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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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. 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.