Federal Work/Life Programs: Agencies Generally Satisfied with OPM Assistance, but More Tracking and Information Sharing Needed
Published: 2010-12-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: To improve its ability to recruit and retain federal employees, agencies have implemented a wide range of work/life programs, such as flexible work schedules, child care, and employee assistance programs. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) plays a key role in guiding federal human capital initiatives, including the implementation of work/life programs. As requested, GAO determined the extent to which: (1) OPM provides assistance and guidance to federal agencies for establishing and enhancing work/life programs; (2) OPM or the federal agencies track, evaluate, or modify work/life programs; and (3) OPM has identified leading practices in the private sector for the implementation of work/life programs and shared this information with federal agencies. To do this, GAO reviewed OPM policy and guidance; surveyed 40 federal officials--20 Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) and 20 work/life managers; and interviewed officials from seven private sector companies recognized for the quality of their work/life programs.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: OPM's Office of Work/Life/Wellness is available to federal agencies to provide assistance, guidance, and information as agencies develop and implement work/life programs. For example, OPM has established formal working groups, sponsored training for agency officials, promulgated regulations to implement work/life programs, and provided informal guidance to agencies that address issues related to these programs. Of the 33 agency officials who responded to GAO's survey, 24 indicated that OPM's assistance, guidance, and information sharing greatly helped or helped somewhat in implementing work/life programs. Another six agency officials indicated that OPM's assistance, guidance, and information sharing helped in some cases and hindered in others. OPM tracks and collects information on a few work/life programs across the federal government, including health and wellness programs which it recently began tracking in response to a White House initiative. Some federal agencies independently provide OPM with evaluations on other work/life programs. However, when asked, OPM officials said that they did not track or maintain an inventory of these evaluations nor review these evaluations due to the lack of time and available resources. Tracking, analyzing, and sharing information among federal agencies on the effect of work/life programs on agency-intended goals could be helpful for individual agency decision making in a budget-constrained environment. To follow up on the White House health and wellness initiative, OPM held several meetings and conferences with representatives from private sector companies to discuss their health and wellness programs and the effect of these programs on recruitment and retention. Although OPM has developed a health and wellness pilot program based on some of the information obtained from these meetings and conferences, OPM has not systematically shared with federal agencies other information about the private sector's health and wellness programs or other work/life programs. GAO also interviewed officials from seven private sector companies recognized for the quality of their work/life programs to identify leading practices in implementing private sector work/life programs. Private sector officials from four of the seven companies that GAO interviewed indicated that their programs have been effective in increasing employee job satisfaction, resulting in improved recruitment, retention, and workforce productivity. Systematically collecting and disseminating information on the implementation and evaluation of private sector work/life programs could help federal agencies compare their work/life programs with leading practices in the private sector.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that OPM assist agencies in implementing their work/life programs by more systematically tracking and evaluating data on the implementation and evaluation of work/life programs and sharing this information with federal agencies. OPM agreed with GAO's recommendations and suggested technical changes which GAO has incorporated as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: To improve its ability to recruit, retain, and engage the federal workforce,  the federal government has implemented a wide range of work/life  programs, which according to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)  are designed to create more flexible, responsive work environments that  allow workers to meet the obligations of work and life. These programs  include flexible work schedules, child care, and telework. To that end,  OPM assists and guides agencies in choosing work/life programs that will  help attract and retain federal workers by providing them with tools— such as handbooks and manuals, a Web site dedicated to work/life  programs and issues, and forums to discuss work/life issues—that an  agency may use as it implements work/life programs.
You expressed an interest in the federal government’s ability to recruit and  retain the workforce it needs and engage the employees it has while  competing with the private sector for workforce talent. Therefore, you  asked us to determine the extent to which (1) OPM provides assistance  and guidance to federal agencies for establishing and enhancing work/life  programs and the extent to which agency officials are satisfied with OPM’s  assistance and guidance; (2) OPM or the federal agencies track, evaluate,  or modify work/life programs; and (3) OPM has identified leading  practices in the private sector for the implementation of work/life  programs and shared this information with federal agencies. For the  purpose of this report, we defined work/life programs as workplace  programs and policies designed to help federal employees identify and  resolve personal or work-related issues, and include such programs and  policies as flexible scheduling, child care, assistance for drug and alcohol  abuse, and health and wellness programs.
To address our objectives, we did the following.
We designed and administered a survey to assess agency perceptions  of OPM’s performance during a 1-year period—specifically OPM’s  assistance, guidance, and information sharing on work/life programs  and issues. We also designed the survey to determine whether and  how the agencies track, evaluate, and modify their own work/life  programs. We selected 20 Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) from  federal departments or agencies and 20 work/life program managers  from the same federal departments or agencies to receive the survey.  The CHCOs we selected were members of the CHCO Council.  Because a portion of the survey focused on agency perceptions of  OPM’s assistance, we excluded OPM’s CHCO from our sample.  Additionally, because we intended the survey respondents to speak on  behalf of their department or agency, we excluded two CHCO council  members who serve as proxies for numerous federal agencies,  specifically one member representing small federal agencies and  another member representing federal national security and intelligence  agencies. Of the 40 potential respondents, 33 completed our survey.
We reviewed applicable statutes and regulations, past OPM reports,  OPM’s 2006-2010 and 2010-2015 strategic plans, written policy,  guidance, directives, and material on OPM’s Web site relating to  work/life assistance, guidance, and identification of leading practices.
We interviewed OPM officials and staff in OPM’s Office of  Work/Life/Wellness.
We reviewed reports and periodical articles about the work/life  programs of leading private sector companies.
We selected seven private sector companies representing various  industries that have been recognized by human capital associations  and publications as providing their employees with quality work/life  programs. We interviewed the officials from these companies who  have direct knowledge of their companies’ work/life programs to  obtain information on the development and implementation of those  programs. However, these seven companies are not representative of  all private sector companies and therefore, we cannot generalize the  information these private sector officials provided about their  work/life programs to other private sector companies.
We reviewed prior GAO reports on human capital issues.
See appendix I for more information about our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 through  December 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Employers in both the public and private sectors have realized that  offering work/life programs—such as alternative work schedules, child  care, and health and wellness programs—have become an essential  element in recruiting and retaining their workforces. The federal  government, as a major employer, also recognizes that work/life policies,  programs, and practices make good business sense. Congress has  recognized the need to provide federal workers workplace flexibilities and  has authorized numerous work/life programs for federal agencies to  implement. In addition, the executive branch has recognized and  supported the benefits of these programs by implementing a range of  work/life programs, from flexible work arrangements to child care  assistance. Table 1 lists some examples of work/life programs federal  agencies provide their employees, as identified by OPM.
OPM plays a key role in fostering and guiding improvements in all areas of  strategic human capital management—including work/life programs—in  the executive branch. As part of that role, OPM can assist in—and, as  appropriate, require—building infrastructures within agencies to  successfully implement and sustain human capital reforms and related  initiatives. For example, OPM promotes human capital leading practices  across federal agencies and conducts audits of human capital management  within the federal government to ensure compliance with laws,  regulations, and policies. To promote coordination among agencies  outside of Washington, D.C., OPM works with Federal Executive Boards  (FEB) to share guidance and leading practices and obtain feedback from  federal agencies on human capital issues. OPM also coordinates its efforts  through its involvement in the CHCO Council, which was established to  advise and coordinate the human capital activities of its members’  agencies. The CHCO Council has expressed its support of the strategic  goals articulated in OPM’s 2010-2015 strategic plan, such as  governmentwide initiatives addressing veterans employment, hiring  reform, labor-management relations, diversity, and other efforts to hire the  best employees for federal service.
Additionally, OPM advocates the use of its Human Capital Assessment and  Accountability Framework (HCAAF), a set of tools and strategies available  to federal agencies that assist officials in achieving results from their  human capital programs. The framework guides the assessment of agency  human capital efforts, while allowing enough flexibility for federal  agencies to tailor their human capital efforts to their missions, plans, and  budgets.
We have previously recommended that OPM encourage continuous  improvement and assist agencies’ efforts in acquiring, developing, and  retaining workforce talent. According to OPM officials, OPM fulfills this  role in part by assisting federal agencies and serving as a clearinghouse of  information for agencies in developing and implementing work/life  programs. Within OPM, the office responsible for this mission is the Office  of Work/Life/Wellness—a component of the Office of Agency and  Veterans’ Support. OPM’s Office of Work/Life/Wellness provides  leadership on work/life issues to the federal government by partnering  with federal agencies to help them develop and manage work/life  programs that meet the human capital needs of the federal workforce, and  providing the policies and guidance that form the foundation of these  programs.
We have also previously reported on the need for OPM to continue its  leadership role in identifying and helping agencies apply human capital  flexibilities and the need for agencies to develop management   infrastructure to make use of available flexibilities. Recently, we reported  on the need for agencies to use the flexibilities available to them, including  using these flexibilities to retain older and more experienced workers. In  addition, in December 2002, we reported the views of agency human  capital managers and employee union officers on the effectiveness of  human capital flexibilities in managing federal agency workforces. These  human capital managers and union officers frequently cited work/life  programs as among the effective tools for workforce management.
section_title: Most Responding Officials Were Satisfied with OPM’s Assistance, Guidance, and Information Sharing on Work/Life Programs
subsections: section_title: OPM’s Office of Work/Life/Wellness Provides Assistance, Guidance, and Information to Assist Federal Agencies in Addressing Work/Life Programs and Issues
paragraphs: OPM officials describe OPM’s Office of Work/Life/Wellness as a source of  assistance, guidance, and information that agencies may use to develop  their own work/life programs. For example, OPM provides various tools to  assist agencies as they address work/life programs and issues, such as  accessible points of contact, formal working groups, and training. OPM  also provides guidance to agencies by promulgating regulations and  providing informal guidance such as memoranda and bulletins. In addition  OPM shares work/life program information through tools such as  newsletters and reports—for example, reports on the status of telework  and childcare. In its 2006-2010 strategic plan, OPM indicated that it would  work with the federal executive boards to share guidance and leading  practices across the federal government, and obtain feedback from federal  agencies on human capital issues. In addition, one of OPM’s 2010-2015  strategic goals focuses on providing “the training, benefits, and work/life  balance necessary for federal employees to succeed, prosper, and advance  in their careers.” To meet this goal, OPM proposes to:  assist agencies to evaluate and revise policies, and to address  employee satisfaction with work/life programs;  guide agencies in implementing these programs; and    provide agencies with information and tools that promote work/life  programs.
section_title: Responding Agency Officials Indicate Generally Positive Perceptions about OPM’s Assistance, Guidance, and Information Sharing
paragraphs: Overall, our survey of CHCOs and work/life managers revealed that OPM  has been helpful to agencies in implementing their work/life programs. As  part of our survey, we asked agency officials to respond on behalf of their  departments and/or agencies on how OPM’s involvement helped or  hindered their ability to implement work/life programs. As shown in  figure 1, of the 33 agency officials who responded to our survey, 24  indicated that OPM’s assistance, guidance, and information sharing greatly  helped or helped somewhat in implementing work/life programs. Another  six agency officials indicated that OPM’s assistance, guidance, and  information sharing helped in some cases and hindered in others.  Although our survey provided an opportunity for respondents to elaborate  on their responses or cite examples in support of their responses, none of  the agency officials responding to our survey did so.
OPM officials stated that the Office of Work/Life/Wellness provides  various tools to assist federal agencies implement work/life programs. For  example, OPM offers training to agency officials that, among other things,  helps them develop action plans to address employee satisfaction  concerns related to work/life programs. Also, OPM has designated points  of contact who can assist agency officials to develop and implement  work/life programs. In our survey, we asked agency officials to indicate  how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with OPM’s assistance in  developing and implementing work/life programs (such as accessible OPM  points of contact, formal working groups, informal mentoring, and OPM  sponsored training). As seen in figure 2, most of the 33 agency officials  responding to our survey were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied  with the timeliness (22), quality (21), accessibility (22), and sufficiency  (23) of OPM’s assistance. For example, one agency official stated that  OPM officials respond quickly to requests for assistance on work/life  policy matters, and another agency official stated that OPM’s work/life  staff is always very responsive and helpful.
In addition to providing assistance to federal agencies, OPM also guides  federal agencies by promulgating regulations for work/life programs and  issuing programmatic guides and handbooks that explain the requirements  for work/life programs such as employee assistance programs, part-time  employment and job sharing, child care, and tobacco cessation. In our  survey, we asked agency officials to indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied  they were with this guidance. As seen in figure 3, most of the 33 agency  officials responded that they were either very satisfied or somewhat  satisfied with the timeliness (22), quality (24), accessibility (22), and  sufficiency (22) of the guidance they received from OPM. For example,  one official stated that OPM greatly assisted his/her agency as it expanded  its health and wellness program by providing the agency guidance and by  participating in a summit meeting with the agency.
According to OPM officials, the agency also shares information with  federal agencies on leading practices of work/life programs using various  avenues such as posting information to its Web site and notifying federal  agencies through interactive listservs. Our survey asked how satisfied or  dissatisfied agency officials were with OPM’s efforts to share information  on leading practices in work/life programs. As seen in figure 4, most of the  33 agency officials indicated that they were either very satisfied or  somewhat satisfied with the timeliness (22), quality (23), accessibility (23),  and sufficiency (22) of the information they received from OPM.  According to an official who responded to our survey, OPM has  communicated the importance of these work/life programs and has  provided practical suggestions to support agencies in defining goals and  sharing best practices.
section_title: OPM Tracks Some Work/Life Programs Governmentwide, While Many of the Responding Agency Officials Track or Evaluate Some of Their Own Work/Life Programs
subsections: section_title: OPM Tracks Some Work/Life Programs Governmentwide
paragraphs: Our prior work has indicated the need for federal agencies to track and  use data that will allow them to measure a program’s effectiveness  including the changes in the program over time. Agencies need such  measurements to help them determine if a particular human capital  program—such as a work/life program—is worth the investment  compared to other available human capital flexibilities targeted at  employee recruitment and retention. We also have previously  recommended that OPM disseminate federal agencies’ leading practices in  human capital programs to help agencies recruit and retain their  workforces. Additionally, OMB’s fiscal year 2012 budget guidance to  federal agencies encourages agencies to: reconsider the basic design of  their programs; incorporate the use of data in program design; foster  innovation rooted in research; and finally, encourage the evaluation of the  program. Also, as part of its 2010-2015 strategic plan, OPM proposes to  help agencies collect information that would allow agencies to continually  improve their efforts to provide employees with a work/life balance.
OPM tracks and collects information for a few work/life programs, notably  childcare, telework, and health and wellness programs. In July 2009, OPM  surveyed federal agencies about their health and wellness programs and  specifically requested information on the: (1) number of health and  wellness programs offered by each agency; (2) number of employees with  access to the programs; (3) number of employees using the  programs/services; (4) cost of the programs; and (5) metrics gathered on  the programs. OPM officials used this data to develop profiles of health  and wellness programs across the federal government, and to help  agencies formulate action plans for improving the health and wellness of  federal employees. Using these program profiles, OPM developed an  inventory of health and wellness programs across the federal government.
In response to OPM’s 2009 survey, however, agency officials reported that  they either were unable to develop cost data or that the cost data could  not be broken down into meaningful components such as services,  facilities, and labor. Additionally, OPM officials stated that the cost data  they received provided minimal insight. As a result, when OPM requested  federal agencies to report on their health and wellness programs for 2010,  the request excluded asking for cost data on agencies’ programs. Instead,  OPM requested agencies to report on whether they had developed metrics  for measuring their health and wellness programs rather than asking for  the specific metrics. OPM does not collect information on other programs  such as alternative work schedules, leave programs, and employee  assistance programs (e.g., stress management and smoking cessation).
section_title: Many Responding Officials Track and Use Information They Independently Collect to Evaluate Some of Their Work/Life Programs
paragraphs: Agency officials responding to our survey indicated that their agencies  track a variety of work/life programs beyond the programs tracked by  OPM. As part of our survey, we asked these officials if their  departments/agencies tracked (measured) the extent to which agency  employees use these work/life programs. Of the 33 agency officials who  responded to our survey, 29 indicated that they track either all or some of  their work/life programs, as shown in figure 5.
Our survey further asked agency officials to specify if their agencies  tracked work/life programs in the following categories: (1) alternative  work schedules; (2) leave programs; (3) volunteerism and community  involvement; (4) care giving; (5) flexible spending; (6) employee assistance  programs; and (7) health promotion. The survey results showed that  agencies were tracking programs across multiple categories. Specifically,  of the 29 officials who indicated that their agencies track their work/life  programs, the majority (20) indicated that their agencies track programs in  four or more of these seven program categories.
While most of the agency officials surveyed indicated that they track their  work/life programs, we asked the officials if their departments or agencies  also evaluated (measured) the extent to which their work/life programs  met their intended goals. These evaluations may be used to assess the  programs’ impact on the recruitment and/or retention of federal  employees within the departments or agencies. Of the 33 agency officials  responding to our survey, 21 indicated that they evaluated either all or  some of their work/life programs, as shown in figure 6.
Our survey also asked agency officials to specify if their agencies  evaluated work/life programs in the seven categories listed above. The  survey indicated that most agencies evaluated programs in at least one  work/life program category. Of the 21 respondents who indicated that  their agencies evaluated work/life programs, about one-half (10) indicated  that their agencies evaluate programs in four or more of the seven  program categories.
As a result of the agencies’ independent evaluations of their work/life  programs, some agency officials are potentially in a position to determine:  (1) the extent to which their programs improve their ability to recruit and  retain their employees and (2) whether or not they need to implement,  modify, or eliminate work/life programs. The federal government  continues to recognize the need to implement and modify current  work/life programs. A March 2010 report published by the President’s  Council of Economic Advisors presented an economic perspective on  workplace policies and practices and their effect on work/life balance.  The Council’s report cited a survey of human resource managers that  indicated work/life programs, such as family-supportive policies and  flexible hours, were the single most important factor in private sector  companies attracting and retaining employees. We also surveyed agency  officials about the effects of their work/life programs on employee  recruitment and retention. Agency officials responding to our survey  indicated that work/life programs offered by their agencies affect their  ability to recruit and retain agency employees. About half of the officials  indicated that offering work/life programs had a very great or great effect  on their ability to recruit and retain agency employees. About another  third indicated that work/life programs have a moderate effect on their  ability to recruit and retain agency employees.
Agency officials may also use the evaluations of their work/life programs  to modify, implement, or eliminate work/life programs. As shown in figure  7, 12 out of the 18 CHCOs responding to our survey indicated that they had  modified their work/life programs based on the program data that they  collected and evaluated. Ten of the 18 responding CHCOs had  implemented new work/life programs based on the data they collected and  evaluated. However, one of the agency officials responding to our survey  indicated that current budget constraints affect an agency’s ability to  implement new programs.
Most of the agency officials responding to our survey indicated that they  track many of their work/life programs. In addition, according to OPM  officials, some federal agencies independently provide OPM with data and  evaluations on various work/life programs. OPM officials stated that they  do not share this information across federal agencies because they lack  the time and resources to maintain an inventory of these evaluations. OPM  officials said that the recent addition of staff to the Office of  Work/Life/Wellness will enable them to review reports they may receive in  the future. At the time of this review, there were no staff or resources to  track, review, or maintain an inventory of these evaluations. Offering  agencies more information about which work/life programs are in place  across the federal government and their impact on meeting agency- intended goals could be helpful in a budget-constrained environment.  Agency CHCOs could play a valuable and central role in the selection and  collection of information in or about work/life programs.
section_title: OPM Does Not Systematically Collect or Share Informati on Private Sector Work/Life Programs
subsections: section_title: OPM Has Collected Information on Some Private Sector Work/Life Programs but Does Not Presently Share It with Federal Agencies
paragraphs: Our prior work on federal agencies’ human capital efforts demonstrated  the benefits of consulting with the private sector on human capital  practices. For example, federal agencies such as the Internal Revenue  Service and the Veterans Health Administration have incorporated private  sector practices for identifying the critical skills and training needs of their workforces. Also, in its strategic plan for 2010-2015, OPM defines as one  of its goals having a suite of flexible work/life programs to promote a  healthy work/life balance for federal employees. One of the strategies  OPM proposed for achieving this goal is to evaluate the results of surveys  from public and private sector organizations to identify leading practices  across the sectors. The plan further indicates that OPM will provide  federal agencies with these results to provide the agencies various options  that they may use to compare their work/life programs with leading  private sector practices. However, while OPM has developed a health and  wellness pilot program based on discussions with private sector  representatives, it has not yet shared information about private sector  work/life programs with federal agencies.
In May 2009, OPM participated in White House-sponsored meetings with  representatives of large, privately-owned companies to discuss how health and wellness programs affect the private sector’s workforce recruitment  and retention. Also discussed during these meetings was the  administration’s WellCheck initiative, which is intended to improve federa health and wellness programs. These meetings prompted OPM to collect  information about federal agencies’ health and wellness programs in July  2009, as mentioned previously. Subsequently, in early 2010, OPM held two  roundtables and several meetings with private sector company offi cials to  obtain more information about private sector health and wellness  programs. These meetings, according to an OPM official, helped the  government representatives obtain a better understanding of models for  workplace health programs and leading practices in workplace wellness.
According to OPM officials, the meetings with private sector health and  wellness representatives led to the development of an OPM pilot program designed to create a healthier and more pleasant work environment for  employees at the headquarters buildings of OPM, the Department of the  Interior, and the General Services Administration, which are located clo to each other. The pilot, known as WellnessWorks, seeks to develop a  shared “work-life” campus by improving health and wellness facilities at  the headquarters locations for each of the agencies. OPM has hired a  wellness coordinator and is purchasing the services of a wellness service  provider for the campus. The service provider will complement the  existing services of the three agencies and increase the level of services  across the campus to match leading practices in the private sector.  WellnessWorks will offer the employees access to health and wellness  services such as:  an assessment that includes productivity and scientifically defined  areas of well-being, in addition to physical health, mental health, and  health behaviors;    biometric testing, consisting of heigh t and weight measurement and  blood testing for cholesterol levels;    programs to encourage healthy behaviors, such as weight management  agement;  classes, exercise, tobacco cessation, and chronic disease man face-to-face and Web-based health education resources; and  immunizations, allergy shots, and routine injections.
OPM officials will evaluate the pilot program and they plan to provide  details on developing this type of collaborat to federal agencies across the government.  ive “shared work/life campus”
Although OPM used information from the private sector to develop the  WellnessWorks program with the goal of implementing it across the  federal government, OPM has not shared with federal departments and  agencies information about other health and wellness programs, or other  work/life programs implemented in the private sector. Currently, OPM has  not placed information on its Web site about private sector practices.  Additionally, our work showed that none of the agency officials  responding to our survey indicated that OPM provides them with this type  of information. An OPM official told us that the agency has not considered  providing this information because: (1) OPM officials have been focusing  on other work/life programs such as telework and child care and   (2) similar information is readily available through other sources (e.g., the  Society for Human Resources Management). According to this official,  OPM may consider providing agencies with the information collected from  the private sector if the agencies express an interest in the information and  the agencies understand that OPM is not endorsing or recommending any  of the private sector programs.
section_title: Selected Private Companies Offer, Track, and Evaluate a Range of Work/Life Programs
paragraphs: To identify useful information available to OPM and federal agencies  concerning private sector work/life programs, we selected seven private  sector companies that have been recognized by human capital  associations and publications as providing their employees with quality  work/life programs: (1) Deloitte; (2) Ernst & Young; (3) Marriott  International; (4) MetLife; (5) General Mills; (6) SC Johnson & Son; and  one company that requested anonymity (see appendix I for the private  sector company selection methodology). These companies, representing  various industries, generally offer work/life programs in the same  categories and subcategories and for similar reasons as federal agencies.  Table 2 lists examples of the types of programs private sector companies  offer.
The work/life private sector program managers informed us that they use  various sources of information to determine future program needs, such as  employee feedback and demographic analysis of the workforce. For  example, officials from one company said that after concluding a study of  working parents and their families, they decided to expand their parental  leave program well beyond the industry average to help their employees  balance the demands of family and career. Managers at four of the seven  private sector companies told us that they compare work/life programs  offered by their companies with those of other companies in the same  industry or in the same geographic area to make sure they are competitive  for attracting and retaining talent. Also, managers at two of the seven  companies mentioned that they belong to professional human capital  management organizations, which provide opportunities to share  information about work/life program offerings.
The work/life managers from the participating private sector companies  told us that they evaluate their programs on a regular basis to determine  whether the programs are enhancing workforce recruitment and retention.  According to the managers, some programs can be tracked through usage  data. However, they also told us that their companies do not judge the  success or failure of a program based on how frequently it is used. One  manager stated that his/her company encourages participation and seeks  to overcome any barriers to program use, such as lack of awareness or  lack of manager support.
Private sector companies also reported tracking the use of their flexible  work schedule programs by the number of flexibility agreements on  record and by employee time and attendance records to determine the  extent to which company employees are using the available flexibilities.  For programs that do not have usage data, the company may rely on  employee feedback through e-mail, Web site comments, or personal  contact to determine (1) how much a program is being used and (2) how  satisfied users are with the programs. Managers told us that through this  process of tracking and evaluating, they were able to align the work/life  programs they offer with their employees’ needs and thus enhance  recruitment and increase retention. For example, one manager stated the  need to develop a business case for implementing his/her company’s work  schedule flexibilities by surveying employees to measure the effect of  these flexibilities in attracting and retaining employees. More than   75 percent of the employees indicated that the flexibilities were of  significant importance in deciding to remain with the company. Another  manager told us that his/her company steadily tracks the impact of the  work/life programs, and that since the current set of work/life programs  were introduced, employees expressed that there was more balance  between their careers and personal lives.
Managers at four of the seven companies we spoke to indicated that the  work/life programs instituted by their companies had had a great or very  great effect on recruitment, retention, and productivity. One manager said  that work/life programs were a key enabler of the corporate culture of  flexibility and inclusion. Another told us that work/life programs had a  very great effect on achieving the company’s goals of enhancing retention  and work satisfaction.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Overall, agency officials indicated that they were satisfied with OPM’s  assistance, guidance, and information sharing as they developed and  implemented work/life programs. However, OPM is potentially missing  opportunities to provide federal agencies with additional information that  may be useful to agencies in their efforts to develop and implement  work/life programs. While OPM has limited its collection and evaluation of  federal work/life programs to only a few, some federal agencies are  independently tracking and collecting work/life program usage data on a  wider range of programs such as alternative work schedules and employee  assistance programs. The agencies are also using these data to conduct  assessments of these programs and use the results to make programmatic  changes. Sharing data among agencies on the effect of work/life programs  on agency-intended goals could be helpful for agency decision making in a  budget-constrained environment. OPM officials said that they did not track  or maintain an inventory of these evaluations nor review these  evaluations. OPM officials said that the recent addition of staff to the  Office of Work/Life/Wellness will enable them to review reports they may  receive in the future.
OPM’s Office of Work/Life/Wellness has met with private sector company  representatives to examine private sector health and wellness programs  and the leading practices used to implement those programs, however the  office does not systematically collect information on other private sector  work/life programs. A more systematic approach for examining how  work/life programs have been implemented and evaluated in public and  private sector organizations, as well as making this information more  readily available, could benefit federal agencies’ own efforts to establish  work/life programs. In keeping with its mission to help federal agencies in  their human capital management efforts, OPM can play a key role in the  collection and dissemination of this type of information. Additionally, by  adopting this role, OPM can make progress on its strategic goal of  providing the agencies with various options that could be used to ensure  that their agencies’ work/life program offerings are aligned with leading  practices identified in the public and private sector.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Director of OPM, working with the CHCO  Council, identify the resources, steps, and timetable necessary to complete  the following three actions:  (1) track on a more systematic basis information already being  collected by individual federal agencies on their work/life  programs, such as program usage data and evaluations;  (2) evaluate the results of work/life program surveys conducted by  leading private sector organizations, as stated in OPM’s 2010-2015  strategic plan, that could help federal agencies as they implement  their work/life programs; and  (3) provide the information from both the public and private sectors,  including other comprehensive evaluations produced by academic  institutions, state entities, and other organizations, to agency  officials—through available avenues such as the CHCO Council  and federal executive boards—that could help them address  work/life program issues and determine if the work/life programs  are meeting their agencies’ goals.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Director of OPM for review and  comment. OPM provided written comments which are reproduced in  appendix III. OPM generally concurred with our recommendations but  requested small modifications to two recommendations that include  private sector work/life programs. OPM also provided technical comments  which we incorporated as appropriate.
OPM concurred with our recommendation that OPM evaluate the results  of work/life program surveys conducted by leading private sector  organizations. However, OPM cautioned that there are enough differences  between private and public sector motivations and cultures that a direct  comparison of policies and practices may not provide federal agencies  with a comprehensive set of “ready-to-use” solutions as they implement  their work/life programs. Also, OPM does not want to appear to selectively  endorse leading practices in the private sector as solutions for  implementing federal work/life programs. We agree with OPM that some  leading private sector practices may not be applicable to federal agencies  and that OPM should not appear to selectively endorse leading private  sector practices. However, we do believe that communicating these  leading practices without endorsing them could provide federal agencies  with additional information that federal agency officials could use in  implementing their work/life programs. We revised the recommendation to  reflect our agreement with OPM.
OPM also concurred with our recommendation that OPM provide  information from both the public and private sector to agency officials that  could help the agency officials address work/life program issues and  determine if these programs are meeting the agencies’ goals. However,  they asked that we add other evaluations of public and private work/life  programs published by academic institutions, state entities, and other  organizations such as the Sloan Foundation. We agree with OPM’s  assessment that other available evaluations of public and private sector  work/life programs could provide information to federal agency officials  as they implement work/life programs. We revised the recommendation to  reflect our agreement with OPM.
We are sending this report to other interested parties and to the Director  of OPM. In addition, the report will be available free of charge at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you, or your staff, have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-6806 or jonesy@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix details the objectives and scope of our report, and the  methodology used to provide information to the requesters about the role  of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in providing assistance,  guidance, and oversight to federal agencies concerning work/life  programs, and about private sector work/life programs. Our requesters  asked us to determine the extent to which  (1) OPM provides assistance and guidance to federal agencies for  establishing and enhancing work/life programs;  (2) OPM or the federal agencies track, evaluate, or refine work/life  (3) OPM has identified leading practices in the private sectors for the  implementation of work/life programs and shared this information  with federal agencies.
In order to address the first two objectives, we designed and administered  a Web-based survey (see app. II for a copy of our questionnaire and survey  results). The survey was conducted using a self-administered electronic  questionnaire which was sent to a nonprobability sample consisting of 20  Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) at selected federal departments or  agencies who also serve as members of the CHCO Council. The same  Web-based survey was also sent to a separate nonprobability sample of 20  work/life program managers from subcomponents of these departments or  agencies. The purpose of the survey was to obtain respondents’  perceptions on behalf of their departments or agencies of OPM’s  assistance, guidance, and information sharing during a one-year period.  Because a portion of the survey focused on agency perceptions of OPM’s  assistance, we excluded OPM’s CHCO from our sample. Additionally,  because we intended the survey respondents to speak on behalf of their  department or agency, we excluded two CHCO Council members who  serve as proxies for numerous federal agencies, specifically one member  representing small federal agencies and another member representing  federal national security and intelligence agencies. Also included in the  survey questionnaire were questions designed to obtain information on  how these agencies track, evaluate, and modify their own work/life  programs. Table 3 lists the federal departments selected for our survey and  the number of respondents who completed our survey.
We pretested the survey instrument with representatives from two federal  agencies during June and July 2010 and administered the survey to our  selected respondents from July through September 2010.
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors,  commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in  how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information that  are available to respondents, or in how the survey data are analyzed can  all introduce unwanted variability into survey results. To minimize such  nonsampling errors, a social science survey specialist designed the  questionnaire, in collaboration with GAO staff that had subject matter  expertise. As indicated above, the questionnaire was pretested to ensure  that the questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend.  When data were analyzed, an independent analyst reviewed the computer  program used for the analysis of the survey data. Since this was a Web- based survey, respondents entered their answers directly into the  electronic questionnaire, thereby eliminating the need to have the data  keyed into a database and avoiding data entry errors. The results of our  survey are not generalizable to all agency officials or to all agencies  because they are based on a nonprobability sample. Also, for those agency  officials responding that their agencies evaluate their work/life programs,  we did not independently determine whether or how well they actually  evaluate their work/life programs.
We reviewed past GAO human capital reports on issues dealing with  work/life programs. We also interviewed OPM work/life officials to obtain  OPM’s description of its role in interacting with federal agencies as they  develop and implement work/life programs. This included reviewing  OPM’s A New Day for Federal Service: Strategic Plan 2010-2015, its  2006-2010 strategic plan; past OPM reports on work/life programs; and  available written policy, guidance, and directives. We also visited the  agency’s Web site to examine the material available to federal agencies  and employees on work/life assistance, guidance, and identification of  leading practices.
In order to address our third objective on the identification of some  leading practices in the private sector, we reviewed publicly available  information sources to identify private sector companies that are leaders  and award winners in providing work/life programs to their workforces.  The awards are based on the types of work/life programs offered and the  diversity of the company’s workforce. Some of the awards include    Fortune Magazine, “Best Places to Work”—includes separate awards  for work/life balance, child care, telecommuting, and unusual perks  (2009);    AARP, “Best Employers” (2008);    Working Mother’s Magazine, “100 Best Companies” (2008);    Alfred Sloan Awards for Business Excellence in Workplace Flexibility  (2005, 2006);    Latina Style, “50 Special Report” (2008);    Black Enterprise, “40 Best Companies for Diversity” (2009); and    Diversity Inc., Top 50 (2009).
After reviewing these information sources, we identified 17 companies  that received multiple awards from the sources we reviewed, based on a  process of weighting the awards received. Out of the 17 companies that we  reviewed, 7 agreed to be interviewed. The companies that we interviewed  represented 6 of the 7 industry categories that we identified. Table 4 lists  the participating private sector companies and the industries they  represent.
We developed a structured interview instrument that we administered to  officials from the participating private sector companies to obtain  information on the development and implementation of work/life  programs within their companies. We also asked the officials to describe  how their companies track, evaluate, and modify their work/life programs  and how this information is used to make decisions about their work/life  programs. Also, for those private sector company officials responding that  their companies evaluate their work/life programs, we did not  independently determine whether or how well they actually evaluate their  work/life programs. However, these seven companies are not  representative of all private sector companies and therefore, we cannot  generalize the information these private sector officials provided about  their work/life programs to other private sector companies.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 through  December 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Survey of OPM’s Role in Federal Agencies’ Work/Life Programs
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Steven Lozano, Assistant Director;  Steven J. Berke; Jeffrey Dawson; Karin Fangman; Stuart M. Kaufman;  Melanie Papasian; Joseph L. Santiago; Megan Taylor; and Gregory H.  Wilmoth made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Human Capital: Sustained Attention to Strategic Human Capital  Management Needed. GAO-09-632T. Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2009.
Older Workers: Enhanced Communication Among Federal Agencies  Could Improve Strategies for Hiring and Retaining Experienced  Workers. GAO-09-206. Washington, D.C.: February 24, 2009.
Human Capital: Transforming Federal Recruiting and Hiring Efforts.  GAO-08-762T. Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2008.
Older Workers: Federal Agencies Have Challenges, but Have  Opportunities to Hire and Retain Experienced Employees. GAO-08-630T.  Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2008.
An Assessment of Dependent Care Needs of Federal Workers Using the  Office of Personnel Management’s Survey. GAO-07-437R. Washington,  D.C.: March 30, 2007.
Highlights of a GAO Forum: Engaging and Retraining Older Workers.  GAO-07-438SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2007.
Older Workers: Some Best Practices and Strategies for Engaging and  Retaining Older Workers. GAO-07-433T. Washington, D.C.: February 28,  2007.
Office of Personnel Management: Key Lessons Learned to Date for  Strengthening Capacity to Lead and Implement Human Capital  Reforms. GAO-07-90. Washington, D.C.: January 19, 2007.
Human Capital: Agencies Need Leadership and the Supporting  Infrastructure to Take Advantage of New Flexibilities. GAO-05-616T.  Washington, D.C.: April 21, 2005.
Human Capital: OPM Can Better Assist Agencies in Using Personnel  Flexibilities. GAO-03-428. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2003.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Office of Personnel  Management. GAO-03-115. Washington, D.C.: January 2003.
Human Capital: Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in  Managing Their Workforces. GAO-03-2. Washington, D.C.: December 6,  2002.