The U.S. General Accounting Office exists to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and assure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. Given GAO’s role as a key provider of information and analyses to the Congress, maintaining the right mix of technical knowledge and subject matter expertise as well as general analytical skills is vital to achieving the agency’s mission. GAO spends about 80 percent of its resources on its people. And yet, like other federal agencies, GAO has faced significant human capital challenges—challenges that if not effectively addressed, could impair the timeliness and quality of its work for its congressional clients and the American people they represent. A number of these challenges were created by the significant reduction in the size of GAO undertaken in the mid-1990s. Specifically, from 1992 through 1997, GAO underwent budgetary cuts totaling 33 percent in constant fiscal 1992 dollars. To achieve those budgetary reductions while meeting other agency needs, GAO reduced the number of its employees 39 percent through extensive field office closings and targeted reductions in headquarters staff. To conform to the reduced budgetary ceiling, GAO then instituted a virtual hiring freeze at the entry level, cut training for all staff, suspended agencywide incentive programs, and at times used mid-level promotions as a retention strategy. Because of the reduction in hiring, the average age of the agency’s workforce increased, and the retirement eligibility of staff accelerated. GAO’s analyses showed that by the end of fiscal 2004, about 34 percent of all GAO employees would be eligible to retire. For upper-level staff, the proportion eligible to retire was even larger— 48 percent of all band III management-level employees and 55 percent of all Senior Executive Service members. Thus, as at many federal agencies, GAO’s human capital profile reflected a workforce that was smaller, closer to retirement, and at increasingly higher-grade levels. In addition to the succession-related concerns raised by such a profile, GAO also faced a range of skills gaps. As major policy issues have become more complex and as technology has radically altered the way the federal government conducts business, the types of skills and knowledge needed by GAO staff have been evolving, and the need for sophisticated technical skills has been increasing. Early in his tenure, Comptroller General David Walker recognized that GAO’s human capital profile and selected skills gaps presented serious challenges to GAO’s future ability to serve the Congress. Comptroller General Walker also sought to have GAO become a model federal agency and a world-class professional services organization that focuses on delivering positive results for the Congress and the country. The agency’s ability to operate in an efficient, effective, and economical manner and meet the ever-changing and increasingly complex needs of the Congress could be seriously compromised if GAO’s human capital challenges were not effectively addressed. As a first step in addressing these concerns, GAO used its internal administrative authority to implement measures to improve the alignment of its human capital with the agency’s overall strategic goals and objectives as contained in GAO’s Strategic Plan. Subsequent to developing its first strategic plan, GAO undertook a number of major human capital initiatives, including an agencywide realignment and reorganization, an overall human capital self-assessment, the revitalization of its recruiting and college relations programs, an agencywide knowledge and skills inventory, the development of competency-based performance appraisal systems, the establishment of an Employee Advisory Council, the enhancement of GAO’s employee benefit programs, a comprehensive employee feedback survey, a workforce-planning process, and the establishment of a professional development program for entry-level analysts. In addition to these initiatives, GAO’s leadership recognized that additional steps to reshape the agency’s workforce were necessary and that preexisting personnel authorities did not allow the agency to address these challenges effectively. Therefore, GAO sought legislation establishing narrowly tailored flexibilities that would help to reshape the agency’s workforce and recruit and retain staff with needed technical skills. Based on a sound business case, Public Law 106-303—known as the GAO Personnel Flexibilities Act—became law in October 2000. The act authorized the Comptroller General to implement the following personnel flexibilities: 1. Offer voluntary early retirement to realign the workforce to meet budgetary constraints or mission needs; correct skill imbalances; or reduce high-grade, managerial, or supervisory positions. 2. Offer separation incentive payments to realign the workforce to meet budgetary constraints or mission needs; correct skill imbalances; or reduce high-grade, supervisory, or managerial positions. 3. Establish modified regulations for the separation of employees during a reduction or other adjustment in force. 4. Establish senior-level scientific, technical, and professional positions and provide those positions with the same pay and benefits applicable to the Senior Executive Service while remaining within GAO’s current allocation of super-grade positions. After the Congress passed the act in 2000 and the President signed it into law, GAO began the process of developing regulations to implement the four authorities it established. Because stakeholder involvement is a critical component of successful human capital management, particularly when initiatives are being introduced, GAO established a standard practice to ensure employee involvement in significant agency initiatives. GAO’s standard practice involves the initial discussion and presentation of draft proposals to members of GAO’s Employee Advisory Council—a panel of employees representing a variety of employee constituent groups—and also to the agency’s senior executives. The Comptroller General was personally involved in the vast majority of those exchanges, which afforded an opportunity for the direct communication of employees’ and managers’ reactions. After the views of employees and managers were considered, further changes were made, if needed, before the draft proposal was issued to all employees for their review and consideration. Materials were posted on GAO’s intranet home page, and employees were notified by E-mail that proposals were available for their review, comments, and suggestions for a period of 30 days. The documents were posted in a user-friendly format that allowed employees to access the documents and provide comments directly on any or all of the provisions. Generally, the regulations were accompanied by “Frequently Asked Questions,” which elaborated on and explained the details of the provisions. The agency received 60 comments on the voluntary early retirement order, 33 on the workforce restructuring order, and 12 on the senior-level order. These comments were collected, reviewed, and carefully considered by GAO’s Executive Committee prior to finalizing the regulations. The approaches that GAO took in implementing these four flexibilities as well as the results that the agency has achieved are described in the following four sections. At the time the GAO Personnel Flexibilities Act was passed, GAO’s workforce was sparse at the entry level and plentiful at the midlevel. The agency was concerned about its ability to support the Congress with experienced and knowledgeable staff, given the significant percentage of the agency’s senior managers and analysts reaching retirement eligibility and the relatively small number of entry-level employees who were in training to replace more senior staff. The use of the voluntary early retirement authority provided in section 1 of the act is one of the tools that the agency has used to confront this serious issue—one that is facing much of the federal community. The act allows the Comptroller General to offer voluntary early retirement to up to 10 percent of the workforce when necessary or appropriate to realign the workforce to address budgetary or mission constraints; correct skill imbalances; or reduce high-grade, supervisory, or managerial positions. This flexibility represents a proactive use of early retirement to shape the workforce to prevent or ameliorate future problems. GAO Order 2831.1, Voluntary Early Retirement, containing the agency’s final regulations, was issued in April 2001 and is included in appendix I. Under the regulations, each time the Comptroller General approves a voluntary early retirement opportunity, he establishes the categories of employees who are eligible to apply. These categories are based on the need to ensure that those employees who are eligible to request voluntary early retirement are those whose separations are consistent with one or more of the three reasons for which the Comptroller General may authorize early retirements. Pursuant to GAO’s regulations, these categories are defined in terms of one or more of the following criteria: organizational unit or subunit, occupational series, grade or band level, skill or knowledge requirements, performance appraisal average, geographic location, or other similar factors that the Comptroller General deems necessary and appropriate. Since it is essential that GAO retain employees with critical skills as well as its highest performers, certain categories of employees have been ineligible under the criteria. Some examples of ineligible categories are employees receiving retention allowances because of their unusually high or unique qualifications; economists, because of the difficulty that the agency has experienced in recruiting them; and staff in the information technology area. In addition, employees with performance appraisal averages above a specified level have not been eligible under the criteria. To give the fullest consideration to all interested employees, however, any employee may apply for consideration when an early retirement opportunity is announced, even if he or she does not meet the stated criteria. The Comptroller General may authorize early retirements for these applicants on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. The Comptroller General or his Executive Committee designee(s) considers each applicant and makes final decisions on the basis of the institutional needs of GAO. Only employees whose release is consistent with the law and GAO’s objective in allowing early retirement are authorized to retire early. In some cases, this has meant that employees’ requests must be denied. GAO held its first voluntary early retirement opportunity in July 2001. Employees who were approved for early retirement were required to separate in the first quarter of fiscal 2002. As required by the act, information on the fiscal 2002 early retirements was reported in an appendix to our 2002 Performance and Accountability Report. Another voluntary early retirement opportunity was authorized in fiscal 2003, and employees were required to separate by March 14, 2003. Table 1 provides the data on the number of employees separated by voluntary early retirement as of May 30, 2003. Of the 79 employees who separated from GAO through voluntary early retirement, 66, or 83.5 percent, were high-grade, supervisory, or managerial employees. High-grade, supervisory, or managerial employees are those who are in grade GS-13 or above, if covered by GAO’s General Schedule, in band II or above, if covered by GAO’s banded systems for Analysts and Attorneys or in any position in GAO’s Senior Executive Service or Senior Level system. GAO’s transformation effort is a work-in-progress and, for that reason, the agency supports additional legislation to make the voluntary early retirement provision in section 1 of Public Law 106-303 permanent. While the overall number of employees electing early retirement has been relatively small, GAO believes that careful use of voluntary early retirement has been an important tool in incrementally improving the agency’s overall human capital profile. Each separation has freed resources for another use, enabling GAO to fill an entry-level position or to fill a position that will reduce a skill gap or address other succession concerns. Importantly, these separations are accomplished voluntarily with the acquiescence of both the employee and the agency. Although GAO has made progress in improving its human capital profile, there is still work to do. GAO needs to retain its option to use this flexibility when necessary to address current and future concerns. In making this recommendation, GAO points to its progress in changing the overall shape of the organization. As illustrated in figure 1, by the end of fiscal year 2002, GAO had almost a 74 percent increase in the proportion of staff at the entry level (Band I) compared with fiscal year 1998. Also, the proportion of the agency’s workforce at the midlevel (Band II) decreased by about 16 percent. Since the beginning of fiscal 2001, a total of 447 employees have retired from GAO; 79 (or 17.6 percent) of those retirements are the result of GAO’s early retirement offerings, and as noted above, 83.5 percent of those retiring were high-grade, supervisory, or managerial employees. The loss of these higher-level staff, along with other employees whose skills are no longer essential to GAO has helped the agency address succession planning and skill imbalance issues, in addition to increasing the numbers of entry-level staff who can be hired. In addition to authorizing voluntary early retirement for GAO employees, the act permits the Comptroller General to offer voluntary separation incentive payments—also known as “buyouts”—when necessary or appropriate to realign the workforce to meet budgetary constraints or mission needs; correct skill imbalances; or reduce high-grade, supervisory, or managerial positions. Under the act, up to 5 percent of employees could be offered such an incentive, subject to criteria established by the Comptroller General. The act requires GAO to deposit into the U.S. Treasury an amount equivalent to 45 percent of the final annual basic salary of each employee to whom a buyout is paid. The deposit is in addition to the actual buyout amount, which can be up to $25,000 for an approved individual. Given the many demands on agency resources, these costs present a strong financial incentive to use the provision sparingly, if at all. GAO anticipates little, if any, use of this authority because of the associated costs. For this reason, as well as to avoid creating unrealistic employee expectations, GAO has not developed and issued agency regulations to implement this section of the act. GAO also supports legislation making section 2—-authorizing the payment of voluntary separation incentives—permanent. GAO notes that the Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides most federal agencies with buyout authority. Agencies with preexisting legislative authority to offer buyouts retain their authority, although they may be covered under the Homeland Security Act provision as well. Although GAO has not yet used its buyout authority and has no plans to do so in the foreseeable future, GAO recommends the retention of this flexibility and the elimination of the expiration date of December 31, 2003. The continuation of this provision maximizes the options available to the agency to deal with future circumstances. Since GAO is also eligible to request buyouts under the provisions of the Homeland Security Act, the agency will consider its options under this provision as well. Section 3 of the act allows the Comptroller General to prescribe regulations for the separation of GAO employees during a reduction in force or other adjustment in force consistent with those issued by the Office of Personnel Management under section 3502(a) of title 5. In the event that GAO is required to initiate involuntary job reductions, employees would compete for retention on the basis of the following factors in descending order of priority: tenure, veteran’s preference, performance ratings, and length of federal service. At the discretion of the Comptroller General, retention may also be based on other objective factors, including skills and knowledge in addition to the preceding criteria. After careful analysis and deliberation, GAO Order 2351.1, Workforce Restructuring Procedures for the General Accounting Office, containing final agency regulations, was issued in January 2003. Those regulations, which are included in appendix II, provide for establishing “zones of consideration,” which define the geographical and organizational boundaries within which employees compete for retention. All employees would be placed in “job groups” that comprise all positions within a zone of consideration that are at the same grade or band level and that perform the same duties and responsibilities. The highest priority would be placed on an employee’s tenure of employment and veteran’s preference. After consideration of those two factors, an employee would be ranked on the basis of his or her retention score. This score is based on the employee’s 3- year appraisal average and his or her length of creditable federal service; greater weight is placed on performance than on length of service. GAO has not taken any actions under its workforce restructuring regulations and is sensitive to concerns that were expressed prior to the passage of Public Law 106-303 about the potential impact of GAO’s modified reduction in force procedures on veterans. GAO is committed to protecting the rights of veterans in a manner consistent with title 5 and has retained all veterans’ protections in GAO orders. Therefore, GAO does not foresee any impact on veterans that would differ from those at any other agency involved in realigning or reducing their workforce. Section 3, authorizing the Comptroller General to develop modified regulations for the conduct of a reduction or other adjustment in force, is a permanent authority. The act requires GAO to provide any recommendations for changes to the section at this time. GAO is unable to offer recommendations, however, because the procedures have not yet been used. Circumstances leading to the decision to separate employees involuntarily are infrequent, and it may be years before the agency has any significant experience with the use of its procedures. Therefore, GAO has no recommendations for changes to section 3 at this time. To address a variety of complex issues, GAO needed to increase its skill base in such highly competitive hiring areas as economics, information technology, actuarial science, and evaluation methodology. Section 4 of the act permits GAO to establish senior-level positions to meet critical scientific, technical, or professional needs. To recruit and retain qualified individuals, the act allows GAO to extend the rights and benefits of Senior Executive Service employees to these positions. GAO Order 2319.1, containing the agency’s regulations for the employment of senior-level staff, was issued in March 2001 and is included in appendix III. GAO has used this authority to fill eight senior-level positions, including that of a Chief Accountant, Chief Economist, Chief Statistician, and Chief Actuary. In addition, three senior-level technologists have been appointed as well as a senior-level technologist with expertise in cryptography. The expertise of these senior experts in highly specialized areas of economics, technology, statistics, and cryptography has contributed significantly to GAO’s efforts to support the Congress. The accomplishments achieved with the expertise and contributions of the agency’s senior-level employees include work on biometric technologies for U.S. border security, anthrax irradiation of U.S. mail, and National Missile Defense systems. These experts have also contributed to ensuring that GAO’s work is based on the most technically accurate methodologies for conducting cost-benefit studies and for utilizing appropriate data sources. GAO has found this flexibility to be a critical component in its efforts to ensure that the agency maintains the skills and knowledge necessary to address the many highly complex areas of interest to the Congress. The act does not require recommendations from GAO on section 4, which permits the agency to establish senior-level positions to meet critical scientific, technical, or professional needs. When the act was under consideration, some GAO employees expressed their concerns about the legislation to their Congressional representatives. To ensure the active consideration of employees’ views, the act requires that this report include any assessments or recommendations of the GAO Personnel Appeals Board and of any interested groups or associations representing officers or employees of GAO. GAO also agreed to include in this report information about any impact upon employees’ attitudes and opinions, as measured by employee feedback survey responses. In response to these requirements, GAO’s Human Capital Officer sent a request soliciting recommendations for inclusion in this report to the Executive Director of the Personnel Appeals Board. The agency also alerted the members of GAO’s Employee Advisory Council by sending all members a memorandum notifying them of this provision. The topic was included on the agenda of the council’s quarterly meeting with the Comptroller General in March, and all members of the Employee Advisory Council were given a draft copy of the report for their review. GAO’s managing directors were also given a draft of this report for review. In addition, on May 21, 2003, a meeting of all GAO’s senior executives was held. At this meeting the Comptroller General solicited the views of senior staff on extending provisions of Public Law 106-303. The Personnel Appeals Board did not submit a specific assessment of the act’s implementation. However, in letter to GAO’s Human Capital Officer, dated May 15, 2003, Beth Don, Executive Director of the Personnel Appeals Board, stated that the board would be “willing to do a more comprehensive report in a year or so, at which point we think there will be more information available on the implementation and effectiveness of the personnel flexibilities granted under the Act.” Importantly, Ms. Don indicated that no cases had been filed with the Personnel Appeals Board concerning the matters covered by the act. She also stated that the board did not believe it was appropriate to comment, among other things, on the substantive nature of the regulations promulgated by GAO, or the manner in which the regulations were promulgated since the Board may be called upon to adjudicate matters relating to the act and its implementation. The Employee Advisory Council responded on May 13, 2002, that it did not have any comments on the report at this time. Using electronic polling technology that allows for confidential responses, GAO’s senior executives were asked if the voluntary early retirement and voluntary separation incentive authorities should be made permanent. All but one of the 110 respondents agreed or strongly agreed that GAO should seek legislation to make these provisions permanent. One respondent was undecided. As part of ongoing agency efforts to monitor progress in people measures, GAO conducted employee feedback surveys in 1999 and 2002—before and after the act’s passage. This survey asked employees for their agreement or disagreement with a variety of statements relating to their work life but was not designed to measure the impact of the act’s flexibilities on employee satisfaction. The 2000 survey elicited an 89 percent response rate, which was even better than the outstanding 87 percent achieved in 1999. On the basis of a comparison of responses to key questions in 2002 and 1999, employee satisfaction (as measured by the number of “strongly agree”/“agree” responses) was up in 50 of the 52 categories. Negative responses (as measured by the number of “strongly disagree”/“disagree” responses) also declined in 50 of 52 categories. GAO believes that the impact of the legislation on its employees has been positive. Clearly, the employees who requested and were approved for early retirement benefited from the act. Furthermore, the realignment of resources resulting from these retirements has had a positive impact on the remaining employees, as well. Ultimately, GAO’s efforts to improve the strategic management of GAO’s human capital, of which the legislation is a part, benefit all of GAO. Having the right people in the right places makes it easier for all GAO employees to be successful in accomplishing their part of the agency’s mission. In the final analysis, the agency’s efforts to maximize its value allow us to better serve the Congress and the American people.

Summary: Leading public organizations here and abroud have found that strategic human capital management must be the centerpiece of any serious change management initiative and effort to transform the culture of government agancies. GAO is not immune to these challenges facing the federal government. Over the past 3 years, however, we have made considerable progress toward addressing a number of our major human capital challenges through various initiatives. While many of the initiatives were administrative in nature, the additional flexibilities that the Congress authorized in Public Law 106-303 have helped to ensure that we have the right staff, with the right skills, in the right locations to better meet the needs of the Congress and the American people.