Human Capital: Additional Collaboration Between OPM and Agencies Is Key to Improved Federal Hiring
Published: 2004-06-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Improving the federal hiring process is critical given the increasing number of new hires expected in the next few years. Congress asked GAO to report on the (1) status of recent efforts to help improve the federal hiring process and (2) extent to which federal agencies are using two new hiring flexibilities--category rating and direct-hire authority. Category rating permits an agency to select any job candidate placed in a best-qualified category. Direct-hire authority allows an agency to appoint individuals to positions without adherence to certain competitive examination requirements when there is a severe shortage of qualified candidates or a critical hiring need.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Congress, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and agencies have recognized that federal hiring has needed reform, and they have undertaken various efforts to do so. In particular, Congress has provided agencies with additional hiring flexibilities, OPM has taken significant steps to modernize job vacancy announcements and develop the government's recruiting Web site, and most agencies are continuing to automate parts of their hiring processes. Still, problems remain with a job classification process that many view as antiquated, and there is a need for improved tools to assess the qualifications of job candidates. On the basis of our survey of members of the interagency Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council, agencies appear to be making limited use of two new hiring flexibilities that could help agencies in expediting and controlling their hiring processes. Frequently cited barriers to using the new hiring flexibilities included (1) the lack of OPM guidance for using the flexibilities, (2) the lack of agency policies and procedures for using the flexibilities, (3) the lack of flexibility in OPM rules and regulations, and (4) concern about possible inconsistencies in the implementation of the flexibilities within the department or agency. The federal government is now facing one of the most transformational changes to the civil service in half a century. Today's challenge is to define the appropriate roles and day-to-day working relationships for OPM and individual agencies as they collaborate on developing innovative and more effective hiring systems.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: High-performance organizations need dynamic, results-oriented  workforces with the requisite knowledge and up-to-date skills to  accomplish their missions and achieve their goals.  To acquire such  workforces, federal agencies must have effective hiring processes so that  they can compete for talented people in a highly competitive job market.   Improving the federal hiring process is critical given the increasing number  of new hires expected in the next few years.  In fiscal year 2003, the  executive branch hired nearly 95,000 new employees.  Yet, there is  widespread recognition that the federal hiring process all too often does  not meet the needs of agencies in achieving their missions, managers in  filling positions with the right talent, and applicants for a timely, efficient,  transparent, and merit-based process.
In May 2003, we issued a report on several key problems in the federal  hiring process.  To help address these problems, we recommended that the  Office of Personnel Management (OPM) take additional actions to assist  agencies in strengthening the federal hiring process.  We also reported that  agencies must take responsibility for maximizing the efficiency and  effectiveness of their hiring processes within the current statutory and  regulatory framework.  You asked us to follow up on this report and  provide information on (1) the status of recent efforts to help improve the  federal hiring process and (2) the extent to which federal agencies are using new hiring flexibilities contained in the Homeland Security Act of  2002—category rating and direct-hire authority.
To respond to these follow-up issues, we interviewed officials from OPM  and the interagency Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council.  We  also administered a questionnaire to the 23 agency members serving on the  CHCO Council, and all but one responded.  In addition, we collected and  reviewed OPM documents related to the federal hiring process, and we  reviewed data from OPM’s central database of governmentwide personnel  information.  We conducted our work in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.  (See app. I for additional  information on our objectives, scope, and methodology and app. II for the  complete results of our CHCO Council survey.)
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Federal civil service employees, other than those in the Senior Executive  Service, are employed in either the competitive service or the excepted  service.  The competitive service examination process is one of the  processes intended to ensure that agencies' hiring activities comply with  merit principles.  In January 1996, OPM delegated examining authority to  federal agencies for virtually all positions in the competitive service.  Under  delegated examining authority, agencies conduct competitive examinations  that comply with merit system principles, other personnel-related laws, and  regulations as set forth in OPM’s Delegated Examining Operations  Handbook.  OPM is responsible for ensuring that the personnel  management functions it delegates to agencies are conducted in  accordance with merit principles and the standards it has established for  conducting those functions.
The federal hiring process involves notifying the public that the  government will accept applications for a job, screening applications  against minimum qualification standards, and assessing applicants' relative  competencies or knowledge, skills, and abilities against job-related criteria  to identify the most qualified applicants.  Federal agencies typically  examine or assess candidates by rating and ranking them based on of their  experience, training, and education, rather than by testing them.  Figure 1  shows the typical steps for filling vacancies through the competitive  examining process.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 contained new hiring flexibilities that  could help agencies in expediting and controlling their hiring processes—  category rating and direct-hire authority.  Category rating is an alternative  rating and selection procedure that can expand the pool of qualified job  candidates from which agency managers may select.  Under this procedure,  an agency manager can select any job candidate placed in a best-qualified  category rather than being limited to three candidates under the “rule of  three.”  Direct-hire authority allows an agency to appoint individuals to  positions without adherence to certain competitive examination  requirements when OPM determines that there is a severe shortage of  candidates or a critical hiring need.  Specifically, when making  appointments under the newly authorized direct-hire authority, agencies  still are required to provide public notice of the job vacancies and screen all  applicants to ensure that they meet the basic qualification requirements of  the position; however, agencies are not required to numerically rate and  rank candidates nor apply the rule of three or veterans’ preference.
The act also established a CHCO position in 24 federal agencies to advise  and assist the head of each agency and other agency officials in their  strategic human capital management efforts.  Additionally, the act created  a CHCO Council to advise and coordinate these activities among the  agencies.  In accordance with the act, members of the CHCO Council  include the Director of OPM, the Deputy Director for Management at the  Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the CHCOs from executive  departments, and additional agency members designated by the OPM  Director.  The functions of the CHCO Council are to offer advice and  coordinate agencies’ activities concerning modernization of human  resources systems, improving the quality of human resources information,  and giving concerted attention to legislation affecting human resources  operations.  The CHCO Council currently has five subcommittees that help  carry out its work, including a subcommittee on the hiring process.  The  purpose of the hiring subcommittee is to identify actions it or the CHCO  Council could take to improve recruiting and hiring in the federal  government.
Since the mid-1990s, the number of new federal hires increased  considerably—increasing from about 50,000 employees in 1996 to over  143,000 employees in 2002.  Federal hiring in the mid-1990s declined  because many agencies were downsizing and did not need to fill positions.   Increasingly, agencies began hiring new employees, particularly because of  a slowdown in downsizing and growing numbers of employees retiring.  In  fiscal year 2003, the largest federal hirer was DOD, which brought on board  more than one-third of all hires.  The number of federal hires decreased in  2003 over 2002, which was primarily because of the hiring of nearly 35,000  airport screeners in 2002 into the newly created Transportation Security  Administration.  Table 1 shows the number of new federal hires by  department or agency for fiscal year 2003.
section_title: Previous Work by GAO and Others Has Identified Key Problem Areas in the Competitive Hiring Process
paragraphs: Within government and the private sector, it has been widely recognized  that the federal hiring process is lengthy and cumbersome and hampers  agencies' ability to hire the high-quality people they need to achieve their  agency goals and missions.  Numerous studies and research over the past  decade by OPM, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the National  Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), the Partnership for Public  Service, the National Commission on the Public Service, and GAO have  noted concerns and problems with the federal hiring process, as the  following examples illustrate.
In October 2001, the Partnership for Public Service released the results  of a poll it had commissioned that found “many people view the process  of seeking federal employment as a daunting one.  Three-quarters of  non-federal workers say making the application process quicker and  simpler would be an effective way of attracting talented workers to  government.”
In July 2002, NAPA reported that federal “hiring remains a slow and  tedious process.” The report noted that “Many managers are attempting  to rebuild a pipeline of entry level employees in this very competitive  labor market, yet current hiring methods do not keep pace with the  private sector.”
In September 2002, MSPB said that the federal hiring process has a  number of key problems including “overly complex and ineffective  hiring authorities” and “inadequate, time-consuming assessment  procedures.”
In November 2002, OPM in its strategic plan for 2002 through 2007  stated, “There is a general perception that our hiring process takes too  long and may not provide well-qualified candidates.”
In January 2003, the National Commission on the Public Service said,  “Recruitment to federal jobs is heavily burdened by ancient and illogical  procedures that vastly complicate the application process and limit the  hiring flexibility of individual managers.”
Our May 2003 report on federal hiring summarized these concerns and  added further evidence to confirm many of the problems and issues that  have been identified over the past decade.  As many of these and other  studies have noted, and as many human resources directors pointed out in  our prior interviews, nearly all parts of the competitive hiring process  hamper effective and efficient federal hiring.  Key problem areas identified  in our May 2003 report included the following.
Outdated and cumbersome procedures to define a job and set the pay  are not applicable to the jobs and work of today.
Unclear, unfriendly job announcements cause confusion, delay hiring,  and serve as poor recruiting tools.
A key assessment tool and hiring programs used for several entry-level  positions are ineffective.
Convening panels and the manual rating and ranking of applicants to  determine best-qualified applicants is time-consuming.
Numerical rating and ranking and the "rule of three" limit the choice of  applicants and are viewed as ineffective.
As noted previously, our prior work surveying human resources directors,  along with the work of others, indicated that the time-to-hire is too long for  most federal hires.  Comprehensive department or governmentwide data  on time-to-hire are often not available; however, in fiscal year 2002, OPM  compiled and analyzed data on time-to-hire and found that it typically took  on average about 102 days for agencies to fill a vacancy using the  competitive process.  At that time, OPM measured time-to-hire from the  period between when the request to hire or fill a position was received in  the human resources office to the appointment of an applicant to the  position.  Additional time might be needed for a manager to obtain  approval for the requested hiring action at the beginning of the process or  for the new employee to receive a security clearance at the end of the  process.  OPM officials told us that better data are not available on time-to- hire and that they are surveying federal agencies to assess how to gather  systematic data on time-to-hire.
section_title: OPM and Agencies Are Taking Steps to Improve the Hiring Process
paragraphs: OPM and agencies are continuing to focus on the problems with the federal  hiring process we identified in our May 2003 report.  OPM has taken actions  to address federal hiring across the board and for specific parts of the  hiring process.  For example, in February of this year, the Director of OPM  issued a memorandum to the CHCOs of federal agencies offering 10 ways  that agencies can immediately improve their hiring processes using  authorities they already possess.  Steps outlined in this memo include fully  engaging the agency’s human resources staff and offering recruiting  incentives such as recruitment bonuses, relocation expenses, and student  loan repayments.  In addition, to encourage agencies to improve their  hiring processes, OPM is urging agencies to implement a new 45-day hiring  model, which measures the time-to-hire period from the date the vacancy  announcement closes to the date a job offer is extended.  OPM officials  said they would work closely with agencies to deploy all appropriate  flexibilities to meet this goal.  According to OPM, agencies will be scored  under the Human Capital Initiative of the President's Management Agenda  on their progress toward reducing time-to-hire.  In addition, OPM is  administering a survey of CHCOs on agency hiring practices to identify  opportunities to use the flexibilities strategically, eliminate remaining  outmoded practices, and generally expedite the hiring process.
OPM and agencies have also taken actions to address various key parts of  the federal hiring process.  These parts, which are discussed in this section,  include reforming the classification system, improving job announcements  and Web postings, automating hiring processes, and improving candidate  assessment tools.  Our May 2003 report on federal hiring outlined  recommendations to OPM dealing with these key parts of the hiring  process.  While OPM has placed concerted attention on three of these key  parts of the hiring process, focused attention and action by OPM to  improve assessment tools, as we recommended in our May 2003 report,  could further help agencies in identifying the best candidates for federal  jobs.
subsections: section_title: Reforming the Classification System Could Better Facilitate Filling Positions with the Right Employees
paragraphs: We previously reported the conclusion of many that the standards and  process for defining a job and determining pay in the federal government  are a key hiring problem because they are inflexible, outdated, and not  applicable to the jobs of today.  The classification system is intended to  categorize jobs or positions according to the kind of work done, the level of  difficulty and responsibility, and the qualifications required for the position,  and is to serve as a building block to determine the pay for the position.   Generally, defining a job and setting pay in the federal government must be  based on standards in the Classification Act of 1949, which sets out 15  grade levels of the General Schedule (GS) expressed in terms of the  difficulty and level of responsibility for each specific position.  The  federal classification process and standard job classifications were  generally developed decades ago when typical jobs were more narrowly  defined and often clerical or administrative in nature.  However, jobs in  today's knowledge-based organizations often require a much broader array  of tasks that may cross over the narrow and rigid boundaries of job  classification standards and make it difficult to fit the job appropriately  into one of the over 400 federal occupations.  According to a recent OPM  study, a key problem with federal job classification is that, under present  rules, characteristics such as workload, quality of work, and results are not  classification factors that can affect the overall level of basic pay for a  position.  Given this limitation, the resulting job classifications and  related pay might hamper efforts to fill the positions with the right  employees.
Our May 2003 report noted some actions that OPM and agencies had taken  to address the federal job classification process.  For example, we reported  that some agencies had automated their complicated classification  processes to reduce the time it takes to carry out this task.  The  Department of the Army, for instance, created a centralized database that  gives human resources managers at Army access to active position  descriptions and position-related information to help in classifying jobs.  In  addition, we noted that OPM had revised the classification standards for  several job series, including health care professions and law enforcement,  to make them clearer and more relevant to current job duties and  responsibilities.  At that time, OPM pointed out that the classification  standards and process needed to be reformed and that changes to the  Classification Act of 1949 were needed to make fundamental changes to  how jobs are defined and pay is set.  Our report noted, however, that OPM  recognized the need to maintain the GS system in the absence of an  alternative and well-managed transition to a new system.
In our May 2003 report, we also recommended that OPM study how to  improve, streamline, and reform the classification process.  In response to  our questions about the status of OPM’s actions on this recommendation,  OPM said that it has recently taken several actions to address the job  classification process.  OPM stated that most classification standards are  being issued as “job family” standards, which OPM said allows it to study  related occupations together to identify both commonalities and  differences.  OPM also said that it is working closely with agencies to  ensure that classification standards reflect the current nature of federal  work.  OPM noted, for example, that it is working with a number of  agencies to develop a new job family standard for administrative work in  the occupational series covering investigative work.  In addition, OPM said  that it is exploring an integrated approach to classification and  qualification standards.  By integrating these two functions into a single  occupational standard, OPM hopes to make more clear the link between  the work conducted in an occupation, the competencies required to  perform that work, and the requirements that individuals must  demonstrate to be placed into these positions.  OPM believes an integrated  approach for classification and qualifications standards will improve the  quality of the federal workforce through competency-based qualifications  that identify the full range needed for successful job performance.  This  new approach thus could better enable federal agencies to hire the right  person at the right time.
OPM also recently collaborated with DHS to help reform its personnel  system.  The Homeland Security Act, which created DHS, provided it with  significant flexibility to design a modern human capital system.   Specifically, DHS may deviate from the classification and most pay rate  requirements contained in Title 5 of the U.S. Code.  Under proposed  regulations, DHS would create broad pay bands for much of the  department in place of the 15-grade GS system now in place for much of the  civil service.  Several OPM-sponsored demonstration projects over the past  20 years have demonstrated the efficacy of pay banding systems that were  similar to the system being proposed by DHS.  Last September, we  reported that DHS’s process for designing its new human capital system  involved significant collaboration with OPM and generally reflected the  important elements of a successful transformation, including effective  communication and employee involvement.  A new OPM initiative is to  collaborate with DOD as that department also develops and implements its  new personnel system—the National Security Personnel System.  In  testimony earlier this year, we stressed that DOD could benefit from  employing a collaborative and inclusive process similar to that used by  DHS.
Additionally, in April 2004, OPM released a draft publication entitled OPM’s  Guiding Principles for Civil Service Transformation, which, as its title  suggests, proposes a set of principles for reshaping the civil service  system.  In this draft document, OPM states that the modernization of the  federal job classification process should begin with governmentwide  legislation that mirrors the flexibilities provided to DHS and DOD.  OPM  also indicates that reform in the areas of pay and performance management  systems should be a top priority, and that if agencies governmentwide do  not receive reforms similar to those that DHS and DOD have received in  this area, agencies risk being at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting a  talented workforce.  Furthermore, OPM’s draft document suggests that  there is no need for further testing of pay-for-performance approaches in  the federal government and that it is now time to extend the DHS and DOD  pay-for-performance frameworks to other agencies that are ready to  modernize their human resources systems.
subsections: section_title: Views of the CHCO Council Members
paragraphs: In our April 2004 survey of the members of the CHCO Council, 13 of the 22  respondents said that they were aware of efforts that OPM has made to  reform the federal classification process (see app. II for further  information).  In narrative responses to our survey questions relating to job  classification, one CHCO Council member representing a large department,  for example, recognized OPM’s work to develop job family standards.   Conversely, a Council member representing an independent agency said he  was not aware of any significant OPM-led reforms related to classification.   For those respondents who said they were aware of any OPM efforts to  reform the classification process, we also asked about the extent to which  OPM’s efforts had helped their agencies and about their level of satisfaction  or dissatisfaction with such OPM efforts and related proposals.  In  narrative responses to our survey questions, a CHCO Council member  representing a large department said, for example, that OPM had  relinquished any responsibility for reforming the process and that it has  been up to Congress to legislate reforms for specific agencies.  Another  respondent said that OPM is making modest progress to change the  classification process within the purview of its authority but that changes  to existing law are necessary for real reform to occur.
We also asked the CHCO Council members for their views about who  should currently take the lead in furthering reform of the classification  process in the federal government.  Fifteen of the 22 CHCO Council  members responding to our survey reported that either OPM (10  respondents) or Congress (5 respondents) should take the lead on  reforming the classification process, rather than the agencies themselves.   In narrative responses to our survey questions, one Council member  representing a major department said, for example, that CHCOs should be  closely involved in this effort and that OPM’s efforts could be improved  with the input and shared responsibility of the agencies.  Another  respondent encouraged Congress to pass legislation granting other  agencies still under Title 5 rules a comparable degree of flexibility to that  provided to DHS, DOD, and other agencies given authority for personnel  reform.  Another Council member representing a department suggested  that any reform effort on the part of OPM or others should focus on linking  true classification reform and pay for performance.  Another respondent  said that an independent group or task force should take the lead in  furthering reform of the classification process.
section_title: Status of Our Prior Recommendation to OPM
paragraphs: OPM has implemented the recommendation that we made in last year’s  report for OPM to study how to improve, streamline, and reform the  classification process.  The draft Guiding Principles for Civil Service  Transformation document released by OPM in April lays out some  significant proposals for changes to the civil service system, which  encompasses issues related to job classification.  OPM told us that when  drawing conclusions about OPM’s efforts to reform the job classification  process, it is important to recognize OPM’s limited latitude under current  statute.  OPM pointed out that it does not have the option of  accommodating the persistent broadening of work levels that has occurred  in organizations throughout the post-industrial workplace by establishing  standards that reflect fewer, broader levels of work.  OPM has noted that its  ability to more effectively reform the classification process is limited under  current law and that legislation is needed to modify the current restrictive  classification process for the majority of federal agencies.  OPM officials  said that they must maintain the 15-grade GS system and make it possible  for agencies to classify their GS positions reliably according to law in as  straightforward a manner as possible.
section_title: Improved Job Announcements and Web Postings Can Serve as Better Recruiting Tools
paragraphs: In our May 2003 report, we noted that the lack of clear and appealing  content in federal job announcements can hamper or delay the hiring  process.  During the work for that report, our interviews with several  agency human resources directors revealed that federal job  announcements are frequently incomprehensible and make it difficult for  applicants to determine what the jobs require, and therefore do not serve  as effective recruiting tools.  We cited reports from MSPB that said  vacancy announcements often included poor organization and readability,  unclear job titles and duties, vague or restrictive qualification standards,  and the use of negative language or tone that might deter many qualified  candidates.  MSPB also said that some job announcements were lengthy  and difficult to read online, contained jargon and acronyms, and appeared  to be written for people already employed by the government.  MSPB  further noted that many of the announcements it reviewed did not include  information on retirement and other benefits, such as vacation time and  medical and health insurance, which might entice people to apply.  As we  pointed out in our previous report, making vacancy announcements more  visually appealing, informative, and easy to access and navigate could  make them much more effective as recruiting tools.
Prior to the issuance of our last report on federal hiring, OPM had initiated  some actions to help make job announcements easier to access and  understand.  OPM initiated an interagency project to modernize federal job  vacancy announcements, including providing guidance to agencies to  improve announcements.  OPM also worked to obtain contractor support  to enhance its USAJOBS Web site with the goals of making it easier and  quicker for people to find federal jobs and enhancing the site’s “eye- catching” appeal.  This effort is part of the Recruitment One-Stop initiative,  which, as the name implies, would provide a one-stop Web site for federal  job seekers by implementing a single application point that includes  vacancy information, job application submission, application status  tracking, employment eligibility screening, and applicant database mining.
More recently, OPM also has taken additional steps to make job  announcements and Web postings more user friendly and effective.  In  August 2003, OPM revamped the USAJOBS Web site to feature a quicker  job-search engine, sorting capabilities, and accessibility for disabled users.   Other new features included allowing applicants to create and save  application letters and store up to five resumes online as well as making  posted resumes searchable by agency recruiters.  In an effort to centralize  and streamline the process, OPM had also originally proposed to have  executive branch agencies shut down their agency-unique job search  engines and resume builders.  This raised concerns by competing private  vendors offering their own recruitment and hiring software to agencies.   According to OPM, in response to these concerns, it informed agencies that  they were free to adopt any online recruiting and hiring system they wish as  long as the system eventually was integrated with the governmentwide  online recruitment system.
In March, we reported on the progress of various electronic government  initiatives, including the OPM-led Recruitment One-Stop initiative.  We  noted OPM’s goal to increase customer satisfaction with the federal  application process through Recruitment One-Stop.  According to OPM, the  customer satisfaction rating for the USAJOBS Web site had increased  from a score of 68 on December 15, 2003, to a score 75.5 as of May 14, 2004.   We also reported that a resume-mining tool to identify candidates had been  implemented as part of the Web site but the tool had not been widely used  to date.  OPM told us that the addition of the resume-mining tool was one of  many recent changes to the USAJOBS Web site and OPM had not yet fully  trained agencies on the use of this tool.  Nevertheless, according to OPM,  since launching the new USAJOBS technology in August 2003, more than  500,000 new resumes have been created and over 325,000 of the resumes  are searchable.  OPM reported that anecdotal information received from  agencies using the resume-mining tool was very encouraging.  For example,  one agency reported to OPM that it had identified excellent job candidates  using the resume-mining tool and had recently hired an employee using this  feature.
subsections: section_title: Views of the CHCO Council Members
paragraphs: In our April 2004 survey of the members of the CHCO Council, all of the 22  respondents said that their agencies had made efforts to improve their job  announcements and Web postings.  Our survey also asked the CHCO  Council members about the extent to which OPM had assisted their  agencies in improving job announcements and Web postings and their level  of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app. II for further  information).  In narrative responses to our survey questions on improving  job announcements and Web postings, a CHCO Council member  representing a major department said, for example, that the USAJOBS Web  site is an excellent source for posting vacancies and attracting candidates.   Another respondent said that the Recruitment One-Stop initiative was very  timely in developing a single automated application for job candidates.   Another commented that OPM has encouraged agency participation in  revamping the vacancy announcement text and in usability testing of the  Recruitment One-Stop site.  A Council member representing a major  department added that OPM’s continued support is needed in providing  guidance and templates to agencies on streamlined, easy-to-understand  language for job postings.  Overall, more survey respondents reported  some degree of satisfaction with OPM’s assistance in improving job  announcements and Web postings than on any other part of the hiring  process that we surveyed.
section_title: Status of Our Prior Recommendation to OPM
paragraphs: OPM has implemented the recommendation that we made in last year’s  report for OPM to continue to assist agencies in making job  announcements and Web postings more user friendly and effective.  OPM’s  efforts in this area are demonstrated by the CHCO Council members’  relative level of satisfaction with OPM’s assistance in improving job  announcements and Web postings compared to other parts of the hiring  process that we surveyed.  Nonetheless, OPM told us that agencies  themselves have the front-line responsibility for improving the content of  their own job announcements.  OPM suggested that agencies assign an  individual to review and modify their job announcements to make their  postings understandable and more interesting to potential job candidates.
section_title: Automation Could Help to Streamline Agencies’ Hiring Processes
paragraphs: In our May 2003 report, we reported that manual processes for rating and  ranking candidates are time consuming and delay the federal hiring  process.  Prior to assessing applicants based on their relative merits,  agencies must conduct a screening process to determine if applicants meet  eligibility requirements (such as U.S. citizenship) and the basic or minimum  education or work experience qualifications that OPM established for such  a position.  As we reported, in a manual hiring system, human resources  staff would have to review all the applications and document why an  applicant did or did not meet minimum qualifications.  If there is a large  number of applicants, carrying out this process can be time consuming.  We  also pointed out that once the applicants' eligibilities are determined,  agencies typically undertake a labor-intensive effort to establish and  convene assessment panels and manually rate and rank the candidates  based on their relative merits.  Some of the delay in convening the  assessment panels is due to assembling the appropriate managers and  subject matter experts, coordinating their availability, and factoring in the  exigencies of other demands.  Once formed, the panel sorts through all of  the applicants' paperwork, assesses the applicants, and determines a  numerical score for each applicant by rating the education and experience  described by the applicant against the evaluation criteria in the crediting  plan for the position.
The use of automation for agency hiring processes has various potential  benefits, including eliminating the need for volumes of paper records,  allowing fewer individuals to review and process job applications, and  reducing the overall time-to-hire.  Automation can facilitate almost every  step of the federal hiring process.  For example, an automated hiring  system could electronically determine if an applicant met the basic  qualifications and electronically provide timely notification to the applicant  of the status of his or her application.  Automation could also streamline  the process by electronically rating and ranking applicants, or placing them  in quality categories, eliminating the need to form panels to assess the  applicants.  In addition, automated systems typically create records of  actions taken so that managers and human capital staff can easily  document their decisions related to hiring.  Nonetheless, agencies need to  recognize the importance of careful planning and implementation when  automating their hiring processes.  As we have previously reported, agencies should first validate their requirements and look at reengineering  their administrative processes before developing any information systems  to support their processes.
In our May 2003 report, we related that OPM had taken some actions to  help agencies automate and streamline their hiring processes.  OPM  developed an automated hiring system, called USA Staffing, which federal  agencies may purchase from OPM.  USA Staffing is a Web-enabled software  program that automates the steps of the hiring process, including  recruitment, assessment, referral, and applicant notification.  Beginning in  September of 2000, OPM invited human resources officials from federal  agencies to OPM-sponsored USA Staffing demonstrations, where human  resources officials could learn about the advantages of using USA Staffing.   According to OPM, over 40 federal organizations have contracted with  OPM to use USA Staffing.  Other federal agencies have relied on private  vendors to automate their hiring processes.
subsections: section_title: Views of the CHCO Council Members
paragraphs: In our April 2004 survey of the members of the CHCO Council, 21 of 22  respondents said that their agencies had made efforts to automate  significant parts of their hiring processes.  For those responding that they  had made such efforts, we also asked about the extent to which OPM had  assisted their agencies in automating their hiring processes and their level  of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app. II for further  information).  In narrative responses to our survey questions about  automating hiring processes, one Council member representing a cabinet- level department concurred with OPM’s current approach to support third- party vendors who can provide robust and streamlined rating and ranking  systems that complement and supplement the Recruitment One-Stop.   Another Council member said that current OPM policy or regulations that  impede the automation of the federal hiring process should be streamlined  and simplified for both the applicant and human resources practitioner.   Other comments included the following.
Individual departments and agencies should manage the automation  process themselves, even though not all agencies have comparable  information technology (IT) infrastructures.
Agencies should decide how to best accomplish automation of their  hiring processes instead of forcing integration into one system.
OPM and the departments and agencies have a shared responsibility for  automation of hiring processes.
section_title: Status of Our Prior Recommendation to OPM
paragraphs: OPM has implemented the recommendation that we made in last year’s  report for OPM to assist agencies in automating their hiring processes.   OPM has continued to promote the use of automated systems, including  USA Staffing and customer systems to meet agency needs.  OPM’s efforts in  this area are demonstrated by its work in providing services to over 40  federal organizations that have contracted with OPM to use USA Staffing.   OPM officials said that OPM has developed and would soon implement a  new Web-based version of USA Staffing, which would link and automate  the recruitment, examining, referral, notification, and hiring processes.
section_title: Improved Assessment Tools Could Help Agencies in Identifying the Best Candidates for Jobs
paragraphs: In our May 2003 report, we concluded that key candidate assessment tools  used in the federal hiring process can be ineffective.  Agencies can use  various approaches to assess job candidates under the federal merit-based  hiring process.  These applicant assessment tools include written and  performance tests, manual and automated techniques to review each  applicant’s training and experience, as well as interviewing approaches and  reference checks.  Using the right assessment tool, or combination of tools,  can assist the agency in predicting the relative success of each applicant on  the job and selecting the relatively best person for the job.
Our May 2003 report particularly discussed the ineffectiveness of candidate  assessment tools associated with filling occupations covered by the  Luevano consent decree.  We noted that the Administrative Careers with  America (ACWA) self-rating examination that is used to competitively fill  most positions covered by the Luevano consent decree was cumbersome,  delayed hiring, and often did not provide quality candidates.  This ACWA  rating-schedule examination contains 157 multiple-choice questions that  are designed to distinguish among qualified applicants on the basis of their  self-rated education and life experience.  In our May 2003 report, we noted  that many agencies reported that the primary reason they did not use the  ACWA examination was their past experiences with the quality of the  candidates.  For positions that are not covered by the Luevano consent  decree, agencies typically examine candidates by rating and ranking them  based on experience, training, and education, instead of administering  tests.
Our May 2003 report also discussed the challenges associated with the  special hiring programs established under the consent decree— Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural.  Many agency human  resources officials we interviewed for our May 2003 report said the  Outstanding Scholar program was a quick way to hire high-quality college  graduates for positions covered by the Luevano consent decree without  using the complex OPM examination process.  However, OPM and MSPB  have commented that this is an inappropriate use of the authority.   Outstanding Scholar allows candidates who meet the eligibility criteria— baccalaureate grade point average and class standing—to be directly  appointed without competition.  According to MSPB, such criteria are  questionable predictors of future performance, and they deny  consideration to many qualified applicants.  For similar reasons, MSPB also  has concerns about the Bilingual/Bicultural program, which permits  agencies to directly hire applicants who obtained a passing examination  score, without further regard to rank, when the position needs to be filled  by an incumbent with bilingual or bicultural skills and the applicant has the  requisite job skills.  MSPB has recommended abolishing both the  Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural programs because they are  not merit based and because other competitive hiring methods have been  more effective in hiring minorities.
In general, both OPM and MSPB are concerned about the validity of  candidate assessment tools for all occupations and advocate that agencies  improve their assessment instruments.  OPM told us that because of budget  constraints, it has only been able to develop assessments on a reimbursable  basis when other agencies provide OPM with the needed resources.  OPM  also said that many agencies do not have the technical expertise, funding,  or time to develop valid assessment tools.  MSPB noted that the  government's interest is not well served if agencies do not have the  resources and expertise to make high-quality case examining  determinations.
Given the problems with these key candidate assessment tools and special  hiring authorities for Luevano-covered positions, we recommended in our  May 2003 report that OPM review the effectiveness of the Outstanding  Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural Luevano consent decree hiring authorities.   As we noted in our report, OPM recognized that it needed to do more  overall to improve candidate assessment tools.  In its fiscal year 2003  performance plan, OPM included a strategic objective that, by fiscal year  2005, governmentwide hiring selections are to be based on comprehensive  assessment tools that assess the full range of competencies needed to  perform the jobs of the future.  Since the issuance of our report last year,  OPM told us that, as part of the consent decree, it collects data annually on  how agencies used the Outstanding Scholar hiring authority; however, OPM  has not reevaluated assessment tools related to Luevano-covered positions.   OPM acknowledged that assessment tools in general need to be reviewed,  but commented that it is primarily the agency’s responsibility to address  these issues and recommended that agencies perhaps form consortia to  improve their assessment tools.  OPM officials noted that several agencies,  such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs  Service, created their own assessment tools for Luevano positions.  OPM  officials also said that if agencies do not want to develop their own  assessment tools, then they could request that OPM help develop such  tools under the reimbursable service program that OPM operates.
In technical comments to our draft report, OPM stated that the ACWA  rating schedules are valid assessments that have been approved by the  Department of Justice and that meet professional and legal requirements  for test development and validation.  OPM added that it has efforts  underway to automate the ACWA system as the second phase of its  Recruitment One-Stop initiative.  Nonetheless, many agency human  resources officials that we interviewed for our previous work on federal  hiring told us that the ACWA rating schedule was cumbersome, delayed  hiring, and often did not provide quality candidates.  Thus, although the  ACWA rating schedule might meet legal and test-development  requirements, it does not appear to effectively meet the needs of many  agency human capital officials in their efforts to readily identify and quickly  hire high-quality job applicants.
subsections: section_title: Views of the CHCO Council Members
paragraphs: In our April 2004 survey of the members of the CHCO Council, 21 of the 22  respondents said that their agencies had made efforts to improve their  hiring assessment tools.  For those responding that they had made such  efforts, we also asked about the extent to which OPM had assisted their  agencies in developing improved hiring assessment tools and their level of  satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app. II for further  information).  In narrative responses to our survey questions on improving  assessment tools, a Council member representing a cabinet-level  department said, for example, that the department has used OPM’s  reimbursable service to develop occupation-specific assessment tools with  good success.  A respondent representing another department said OPM  should tackle the ACWA assessment tool for hiring into occupations  covered by the Luevano consent decree, because the assessment tool  places far too much emphasis on experience at the expense of education  and potential.  According to another Council member, departments and  agencies are fully competent to procure or develop assessment tools, and  no additional OPM policy or regulation is necessary for the improvement of  such tools.  Other members made the following comments.
OPM is best positioned to take the lead in improving assessment tools  for jobs that are common across the government.
OPM should take the lead governmentwide for the development of  improved assessment tools, but agencies should take the lead for their  own agency efforts.
Both OPM and the departments and agencies have responsibility for  developing assessment tools.
Although OPM should not mandate specific assessment tools, as the  federal human resources expert, OPM should take a strong role in  providing information, assessments, analyses, and suggestions for  agencies in using automated tools to assess job applicants.
section_title: Status of Our Prior Recommendations to OPM
paragraphs: OPM officials told us that they believe OPM has implemented the  recommendation that we made in last year’s report for OPM to develop and  help agencies develop improved hiring assessment tools.  OPM officials  also told us that OPM has implemented another recommendation we made  in last year’s report for OPM to review the effectiveness of the Outstanding  Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural Luevano consent decree hiring authorities.   Although we agree that OPM has provided assistance to agencies in  improving their candidate assessment tools and has collected information  on agencies’ use of the special hiring authorities, major challenges remain  in this area, particularly with the continued use of the ACWA exam.  OPM  needs to take further action to address these recommendations, such as  actively working to link up agencies having similar occupations so that they  could potentially form consortia to develop more reliable and valid tools to  assess job candidates.
section_title: Our Prior Recommendation on Enhancing the Use of Human Capital Flexibilities in the Federal Government
paragraphs: We have reported that agencies need to streamline and improve their  administrative processes for using flexibilities and review self-imposed  constraints that may be excessively process oriented.  In our December  2002 report on the effective use of human capital flexibilities, we reported  that some of the barriers to effective strategic human capital management  in the federal government do not stem from law or regulation but are self- imposed by agencies.  We noted, for example, that the source of these  barriers can sometimes be agencies’ lack of understanding on the  prerogatives that they have.  Clearly, as we have previously reported,  agencies need to become better informed about the human capital tools  and flexibilities available to them and make better use of them than they  have in the past.  Agencies need to learn more about what is being done in  the human capital area by agencies that have taken the initiative—which  approaches have worked, which have not, and what lessons can be drawn  from others’ experiences and used to improve their organizations’  approaches to managing their human capital.
This process is where OPM can also play an important role.  In a separate  report we issued in May 2003 on how OPM can better assist agencies in  using personnel flexibilities, we recommended that OPM work with and  through the CHCO Council to more thoroughly research, compile, and  analyze information on the effective and innovative use of human capital  flexibilities, including those related to federal hiring.  We noted that this  should involve more fully serving as a clearinghouse in sharing and  distributing information about when, where, and how flexibilities are being  used, and should be used, to help agencies meet their human capital  management needs.  As we recently testified, OPM and agencies need to  continue to work together to improve the hiring process, and the CHCO Council should be a key vehicle for this needed collaboration.  To  accomplish this effort, agencies need to provide OPM with timely and  comprehensive information about their experiences in using various  approaches and flexibilities to improve their hiring processes.  OPM— working through the CHCO Council— can, in turn, help accomplish this  effort by serving as a facilitator in the collection and exchange of  information about agencies’ effective practices and successful approaches  to improved hiring.
section_title: Agencies Appear to Be Making Limited Use of New Hiring Flexibilities
paragraphs: On the basis of our interviews with OPM officials and the responses to our  survey of CHCO Council members, federal agencies appear to be making  limited use of category rating and direct-hire authority, two new hiring  flexibilities authorized by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.  Data on the  actual use of these two hiring flexibilities are not readily available, partly  because of the recency of their authorization.  OPM officials we met with  expressed the OPM Director’s frustration that agencies are not attempting  to use the flexibilities that OPM worked to have written into law for  agencies’ use.  Our survey of CHCO Council members confirmed the view  that agencies are not making extensive use of new flexibilities.  Also, 21 of  the 22 survey respondents cited at least one barrier that they said  prevented or hindered their agencies from using or making greater use of  the new hiring flexibilities.  Some of the barriers they identified included  (1) the lack of OPM guidance for using the flexibilities, (2) the lack of  agency policies and procedures for using the flexibilities, (3) the lack of  flexibility in OPM rules and regulations, and (4) concern about possible  inconsistencies in the implementation of the flexibilities within the  department or agency.  OPM officials said that they believe the primary  reason agencies are not using these new flexibilities is that agency officials  are unfamiliar with them and do not have sufficient knowledge and skills  related to these flexibilities to maximize their use.  OPM officials said that  OPM provided agencies with guidance for using the flexibilities, such as  training sessions at recruitment fairs and procedures in the OPM Delegated  Examining Operations Handbook.
subsections: section_title: Use of Category Rating Could Provide Agencies with a Larger Pool of High- Quality Candidates from Which to Select
paragraphs: Category rating is an alternative rating and selection procedure that can  provide agency managers will a larger pool of qualified job candidates from  which to select than numerical ranking and the rule of three, while also  protecting veterans’ preference.  Under category rating, job candidates are  assigned to quality categories—such as “best qualified” or “highly  qualified”—following an assessment of their knowledge and skills against  job-related criteria.  The names of all candidates in the highest quality  group are then sent to the selecting official and are available for selection.   If the highest quality group contains a veteran, the veteran must be hired  unless an objection to hiring the veteran is sustained by OPM.  If the  number of candidates falling into the highest quality group is inadequate,  applicants from the next highest quality group of eligible candidates can  also be referred to the agency manager for selection.
In our May 2003 report on hiring, we pointed out that among several  candidate-assessment-related issues, one of the largest obstacles in the  federal hiring process was the rule of three and numerical rating system  that limited managers’ choice of quality candidates.  Our report noted that  many of the human resources directors we interviewed from the 24 largest  federal agencies raised concerns that the rule of three and numerical rating  had a negative impact on hiring high-quality people.  Under procedures  using the rule of three, once the assessment panel has rated the candidates,  the agency’s human resources office applies applicable veterans’  preference points, ranks candidates, and refers a sufficient number of  candidates to permit the selecting official to consider three candidates that  are available for appointment.  The selecting official is required to select  from among the top three ranked candidates available for appointment.  If  a candidate with veterans’ preference is on the list, the selecting official  cannot pass over the veteran and select a lower ranking candidate without  veterans’ preference unless the selecting official’s objection to hiring the  veteran is sustained by OPM.
Over the past decade, the use of category rating procedures to assess job  applicants was tested in selected agencies through an OPM-sponsored  demonstration project and was generally found to be an effective rating  approach.  As we noted in our May 2003 report, the Department of  Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Forest Service (FS)  tested and implemented category rating in lieu of numerical ranking and  the rule of three under such a demonstration project.  The final 5-year  evaluation of the project showed that (1) the number of candidates per job  announcement increased, (2) more candidates were referred to managers  for selection, (3) hiring speed increased, and (4) there was greater  satisfaction with the hiring process among managers.  On average, there  were from 60 percent (ARS) to 70 percent (FS) more applicants available  for consideration under the demonstration project quality grouping  procedure than under the standard rule of three and numerical ranking.   Also, a higher percentage of veterans were hired in ARS and about the  same percentage of veterans were hired by FS compared with using the  rule of three process.  In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Congress  provided the authority for all federal agencies to use category rating as an  alternative to the rule of three.
OPM has provided guidance to agencies on the use of category rating  systems to assess job applicants.  In June 2003, OPM published interim  regulations for agencies on the use of category rating, and OPM revised  related guidance in its Delegated Examining Operations Handbook for  agencies when using this alternative rating procedure.  In addition, OPM  officials told us that in July 2003, OPM provided on-site briefings to agency  program managers, human resources officials, and contractors on issues  related to using category rating procedures.  In February 2004, OPM  included this new hiring flexibility in its memorandum to agencies as one of  the top 10 things agencies could do to improve federal hiring.  OPM said it  would issue final regulations on the use of category rating before its interim  regulations sunset in June 2004.  Officials said the changes to the final  regulations will be editorial in nature and will not alter the procedures that  agencies are to follow when using this alternative rating system.
Data on agencies’ actual use of category rating are not readily available.   The Homeland Security Act requires each agency that establishes a  category rating system to report annually to Congress for the first 3 years  on its experiences, including (1) the number of employees hired under the  system, (2) the impact the system has on hiring of veterans and minorities,  and (3) the way managers were trained in administration of the system.   However, according to OPM, no agencies have yet reported on their use of  such category rating systems.  Moreover, data on agencies’ use of category  rating are not maintained in the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF), OPM’s  centralized database of information on federal civilian employees.
subsections: section_title: Views of the CHCO Council Members
paragraphs: Given the lack of available data on the extent to which agencies are using  the newly authorized category rating flexibility, we asked about this issue  in our April 2004 survey of the CHCO Council members.  As shown in figure  2, a majority (13 of 22) of the officials responding to our survey said that  their agencies were using category rating to “little or no extent.”  (See app.  II for further information on the survey results.)  In narrative responses to  our survey questions about category rating, several respondents said that  their agencies were not using category rating but were considering options,  developing procedures, or establishing pilot programs.  For example, a  CHCO Council member responded that his department had developed  procedures for implementing category rating and had included this  flexibility as a tool for implementation in the department’s hiring plan for  fiscal year 2004.  According to this official, category rating will be  particularly useful for those occupations for which the department  anticipates hiring multiple applicants as well as for positions that have  highly specialized experience requirements.  Another Council member  representing a cabinet-level department said that the department had  drafted a policy on the use of category rating and was establishing a  program to pilot the use of this hiring flexibility with at least one  occupation.  This respondent said that the department’s human resources  office was working with other bureaus within the department to identify a  cross-section of occupations for which category rating would be an  appropriate process for rating job applicants.
We also surveyed CHCO Council members about the most significant  barriers, if any, preventing or hindering their agencies from using or making  greater use of the newly authorized category rating flexibility in their hiring  processes.  Although the responses provided by the Council members  varied (see fig. 3), the most frequently cited barriers to using category  rating were (1) the lack of policies and procedures within the department  or agency for using the flexibility, (2) the lack of OPM guidance for using  the flexibility, (3) a need to reprogram automated systems to handle the  new process, (4) rigid OPM rules and regulations, and (5) concern about  possible inconsistencies in implementation.  In narrative responses to our  survey questions about category rating, a few respondents said that their  agencies were not using or making greater use of category rating because  of key stakeholders’ lack of understanding about the application of  veterans’ preference and the Luevano consent decree.  OPM officials told  us that each agency needs to determine how the applicant’s ACWA test  points relate to the “best qualified” quality categories under category rating.   Other comments from CHCOs included the following.  One respondent said  that each agency has had to research best practices and lessons learned  prior to implementing this alternative rating system.  Finally, a Council  member from a major department said that agencies need a  governmentwide champion to advance the use of category rating in their  hiring processes.
In our survey of CHCO Council members, we also asked about the extent to  which OPM had assisted their agencies in using category rating and their  level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app. II for  further information).  In narrative responses to our survey questions about  category rating, a CHCO Council member representing a major department  said, for example, that the department was reluctant to use category rating  until OPM provided further guidance on use of the flexibility.  Another  Council member noted that the interim regulations on category rating that  OPM issued in June 2003 would expire after 1 year and wanted to know  when OPM would publish the final regulations.  Another respondent said  that OPM responded to ad hoc questions related to the technical  application of category rating, but generally defers to the agency to make  the final determination.  This respondent suggested that it would be  beneficial for OPM to broadly address technical issues for agencies rather  than on an ad hoc basis.  Another respondent commented that additional  training on the use of category rating should be provided to agencies.   Another respondent remarked that unresolved questions around the use of  category rating may be common to all agencies and that OPM should  provide additional implementing guidance in the form of questions and  answers.
section_title: Use of Direct-Hire Authority Could Speed Hiring for Shortage Occupations and Critical Needs through New Assessment and Rating Requirements
paragraphs: A provision of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides authority that  allows agencies to appoint candidates directly to positions where OPM  determines there is a severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring  need.  When making appointments under the newly authorized direct-hire  authority, agencies are not required to numerically rate and rank applicants  nor apply the rule of three or veterans’ preference.  However, under these  direct-hire appointments, agencies would still be required to provide public  notice of the vacancies and screen all applicants to ensure that they meet  the basic qualification requirements of the position.
Under OPM’s interim regulations, when making determinations to allow  agencies to use direct-hire authority, OPM may decide on its own that a  severe hiring shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need exists, either  governmentwide or in specified agencies, or for one or more specific  occupations, grade levels (or equivalents), or geographic locations.   Alternatively, an agency may, in a written request to OPM, identify the  position or positions for which it believes a severe shortage or critical  hiring need exists.  Under OPM’s rules, to demonstrate that a severe  shortage of candidates exists for a position or group of positions, an agency  must provide information showing that it is unable to identify candidates  possessing the competencies required to perform the necessary duties of  the position despite extensive recruitment, extended announcement  periods, and the use, as applicable, of hiring flexibilities such as  recruitment and relocation incentives.  To prove that a critical hiring need  exists, an agency must demonstrate that it has a critical need for the  position or positions to meet mission requirements brought about by an  exigency such as a national emergency, threat or potential threat,  environmental disaster, or other unanticipated or unusual events.
As with category rating, OPM has provided agencies with guidance on the  use of direct-hire authority in their hiring processes.  In June 2003, OPM  published interim regulations implementing direct-hire authority and  included revised guidance in its Delegated Examining Operations  Handbook.  Additionally, OPM covered issues related to using direct-hire  authority in the onsite briefings it provided to agency program officials,  human resources staff, and contractors in July 2003.  As with category  rating, OPM said it would issue final regulations on the use of direct hire  before its interim regulations sunset in June 2004.  Officials said the  changes to the final regulations will be editorial in nature and will not alter  the criteria in determining whether there is a severe shortage of candidates  or a critical hiring need.
Since the issuance of its June 2003 interim regulations on the use of direct- hire authority, OPM has approved three governmentwide direct-hire  authorities and seven agency-specific direct-hire authorities (see table 2).   The three governmentwide authorities allow all federal agencies to use  direct-hire procedures for specific medical occupations, information  security positions, and jobs requiring fluency in Arabic and other Middle  Eastern languages related to ongoing reconstruction efforts in Iraq.  The  OPM-approved agency-specific authorities to use direct hire cover a range  of occupations, grade levels, and locations at six agencies, such as  veterinarians and related positions at the Department of Agriculture  principally to address mad cow disease.  OPM officials informed us that  they had not formally declined any agency requests for direct-hire authority  since the interim regulations were issued in June 2003.  However, they did  point out that they had not approved all of the occupations that Agriculture  had requested for direct hire.
While the Homeland Security Act requires agencies to report to Congress  on their use of category rating, the act does not require agencies to report  to Congress on their use of direct hire.  However, agencies are required to  report to OPM on the use of direct hire for inclusion in OPM’s centralized  personnel database.  OPM reported that its review of data in the CPDF  indicated that as of December 31, 2003, fewer than 50 individuals had been  hired under the new direct-hire authority.  It is possible that when new  personnel authority codes are added to personnel actions reported by  agencies for the CPDF, there could be a lag in personnel officials’ use of the  new code and as a result the actual use of the authority may be  underreported.
The use of direct-hire authority was also listed in the OPM Director’s  February 2004 memorandum to agency CHCOs as one of the top 10 things  agencies can do to improve hiring.  In the memo, the OPM Director urged  agencies to look at their hiring plans, identify opportunities to use direct  hire based on the standards in the regulations, and, if appropriate, ask OPM  for the authority to use it.  The memo also suggested that agencies consider  using direct-hire authority at one of the federal job fairs that OPM was then  sponsoring across the country.  The memo noted that OPM officials were  somewhat surprised by how few agencies had contacted OPM to request  authority to use direct-hire procedures.
subsections: section_title: Views of the CHCO Council Members
paragraphs: Given the lack of available data on the extent to which agencies are using  the new direct-hire authority, we asked about this issue in our April 2004  survey of the CHCO Council members.  As shown in figure 4, a majority (17  of 22) of the officials responding to our survey said that their agencies were  using direct hire to “some extent” or to “little or no extent.”  (See app. II for  further information on the survey results.)  In narrative responses to our  survey questions about direct hire, several respondents stated that their  agencies had used direct-hire authority to fill various medical positions and  small numbers of IT security positions.  Several respondents also said that  their agencies had not yet used direct-hire authority but were assessing the  options for doing so.  For example, a CHCO Council member representing  an independent agency said that the agency had not thus far decided if it  still had positions in a shortage category and would make such a  determination after completing its workforce analysis and strategic  assessments.  A Council member from a cabinet-level department said that  it had determined a need for direct-hire authority for acquisition specialists  and was developing a request to OPM.  Another Council member  representing a large department said that the department’s components  were aware of the newly authorized direct-hire authority but they had not  yet identified situations for which they would request OPM’s approval to  use the authority.
We also surveyed CHCO Council members about the most significant  barriers, if any, preventing or hindering their agencies from using or making  greater use of the newly authorized direct-hire authority in their hiring  processes.  Although the responses provided by the Council members  varied (see fig. 5), the most frequently cited barriers to using direct hire  were (1) rigid OPM rules and regulations, (2) concern about possible  inconsistent implementation within the department or agency, (3) the  limited number of occupations for which the authority could be used, and  (4) the lack of policies and procedures within the agency for using direct  hire.  In narrative responses to our survey questions about direct hire, a  CHCO Council member representing a large department said, for example,  that recently OPM officials informally told the department that OPM would  likely disapprove a proposed request for direct-hire authority that the  department desired for a specified occupation, even though at least one  other agency had direct-hire authority for that same occupation.  This  respondent said that the specific position is relatively hard to fill and that  OPM needs to relax the criteria it uses to demonstrate a shortage of  qualified applicants.  Another Council member representing an  independent agency commented that the governmentwide direct-hire  authorities that OPM has issued cover occupations that are generally not  applicable to the agency or in which the agency has an extremely limited  number of positions.  In contrast, a CHCO representing a cabinet-level  department responded that no barriers exist for using direct-hire authority.
In our survey of CHCO Council members, we also asked about the extent to  which OPM had assisted their agencies in using direct hire and their level of  satisfaction or dissatisfaction with that assistance (see app. II for further  information).  In narrative responses to our survey questions about direct  hire, one respondent from a cabinet-level department said, for example,  that the department had attempted to use direct-hire authority for IT  security positions but received inconsistent guidance on the application of  veterans’ preference from OPM.   A Council member from a large  department said that OPM should delegate authority to approve direct hire  requests to the agencies as permitted by the Homeland Security Act of  2002.  A respondent from a department said that the department had  surveyed its components to determine if it should petition OPM for direct- hire authority, but that most of the positions identified to date could not be  justified based on the OPM criteria.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Congress, OPM, and agencies have recognized the need to improve the  federal hiring process and have initiated numerous efforts to address key  problem areas.  Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, agencies have  been given new personnel flexibilities to improve the hiring process.  In  addition, DHS and DOD have been given authority to fundamentally reform  their personnel systems, which, if successfully implemented, could aid in  improving their hiring processes.  In addition to these new hiring  flexibilities given to agencies, agencies can address many of their other  hiring challenges by applying human capital tools and flexibilities already  available under existing laws and regulations.  Rather than wait for reforms  to arrive, agency leaders need to take the initiative to be more competitive  in attracting new employees with critical skills.
Although the agencies have primary responsibility to improve their hiring  processes, OPM can take additional action.  As we noted earlier, we  previously recommended that OPM, working with the CHCO Council,  should serve as a clearinghouse to foster more use of personnel  flexibilities.  In the hiring area, OPM could gather, analyze, and report on  when, where, and how agencies are using, or should use, direct hire and  category rating procedures to aid in their hiring efforts.
The federal government is now facing one of the most transformational  changes to the civil service in half a century, which is reflected in the new  personnel systems for DHS and DOD and in new hiring flexibilities  provided to all agencies.  Today’s challenge is to define the appropriate  roles and day-to-day working relationships for OPM and individual  agencies as they collaborate on developing innovative and more effective  hiring systems.  Moreover, human capital expertise within the agencies  must be up to the challenge for this transformation to be successful and  enduring.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The Director of OPM provided written comments on a draft of this report,  which are shown in appendix III.  In these written comments, the OPM  Director said that OPM has done much to assist agencies and increase their  knowledge about the hiring flexibilities available to them.  She highlighted,  for example, her memoranda to agencies that contain information and  guidance on the use of hiring flexibilities as well as training that OPM  provided to agencies as part of the OPM-sponsored “Working for America”  recruitment fairs.  She underscored that agencies must rise to the  challenge, provide consistent leadership at the senior level, take advantage  of the training opportunities offered by OPM, and make fixing the hiring  process a priority.
The OPM Director also commented that the report “appears to rely upon  perceptions that are not consistent with the facts.”  OPM explained this  concern in additional technical comments that were provided by E-mail.  In  these technical comments, OPM raised objections to our use of narrative  responses from our survey of CHCO Council members and requested that  many of these responses be deleted from the final report.  OPM said that in  some instances the opinions expressed by the CHCO Council members  made reference to situations or circumstances that were outside of the  respondent’s agency or personal knowledge and were unsubstantiated.  However, consistent with OPM’s position that agencies must take greater  responsibility for their own hiring processes and that it has effectively  trained agency officials on hiring, it seems to reason that the CHCOs of  these departments and agencies should be in a position to comment  knowledgeably on their agencies’ efforts—and OPM’s efforts in assisting  them—to improve hiring processes.  As noted in the description of our  scope and methodology for this report (see app. I), the results of our survey  represent the views and opinions of the responding CHCO Council  members.  In drafting this report, we provided a full range of narrative  responses from CHCO Council members—both positive and negative— related to OPM’s role in helping to improve the federal hiring process.  In  our survey to the CHCO Council members (see app. II), we specifically  noted that our report would not identify the names of individual  respondents or their associated departments or agencies.  We took this step  to better ensure that we received direct and candid survey responses.   Moreover, we make direct reference to actions taken and documents  produced on federal issues throughout the draft.
In its technical comments, OPM also offered suggested changes to clarify  various issues related to personnel policy and procedures.  Where  appropriate, we made changes to the report to address the comments we  received.
We will send copies to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the  House Committee on Government Reform, the Chairman and Ranking  Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and  other interested congressional parties.  We will also provide copies to the  Director of OPM.  In addition, we will make copies available to others upon  request.  The report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512- 6806 or mihmj@gao.gov.  Major contributors to this report are listed in  appendix IV.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this study were to   provide information on the status of recent efforts to help improve the  federal hiring process; and   determine the extent to which federal agencies are using the new hiring  flexibilities—category rating and direct-hire authority—authorized by  the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
This study builds on the information, conclusions, and recommendations of  our report: Human Capital: Opportunities to Improve Executive  Agencies’ Hiring Processes (GAO-03-450, May 30, 2003).  That report  concluded that the federal hiring process needed improvement and made  recommendations to address problems with the job classification process,  job vacancy announcements and Web postings, manual hiring processes,  and hiring assessment tools.
To respond to the objectives on this engagement, we interviewed officials  from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and members of the  subcommittee on the hiring process of the Chief Human Capital Officers  (CHCO) Council.  Specifically, our questions and review centered on  actions being taken to address the hiring problems and recommendations  identified in our May 2003 report, what new hiring initiatives were  underway, and an assessment of the extent to which agencies are using  category rating and direct-hire authority.  We also collected and reviewed  OPM documents related to federal hiring.
In addition, we obtained opinions and views on efforts to improve the  federal hiring process as well as agencies’ use of new hiring flexibilities by  interviewing human capital experts at the following organizations.
The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent,  quasi-judicial agency in the executive branch that hears and decides  civil service cases, reviews OPM regulations, and conducts studies of  the federal government's merit system.
The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) is an  independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, congressionally charted  organization that assists federal, state, and local governments in  improving their performance.
The National Partnership for Public Service is a nonpartisan, nonprofit  organization dedicated to revitalizing the public service.
We also conducted a survey of the members of the CHCO Council.  The  CHCO Council currently comprises 25 members:  the Director of OPM; the  Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB); CHCOs from executive branch departments, and other agency  CHCOs invited to join by the OPM Director, who serves as chair of the  Council.  We sent our questionnaire to the 23 Council members serving as  CHCOs representing federal departments and agencies; our survey did not  include the Director of OPM or the Deputy Director for Management of  OMB.  Specifically, the Council members we surveyed were the CHCOs  from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education,  Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and  Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation,  Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; and CHCOs from the Central Intelligence  Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, General Services  Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Nuclear  Regulatory Commission, OPM, Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation,  and Social Security Administration.  Twenty-two of the 23 Council  members responded to our questionnaire.  The CHCO Council member  from the Central Intelligence Agency did not respond to our survey because  his representative said the agency was an excepted service agency and thus  the survey questions were not relevant.
Our survey of the CHCO Council members included questions to help us  address both engagement objectives.  For the first objective, we asked  questions about the parts of the hiring process we had identified in our May  2003 report—specifically, reforming the classification process, automating  hiring processes, improving job announcements and Web postings, and  developing improved hiring assessment tools.  For the second objective, we  asked questions about the use of category rating and direct-hire authority  and the possible barriers hindering agencies’ use of these two new hiring  flexibilities.
The results of our survey reflect the views and opinions of the responding  CHCO Council members.  As noted above for objective one, we asked the  survey recipients if their agencies had made efforts in the four hiring areas;  however, we did not ask respondents to specifically identify those efforts  nor did we conduct other data collection efforts to verify the nature or  extent of such efforts.  Similarly, for objective two related to the use of  category rating or direct-hire authority, we asked the Council members  their views about the extent of use of the two flexibilities.
The questionnaire we used contained 34 questions and was developed from  March through April 2004 by a social science survey specialist and other  individuals knowledgeable about the OPM reforms.  The questionnaire was  reviewed by other survey specialists and experts in the content area and  pretested with four government human capital professionals familiar with  the initiatives to develop a questionnaire that was unambiguous and  unbiased.  We made changes to the content and format of the final  questionnaire based on the reviews and pretest results.
The survey was conducted using an Active X-enabled E-mail attachment.   The survey was sent to all agency members of the CHCO Council beginning  on April 15, 2004, and all recipients of our survey replied to our request for  information by May 7, 2004.  Respondents were given the option of  returning the survey as an E-mail attachment or printing the questionnaire  and returning it via fax.  Data for this study were entered directly into the  instrument by the respondents and converted into a database for analysis.   Appendix II presents a copy of the survey and the responses of the CHCO  Council members to the closed-ended questions on our survey.
As part of our analysis process, we examined CHCO Council members'  answers in response to questions asking them if they had any additional  comments to make on a specific topic or additional barriers to identify.  We  reviewed the additional barriers identified and counted the number of  instances where two or more respondents identified a similar barrier and  included those frequency counts in our report.  Given the broad scope of  the questions asking for any additional comments, we did not perform a  similar content analysis of CHCO responses to those broad questions.   However, we included some of those additional comments by individual  CHCOs in this report to illustrate the diversity of views provided by the  CHCOs on these topics.
In addition, we used data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)  to identify the total new hires by federal department and agency for fiscal  year 2003.  We also analyzed data from the CPDF in an attempt to identify  the extent to which agencies are using the direct-hire authority contained  in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.  Data on agencies’ use of category  rating is not maintained in the CPDF.  As noted in the body of this report, it  is possible that when new personnel authorities are authorized (any new  codes established for the CPDF), personnel officials might continue to use  old codes and therefore underreport the use of the new authority.  With the  exception of the concern just noted, based on previous GAO work, the  CPDF data are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of providing  background information on new hires.
We provided a draft of this report to OPM for review and comment.  OPM’s  comments are shown in appendix III.  We did our review in Washington,  D.C., from March 2004 through May 2004 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Summary Results of GAO Survey of Members of the Chief Human Capital Officers Council
subsections: section_title: Introduction
paragraphs: Chief Human Capital Officer:  In May 2003, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report entitled Human  Capital: Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies’ Hiring Processes (GAO-03-450),  which discussed challenges and issues related to the federal hiring process.  As a follow- up to that report, Jo Ann Davis, Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service and  Agency Organization, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives,  has requested that we update the status of ongoing efforts related to the federal hiring  process by determining   1)  the status of the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) efforts to help improve the  federal hiring process, and  2)  the extent to which federal agencies are using new hiring flexibilities authorized by  the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
This survey is part of our effort to collect information from members of the Chief Human  Capital Officer (CHCO) Council with regard to these matters.  However, we encourage  you to consult with other people in your organization who may have more in-depth  knowledge about particular areas that are covered in this survey.
Please complete this survey in MS-Word, save it and return it as an attachment via e-mail  to both of the GAO contacts noted below.  If you wish to complete the survey by phone,  please call one of the numbers listed below.  If you prefer to print the survey out and fax  it back, you can fax the survey to (202) 512-2502.
Please use your mouse to navigate throughout the survey by clicking on the field or  check box  you wish to answer.
To select a check box, simply click or double click on the center of the box.
To change or deselect a response, simply click on the check box and the ‘X’ should  disappear.
To answer a question that requires that you write a comment, please click on the answer  box       and begin typing.  Please do not use the enter key to end a line.
Do not “unlock” this document, it will erase your answers.  If you wish to include  comments about particular questions, include the comment with the question number in  the comments section at the end of each section.
Prior to filling out the relevant sections of the questionnaire, please read the related  sections entitled “Background Information.”
Your participation in this survey is essential for obtaining a broad perspective on  government-wide adoption of new hiring flexibilities and OPM efforts in these areas.
If you represent a cabinet-level department on the CHCO Council, please generally  consider the activities of all agencies within your department and present a summary  response.  We do not plan to report any individuals’ responses by either name or  department/agency.
If possible, please return this survey within one week of receiving our e-mail.  After that  time, if we have not heard from you, we will attempt to contact you to confirm that you  have received this questionnaire and try to arrange a convenient time when we could  obtain your responses over the telephone.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Edward H Stephenson Jr.  Assistant Director  Strategic Issues  Q1. Whom  should we contact if we have follow-up questions?
section_title: Background Information on the Federal Hiring Process
paragraphs: OPM and federal agencies share responsibility for the federal hiring process.  OPM is  responsible for providing agencies with training, guidance, technical assistance, and  oversight to help ensure that agencies use their hiring authority in accordance with merit  principles.  Federal agencies are responsible for designing and implementing their own  hiring processes that comply with merit principles by ensuring that the agency’s vacant  positions are filled with the best-qualified persons from a sufficient pool of well-qualified  people.  Typical steps in the federal hiring process for filling job vacancies include the  following:   Define job, set pay, qualifications and assessment criteria   Prepare public notice and job vacancy announcement   Receive applications electronically, by mail, or in person   Screen for eligibility and minimum qualification standards   Assess the relative qualifications of the candidates against job-related criteria   Select candidate   Bring candidate on board  The process of classification involves categorizing jobs or positions according to the  kind of work done, the level of difficulty and responsibility, and the qualifications  required for the position, and serves as a building block to determine pay for the  position.  The Classification Act of 1949 provides a plan for classifying most federal  positions and sets out 15 grade levels.  OPM develops standards that must be consistent  with the Act.
Q2. Are you aware of any efforts OPM has made to reform the federal classification  process that affect your department/agency?
No --Skip to Q5    Not sure --Skip to Q5 Q3.  To what extent have OPM's efforts to reform the classification process helped your  department/agency? (Check one.)
Very great extent     Great extent     Moderate extent    Some extent    Little or no extent      No basis to judge/not applicable -- Skip to Q5 3 Q4.  How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with OPM's efforts and proposals to change the  classification process?  (Check one.)
Number of Respondents   Very satisfied    Somewhat satisfied     Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied    No basis to judge/not applicable  Q5.  At the current time, who should take the lead in furthering reform of the  classification process in the federal government?  (Check one.)
Number of Respondents    No further reforms needed     Departments/agencies    OPM     None of the above (Please explain: )
Q6. If you have any additional comments regarding reforming the classification process,  please write them below.  Number of Respondents Automation has the potential to streamline the hiring process by generating vacancy  announcements, helping determine if a job applicant meets eligibility and basic job  qualifications, and assessing the relative merits of the qualified candidates.  The use of an  automated system could also allow managers and human capital staff to easily document  their decisions.  Both private vendors and OPM offer software that can automate agency  hiring processes.
Q7. Has your department/agency made efforts to automate any significant parts of its  hiring process?
Q8.  To what extent has OPM assisted your department/agency in automating its hiring  processes?  (Check one.)
Very great extent     Great extent     Moderate extent Some extent  Little or no extent      No basis to judge/not applicable --Skip to Q10 Q9.  How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with assistance that OPM has provided your  department/agency in automating its hiring processes?  (Check one.)
Number of Respondents   Very satisfied    Somewhat satisfied     Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied     No basis to judge/not applicable  Q10.  At the current time, who should take the lead in furthering the automation of  federal hiring processes?  (Check one.)
Number of Respondents    No further automation needed     Departments/agencies     OPM     None of the above (Please explain: )
A job announcement is a tool in the recruitment process that provides an important  opportunity to make a first impression on potential applicants, and may strongly  influence their decision to apply for a position.  Job announcements should be clear,  concise, and attractive and make potential job applicants want to apply.  Federal  agencies post federal jobs on the Internet-based USAJOBS database, which is operated  by OPM.
Q12. Has your department/agency made efforts to improve its job announcements and  Web postings?
Number of Respondents    Yes     No --Skip to Q15    Not sure --Skip to Q15  Q13.  To what extent has OPM assisted your department/agency in improving job  announcements and Web postings?  (Check one.)
Very great extent     Great extent     Moderate extent    Some extent    Little or no extent      No basis to judge/not applicable --Skip to Q15 Q14.  How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with assistance that OPM has provided your  department/agency in improving job announcements and Web postings? (Check  one.)
Number of Respondents   Very satisfied    Somewhat satisfied     Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied    No basis to judge/not applicable  Q15.  At the current time, who should take the lead in improving job announcements and  Web postings for the federal government?  (Check one.)
Number of Respondents    No improvements needed      None of the above (Please explain: )
section_title: Developing Improved Hiring Assessment Tools
paragraphs: Making good employee selections in the hiring process helps lead to high productivity,  development of a cohesive work group, reduced employee turnover, and other positive  outcomes.  These employee selections rely on reliable and valid candidate assessment  tools.   Primary responsibility for developing assessment tools rests with the agencies.   OPM is responsible for providing guidance and technical assistance to agencies and will  develop specific assessment tools for a fee.
Q17. Has your department/agency made efforts to improve its hiring assessment tools?
Number of Respondents    Yes     No --Skip to Q20    Not sure --Skip to Q20 Q18.  To what extent has OPM assisted your department/agency in developing improved  hiring assessment tools?  (Check one.)
Very great extent     Great extent     Moderate extent    Some extent    Little or no extent      No basis to judge/not applicable --Skip to Q20 Q19.  How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with assistance that OPM has provided your  department/agency in developing improved hiring assessment tools? (Check one.)
Q20.  At the current time, who should take the lead in improving hiring assessment tools  for the federal government?  (Check one.)
Number of Respondents    No improvements needed     Departments/agencies     OPM     None of the above (Please explain: )
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorized federal agencies to use category rating  and direct-hire authority, two hiring flexibilities that were new to most agencies.  The  intent of these new hiring flexibilities is to expedite the federal hiring process and help  provide federal agencies with a larger pool of qualified candidates from which to choose  when hiring.  The following questions address the use of category rating and direct-hire  authority.
Category rating is an alternate candidate assessment procedure, authorized to replace  the “Rule of Three” selection procedure.  Instead of restricting selecting officials’ choice  to the three candidates with the highest numerical scores under the “Rule of Three,”  category rating allows candidates to be grouped together into quality categories.  Under  category rating, the certificate of eligibles may include any number of candidates who  are identified as the most-qualified applicants.
Q22.  To what extent is your department/agency using the newly authorized category  rating flexibility in its hiring process?  (Check one.)
Very great extent   Great extent   Moderate extent  Some extent  Little or no extent – Skip to Q23  No basis to judge/not applicable – Skip to Q23 8 22a.  Please briefly describe how your department/agency is using the newly  authorized category rating flexibility.   Number of Respondents Q23.  What are the three most significant barriers, if any, preventing or hindering your  department/agency from using or making greater use in its hiring process of the  newly authorized category rating flexibility?    (Please check up to three choices only.) Number of Respondents Lack of available funding to implement category rating flexibility  Lack of support for it from one or more key stakeholders (e.g., human  capital office, agency managers and supervisors, and/or employees, unions)
Lack of policies and procedures within the department/agency for using  this flexibility  Lack of expertise needed for implementation among one or more key  stakeholders (e.g., human capital office, agency managers and supervisors,  and/or employees, unions)
Reluctance within the department/agency to change to new procedures  Concern about possible inconsistencies in implementation within the  department/agency  Lack of OPM technical assistance   Rigid OPM rules and regulations   Lack of an OPM “clearinghouse” of ways to use this flexibility   Other: (Please explain: 11)
Other: (Please explain: 0)
Other: (Please explain: 0)
Q24.  To what extent has OPM assisted your department/agency in using the newly  authorized category rating flexibility?   (Check one.)
Q25.  How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with assistance that OPM has provided in  helping your department/agency use the newly authorized category rating flexibility?    (Check one.)
Number of Respondents   Very satisfied    Somewhat satisfied     Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied    No basis to judge/not applicable  Q26.  At the current time, who should primarily take the lead for furthering the use of  category rating in the federal hiring process?  (Check one.)
Number of Respondents    No need for further use    Departments/agencies     OPM      None of the above (Please explain: )
Q27. If you have any additional comments regarding category rating, please write them  below.  Number of Respondents Direct-hire authority allows agencies to appoint candidates directly to jobs for which  OPM determines there is a severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need.  Direct- hire authority permits agencies to hire without regard to the usual competitive  requirements related to veterans’ preference, the “Rule of Three”, and rating procedures.
Q28.  To what extent is your department/agency using the newly authorized direct-hire  authority in its hiring process?  (Check one.) Number of Respondents Very great extent           Great extent   Moderate extent  Some extent  Little or no extent -- Skip to Q29  No basis to judge/not applicable -- Skip to Q29 10 28a.  Please briefly describe how your department/agency is using the newly  authorized direct-hire authority in its hiring process.   Number of Respondents Q29.  What are the three most significant barriers, if any, preventing or hindering your  department/agency from using or making greater use in its hiring process of the  newly authorized direct-hire authority?    (Please check up to three choices only.) Number of Respondents Lack of available funding to implement direct-hire authority  Lack of support for it from one or more key stakeholders (e.g., human  capital office, agency managers and supervisors, and/or employees, unions)
Lack of policies and procedures within the department/agency for using  this authority  Lack of expertise needed for implementation among one or more key  stakeholders (e.g., human capital office, agency managers and supervisors,  and/or employees, unions)
Reluctance within the department/agency to change to new procedures  Concern about possible inconsistencies in implementation within the  department/agency  Lack of OPM technical assistance      Rigid OPM rules and regulations   Lack of an OPM “clearinghouse” of ways to use this authority  Other: (Please explain: 11)
Other: (Please explain: 2)
Other: (Please explain:0)
Q30.  To what extent has OPM assisted your department/agency in using the newly  authorized direct-hire authority?  (Check one.)
Q31.  How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with assistance that OPM has provided in  helping your department/agency use the newly authorized direct-hire authority?   (Check one.)  Number of Respondents    Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied    Somewhat dissatisfied    Very dissatisfied      No basis to judge/not applicable  Q32.  At the current time, who should take the lead for furthering the use of direct-hire  authority in the federal government?  (Check one.)
Number of Respondents    No need for further use    Departments/agencies     OPM      None of the above (Please explain: )
Q33. If you have any additional comments regarding the use of direct-hire authority,  please write them below.  Number of Respondents Q34.  If you have any additional comments regarding any of these questions or about the  federal hiring process and the new hiring flexibilities, please write them below.  Number of Respondents Thank you for completing this survey.
Please save this file now and send us a return e-mail with your file as an attachment.
section_title: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Major contributors to this report include K. Scott Derrick, Karin Fangman,  Stephanie M. Herrold, Trina Lewis, John Ripper, Edward Stephenson, and  Monica L. Wolford.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of  Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities  and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government  for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal  programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other  assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding  decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of  accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to   e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs