"The Government Accountability Office (GAO) Act of 2007" (H.R. 3268), and Other GAO Reforms
Published: 2008-03-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: This testimony discusses H.R. 3268, the "Government Accountability Office (GAO) Act of 2007" and other GAO reforms, to discuss the results of the survey that Congress previously requested that the Employee Advisory Council (EAC) conduct of all GAO employees (except Senior Executive Service/SL and interns) on GAO's Band II restructuring and the Watson Wyatt market-based compensation study used to set salary ranges. The EAC was established by Comptroller General David Walker to provide a consolidated forum for him to meet with representatives from the various employee liaison groups (e.g. Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities, Blacks In Government, Gay and Lesbian Employee Association, etc.) so that these groups could voice the concerns of their constituency groups. He also decided to include representatives from each of the staff positions (i.e. Administrative Professional Support Staff (APSS), attorneys, and each of the Band levels). Consequently, the EAC was chartered in January 2000 to serve as an advisory body to the Comptroller General and other senior executives by seeking and conveying the views and concerns of the individual employee groups they represent, proposing solutions to those concerns where appropriate, providing input by assessing and commenting on GAO policies, procedures, plans and practices, and communicating issues and concerns of the CG and senior managers to employees.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In general, Band IIA staff reported more unfavorable responses to many of the topics covered in this survey (Band II restructuring, the Watson Wyatt studies -analyst and APSS, market-based pay, and overall GAO climate) than staff in other bands and positions. African American staff, older staff, and staff with more years at GAO, also had generally less favorable opinions of these topics. There were few differences of opinion between male and female staff, and headquarters and field staff about these topics. Respondents used the open-ended question that we included to further highlight their concerns regarding these topics as well as to express their continued belief in the work of the agency. While the narrative comments can not be generalized to the overall GAO population, they did provide insightful and thoughtful feedback for consideration.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today at your hearing on H.R. 3268, the  “Government Accountability Office (GAO) Act of 2007” and other GAO  reforms, to discuss the results of the survey that you previously requested  that the Employee Advisory Council (EAC) conduct of all GAO employees  (except Senior Executive Service/SL and interns) on GAO’s Band II  restructuring and the Watson Wyatt market-based compensation study  used to set salary ranges. My name is Shirley Jones and I am an Assistant  General Counsel at GAO. For the last four years I have served as the  Attorneys Representative to the EAC. Since your hearing last May, I have  worked with the EAC committee that conducted the survey. I am here  today to share the results of that survey with you.
subsections: section_title: Overview of EAC Creation and Purpose
paragraphs: The EAC was established by Comptroller General David Walker to provide  a consolidated forum for him to meet with representatives from the  various employee liaison groups (e.g. Advisory Council for Persons with  Disabilities, Blacks In Government, Gay and Lesbian Employee  Association, etc.) so that these groups could voice the concerns of their  constituency groups. He also decided to include representatives from each  of the staff positions (i.e. Administrative Professional Support Staff  (APSS), attorneys, and each of the Band levels). Consequently, the EAC  was chartered in January 2000 to serve as an advisory body to the  Comptroller General and other senior executives by seeking and  conveying the views and concerns of the individual employee groups they  represent, proposing solutions to those concerns where appropriate,  providing input by assessing and commenting on GAO policies,  procedures, plans and practices, and communicating issues and concerns  of the CG and senior managers to employees.
section_title: Survey Background
paragraphs: Five EAC members volunteered to conduct the survey that you requested.  In addition to myself, the committee consisted of Betsy Morris, Senior  Analyst, Defense Capabilities and Management, Beverly Ross, Senior IT  Specialist/Data Analyst, Applied Research and Methods, Nellie Shamlin,  Executive Assistant, Professional Development Program, and Shana  Wallace, Assistant Director, Applied Research and Methods. We received  assistance from a survey specialist, Luann Moy, an Assistant Director from  our Applied Research and Methods group.
Upon completion of our preliminary survey development work, the survey  was pre-tested among a small number of employees representing the  different Band levels and positions in the agency, and representing both  headquarters and field staff. A draft of the survey instrument was provided  to the Chairman’s staff for comment. A courtesy copy was given to the  Comptroller General and the attorney representing the IFPTE.
The finalized survey was ultimately launched on Thursday, November 15,  2007. The survey was closed on Friday, December 14, 2007. Your staff was  briefed on the results on January 15, 2008 and March 5, 2008.
section_title: Overall Survey Response Rate
paragraphs: The survey was sent to all GAO employees except Senior Executive  Service/SL and interns (a total of 3,002 employees). 71% of eligible  employees participated in the survey.
To provide a picture of those responding to the survey, respondents were  asked demographic questions regarding their position, years at GAO, age,  race, ethnicity, sex, and location (headquarters or field). As is normally the  case, some respondents chose not to answer some or all of the  demographic questions.
The highest area of nonresponse to the demographic questions was in the  answer to the question about race identification, which was not answered  by 253 or 12% of the respondents. The highest nonresponse was from  Asian employees (the number who responded and identified themselves as  Asian represents only 40% of those eligible) and African Americans (the  number who responded and identified themselves as African American  represents only 49% of those eligible). Because of the lower response rate  for these two races, the EAC survey committee noted its concerns with  presenting comparisons by race and with the possible under- representation of the views of those two groups in particular.
section_title: Analysis of Close- Ended Survey Questions
paragraphs: Several survey questions asked employees about the Watson Wyatt  market-based compensation study and specifically about staff  involvement, input and transparency. Specifically, respondents who were  at GAO prior to January 1, 2006, were asked if they were involved in  several different types of activities conducted by Watson Wyatt and GAO  during the study. These activities included focus groups, interviews,  meetings with team management, and CG chats.
Of those respondents who were at GAO prior to that date (83% of  respondents), 30% could not recall if they received communications from  management advising that Watson Wyatt would be conducting focus  groups. Of those who recalled whether they participated in focus groups,  more APSS than analyst staff reported participating. Specifically, 19% of  APSS staff reported participating, while only 4% of analysts and 8% of  attorneys reported participating.
Only 4% of all respondents at GAO prior to that date reported being  interviewed by Watson Wyatt. More APSS than other staff reported being  interviewed (21%). Of particular note, no Band I or Band II respondents  reported being interviewed by Watson Wyatt. However, in comparison to  the 4% that reported being interviewed by Watson Wyatt, 21% of  respondents reported having attended briefings conducted by Watson  Wyatt.
A higher number of staff who were at GAO prior to that date, 94%,  reported that they listened to CG Chats or attended town hall meetings.  13% also reported asking a question or making a comment to the CG about  the transition outside of meetings.  53% of respondents reported little or no opportunity to provide input to  management on the transition to market-based pay. A higher percentage of  respondents who identified themselves as Hispanic (67%) or African  American (66%) as compared to other racial groups reported that they had  little or no opportunity to provide input into the transition.81% of respondents reported that they felt they were only slightly involved  or not at all involved in providing input to management on the transition to  market-based pay. Similarly, 81% of respondents also felt that employee  input on the transition was ultimately only slightly or not at all considered.  42% responded that employee input was not at all considered.  57% of all respondents at GAO prior to January 2006 felt the level of  transparency of the Watson Wyatt study to be very or somewhat  unreasonable. Similarly, 58% also felt that the level of transparency of the  GAO decision-making process was somewhat or very unreasonable.  Generally, the more years of service a respondent had at GAO, the more  likely he or she was to report feeling the GAO decision-making process  was somewhat or very unreasonable. 75% of respondents with over 20  years of service felt this way compared to 55% or respondents with 2 years  or less.  46% of survey respondents felt generally dissatisfied or very dissatisfied  with GAO’s market-based pay system compared to 34% of survey  respondents who were generally or very satisfied. 20% of respondents  reported that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
There were notable differences in dissatisfaction level based on position,  age, and race. Band IIAs and Band IIBs reported being more dissatisfied  than Band I and Band III analysts, APSS, and attorneys. A higher  percentage of respondents age 40 and over (59%) than under 40 (25%)  reported feeling generally or very dissatisfied with the market-based pay  system. African Americans also had higher percentages of respondents  (64%) than other racial groups who said they were generally or very  dissatisfied with GAO’s market-based pay system than those in other racial  groups.
With regard to the effect of the transition to market-based pay on overall  morale, 81% of respondents thought morale in general was worse or much  worse now than before the transition to market based pay. 48% responded  that their own morale was worse or much worse now. A higher percentage  of respondents age 40 and over than respondents under 40 reported that  their morale and productivity are worse or much worse than before the  transition. A higher percentage of African Americans than other racial  groups reported that their morale was worse or much worse (58%).
Regarding the Band II Restructuring (i.e. the restructuring of Band II into a  Band IIA and Band IIB with IIB having a higher salary range), 54% of  respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the Band II analyst and  analyst-related restructuring, while 29% agreed or strongly agreed. Certain  demographics disagreed or strongly disagreed at a higher rate - African  Americans (67%), Band IIA (67%), those at GAO 10 years or longer (66%),  and employees 40 years or older (65%).
Regarding specific outcomes of the Band II restructuring, 55% of  respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the restructuring rewards  workers more equitably, while 31% agreed or strongly agreed. Similarly,  67% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the restructuring enhances  productivity while 13% agreed or strongly agreed.
Conversely, a slight majority (52%) of respondents agreed or strongly  agreed that Band IIB staff lead more complex jobs. These results varied  widely by Band level – 34% of Band IIAs agreed or strongly agreed while  Band IIBs and Band IIIs agreed or strongly agreed at a much higher rate  (69% and 71% respectively).
Regarding the current general climate at GAO, 40% of respondents said  that their own level of morale related to working at GAO was high or very  high. 36% said their level of morale was moderate, while 24% said it was  low or very low.
There were notable differences in responses regarding general climate at  GAO based on position, age, and years of service. Among the different  positions at GAO, Band IIA analysts had the lowest percentage responding  that their morale was high or very high (30%) while attorneys had the  highest percentage (60%). 53% of respondents under 40 years old reported  high or very high levels compared to 32% of respondents who were age 40  or older. Staff with less than 10 years at GAO (50%) reported higher levels  of morale than respondents with 10 or more years at GAO (only 30%).  45% of respondents reported feeling that their professional contributions  at GAO were valued to a high degree. 33% said that their contributions  were moderately valued, and 22% said their contributions were valued to a  low or very low degree. Lower percentages of Band IIA analyst and APSS  (33% and 38% respectively) felt their contributions were highly or very  highly valued compared to attorneys and Band III staff (67% and 63%  respectively).
The more years of service respondents had at GAO, the less likely they  were to report that they felt their contributions were highly or very highly  valued. A lower percentage of respondents with 10 or more years of  service (37%) than respondents with under 10 years of service (54%) felt  that their contributions were highly valued. Similarly, a lower percentage  of respondents age 40 and older (38%) than respondents under 40 (59%)  felt that their contributions were highly valued.
A lower percentage of African Americans compared to other race groups  felt that their contributions were highly valued. 27% of African Americans  responded that their contributions were highly or very highly valued  compared to 51% of White staff.
section_title: Methodology for Content Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Question
paragraphs: To give respondents an opportunity to provide additional thoughts or  concerns, we include an open-ended question which read “What other  comments or thoughts would you like to provide to the House  Subcommittee about the Watson Wyatt study, Band II restructuring,  market-based pay system, the GAO performance management system or  GAO work life, in general?” 1113 respondents provided substantive  comments to this question.
To classify the nature of the comments, we created 29 categories to use as  codes. Two survey committee members independently coded every  comment, and then discussed comments where there were any differences  in coding until 100% agreement was reached. Some comments were coded  into more than one category since some respondents discussed more than  one topic.
section_title: Analysis of Open- Ended Survey Question
paragraphs: The comments to the open-ended question cannot be generalized to the  entire GAO employee population. They do, however, provide some  insights into why some respondents answered close-ended survey  questions as they did.
Our content analysis of respondents’ comments showed the top specific  areas of concern expressed as the Band II restructuring being damaging to  employee morale or otherwise providing disincentives (217 comments),  the Pay For Performance (PFP) system being damaging to employee  morale or otherwise providing disincentives (133), PFP ratings not being  accurate (108), GAO employees not receiving the same COLA as  employees at Federal executive branch agencies (107), and the Watson  Wyatt study being flawed or fraudulent (84). (The other two categories  among the top seven most common comments were “other” less specific  consolidated comments.)
Although not generalizeable to the overall GAO population, we noted that  more than twice as many respondents commented that the Band II  restructuring was damaging to employee morale or otherwise provided  disincentives than those that responded that it was the right thing to do.  Specifically, in contrast to the 217 comments noted above from  respondents that said that the Band II restructuring at GAO is damaging to  employee morale or otherwise provides disincentives, 74 of the narrative  comments said the Band II restructuring was the right thing to do. Some  other comments expressed agreement with the Band II restructuring in  concept but didn’t believe it was working (74). Some comments also noted  concern with the lack of transparency in the Band II restructuring (47).
Some respondents also noted their belief that the Band II restructuring  should have included “grandfathering” provisions for staff already within  Band II at the beginning of the process (31).
While 133 respondents commented that GAO’s Pay For Performance  (PFP) system is damaging to employee morale or otherwise provides  disincentives, 80 respondents said that they believe that PFP at GAO is  helpful or worthwhile. Similarly, 108 respondents specifically noted their  belief that PFP ratings are inaccurate. Some others agreed with PFP in  concept but didn’t believe it was working here at GAO (48). Some  respondents also noted their concern with the lack of transparency in the  PFP system at GAO (69). A smaller number of respondents specifically  noted their belief that the PFP system is flawed, fraudulent or unethical  (45).
Cost of living adjustments (COLAs) were also a consistent theme within  the narrative responses. As noted earlier, 107 respondents specifically  noted their belief that GAO employees should receive the same COLA as  employees at Federal executive branch agencies.
Compared to the 84 narrative comments that noted concerns with the  Watson Wyatt study being flawed or fraudulent, 6 narrative comments  specifically noted belief that the Watson Wyatt study was correct. Some  respondents’ comments also noted concerns about the lack of  transparency with the Watson Wyatt study (73).
Some narrative comments conveyed positive thoughts including the belief  that the Comptroller General should be given credit for moving the agency  in the right direction (30) and that GAO has excellent benefits (32). Other  generally positive comments (44) that did not fit into one of the more  specific categories so were coded as “Other-Positive” included beliefs that  GAO’s Professional Development Program (PDP) is a very good one and  that GAO’s work is cutting edge.
Staff also used the narrative comments, however, to express their belief  that the changes at GAO were going to happen anyway regardless of staff  input (64). Other negative comments included concerns with GAO losing  talented staff because of recent changes (74), GAO’s overall processes  being discriminatory (54), lack of trust overall (45), and locality pay  decisions being flawed (27).
The count of combined negative comments that did not fit into the more  specific categories and that were captured as “Other-Negative” had the  highest overall category count (426). This category captured a variety of  negative comments such as promoting Band I staff to IIA faster results in  less qualified staff at higher levels, GAO should deal with the real problem  – poor performance, concerns about the lack of domestic partner benefits,  and concerns about the treatment of communications analyst positions  under the Band II restructuring.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: In general, Band IIA staff reported more unfavorable responses to many of  the topics covered in this survey (Band II restructuring, the Watson Wyatt  studies –analyst and APSS, market-based pay, and overall GAO climate)  than staff in other bands and positions. African American staff, older staff,  and staff with more years at GAO, also had generally less favorable  opinions of these topics. There were few differences of opinion between  male and female staff, and headquarters and field staff about these topics.
Respondents used the open-ended question that we included to further  highlight their concerns regarding these topics as well as to express their  continued belief in the work of the agency. While the narrative comments  can not be generalized to the overall GAO population, they did provide  insightful and thoughtful feedback for consideration.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.