one another and develop meaningful conclusions about how they are  used.
However, there are several potential benefits to understanding the  relative effectiveness of different authorities for particular agency  requirements. First, different types of hiring authorities have different  procedures associated with them. By analyzing the effectiveness of hiring  authorities, OPM and agencies could identify improvements that could be  used to refine those procedures. Second, Congress and OPM could  provide more agencies access to specific authorities found to be highly  effective. Third, authorities found to be less effective could be revised or  eliminated by Congress or OPM, thus helping to ensure only those hiring  tools found to be the most useful were available to agencies.
Moreover, a better understanding of the relative effectiveness of different  hiring authorities could enhance agencies’ awareness of the implications  different authorities may have on the composition of their workforce. For  example, when agencies use one hiring authority to achieve a particular  public policy objective, it may have implications for the attainment of a  different objective. In its 2015 report, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection  Board found that when agencies used veteran-specific hiring authorities  in fiscal year 2012, they hired between 50 and 60 percent more men than  women, not surprising given the active duty military is over 80 percent  male. Better information on the impact different authorities have on the  applicant pool could help agencies use hiring authorities more  deliberatively to accomplish different hiring outcomes.
Officials from our selected agencies—AFMC, Energy, and NIH—said that  they had not used time-to-hire data or manager and applicant satisfaction  survey data to evaluate specific hiring authorities. Like OPM, officials from  the selected agencies said they have focused their efforts and used this  information to better understand and improve the overall hiring process  but had not considered it for analyzing the use of individual authorities.  Given that an individual agency may only use a subset of all authorities,  an agency-specific analysis may not reveal many differences across  authorities. However, compiling agency evaluations of the range of  authorities available would likely provide greater insight. A number of  factors can determine how and whether agencies get the talent they  desire. Selected agencies described for us additional strategies they use  to help meet their workforce requirements. These are discussed in  greater detail in appendix II).
section_title: Improved Hiring Authority Data Could Identify the Most Effective Hiring Authorities
paragraphs: Despite the importance of assessing the effectiveness of individual hiring  authorities, there are some limitations to using available OPM data for this  type of analysis. The hiring authority codes used in OPM’s EHRI  database are a tool for tracking the use of hiring authorities across the  federal government. However, the codes are not a perfect one-for-one  match for individual hiring authorities, and some hiring authority codes  represent an unknown number of authorities. For example, the hiring  authority codes for “Digital Service Experts” are also used to track the use  of other hiring authorities. As a result, it is unclear how frequently these  particular digital services authorities are used.
Similarly, OPM uses a single hiring authority code for all “other laws,  executive orders, and regulations,” which was the sixth most used hiring  authority code for new appointments in fiscal year 2014.
As a result of these data limitations, OPM is unable to use its own data to  determine the extent to which special hiring authorities like these are  being used, to determine (or aid agencies in determining) whether they  are meeting their intended purpose, if refinements are needed, or whether  they should be expanded for other agencies with similar needs. With this  analysis, OPM could revise authorities within its authority and work with  agencies to develop legislative proposals as warranted to revise  authorities beyond its authority.
section_title: OPM Conducted Compliance Audits and Evaluations, but Did Not Analyze the Effectiveness of Authorities Subject to Its Oversight
paragraphs: OPM is responsible for executing, administering, and enforcing the civil  service rules and regulations and the laws governing the civil service,  including those pertaining to hiring. Additionally, OPM is required to  establish and maintain oversight over delegated personnel activities,  including delegated competitive examining activities, to ensure agencies  are acting in accordance with the merit system principles and the relevant  standards established by OPM, such as compliance with applicable laws,  rules, regulations, executive orders, and OPM policies. OPM monitors  overall implementation and identifies corrective actions when deficiencies  are found. OPM conducts this oversight through three primary means:  delegated examining unit audits, human resource management  evaluations, and special studies.
Delegated examining audits: OPM oversees agencies’ use of the  delegated examining authority for competitive service. These audits  focus on compliance with merit principles and other key goals. To a  lesser extent they consider the effectiveness of the overall hiring  process, but typically do not analyze the effectiveness of specific  hiring authorities.
Human resource management evaluations: OPM and agencies  evaluate how well human capital programs, align with agency mission  and goals and comply with the merit system principles, laws, and  regulations. In contrast to the delegated examining unit audits,  officials said that human resource management evaluations provide  an opportunity for identifying best hiring practices at agencies.
Special studies: OPM officials said they periodically conduct special  studies of hiring issues. For example, officials said OPM is currently  studying the use of Pathways Programs government-wide. Officials  said the study will identify trends in agencies’ usage, highlight notable  practices by agencies, identify any challenges within the programs,  and assess whether the programs are being used as intended.
OPM’s oversight functions provide an in-depth understanding of agency  hiring, and could provide important information to help OPM identify  opportunities to streamline and consolidate federal hiring authorities.  However, OPM officials identified two challenges to analyzing audit  findings to understand the effectiveness of hiring authorities. First, OPM  does not maintain all the different types of audit reports in a single,  centralized location. Conducting a government-wide analysis would  require manually piecing together reports from different systems.  However, even identifying trends within the audit type could provide  leading practices for OPM to share and opportunities for agencies to  improve their use of hiring authorities. According to OPM officials, OPM is  developing a new database capable of housing all audit findings, which  will enable it to conduct this analysis in future years.
OPM officials said a second challenge to government-wide analysis of  hiring authorities is that OPM’s oversight is limited to the hiring authorities  established in Title 5. According to OPM, the evaluation or oversight  requirements, if any, of non-Title 5 excepted service hiring authorities are  authority-specific. Since non-Title 5 excepted service hiring authorities are  granted to agencies directly by Congress, OPM does not generally have a  direct oversight role under these authorities.
section_title: OPM Manages Numerous Hiring Reform Initiatives and Tools
paragraphs: In recent years, OPM has launched several initiatives and provided  agencies with tools to address federal hiring challenges. In 2008, for  example, OPM and the CHCO Council partnered to lead the End-to-End  Hiring Roadmap, which aimed to improve the hiring process from an  applicant perspective. Then, in 2010, the President’s Hiring Reform  initiative aimed to address impediments to recruiting and hiring highly  qualified employees into the federal civilian workforce. Also in 2010, OPM  began an effort to increase employment of veterans. In 2011, OPM  started a new initiative to increase employment of students, and recent  graduates, in part by educating agencies about new or existing hiring  authorities for these groups. OPM also established the Veterans  Employment Program Office and Office of Diversity and Inclusion. In  2015, OPM introduced the Recruitment, Engagement, Diversity, and  Inclusion (REDI) Strategy. REDI’s objective, in part, was to improve the  quality of the hiring process by meeting with HR professionals and hiring  managers to ensure they understand current hiring flexibilities through  guidance and resources, referred to as “untying the knots” sessions.
Since 2014, OPM and the Presidential Personnel Office have led the  People and Culture Cross-Agency Priority Goal intended to deploy a  world-class workforce by creating a culture of excellence and enabling  agencies to hire the best talent from all segments of society. As part of  this goal OPM with OMB’s assistance, kicked off a new initiative in early  2016—the Hiring Excellence Campaign—designed to improve the federal  hiring process. According to OPM officials, one of the objectives of the  campaign is to raise awareness and effective use of hiring authorities by  managers and human resource professionals and to address  administrative and other obstacles that may be impeding the  government’s ability to recruit and hire the best talent. Officials said the  campaign will feature a series of multi-agency, in-person discussions  about hiring and assessment policies and corresponding guidance led by  OPM and OMB officials. The events are to be in locations with high  concentrations of human resources specialists, where agencies have  been hiring for hard-to-fill occupations, among other factors.
OPM’s Hiring Excellence Campaign is designed to bring together agency  hiring specialists and hiring managers to discuss hiring tools and  opportunities for improving the hiring process, and therefore could help  agencies make better use of available hiring authorities. The campaign’s  ultimate effectiveness will depend to a large degree on OPM’s ability to  implement the effort as planned and ensure it generates lasting  improvements. To help in this regard, OPM officials said they have  identified objectives, strategies, and baseline measures to track the  success of the campaign. Further, OMB officials said they were  identifying agency-specific hiring authority subject matter experts to assist  in the discussions where audiences may have questions about non-Title 5  hiring authorities. OPM officials said they are developing a project plan for  implementing the campaign. These activities could help improve OPM’s  management, monitoring, and oversight of the Hiring Excellence  Campaign and will need to be implemented as planned. Given the  similarities between the Hiring Excellence Campaign and OPM’s prior  efforts to improve federal hiring, it will also be important for OPM to  ensure that the campaign leverages these prior initiatives, incorporates  relevant lessons learned, if any, and ensures there is no unnecessary  overlap or duplication with other efforts to improve federal hiring.
In addition to the initiatives noted above OPM makes available a variety  of resources to help agencies make better use of hiring authorities, as  shown in table 2.
Description  The Hiring Toolkit, available on the HR University web site, describes the fundamentals of federal  hiring, the hiring process, competitive and excepted service hiring, veteran’s appointing authorities,  hiring authorities and pay. It complements the interactive Hiring Decision Tool, which matches  potential hiring flexibilities with hiring needs.
End-to-End Hiring Roadmap   The End-to-End Hiring Roadmap is a timeline tool based on a generic process model for conducting  efficient, high-quality hiring. The purpose of this is to help identify similar steps in agencies’ hiring  processes and diagnose areas of greatest need for improvement.
The Delegated Examining Operations Handbook provides assistance to agencies with delegated  examining authority under Title 5 and applies to competitive examining only. The handbook provides  agencies with guidance, options, and specific operational procedures designed to ensure that  examining programs comply with merit system laws and regulations.
The Vet Guide consolidates the laws and regulations that affect the employment of veterans in the  federal government in one central location. The guidebook describes veteran’s preference and special  hiring authorities for veterans.
The Hiring Excellence website provides information, tools, and guidance to hiring specialists and hiring  managers to assist in agency hiring. The website includes, among other things, information about  strategic recruitment, assessment and selection, hiring authorities, and diversity and inclusion.
Officials from our selected agencies reported mixed impressions about  OPM’s online resources, including some of the above examples. During  our discussion groups, some hiring managers and HR specialists said  they found OPM’s resources useful, some said OPM’s website and  guidance were fragmented and difficult to use, and some officials said  they were not familiar with OPM’s tools and resources and relied on  agency-specific policies and tools. Officials familiar with OPM’s resources  said they most often relied on agency-specific policies and procedures  before turning to OPM’s resources and guidance on hiring authorities.  While OPM’s resources may be developed and targeted for different  users, without additional review these tools may not be having their  intended effect. We have previously recommended, and continue to  encourage OPM ensure agencies are getting the needed guidance and  tools by evaluating the communication and effectiveness of relevant tools  or leading practices created by OPM or agencies to address crosscutting  human capital challenges.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Given the long-standing human capital challenges and difficulties in filling  critical skills gaps, federal agencies need to have an assortment of  effective tools to bring qualified applicants onboard as well as to meet  public policy goals. In fiscal year 2014, 20 authorities were used to make  around 90 percent of new appointments.
A critical first step in understanding if and which authorities are meeting  agency needs is for OPM and agencies to analyze if and how specific  authorities contribute to the effectiveness of the hiring process. This  information would help OPM and agencies better manage the suite of  hiring authorities and identify opportunities to simplify and improve the  hiring process by refining, consolidating, or eliminating some authorities  or by expanding provisions of some agency-specific authorities to more  agencies. Likewise, agencies could make more strategic use of the hiring  authorities, selecting those that data have shown are best suited for their  particular talent needs and other objectives. However, despite the metrics  available to assess their performance, OPM and our selected agencies  do not measure the effectiveness of hiring authorities.
Finally, while OPM has launched several initiatives to reform the hiring  process over the last several years, some of the issues they were  designed to address, including improving agencies’ use of federal hiring  authorities, remain. Going forward, it will be important for OPM to ensure  that its most recent initiative, the Hiring Excellence Campaign, is  implemented as planned, as well as to ensure that there is no  unnecessary overlap or duplication with earlier efforts.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help strengthen the government’s ability to compete in the labor  market for top talent, we recommend that the Director of OPM, in  conjunction with the CHCO Council, take the following actions to improve  the federal hiring process:  1.  For hiring authorities for which OPM oversees, conduct a study or  assessment of specific hiring authorities and/or processes to gain  insight into why these agencies relied on the authorities, the  relationship between the agencies’ choices and the agency mission  and broader public policy goals, consistent with merit systems  principles, and determine whether modernization is necessary. For  agency-specific hiring authorities and/or processes, OPM should  collaborate with the CHCO Council to obtain similar insights agencies  may have regarding their authorities and/or processes and to  determine whether there are lessons learned which may be relevant  to government-wide modernization efforts.   2.  Use this information to determine whether opportunities exist to refine,  consolidate, eliminate, or expand agency-specific authorities to other  agencies and implement changes where OPM is authorized, including  seeking presidential authorization (as necessary) in order to do so. In  cases where legislation would be necessary to implement changes,  OPM should work with the CHCO Council to develop legislative  proposals.  3.  As OPM continues with the implementation of the Hiring Excellence  Campaign, determine ways to sustain aspects of the campaign that  focus on equipping agencies with information, tools, and support to  strengthen their knowledge and ability to attract and hire top talent  beyond the active roll out of the campaign and leverage prior related  efforts through such activities as incorporating applicable lessons  learned and that there is no unnecessary overlap and duplication  across their individual efforts.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this product to the Acting Director of OPM and the  Director of OMB for comment. We also provided relevant portions of this  product to the Secretaries of the Department of the Air Force, Department  of Energy, and Department of Health and Human Services for technical  comment. Technical comments were received from OPM, OMB, and the  Air Force, and incorporated, as appropriate.
In written comments, reproduced in appendix III, OPM generally  concurred with our findings and recommendations.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Director of the Office of Personnel  Management, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report please contact  me at (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  product are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines: (1) the hiring authorities agencies used in fiscal  year 2014 (the most recent year for available data when we began our  review), (2) the extent to which selected agencies and OPM assessed the  effectiveness of hiring authorities used for selected occupations in helping  meet hiring needs, and (3) how OPM ensured that agencies have the  assistance and information needed to use the hiring authorities  effectively.
To address our first objective, we used Office of Personnel Management  (OPM) Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) data, which  contains personnel action and workforce data for most federal civilian  employees. We analyzed government-wide and agency-level EHRI data  from fiscal year 2014, which was the most recent year that data were  available during our review. We primarily used the following EHRI data  variables: (1) “current appointment authority 1 and 2” to describe the  hiring authorities agencies used; and (2) “nature of action” codes to  identify new appointments into federal service. First, we used OPM’s  “current appointment authority” codes in EHRI to determine which hiring  authorities agencies used in fiscal year 2014. According to OPM’s Guide  to Data Standards—the guidance document that describes data elements  in EHRI—the current appointment authority code is a mandatory data  code that describes the law, executive order, rule, regulation, or other  basis that authorizes an employee’s most recent conversion or accession  action. Each agency must record the appointment authority codes for  each hiring action in its own personnel system, which is then submitted to  OPM’s EHRI data warehouse. Second, to calculate the new appointments  made with each hiring authority, we aggregated the hiring actions using a  subset of EHRI’s “nature of action” codes. Nature of action codes capture  information about the type of personnel action being tracked, such as  whether the action was an appointment, conversion, or separation. We  limited our analysis to include nature of action codes for new full- and  part-time, and permanent and non-permanent federal appointments in the  competitive or excepted services. We also excluded certain groups  outside of the scope of this engagement. Using these parameters, we  aggregated the hiring actions for new appointments by current  appointment authority in fiscal year 2014, and we sorted the current  appointment authority codes from most used to least used government- wide.
Sometimes agencies entered two current appointment authority codes for  the same hiring action. Based on OPM documentation, we determined  certain situations in which OPM instructed agencies to enter two codes  for a single hiring action. However, there were a number of situations in  which OPM could not provide documentation explaining why agencies  should enter two current appointment authority codes. For these  instances, we generally counted each current appointment authority code  agencies entered as a single hiring authority “use.” We confirmed our  methodology for describing government-wide use of hiring authorities with  OPM.
Additionally, we used OPM documentation to match the current  appointment authority codes with a name and citation in applicable laws,  regulations, and executive orders. We examined laws, OPM regulations,  and additional OPM materials to obtain a description of the most  frequently used hiring authorities government-wide in fiscal year 2014.  We reviewed OPM’s EHRI data for reasonableness and the presence of  any obvious or potential errors in accuracy and completeness. On the  basis of these procedures, we believe the data are sufficiently reliable for  use in the analyses presented in this report.
To assess the extent that hiring authorities are effective in helping meet  the needs of selected agencies, we focused on three occupations at three  agencies as case examples. Based on our prior work on government- wide mission-critical occupations and skills gaps, we focused on the  following occupations: Information Technology Specialists, Contract  Specialists, and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics  (STEM) occupations. We reviewed OPM’s list of white collar  occupational groups and included occupations within groups that  appeared to be related to STEM. Specifically, we aggregated hiring  actions for the occupations within the following occupational groups: (1)  Natural Resources Management and Biological Science Group; (2)  Medical, Hospital, Dental, and Public Health Group; (3) Veterinary  Medical Science Group; (4) Engineering and Architecture Group; (5)  Physical Sciences Group; and (6) Mathematical Sciences Group.
Using data from OPM’s EHRI database, we made a nonprobability,  judgmental selection of three case agencies based on two primary  factors. First, we only considered agencies that hired our selected  occupations in fiscal year 2014. Second, we selected agencies that used  a variety of hiring authorities for these occupations in fiscal year 2014.  Based on these factors, we selected the following case agencies: Air  Force Materiel Command (AFMC), Department of Energy (DOE), and the  National Institutes of Health (NIH). At AFMC, DOE, and NIH, we  interviewed human resources (HR) policy officials to learn about which  hiring authorities agencies used for our selected occupations, reasons for  using these authorities, and ways that agencies were measuring the  effectiveness of the authorities. We also covered these topics with HR  specialists and hiring managers for our selected occupations at each  case agency using a series of group discussions that we conducted using  a standardized set of questions.
In addition to the case study approach, we also identified available  government-wide data sources on the effectiveness of the hiring process.  For example, we reviewed OPM time-to-hire data government-wide and  by agency. We reviewed the Chief Human Capital Officers’ (CHCO)
Applicant Satisfaction Survey and the CHCO Manager Satisfaction  Survey, which provided information on the applicant and hiring manager  experience with the hiring process. Further, we reviewed government- wide reporting on the administration’s hiring policy goals, such as  increasing the employment of veterans and people with disabilities in the  federal workforce. We also interviewed knowledgeable officials at OPM  and the Merit Systems Protection Board about the effectiveness of federal  hiring authorities.
We also assessed the extent to which OPM’s oversight of hiring  authorities evaluated their effectiveness. Specifically, we identified  relevant laws and policies that outline OPM’s oversight responsibilities for  hiring authorities and interviewed OPM on the implementation, results,  and analysis of these oversight efforts. We identified and reviewed OPM’s  policy documents that describe the key components of OPM’s oversight  program for hiring authorities, Delegated Examining Unit (DEU) audits  and Human Resources Management Evaluations (HRME). Examples of  policy documents we reviewed included the Practitioner’s Guide: How to  Conduct a Delegated Examining Audit and Merit System Audit and  Compliance Evaluator Handbook. We interviewed knowledgeable OPM  officials about oversight activities related to Title 5 hiring as well as  officials at our selected case agencies—AFMC, Energy, and NIH—who  are responsible for working with OPM on these oversight reviews. For  both OPM and the selected case agencies, we interviewed  knowledgeable agency officials about the types of analyses they  conducted based on audit findings and how, if at all, they shared  information on any lessons learned. In addition to reviewing oversight of  Title 5 hiring, we also reviewed documentation from our case agencies  and interviewed case agency officials about non-Title 5 hiring authority  oversight procedures.
To assess the extent that OPM ensures agencies have the assistance  and information needed to use hiring authorities effectively, we identified  online tools and guidance from OPM’s website as well as OPM  documents, such as online trainings, handbooks, toolkits, and hiring  authority fact sheets. We interviewed selected case agency officials to  gauge their awareness of and satisfaction with these resources. We  reviewed documentation on previous OPM initiatives that focused in part  on making improvements to hiring authorities. These initiatives included  OPM’s End-to-End Hiring Roadmap, OPM’s responses to the 2010 hiring  reform executive orders, the Recruitment, Engagement, Diversity, and  Inclusion initiative, and OPM’s work on cross-agency priority (CAP) goals.  We interviewed officials from OPM, the Office of Management and  Budget, and our selected case agencies to discuss these initiatives,  particularly about measuring impact and sustainability. We reviewed  OPM’s plans for its most recent hiring initiative—the Hiring Excellence  Campaign, which is part of the “People and Culture” CAP goal—with  practices outlined in our prior work that are associated with success of  such interagency efforts.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2015 to August 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our finding and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Selected Agencies’ Strategies for Improving the Effectiveness of their Hiring Efforts
paragraphs: Institute formalized recruitment meetings with human resources  (HR) staff and hiring managers to discuss recruitment strategy.  HR specialists and hiring managers at NIH said they used recruitment  meetings to clarify the needs for the position, characteristics of an  ideal applicant, possible applicant pools, and potential hiring  authorities to use. They also discussed the use of professional or  private-sector organizations to identify applicants and of broader  recruitment topics, such as agency goals for diversity and veteran  hiring. Hiring managers told us that these meetings helped them  target the intended applicant pools for their open positions.
Use specialized experience statements to help ensure a better fit  between the applicant and the position. Hiring managers at Air  Force Materiel Command (AFMC) and Department of Energy (DOE)  said specialized experience statements—an explicit description  provided in the job announcement—helps ensure that applicants  possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the work of the  position. Without using a specialized experience statement, AFMC  officials told us that it can be difficult for HR specialists to filter out  unqualified applicants. Hiring managers felt that specialized  experience statements helped improve the quality of applicants on  certificate lists.
Actively recruit, particularly among preference groups such as  veterans, to direct qualified applicants to the job announcement.  Hiring managers at NIH and DOE said they used professional  networking sites, university contacts, and professional organizations  to target potential applicants who may not be actively searching for a  new employment opportunity. For example, hiring managers at NIH  reported using LinkedIn to identify and send potential job applicants to  specific vacancy announcements for hard-to-fill IT positions.  Sometimes these applicants would be eligible for excepted service  hiring authorities. NIH officials said it enabled them to hire them more  quickly than through a competitive examining process. Hiring  managers said that they have used this recruiting technique to  successfully identify qualified veterans for several IT positions.
Use global job announcements when possible to reduce  duplication of effort and to share quality applicant lists. Officials  from DOE and NIH said that using global or open vacancy  announcements allowed hiring officials to make multiple selections  from a single vacancy announcement. For example, NIH uses an  agency-wide recruitment strategy for commonly filled positions across  the institutes. Under this initiative, NIH posts one vacancy  announcement for a specific position. Then, any of the 27 institutes  can use it to fill a vacancy for that position. Hiring managers at NIH  told us that using the global recruitment saved them the time of  creating multiple, similar announcements. It also allowed them to  review a large number of resumes to find quality applicants.
Include subject matter experts in the assessment process to  filter out applicants who are not qualified. Hiring managers for  STEM occupations at DOE involved subject matter experts in the  assessment process to help HR specialists determine which resumes  met technical job qualifications. After the HR specialists conducted the  initial screening to determine which applicants were eligible to apply  for the position, DOE’s subject matter experts reviewed these  resumes without applicant identifying information and provided  documentation to show whether the applicants met technical job  requirements. HR personnel were then able to use subject matter  expert feedback to complete applicant assessments and assign a  qualification rating. Officials told us that this process has resulted in  better qualified applicant on certificate lists.
section_title: Appendix III: United States Office of Personnel Management
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Individuals making key contributions to this statement include: Chelsa  Gurkin (Assistant Director), Rebecca O’Connor (Analyst-in-Charge), Sara  L. Daleski, Christopher Falcone, Karin Fangman, Ellen Grady, Shelley  Rao, David Richards, and Elizabeth Wood.