Federal Student Loan Repayment Program: OPM Could Build on Its Efforts to Help Agencies Administer the Program and Measure Results
Published: 2005-07-22T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: As federal workers retire in greater numbers, agencies will need to recruit and retain a new wave of talented individuals. Agencies need to determine if the federal student loan repayment (SLR) program is one of the best ways to make maximum use of available funds to attract and keep this key talent. GAO was asked to identify (1) why agencies use or are not using the program; (2) how agencies are implementing the SLR program; and (3) what results and suggestions agency officials could provide about the program and how they view the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) role in facilitating its use. Ten agencies were selected to provide illustrative examples of why and how agencies decided to use or chose not to use the program.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The largest users among GAO's 10 selected executive branch agencies primarily employed their SLR programs as broad-based retention tools aimed at keeping more recently hired employees with the knowledge and skills critical to their agencies. Officials at these agencies said the program also has an indirect positive effect on their recruitment efforts because job candidates are aware of the benefit and find the incentive attractive. Other agencies used the program as a recruitment and retention tool on a case-by-case basis, offering repayments to highly qualified individuals in occupations where the labor market is competitive. Agencies not using the program reported no real need to do so at this time because they are not facing significant recruitment and retention challenges. Agencies have a large degree of discretion in structuring their SLR programs, and they were tailoring program aspects to meet their unique needs. Those using their programs as broad-based retention tools operated them centrally, while those making loan repayments on a case-by-case basis had decentralized programs operated by their component units. Agencies also varied in the size of their loan repayments depending on the results they were trying to achieve. Although agencies believe it is a useful tool, officials described the program as time consuming and cumbersome to operate. They suggested that more automation and consolidation of program activities would make the program more efficient and easier to operate. Officials also suggested ways to make the program more effective. Since the SLR program is relatively new, agencies did not yet have comprehensive data to assess the program's impact, although they will need to establish a baseline of measures now for future assessments of the program. Currently, anecdotal evidence indicates that employees value the program, and agency officials believe the incentive will become more attractive to agencies once administrative problems are reduced. OPM has taken a number of steps to provide agencies with information and guidance on implementing the program. Human capital officials recognized OPM's efforts, but felt they could use more assistance on the technical aspects of operating the program, more coordination in sharing lessons learned in implementing it, and help consolidating some of the program processes. OPM and the Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council have an important role in assisting agencies with implementing their SLR programs. They may also be able to help agencies assess their own program results as well as develop a common set of metrics to provide information to Congress on the impact of the SLR program governmentwide.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: At a time when rising educational debt has the potential to drive college  and professional school graduates away from public service and into higher  paid private sector jobs, student loan repayment is viewed as one tool the  federal government can use to attract and keep valuable talent.  Congress  passed a law in 1990 authorizing agencies to repay, at their discretion, their  employees’ student loans as a means to recruit and retain a talented  workforce.  In 2001, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued  final regulations to implement the federal student loan repayment (SLR)  program.  The regulations were subsequently changed in 2004 to reflect  legislative amendments that increased the ceiling on annual and total loan  repayments.  The provisions of the federal SLR program legislation initially  authorized student loan repayments of up to $6,000 per year to a total of  $40,000 per employee.  These ceilings were later increased to a maximum  amount of $10,000 per calendar year and a total of $60,000.  Income and  employment taxes are withheld from the repayment amount, and an  employee seeking student loan repayment must sign a written service  agreement to work for the agency for at least 3 years.  The law requires that  agencies make the loan repayments directly to the lending institutions.
After a slow start, agencies’ use of the SLR program has increased  substantially since 2001.  OPM reported that federal agencies increased the  number of employees receiving student loan repayments by 42 percent in  fiscal year 2004 compared to the previous fiscal year (from 2,077 to 2,945  employees) and increased their overall financial investment in the program  by 79 percent (from $9.18 million to $16.42 million).  Most of these  repayments, approximately 81 percent, were made by five agencies,  including GAO.  In making these investments, agencies were required to  address a range of issues, such as funding and criteria for participation, to  determine whether a SLR program was desirable or feasible for them.   Funding is particularly important given that the law providing authority to  establish the programs does not provide separate or additional funding to  implement them.  Instead, agencies generally need to reallocate funds from  existing pay and benefits programs or other recruitment and retention  incentives to repay employees’ student loans.  Consequently, agencies must  determine whether to use the SLR program given available funds and other  tools to recruit and retain key talent.
To obtain a better understanding of agencies’ use of the federal SLR  program, you asked us to identify (1) why selected executive branch  agencies are using or not using the program, (2) how agencies are  implementing the SLR program, and (3) what results and suggestions  agency officials could provide about the program and how they view OPM’s  role in facilitating its use.
To address our objectives, we identified a set of federal agencies varying in  size and mission that had established SLR programs, were in the process of  establishing programs, or had chosen not to use them.  We then selected 10  agencies to provide illustrative examples of why and how agencies decided  to use the program or chose not to use it.  We selected the Department of  State (DOS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Securities and  Exchange Commission (SEC) because they were among the largest users  of the program through fiscal year 2004, and the General Services  Administration (GSA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) because they  used their programs on a more case-by-case basis.  We selected the  Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Commerce  (Commerce) because they were initiating programs, and the Social  Security Administration (SSA), the Equal Employment Opportunity  Commission (EEOC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA)  because they did not use the program.   Background information on the  agencies appears in appendix II.  We reviewed available documentation,  such as strategic workforce plans, SLR implementation plans, and other  documents associated with administering the program.  To obtain  governmentwide data on agencies’ use of the program and to help identify  our case study agencies, we reviewed and analyzed OPM’s annual reports  to Congress on the SLR program.  We interviewed agency officials, such as  human capital officers, SLR program managers, and recruitment directors,  from the selected agencies, as well as officials from OPM and other  relevant parties.  We conducted our review in Washington, D.C., in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards from  July 2004 through June 2005.  Detailed information on our scope and  methodology appears in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In 1989, the National Commission on the Public Service found that the  federal government experienced difficulties in recruiting and retaining a  quality workforce.  The commission recommended that a student loan  forgiveness program be established, and the SLR program was proposed in  response to that recommendation.  The reasons underlying enactment of  the federal SLR program continue today and include the impending  retirements of large numbers of federal workers and the difficulty, at times,  in attracting the right individuals to public service to help fill the gaps.   Today’s college graduates are entering the workforce with even more  substantial education loans than in 1989, and studies indicate that  educational debt prevents many graduates from choosing employers in  which they are interested but that provide lower salaries.  A 2002  Congressional Budget Office study concluded that federal employees in  selected professional and administrative occupations tend to hold jobs that  paid less than comparable jobs in the private sector.  The report stated that  the jobs that show the greatest pay disadvantage for federal workers make  up an increasing share of federal employment.
The provisions of the federal student loan repayment program legislation  authorize student loan repayments as recruitment or retention incentives  for highly qualified federal job candidates or current employees.  In  retention situations, however, the SLR program may be used only when an  employee is likely to leave for employment outside the federal government,  not to another federal agency.  As mentioned previously, agencies are  authorized to provide an employee with a maximum repayment amount of  $10,000 per calendar year up to a total of $60,000, with the payments  included in gross income for both income and employment tax purposes.   An employee who separates voluntarily from the agency, who does not  maintain an acceptable level of performance, or who violates any of the  conditions of the service agreement becomes ineligible to continue to  receive the benefit and must reimburse the agency for the total amount of  any repayment benefits received.  Under the law, student loans made,  insured, or guaranteed under the Higher Education Act of 1965 or health  education assistance loans made or insured under the Public Health  Service Act are eligible for repayment.  The SLR program legislation covers  executive and select legislative branch agencies and government  corporations such as the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Authorizing legislation also requires OPM to annually report to Congress on  agency program use.  According to OPM, the Department of Health and  Human Services was the only agency to make a student loan repayment in  fiscal year 2001.  More agencies began using the program in fiscal year  2002, with 16 of them reporting to OPM that they had repaid some  employees’ student loans.  Participation increased again in fiscal year 2003  with 24 agencies distributing more than $9.18 million among a total of 2,077  recipients. During fiscal year 2004, 28 agencies provided 2,945 employees  with a total of more than $16.42 million in student loan repayments.   Compared to fiscal year 2003, this represents a 42 percent increase in the  number of employees receiving the benefit and a 79 percent increase in the  agencies’ overall financial investment in the program.  As figure 1 shows,  five agencies invested the most funding on student loan repayments in  fiscal year 2004.   These five agencies also made the greatest number of  loan repayments.
As with other human capital flexibilities, Congress has directed that  agencies use the incentive strategically; therefore, some agencies may not  need to make large numbers of student loan repayments to use the program  effectively, or need to use the program at all to manage their workforces.
GAO is one of the top five agencies accounting for most of the student loan  repayments made in fiscal year 2004.   GAO implemented its SLR program  in fiscal year 2002 for employees who indicated interest and were willing to  make a 3-year commitment to stay with the agency.  The objective of the  program is to facilitate the recruitment and retention of highly qualified  employees by (1) providing an incentive for selected candidates to accept a  GAO position that may otherwise be difficult to fill and (2) retaining highly  competent employees with knowledge or skills critical to GAO.  At the  current time, GAO’s program is used mostly to retain top talent.  The goal is  to retain employees longer than 3 years, after which they are more likely to  consider a longer-term career at GAO.   The agency focuses on retaining  recently hired staff because of the considerable time and effort expended  on selecting these employees and the substantial amount of money  required to train new hires who will replace retiring employees.  The  program’s operating plan specifies groups or categories of employees who  will be considered for student loan repayment for retention purposes based  on job series.  Analysts and financial auditors, for example, generally  received the same amount of loan repayment, $5,000 in fiscal year 2004.   Employees in often hard-to-fill job series—such as economists and  attorneys—are considered for GAO’s maximum loan repayment, $6,000 in  fiscal year 2004, on a case-by-case basis.  To help measure the effectiveness  of its program, GAO distributed a survey to program recipients in 2004.   More than 50 percent of respondents confirmed that the program had some  influence over their decision to stay with GAO.
Pending legislation in the House of Representatives and the Senate would  exclude student loan repayments from gross income for federal tax  purposes.  The Generating Opportunity by Forgiving Educational Debt for  Service bill would, in effect, increase the amount of the student loan  repayment benefit by relieving federal employees of the obligation to pay  income tax on the repayments their federal agencies have provided them.   Those in favor of eliminating the tax argue that, with the current program,  the federal government is taxing its own ability to recruit and retain  employees.  They also note that loan repayments made by educational  institutions or nonprofit organizations to encourage public service are not  counted as taxable income for the recipient.
Legislation was also introduced but not passed in the last Congress to  authorize a separate SLR program for federal employees in national  security positions.  The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act would  grant authority to the heads of selected agencies to establish a pilot SLR  program to recruit or retain highly qualified professional personnel  employed by their agencies in national security positions.  This pilot  program, which would remain in effect for 8 years, would be limited to  agencies with national security responsibilities, namely national security  positions in the Departments of Defense, Energy, Homeland Security,  Justice, State, and the Treasury; the Central Intelligence Agency; and the  National Security Agency.   The proposed SLR program is similar to the  existing one except that the legislation will authorize the appropriation of  funding specifically for the loan repayments.  However, actual funding of  the loan repayments may be at the discretion of Congress via annual  appropriations acts.  The legislation also requires that, no later than 4 years  after its enactment, the OPM Director report to the appropriate  congressional committees on the status of the programs established and  the success of such programs in recruiting and retaining employees for  national security positions.
section_title: Selected Agencies’ Use of the SLR Program Largely Depended on Their Unique Recruitment and Retention Needs
paragraphs: DOS, DOJ, and SEC used the SLR program more extensively and primarily  as a broad-based tool to retain more recently hired employees in specific  positions that require knowledge or skills critical to the agency.  GSA, DOE,  and DOT, on the other hand, used it in on a case-by-case basis as an  incentive to either recruit selected highly qualified candidates or retain  employees with skills critical to the agency.  Commerce recently started to  offer repayments, also on a case-by-case basis, for recruitment and  retention.  At this time, SSA, EEOC, and SBA were satisfied with their  efforts using other recruitment and retention tools and have not needed to  use the program.
subsections: section_title: DOS, DOJ, and SEC Use the Program Primarily to Retain Employees
paragraphs: DOS heads the list of federal agencies in the number of employees  participating in, and funds expended on, student loan repayments.  The  department began using the program in fiscal year 2002 and reported  making loan repayments for 734 employees in fiscal year 2004.   Repayments totaled approximately $3.6 million.  Officials from DOS noted  that many of their recently hired employees have student loan debts.  For  example, most of the Presidential Management Fellows entering the  department have eligible student debt, which automatically qualifies them  for the benefit.  DOS uses its program primarily to recruit current  employees for foreign service hardship posts, and also to retain employees  in civil service positions that are difficult to fill.  The department has  determined that offering the program to candidates who accept or remain  in positions at the most difficult posts, such as those experiencing  hazardous political or health-related conditions, helps attract candidates to  seek these assignments or encourages employees to remain in them.   Employees, or potential employees, in certain historically difficult-to-fill  civil service occupational series may also qualify for the program.  These  positions range from those requiring historians with a Ph.D. in history to  passport and visa examiners working throughout the country.  While DOS  primarily uses the program for retention, its recruiters also report that the  SLR program is of great interest on college campuses across the country,  thereby indirectly helping recruiting.  The department noted that student  loan repayments are only one of several incentives and benefits available to  those considering a State Department career, but that the repayments are  an important part of its overall benefits package.
While DOJ made only one student loan repayment in fiscal year 2002, it  began using the program extensively in fiscal year 2003.  In fiscal year 2004,  the department reported making 331 repayments totaling approximately  $1.9 million, with the majority of payments made on behalf of attorneys,  special agents, and intelligence analysts.  DOJ’s use of the SLR program is  unique in that there is a centrally administered departmentwide program  for attorneys, as well as unit-run programs for a variety of other positions.   According to the attorney SLR program officials, DOJ uses the program  mostly to retain experienced attorneys.  About 10 percent of the loan  repayments is being used for recruitment, including qualifying new  attorneys entering the department under the Honors Program.  An  attorney SLR program manager reported that DOJ advertises the program  heavily to law students because it perceives the program to be an effective  indirect recruiting tool.
In terms of DOJ’s unit-run programs, 12 of its 16 components reported  using the SLR program in fiscal year 2004, according to a DOJ human  capital official.  For example, the Bureau of Prisons found the program  helped to retain highly skilled and experienced employees who would  consider seeking employment in the private sector, as well as attract  candidates who normally would not be interested in working with the  agency due to the salary level.
SEC, which began using the SLR program in the last half of fiscal year 2003,  reported making 384 student loan repayments totaling approximately $3.3  million in fiscal year 2004.  Most of these repayments were made on behalf  of attorneys.  According to SEC officials, the agency generally does not  have trouble attracting job candidates, but it does have a relatively high  attrition rate.  An official remarked that the agency has a highly skilled  workforce comprised largely of securities attorneys, accountants, and  examiners, many of whom are highly sought after by the private sector, and  it historically has been a challenge for SEC to retain them.  SEC, therefore,  uses the program only for retention. SEC officials said that thus far they  have had only a few employees leave before the 3-year service agreement  was completed.  In addition, they reported that a large percentage of  employees are reapplying for benefits, indicating their willingness to stay  with the agency long enough to reduce or pay off their student loan debt.   Although the program is used for retention, SEC advertises in its  recruitment efforts that the benefit is available after 1 year of service,  making it an indirect recruiting incentive.  Officials noted that SEC also  uses other recruitment and retention incentives, but uses those incentives  on a strategic basis to recruit and retain highly qualified employees with  qualifications critical to SEC’s mission.
section_title: GSA, DOE, and DOT Target Repayments to Both Recruit and Retain Specific Individuals for Certain Occupations; Commerce Also Intends to Use Its Program for These Reasons
paragraphs: GSA units generally determine the use of incentive pay, including student  loan repayments, on a case-by-case basis.  GSA guidance on the program  states that student loan repayments are not an entitlement, but rather a  recruitment and retention incentive that may be used optionally by a  manager who would not otherwise be able to recruit or retain a highly  qualified employee with qualifications critical to GSA missions.  An official  noted that SLR authorizations are based on the particular recruitment or  retention situation, whether the position is a critical need or difficult to fill,  and the ability of the unit to fund the repayments.  In fiscal year 2004, GSA  repaid 17 loans at a total cost of approximately $93,000.  The agency  reported that it uses the SLR program for both recruitment and retention,  although most of the repayments in fiscal year 2004 were for recruitment.   GSA plans to increase its use of the program only if the number of critical  vacancies increases and the number of available candidates decreases.
DOE uses the SLR program on a case-by-case basis determined by factors  such as labor market conditions that may affect recruiting efforts.  Each  case must be justified by the recommending official, concurred with by the  respective financial and human capital staffs, and approved by a top  manager authorized to grant the incentive.  DOE reported spending  approximately $87,000 on 36 repayments in fiscal year 2004 and using the  program almost equally for recruitment and retention.  Student loan  repayments were offered to employees in a variety of different  occupations, such as engineering and financial analysis.  According to a  DOE official, program use is expected to increase in incremental amounts  annually for recruiting entry-level engineers and scientists, but not for  retention purposes.  Because DOE views the SLR program as more  expensive than other incentives, managers are asked to be selective about  their SLR offers.  DOE has developed recruitment and retention  worksheets to help managers determine the cost of a loan repayment  compared to using other incentives, so they can evaluate the most strategic  use of resources.
DOT began using the program in fiscal year 2004 by making six loan  repayments totaling approximately $53,000.  Three of these were made on  behalf of Presidential Management Fellows.  The agency made the  repayments for both recruitment and retention purposes.  DOT officials  speculated that the program will play a role in future hiring, as it appears to  be a more valuable tool for entry-level employees who are more likely to  have student loans.   Agency officials also said that since DOT views the  program as an expensive benefit and because the agency is now operating  with a lower budget, they will use the program sparingly.  Since repayment  will be a targeted benefit, a human capital official noted that it probably  will not be featured in the standard DOT recruitment materials or  brochures.
Commerce is planning to use the program to recruit and retain specific  individuals in mission-critical occupations, such as statisticians.  It recently  reported offering its first student loan repayment to an applicant who  turned it down because of the length of the service agreement.  Commerce  intends to use the SLR program for both retention and recruitment,  depending on the needs of its units.  For example, the National Institute of  Standards and Technology, which needs technical staff, will most likely use  it for recruitment, while the Office of General Counsel, with a high turnover  rate for attorneys, will likely use it for retention.
section_title: SSA, EEOC, and SBA Reported They Have No Need to Implement the SLR Program at This Time
paragraphs: According to SSA officials, the agency has not needed the SLR program to  recruit or retain staff.  The agency meets its hiring needs through a national  recruiting program and generally does not focus its recruitment efforts on  individuals with highly technical or unique qualifications.  Therefore, SSA is  able to meet its hiring targets without extensive use of special incentives.   When needed, officials said the agency has successfully used recruitment  bonuses, retention allowances, relocation bonuses, and above-minimum  salaries to recruit and retain highly qualified individuals for hard-to-fill  positions.  The officials believed that these other incentives provided  recipients with greater flexibility to use their bonuses or allowances to  meet their own needs, whether to repay student loans or for other reasons.   The officials acknowledged, however, that if SSA cannot continue to  successfully recruit or retain employees through its national recruiting  program or the use of other flexibilities, they would reconsider their  decision not to use the SLR program.
According to agency officials, EEOC does not use the SLR program  because of fiscal constraints and because the organization has qualities  that attract and retain employees without the program.  In addition, the  agency has not used other recruitment and retention incentives recently.   An EEOC human capital official noted that the agency has lost 350  employees in the last 3 and a half years and will likely lose more employees  in the near future.  Rather than having to use monetary recruitment or  retention incentives, agency officials remarked that individuals are drawn  to work at EEOC primarily because of the mission it pursues.  On the basis  of anecdotal evidence, they also believe that employees stay with EEOC to  a large degree because of the positive work-life balance the agency offers  them.
According to SBA officials, the agency is doing very limited hiring and  rarely needs to offer recruitment and retention incentives.  SBA officials  explained that the agency recruited 156 employees during fiscal year 2004  and was able to successfully recruit the desired talent without using the  incentive.  The officials further stated they were not aware of candidates  not accepting a position at SBA because the agency lacked a SLR program.   As SBA becomes more targeted in its recruitment activities, agency  officials remarked that they will consider using the SLR program along with  other recruitment flexibilities.
section_title: Agencies Tailored SLR Program Administration to Meet Their Unique Needs
paragraphs: To address needs unique to their organizations, agencies customized  aspects of their SLR programs.  Table 1 illustrates some implementation  differences among our selected agencies.
subsections: section_title: Agencies Operated Their Programs Differently
paragraphs: Agencies centralized SLR program operations at the department level to  coordinate departmentwide needs or decentralized operations to their  individual units to offer them needed flexibility.   The agencies operating  their programs centrally used the SLR program primarily as a broad-based  retention tool, while the agencies running decentralized programs used  student loan repayments on a case-by-case basis.  DOS, for example, has a  centrally operated and funded SLR program that serves the specific  recruitment and retention needs of all units within the department, such as  those of the Bureau of Consular Affairs.  In contrast, DOJ runs both  centralized and decentralized programs.  For example, the DOJ attorney  SLR program is centrally administered, although as of fiscal year 2004, the  recipient’s unit agency had to bear the costs of the repayments.  Starting in  fiscal year 2005, almost 30 percent of the program costs are being paid  centrally with the balance coming from the individual DOJ units that  participate.  DOJ units offering repayments to employees in a wide variety  of positions operate and fund these programs.  GSA, DOE, and DOT have  decentralized programs.  Managers in individual units nominate specific  candidates or employees for participation in the program, and the units  provide the funding for the loan repayments.  DOE, for example, allows its  units to implement their own programs, primarily because they have  diverse needs, including different geographic labor markets.  The National  Nuclear Security Administration, an agency within DOE, issues its own  human capital program requirements and guidelines, consistent with  overall departmental human capital policy, and administers its own SLR  program at its various sites and locations across the country.
Agencies also varied the amount of the loan repayment, depending on the  results they needed to achieve.  For example, to make the benefit  meaningful to its employees, SEC has repaid the maximum amount  allowable of $10,000, unless the loan balance is less than that amount.  DOJ,  for its attorney SLR program, offers a maximum amount of $6,000 annually  to attorneys with salaries below $74,000 to attract a broad base of  individuals who otherwise may seek employment in the private sector.  For  attorneys with higher salaries, DOJ matches the recipient’s own annual  repayment amount up to a maximum of $6,000.  A DOS official said the  department’s goal is to offer meaningful loan repayments to the largest  number of individuals possible, so DOS has repaid the same amount for all  eligible employees, which for the past 3 years has been $4,700.  If a  recipient’s outstanding loan balance is less, DOS repays the lower amount.
section_title: Agencies Shape Their Participation and Selection Criteria to Address Their Unique Needs
paragraphs: Agencies varied the length of time employees were required to wait before  becoming eligible for the SLR program depending on results they were  trying to achieve.  For example, the DOJ attorney SLR program has no  longevity requirements.  Attorneys may apply during the first application  period following their employment.  Officials are concerned that they could  miss opportunities to hire highly qualified law students with large student  loan debts, who may be unable to accept DOJ’s entry-level positions  because of economic concerns.  Officials said the application process is  self-nominating, and an attorney must have a qualifying student loan debt  base of at least $10,000 to be eligible for the program.  SEC officials said the  agency has few problems attracting employees but historically has had  challenges retaining them, often because SEC experience makes  employees very marketable in the private sector.  The agency has tailored  its program participation criteria to address this need by requiring  employees to complete at least 1 year of employment with SEC before they  are eligible for the program.  With the 3-year service agreement, SEC then  has the potential to retain employees for at least 4 years, which also helps  to ensure a greater return from recruitment and training costs.
section_title: Agency Officials Suggested Ways to Make the SLR Program More Efficient and Effective, but Agencies Do Not Yet Have Processes to Assess the Long-term Impact of Their Programs
paragraphs: Officials from agencies using the program agreed that certain changes,  such as more automation of the application and loan repayment processes  and consolidation of some other program activities, would help to improve  the program’s administration.  Several officials also suggested ways they  believed would increase the program’s effectiveness by making it more  attractive to candidates and employees, such as reducing the length of the  service agreement.  As for assessing the results of their programs, agencies  did not yet have processes in place to gauge long-term effects on their  recruitment and retention efforts.  Officials from agencies with SLR  programs did note several indicators they plan to use, and suggested that  anecdotal evidence indicates employees value the SLR program.  They  stated that since the program is relatively new, they did not yet have  enough data to track long-range statistical trends that would help them  measure program results.  Nevertheless, it will be important for these  agencies to establish, up front, goals for their programs, a recruitment and  retention baseline from which they can monitor changes that result from  the program, and the data they will collect to measure these changes in  order to assess long-term effects.
subsections: section_title: Most Agency Officials Agreed That the Program Is Cumbersome to Administer and Suggested Ways It Could Be More Efficient
paragraphs: While the agencies using the program believe it is a useful tool, officials  characterized it as cumbersome to administer.  Human capital offices  generally administer the program and are performing some tasks and  activities that are uncharacteristic of their function and unique to the  program.  Program administrators, for example, must interact with a large  number of lending institutions, verify loans, and, at times, act as collection  agencies.  An official from DOS remarked that, aside from the Department  of Education, which administers student loans, there are few federal  workers who have knowledge of the student loan business.  Therefore,  agency staff must develop expertise and establish and modify procedures  to operate the program.  The official noted that for the 734 DOS employees  who received the loan repayments in fiscal year 2004, the department made  almost 800 individual transactions to 55 different lending institutions.  The  agencies were either not tracking administrative costs associated with  operating the program or were just starting to track them.  The agency  officials said they were absorbing the time and costs associated with the  program into their regular operations.
Agency officials reported that processing loan repayments involves many  steps that can include time-consuming complications.  SEC officials, for  example, said their entire administrative process, prior to actual payment  distribution to the various lenders, can take more than 3 months.   This  process involves steps such as verifying that the employee has a loan  eligible for repayment, verifying the amount of the outstanding loan  balance, and eventually, ensuring that the loan repayment is applied to the  correct outstanding loan.  SEC officials also noted that its payroll provider  cannot make electronic transfers of loan repayments, requiring them to  issue paper checks that are burdensome and sometimes applied to the  wrong account.  Furthermore, the Department of Education, one of the  largest student loan lenders through its Direct Loan Program, is unable to  accept electronic transfers of funds from agencies for loan repayments.   According to an Education official, they are looking at ways to collect  direct loan repayments electronically.  Other complications included  processing repayments for employees who have loans with multiple  lenders, distinguishing private loans that are not eligible for the program  from federally guaranteed student loans, and having recipients supply  incorrect addresses for their lenders.  In addition, officials said that  administrative problems with the various payroll providers, who process  the loan payments, were a concern.  A DOT official, for example, said they  were using a payroll system that was being phased out through OPM’s  e-payroll initiative.  The official remarked that it was costly for DOT to  incorporate the loan repayments into this outdated payroll system, causing  the agency to experience delays in implementing the program. An official at  DOE said its payroll provider had been unable to provide biweekly loan  repayment options until recently.
Officials from most of the agencies using the program suggested ways to  help administer the program more efficiently, primarily through more  automation and consolidation of activities.
SEC human capital officials said that automation of SLR program  activities, such as the ability to make electronic fund transfers for all  repayments, would make the process far easier.  They also suggested  implementing an electronic signature to help expedite the SLR  application process and recommended that some of the responsibility  for making the program operate more smoothly be shifted to SLR  recipients.  For example, SEC requires recipients to provide verification  to the human capital office that their loan repayments were applied  correctly.  In addition, SEC officials estimated that about 1 month of  their processing time could possibly be eliminated if each of the various  lenders had one designated representative to work with federal agencies  on resolving loan repayment problems.
A program manager at DOS suggested creating a central database of  student loans and student loan lenders to assist with processing steps  such as verifying the correct names and mailing addresses.
A human capital official at DOE said OPM should require payroll service  providers to use processes for student loan repayments similar to those  used for other incentives, such as recruitment bonuses.
An official at DOT indicated that alternative approaches could be  explored to increase the cost effectiveness of administrative functions  for agencies that use the program extensively.  For example, one  approach may be to create shared services, similar to the approach used  to provide payroll services, wherein a small number of agencies service  multiple agencies.
Finally, agency officials suggested that more sharing of best practices  with other federal agencies experiencing similar challenges would help  with implementing the SLR program.  DOS and DOJ officials said they  consulted with each other about whether to centralize or decentralize  their programs and shared program document templates.  This type of  collaboration could help agencies beginning to implement the program  avoid some of the growing pains experienced by the current user  agencies.
DOJ’s attorney SLR program, in particular, found a number of ways to  increase its program’s efficiency.  For example, DOJ maintains a Web page  that is updated regularly to make the SLR process transparent to applicants  and inform all eligible attorneys about the program.  The department  credited the Web page with reducing the need to respond to questions  about the program.  In addition, DOJ standardized the application process  for the attorney SLR benefit by posting request, validation, and review  forms on its Web site in form-fillable versions.  The department also  credited a process that requires applicants to submit a valid, signed service  agreement at the time of application for expediting the repayment process.   The presigned service agreement includes a release authorizing loan  holders to discharge financial information to the department for loan  validation at the same time it eliminates the need for the department to  secure service agreements after selections are made.  DOJ’s attorney SLR  program also reported learning it could reduce administrative burdens by  only validating loan information for the attorneys actually selected to  receive SLR benefits.
While agency officials could suggest ways to improve the program’s  administration, individual agencies may find it difficult to design some of  the program improvements for themselves, and some of these changes  could be more beneficial when implemented governmentwide.  For  example, it may be more effective to automate portions of the repayment  process for all user agencies, rather than have each agency individually  pursue this.  Likewise, the President’s Management Agenda calls for the  federal government to “support projects that offer performance gains that  transcend traditional agency boundaries.”  Sharing services across  agencies for specific SLR administrative activities may present an  opportunity for program managers to purchase human capital services  from specialized providers, such as they currently do for payroll services,  thereby reducing costs through economies of scale and freeing their staff to  focus on more strategic rather than administrative activities.  In prior work,  we identified similar opportunities for agencies to use alternative service  delivery (ASD) for a range of human capital activities, and recommended  that OPM work with the CHCO Council to promote the innovative use of  ASD.  OPM, in written comments, agreed with this role.
section_title: Agency Officials Also Suggested Ways to Make the Program More Effective
paragraphs: Agency officials identified several program characteristics they believe  impede the program.  Likewise, OPM’s fiscal year 2004 report to Congress  on the SLR program noted common impediments.  Of the barriers agencies  reported to both GAO and OPM, the most frequently cited included  difficulty in funding the program, the tax liability associated with the  repayments, and the length of the required service agreement.  A DOE  human capital official, for example, remarked that factors, such as  detailing its employees to Iraq, have created more competing budget needs  within units; in one case, a unit wanted to use the incentive but determined  it could not commit to SLR payments because of the cost of overtime  premiums for detailed employees.  In addition, on the basis of comments  they have received from program recipients and candidates who decided  not to participate in the program, officials from several of the agencies we  reviewed remarked that eliminating the tax liability and reducing or  prorating the service agreement could make the program more attractive.
For example, officials from four agencies felt that eliminating the tax  liability on loan repayments would make the program more attractive to  candidates and recipients, and therefore, more effective.  Currently, after  withholding income and payroll taxes, the actual repayment amount  applied to the employee’s loan is only about 62 percent of the total  payment.  According to officials, this diminishes the program’s value and  makes it a less attractive incentive.  Additionally, because the repayment is  taxable, an official noted they can never completely pay off a recipient’s  loan.  A DOS official also remarked that many of the questions they answer  about the program concern the tax liability issue.  As mentioned previously,  legislation is pending in Congress that would exclude loan repayments  from gross income for federal tax purposes.  In testimony on a previous  draft of this legislation, we stated that the legislation had merit, would help  to further leverage existing SLR program dollars, and would help agencies  in their efforts to attract and retain top talent.  The loss of revenue from  this change, however, would need to be balanced against other pressing  federal budget needs.
Agency officials had varying views about the service agreements.  For  example, DOE officials suggested that the service period should be  comparable to other recruitment and retention incentives.  OPM  regulations state that recruitment bonuses, for instance, require a minimum  service period of 6 months.  The DOE officials suggested that when the SLR  benefit is used for recruitment, a minimum of a 6-month commitment  would also be appropriate.  Along the same lines, an SEC official remarked  that employees felt the repayment should be prorated if they left the agency  before their 3-year commitment is fulfilled.  On the other hand, a DOJ  official not in favor of reducing the length of the service agreement thought  the 3-year agreement retained employees for an appropriate time and that  enough flexibility in waiving the agreement was present to avoid situations  that might be unfair to some recipients.
section_title: Agency Officials Say They Plan to Assess the Program’s Impact but Need More Data to Determine Long-term Effects
paragraphs: Agencies using the program had not yet established processes to measure  the extent to which the SLR program was helping them to meet their  recruitment and retention needs. Agencies need such measurements to  help them determine if the program is worth the investment compared to  other available human capital incentives, such as recruitment and retention  bonuses.  Agencies are tracking the extent to which employees comply  with, or do not complete, the terms of their service agreements.  Several  officials remarked that almost all employees are completing their terms of  service, indicating the program is helping retention, at least in the short  term.
Agency officials did report that based on anecdotal evidence, they believe  the program helps to make their agency more attractive to potential job  candidates and helps them retain high quality employees.  A GSA official  said that, although it has not surveyed employees formally, informal  feedback from them about the program is positive, and GSA managers  using the program report being able to fill their positions with candidates  who have the qualifications desired.  An SEC official noted that the  program appears to be attractive to prospective hires because the agency  receives numerous inquiries about how the program works.  DOS  recruiters also report that one of the questions frequently asked by those  considering federal service is the level of the department’s assistance in  paying off student loans.
When asked about ways to measure the program’s long-term effects,  officials from several agencies suggested tracking the attrition rates of  program recipients as one measure.  However, the officials noted that to do  so, they would need to monitor attrition rates for at least 3 years, since  recipients sign a 3-year service agreement and relatively few leave during  this time.  Monitoring the number of employees who resign after the agency  repaid their loans could indicate whether recipients were working for the  agency just long enough to have their student loans repaid.  Fiscal year  2006 will be the first year a substantial cohort of federal employees would  have completed the minimum 3-year service requirement.  In addition, a  DOJ official believed that reviewing the attrition rates and career paths of  its Honors Attorneys participating in the program would be helpful, since  these are generally highly sought-after individuals.  Thus, if DOJ’s attrition  rates decline, this could indicate that the SLR program is having a positive  impact.  DOJ is also adding questions to its honors program application  about awareness of the attorney SLR program and whether it influenced  the applicant’s decision to apply.
Recognizing that agencies in some cases will need multiyear data to  measure the SLR program’s long-term effects, it is nevertheless important  that agencies using the program decide on and put in place program goals  and methods to track indicators of success when they implement the  program.  This will help them to establish an initial data baseline they can  use to track changes as a result of the program, determine what data they  should collect over time, and begin to collect that data.  In addition,  agencies would not have to wait to implement other options for monitoring  program effects.  For example, several agency officials noted that they will  use employee survey data or responses from exit interviews to gauge how  much impact the SLR incentive had on employees’ decisions to join or stay  with the agency.  Agencies could conduct such surveys and collect these  data now or when initiating their programs, and periodically over time, as  an indicator of program results.
We recognize that gauging the program’s direct effect on recruitment and  retention trends may be difficult because student loan repayments are not  likely to be the only major factor in an employee’s decision to join or stay  with an agency, although the incentive may help to tip the scale in the  agency’s favor.  Other factors, such as labor market conditions, could also  affect these decisions.  In prior work, we have described similar difficulties  federal managers face in developing useful, outcome-oriented measures of  performance and proposed that agencies collaborate more to develop  strategies to identify performance indicators and measure contributions to  specific outcomes.  We also recognize that OPM and the CHCO Council  could help to facilitate this coordination.
section_title: OPM and the CHCO Council Have an Important Role in Assisting Agencies with the SLR Program
paragraphs: As the President’s agent and adviser for human capital activities, OPM’s  overall goal is to aid federal agencies in adopting human resources  management systems that improve their ability to build successful, high- performing organizations.  Likewise, legislation creating the CHCO Council  highlighted the importance of agencies sharing information and  coordinating their human capital activities, and we have reported that the  CHCO Council could help facilitate such coordination.  OPM has taken a  number of steps to provide agencies with information and guidance on the  SLR program.  For example, OPM posts informational materials on its Web  site including a fact sheet, applicable laws and regulations, questions and  answers, sample agency plans, and OPM’s annual reports to Congress  about the SLR program.  In its fiscal year 2004 report to Congress, OPM  reported more extensively on agencies’ experiences with implementing the  program than it had in previous years.  For instance, the report included  information on the barriers agencies faced in implementing the program  and whether agencies were using specific metrics for measuring program  effectiveness.  In September 2004, OPM held a focus group to explore  whether the agency is a good source of program information and what  types of problems agencies are typically encountering with the program.   According to OPM, the focus group included representatives from several  agencies using the SLR program.  These representatives shared successes  with the SLR program, obstacles they faced in using it, and suggestions for  program improvements.
Agency officials’ comments about OPM’s assistance were mixed.  DOS  officials said they consulted with OPM in the early stages of their  implementation process, but DOJ officials reported they had not requested  assistance from OPM.   SEC officials noted that while their contact with  OPM had been limited, they would have liked more concrete answers to  their detailed questions involving program implementation.  DOT officials  see themselves as having primarily a reporting relationship with OPM.  A  DOE official commented that OPM has been a strong advocate of the SLR  program, providing the guidance the agency needed to implement it.   Nevertheless, a number of these officials suggested that more coordination  across the agencies using the program would be helpful, and OPM may be  in the best position to do this.
As we previously highlighted, agency officials pointed to the need to  partner with other agencies to find more efficient ways to implement their  SLR programs.  They said some improvements would involve sharing  information more readily, such as ways to tailor the program to fit their  particular needs, as well as easing administrative burdens associated with  the program.  Given the range and cumbersome nature of the activities  involved in operating the program, officials said they could use help in  identifying improvements to the program.  For example, OPM, working  with the CHCO Council, could sponsor additional forums, an interagency  working group, or even training sessions, to encourage information  sharing.  One topic for these forums and this collaboration could also be  developing measures of program effectiveness.  OPM itself, in its most  recent report to Congress on the SLR program, stated that an agency  challenge has been to determine appropriate measures.  By helping  agencies address this challenge, OPM could help to determine if there is a  common subset of measures or indicators that agencies could track and  report to OPM to assess the SLR program’s impact governmentwide.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Federal agencies have a large degree of discretion in structuring SLR  programs to meet their unique needs, and the SLR program shows promise  as an effective tool for attracting and retaining the talent needed to sustain  the federal workforce.  The federal government faces potential workforce  problems now and in the years ahead, including the fact that its employees  are retiring in greater numbers.  Therefore, recruiting and retaining a new  wave of talented individuals, who view the federal government as an  employer of choice, is imperative.  To address how best to meet this human  capital challenge, agencies will need to be able to identify and select the  recruitment and retention incentives that are most appropriate and  effective for achieving this goal.  In addition, to make the most effective use  of monetary incentives such as the SLR program, streamlined and efficient  administrative processes for implementing such programs need to be in  place, and decision makers need concrete evidence that such programs are  achieving agency and overall federal workforce goals.
OPM, working with the CHCO Council, may be in the best position to help  agencies work together to identify potential SLR program changes and then  determine the most cost-effective ways to implement them.  If the program  continues to grow, making it easier to administer will help ensure agencies  make maximum use of available funds to recruit and retain key talent, so  critical in a time of fiscal constraints.  Likewise, OPM and the CHCO  Council could build on efforts to date and continue to facilitate  coordination across agencies, in particular helping them to determine what  data to collect and assess as indicators of the program’s results.  In  addition, OPM may be able to better report to Congress on the impact of  the SLR program governmentwide if it works with the agencies to  determine if there is a subset of common indicators all agencies could  annually track and report to OPM.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: Consistent with OPM’s ongoing efforts in this regard, we recommend that  the Director of OPM, in conjunction with the CHCO Council, take the  following actions to help improve the SLR program’s efficiency and ease of  administration, and to assess results:  Working with the agencies, determine where program streamlining and  consolidation of agencies’ administrative tasks are most feasible and  appropriate, and design ways to implement these program  improvements, especially those that could be implemented  governmentwide and the most cost-effective ways to implement them.   Examples of program improvements that could provide valuable help to  agencies and ease the administrative burden include creating a central  database of student loan lender information and establishing a shared  service center arrangement for student loan repayments.
Continue and expand on its efforts to provide agencies assistance and to  help facilitate coordination and sharing of leading practices by, for  example, conducting additional forums, sponsoring training sessions, or  using other methods.
Help agencies determine ways in which they can monitor long-term  program effects on their recruitment and retention needs, such as  determining data to collect and use as indicators of effects.  This, in  turn, could provide a consistent set of governmentwide indicators that  would allow OPM to assess, and report to Congress on, the program’s  overall results achieved.
In addition, with respect to the selected agencies using the SLR program  most extensively, we recommend the following actions:  The Secretary of State:  Build on current efforts to measure the impact  of DOS’s SLR program by determining now what indicators DOS will use  to track program success, what baseline DOS will use to measure  resulting program changes over time, what data DOS needs to begin to  collect, and whether DOS could use periodic surveys to track employee  attitudes about the program as additional indicators of success.
The United States Attorney General:  Build on current efforts to measure  the impact of DOJ’s Attorney Student Loan Repayment Program by  determining now what indicators the department will use to track  program success, what baseline DOJ will use to measure resulting  program changes over time, what data DOJ needs to begin to collect,  and whether DOJ could use periodic surveys to track employee  attitudes about the program as additional indicators of success.
The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission:  Build on  current efforts to measure the impact of SEC’s SLR program by  determining now what indicators SEC will use to track program  success, what baseline SEC will use to measure resulting program  changes over time, what data SEC needs to begin to collect, and  whether SEC could use periodic surveys to track employee attitudes  about the program as additional indicators of success.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Director of OPM, the Secretary of  State, the Attorney General, the Chairman of SEC, the Administrator of  GSA, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Transportation, the  Secretary of Commerce, the Commissioner of SSA, the Chair of EEOC, and  the Administrator of SBA.  OPM, DOS, DOJ, and DOE provided written  comments on the draft report, which are included in appendixes III, IV, V,  and VI respectively.   SBA provided a comment on the report via e-mail and  the Director of the Office of Human Resources Management stated, on  behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, that it concurred with the report.   SEC, DOT, SSA, and EEOC provided technical comments, and where  appropriate, we have made changes to the report to reflect all of the  agencies’ technical comments.  GSA reported that it had no comments on  this report.
The following summarizes significant comments provided by the agencies.
OPM generally agreed with the recommendations and stated that it will  continue its efforts to promote effective human capital strategies and, as  part of these efforts, will work with the CHCO Council to improve the  administration of the SLR program and facilitate the sharing of best  practices to improve program efficiency.  OPM also stated that it would  assist the agencies in establishing data requirements for tracking the use  of student loan repayments and noted the agency anticipates a greatly  improved ability to track and measure the success of the SLR program.
DOS fully supported the recommendations and stated that it looks  forward to working constructively with OPM to identify possible areas  of program consolidation and to share best practices.  The department  reported that it is committed to establishing additional program  indicators this year and is aware of the need to measure and track the  impact the SLR program has had on both civil and foreign service  recruitment and retention efforts.
DOJ did not express an opinion about the report or the  recommendations but stated that the department has already started to  develop ways to measure the impact of the attorney SLR program on  attorney retention.  DOJ also emphasized that it will most likely take a  number of years of data collection before it accumulates sufficient data  to provide meaningful statistics.
DOE stated that the report did not fully describe the efforts of OPM in  assessing program implementation as part of its annual reporting  process to Congress.  We added language in the report to more  comprehensively characterize what OPM included in its most recent  report.  DOE also suggested that GAO recommend that OPM assist  agencies in measuring the effectiveness of specific student loan  repayment, recruitment, and retention incentives by including questions  in the Federal Human Capital Survey.  While this may be a feasible and  effective approach to collecting data on program results, we did not  prescribe the methods OPM should develop or use to measure the  effectiveness of the program, but instead recommended that OPM work  jointly with the agencies and the CHCO Council to devise these means.
SBA said that the agency will periodically monitor the use of the  program in other agencies through the CHCO Council so that should the  need arise, SBA will be in a position to implement the best aspects of  other agencies’ programs.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional  parties, the Director of OPM, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General,  the Chairman of the SEC, and the heads of the other federal agencies  discussed in this report.  In addition, we will make copies available to other  interested parties upon request.  This report also will be made available at  no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.  If you or your staff  have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6806  or larencee@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of the report.   Other contributors are acknowledged in appendix VII.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of our review were to identify  why selected executive branch agencies are using or not using the  student loan repayment (SLR) program,  how agencies are implementing the SLR program, and  what results and suggestions agency officials could provide about the  program and how they view the Office of Personnel Management’s  (OPM) role in facilitating the program’s use.
To address these objectives, we first reviewed and analyzed OPM’s annual  reports to Congress on the SLR program to obtain governmentwide data  on agencies’ use of the program and to help identify our case study  agencies.  We also consulted with an official at the Congressional Research  Service (CRS) to discuss its research on the SLR program, and we reviewed  CRS’s reports to Congress on student loan repayment for federal  employees.  We interviewed officials from the Partnership for Public  Service, an organization with an objective of helping to recruit and retain  excellence in the federal workforce, to hear its views on the program’s  effectiveness governmentwide, and officials from GAO’s human capital  office to get background information on program implementation.
We then identified a set of federal agencies varying in size and mission that  had established SLR programs, were in the process of establishing  programs, or had chosen not to use them.  We selected the Department of  State (DOS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Securities and  Exchange Commission (SEC) as case study agencies because they were  among the largest users of the SLR program in fiscal years 2003 and 2004,  while the General Services Administration (GSA) and the Department of  Energy (DOE) are users of the program but give fewer loan repayments on  a case-by-case basis.
We selected the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department  of Commerce (Commerce) because they are large departments that were in  the process of implementing SLR programs.  Since we started our review,  DOT has begun to make loan repayments.  The Social Security  Administration (SSA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  (EEOC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA) are among the  larger agencies that have chosen not to use the program.  The agency  selection process was not designed to be representative of the use of the  SLR program in the federal government as a whole, but rather to provide  illustrative examples of why and how agencies decided to use the program  or chose not to use it.
We interviewed agency officials, such as human capital officers, SLR  program managers, and recruitment directors, from the selected agencies,  and obtained available documentation, such as strategic workforce plans,  recruitment and retention worksheets, SLR implementation plans, and  other documents associated with administering the program.  In addition,  we met with officials from OPM to gain a governmentwide perspective of  agencies’ SLR programs and with officials from the Department of  Education to discuss the department’s Direct Loan Program and its  interaction with agencies making student loan repayments.  After  reviewing and analyzing agency responses, we used the supporting  documents that some of the agencies provided to further develop our  analysis of their use of the program.  We did not observe or evaluate the  operation of the agencies’ SLR programs.  To assess the reliability of the  number of employees receiving student loan repayments and SLR  repayment cost data, we compared the OPM-reported data with data we  received from the selected agencies.  We determined the data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the report.  Our review was  conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards from July 2004 through June 2005.
section_title: Background Information on the Case Study Agencies
paragraphs: This appendix provides background information on our 10 case study  agencies.  These agencies varied in their mission and size.  The agencies  also face unique recruitment and retention challenges and have different  strategies for addressing them.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Department of State (DOS)
paragraphs: DOS is a cabinet-level federal agency responsible for U.S. foreign affairs  and diplomatic initiatives with a mission of creating a more secure,  democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people  and the international community.  Headquartered in Washington, D.C., DOS  has 250 embassies and consulates worldwide with approximately 40,000  employees comprised of foreign service employees, civil service  employees, and foreign service national employees.  DOS’s recruitment  goals include outreach to a broader segment of the U.S. population by  increasing its presence at business and other professional schools.  DOS  also recruits top quality candidates with management skills and language  skills in Arabic, Chinese, and other difficult languages.
section_title: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
paragraphs: DOJ is a cabinet-level agency whose mission is to lead foreign and  domestic counterterrorism efforts, enforce federal laws, provide legal  advice to the President and to all other federal agencies, investigate federal  crimes and prosecute violators, operate the federal prison system, and  ensure the civil rights of all Americans.  DOJ is headquartered in  Washington, D.C., and has 61 unit agencies nationwide.  The department  has approximately 100,000 employees working in occupations such as  security and protection, legal, compliance and enforcement, and  information technology.  Currently, DOJ’s hiring challenges relate to  combating terrorism.  The department places priority on hiring candidates  with foreign language and intelligence analysis expertise and Federal  Bureau of Investigation counterterrorism agents.  DOJ is moving to develop  and implement a departmentwide recruitment strategy that focuses on  leveraging resources for common occupations, sharing “best practices”  cases on the Internet, establishing relationships with targeted universities,  and participating in job and career fairs.
section_title: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
paragraphs: SEC’s mission is to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient  markets; and facilitate capital formation.  The agency is headquartered in  Washington, D.C., and has 11 regional and district offices.  SEC has  approximately 3,800 employees in occupations such as securities  attorneys, accountants, and examiners.  The agency has developed a  formal, centralized recruiting program to coordinate its recruiting efforts  for these occupations.  The agency also recently created the SEC Business  Associates Program to introduce business professionals to regulation of  the securities markets and the work of the commission.  Individuals with  master’s degrees in business or other related fields can apply directly to the  program.  The program offers 2-year internships designed to provide on- the-job training for talented individuals, with eligibility for conversion to a  permanent position.
section_title: U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)
paragraphs: GSA’s mission is to help federal agencies better serve the public by offering,  at best value, superior workplaces, expert solutions, acquisition services,  and management policies.  Headquartered in Washington, D.C., GSA has  regional offices in 11 cities nationwide.  The agency has over 12,000  employees working in information technology, accounting and budgeting,  administrative and program management, and business and industry.   Currently, GSA’s workforce is relatively stable, with an average separation  rate of 5 to 6 percent.  The agency hires an average of 900 employees  annually.  GSA seeks candidates who have strong customer service,  acquisition, information technology, realty, financial management, and  project management skills.
section_title: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
paragraphs: DOE is a cabinet-level agency whose mission is to advance the national,  economic, and energy security of the United States; promote scientific and  technological innovation in support of that mission; and ensure the  environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex.   Headquartered in Washington, D.C., DOE has regional power  administrations, laboratories, and technology centers nationwide.  The  department has approximately 15,000 employees who work in engineering,  physical sciences, compliance and enforcement, and quality assurance.   DOE’s recruiting efforts focus on information technology, foreign affairs,  and intelligence, as well as areas such as physical sciences and project  management.  The department’s outreach efforts include participation in  job and career fairs, partnerships with minority organizations, and  distribution of position vacancy announcements to a variety of minority  and advocacy organizations.
section_title: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
paragraphs: DOT is a cabinet-level agency whose mission is to serve the United States  by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and convenient transportation  system that meets national interests and enhances the quality of life of the  American people, today and into the future.  The department is  headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has offices nationwide.  DOT has  approximately 56,000 employees who work in various professional fields  such as community planning and engineering.  The department is focused  on sustaining its current workforce numbers.  DOT’s top priority will be to  recruit air traffic controllers because roughly half of the number of current  air traffic controllers could retire by 2012.  In 2003, DOT created a  Corporate Recruitment Workgroup that coordinates participation at  various recruitment conferences and career fairs.  The department has also  addressed some of its entry-level hiring needs by developing a Career  Residency Program, a 2-year program with a goal of broadening the search  for talented transportation specialists, engineers, and information  technology professionals.
section_title: U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce)
paragraphs: Commerce is a cabinet-level agency whose mission is to promote economic  growth and security through export growth, sustainable economic  development, and economic information and analysis.  Headquartered in  Washington, D.C., Commerce’s unit agencies, such as the National Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration, the Bureau of the Census, and the  International Trade Administration, have offices nationwide.  The  department has more than 36,900 employees in a variety of professional  fields.  Commerce estimates it could lose one-fifth of its current workforce  to retirement by 2007, and the department plans to focus its recruitment  efforts on a variety of positions such as mathematical statisticians,  chemists, patent examiners, and trade specialists.  Commerce is developing  comprehensive college outreach relations and partnerships to recruit  entry-level workers and coordinate and partner with trade associations,  professional societies, and alumni organizations to attract experienced  applicants.
section_title: U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA)
paragraphs: SSA’s mission is to advance the economic security of the nation’s people  through compassionate and vigilant leadership in shaping and managing  America’s social security programs.  Headquartered in Baltimore,  Maryland, SSA has regional and field offices nationwide.  The agency has  approximately 65,000 employees in a variety of professional fields  including the social sciences and information technology.  Over the past  several years, SSA has aggressively recruited between 3,000 to 4,000  employees, most at the entry level.  SSA focuses recruiting efforts on  positions providing direct service to the public, such as claims  representatives as well as information technology professionals.  SSA has  created a National Recruitment Coordinator position to develop an  agencywide recruitment strategy and marketing campaign that highlights  the work and impact of the agency. The agency’s recruitment and  marketing plan coordinates nationwide and on-campus recruitment.  SSA  has also recently launched a new campaign to attract veterans to the  agency.
section_title: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
paragraphs: EEOC’s mission is to ensure equality of opportunity by vigorously  enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination through  investigation, conciliation, litigation, coordination, adjudication, education,  and technical assistance.  The agency is headquartered in Washington, D.C.,  and has 51 field offices nationwide.  EEOC has approximately 2,500  employees working in various positions such as attorneys, mediators, and  investigators.  On the basis of historical trends, EEOC will separate, due to  expected retirements, at least 100 employees annually for the next few  years.  Depending on the amount of separation savings, EEOC may have  the opportunity to backfill selected positions based on workload and other  factors.  In addition, EEOC recently announced plans to reorganize the  agency by reducing levels of management, opening two new field offices,  and strengthening the existing field offices.
section_title: U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)
paragraphs: SBA’s mission is to maintain and strengthen the nation’s economy by aiding,  counseling, assisting, and protecting the interests of small businesses, and  by helping families and businesses recover from national disasters.   Headquartered in Washington, D.C., SBA has regional offices nationwide.   The agency has approximately 3,000 employees working in business  analysis, contracting, and financial analysis.  Currently, SBA recruitment is  limited to replacing those who leave the agency.  The Office of Human  Resources centrally manages recruitment from headquarters and uses its  recruitment Web site to communicate with prospective candidates.  SBA  recruitment and outreach efforts also involve using on-line newspapers to  advertise work opportunities.
section_title: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management
section_title: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Comments from the Department of Justice
section_title: Comments from the Department of Energy
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Trina Lewis, Judith Kordahl, Kyle Adams, Jerome Brown, Sarah Jaggar,  Ashutosh Joshi, Jessica Kemp, Matthew Myatt, and Tara Stephens also  made key contributions to this report.