Technically, there is a single "civil service" for the federal government. Many federal employees work under the broad framework of requirements in Title 5 of the United States Code (hereafter, Title 5). However, many laws and rules that cover the civil service have been customized to subsets of federal employees. That is, agencies and groups of employees have been "carved out" from government-wide provisions in Title 5 in areas like hiring, pay, performance appraisal, and labor-management relations. These subsets of employees may be broken down, for example, by branch of government, agency, and occupation. In addition, the civil service system has become increasingly decentralized in execution. Agencies also use discretion to create subtle or significant differences within the systems they establish to manage employees. As a result of these trends, the civil service has become increasingly fragmented in recent decades. At the same time, it has become more difficult for the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and stakeholders to comprehensively monitor and oversee developments related to human capital management (HCM) across the federal government. Fragmentation has been evident not only in law, but also is apparent in the data for federal scientific and technical (S&T) personnel. (See Box 1 .) In recent decades, the federal government has made many efforts to recruit and retain scientists, engineers, and technical workers, who otherwise may find a more attractive environment in the private and nonfederal sectors. As a group, these S&T personnel may be called the federal S&T workforce. A large subset of the S&T workforce is composed of scientific and engineering (S&E) personnel. This report provides an illustrative overview of statutory authorities relating to the hiring of, and pay for, federal S&T personnel. Some authorities are government-wide, and others are specific to particular agencies. Because hiring and pay practices are changing constantly, not only by law, but also by agency regulation and administrative action, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive overview or assessment of all policies here. Nonetheless, the report may inform Members of Congress who wish to consider modifying the ability of the federal government to recruit highly-qualified scientific, engineering, and technical personnel. Before examining these statutory authorities, the report begins with a discussion of what kinds of employees are in the federal S&T and S&E workforces. The report then analyzes several key factors that are affecting the S&T workforce, both overall in the United States and in the federal government. The many ways in which federal employees can be described and categorized are illustrative of the fragmentation of the federal scientific and technical workforce, and sometimes cause confusion among human resources practitioners and observers. Therefore, some discussion of uses of this term is provided here. Specifically, federal employees may be categorized as being situated in multiple, overlapping "workforces." For example, employees may be described in terms of the organizational units in which they hold positions (e.g., Department of Energy workforce). In addition, employees oftentimes are described and categorized according to distinct skill sets that they use in their jobs (e.g., scientific and engineering workforce). Other examples of the latter usage include the acquisition, information technology, and human resources workforces. These categories of employees have been referred to colloquially as "functional workforces" or "occupations." Employees in one of these workforces may work within one agency or across several agencies. Still further ways of categorizing employees relate to how they are hired ("appointed") and paid. Because the procedures for hiring and paying employees frequently are specified in statute and regulation, a workforce may be referred to as corresponding to a certain section of the United States Code or part of the Code of Federal Regulations . Congress frequently legislates using all of these conceptions of workforces. Fragmentation is also evident in the ways in which the S&E workforce is categorized, whether broadly as a scientists or engineer, or by sub-occupation categories such as a life scientist or electrical engineer. The S&E workforce can also be delineated by agency, work activity, educational degree, age, and geographic region. These characteristics influence federal employment policies. The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides information on the federal S&E workforce, based on OPM data. Table 1 provides an overview of this workforce by major occupational group, in order of the most populous group. As shown here, the occupation in which the largest number of scientists is employed is the computer and mathematical sciences. It is also perhaps telling that the plurality of engineers are in the "other engineers" category. Federal S&E personnel also may be categorized in terms of the work they conduct. Table 2 provides the primary work activity of federal scientists and engineers. As shown here, federal scientists and engineers work on a wide variety of activities in the federal government. For those whose work activity is known, the largest pool of federal scientists and engineers work in research and in development. Table 3 provides an overview of the number of federal S&Es employed, by agency, beginning with the agency that employs the most S&Es. As shown here, the Department of Defense (DOD) employs the most federal S&Es, almost half of the total federal S&E workforce. Table 4 provides information on the degree level of federal S&Es. The bachelor's degree is the highest degree obtained for the majority of the federal S&E workforce. In engineering, those at the PhD level are a smaller percentage of that occupation's workforce than is the case for those in science occupations. Table 5 provides the geographic location of this workforce, broken down by region, which is located throughout the United States. As shown here, the South Atlantic region (which includes, among other states and geographic areas, the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland) has the most scientists and engineers. The next most numerous region is the Pacific region. The lowest number are located in the West North Central and New England areas. Several key factors, reflective of the fragmented nature of federal S&T workforce, have contributed to policymakers' concerns about it. These factors, which can vary a great deal by the characteristics of a given population within the workforce, include the demand for S&T workers in the broader labor market; concerns about whether federal salaries are competitive with the private sector for these workers; the need for U.S. citizenship for federal employment; and the aging of the federal S&T workforce as those hired during previous federal S&T "booms" retire. More information on each is provided below. When demand for a particular type of S&T expertise is high, private sector salaries for individuals may increase, as may the speed with which individuals are hired. This may make it more challenging for the federal government to compete for employment of those individuals. The number of S&T workers in the U.S. workforce has increased both overall and relative to the general workforce. The number of workers in S&T occupations—workers in S&E occupations plus technicians and programmers—grew at a 6.8% average annual rate between 1950-2000 (see Figure 1 ), according to the National Science Board (NSB). From 1950 to 2000, the number of S&T employees increased from approximately 0.2 million in 1950 to 5.5 million in 2000. Although the U.S. economic downturn may influence this overall rate of change, an NSB analysis found that workforce demand varied greatly by occupation. The analysis also found major changes over time, both positive and negative, within occupations. For example, economic downturns in 1992 (as illustrated in Figure 1 ) and 2002 may have led to a leveling off of S&E occupation employment in some S&E fields, while others increased. In addition, the rate of growth of S&T workers is higher than that for all workers in the United States. Figure 2 takes the major influence on the number of workers in S&T occupations, those in S&E occupations, and compares the average annual growth rate of these workers to that of all workers. As shown here, the average annual growth rate for S&E occupations was consistently higher than that for all workers from 1960-2000. For all S&E fields, employment has grown faster than domestic degree production. As shown in Figure 3 , while the number of workers in S&E occupations grew at an average annual rate of 4.2% from 1980-2000 (see left-hand group of columns, fifth column), the domestic S&E degree production grew at a lower rate of 1.5% (left-hand group of columns, fourth column). According to the NSB, the marketplace responded to that difference between degree and occupation growth by employing individuals in S&E occupations who did not have S&E degrees, or foreign S&E workers (who may have foreign S&E degrees). Future demand for S&T workers is uncertain. However, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates indicate that demand for S&T workers in a number of fields is expected to increase at a greater rate than for the overall workforce. BLS projection data indicates that health care practitioners and technicians will add the most new jobs (1.4 million; 19.8% increase) and computer and mathematical occupations will grow the most quickly (0.8 million jobs; 24.8% increase). BLS expects other occupational groups related to science and engineering to grow as well, including architecture and engineering (0.3 million jobs; 10.4% growth rate), and life, physical, and social sciences (0.2 million jobs; 14.4% increase). Of the 30 fastest growing occupations, with an increase of 27% compared to the 10% average for all the occupations, many are science and technology-related. Some observers may also be concerned whether the salaries provided by the federal government to scientists and engineers are sufficiently competitive. As shown in Figure 4 , disparities may exist at higher degree levels between federal government and private, for-profit salaries. Such comparisons, however, no not necessarily account for other factors that may influence salaries, such as experience and field of work. Figure 5 identifies several fields where private sector salaries are higher than federal government salaries for those holding PhD degrees. The issue of U.S. citizenship is sometimes cited as a reason why some federal agencies—particularly those whose mission includes national defense, national security, and similar fields—have difficulty filling positions. On the other hand, a 2004 Rand Science and Technology Policy Institute found that Although the proportion of STEM workers who require security clearances (and hence citizenship) may increase due to national defense and homeland security concerns, the actual numbers of such jobs are very small compared with the federal STEM workforce and with the number of STEM workers in the national workforce who are citizens. We do not foresee a shortage of STEM-trained citizens eligible for security clearance. Enrollment of U.S. citizens in graduate science and engineering programs has not kept pace with that of foreign students in those programs. According to NSF, while the first-time, full-time science and engineering graduate enrollment of foreign students in science and engineering fields increased by 16% from 2005 to 2006, U.S. citizen and permanent resident enrollment increased by slightly more than 1%. As shown in Table 6 , graduate enrollment by U.S. citizens in several fields including computer science, mathematical science, and the physical sciences decreased from 2005 to 2006. Further, for some of the PhD fields of study discussed in the previous section where there is a pay differential between the federal government and private sector, the majority of PhD recipients in those fields are foreign students. According to the NSB, foreign students on temporary visas earned half or more of PhD degrees awarded in engineering, mathematics, computer sciences, physics, and economics in 2005. This further limits the number of recent PhD graduates available for employment by federal agencies. According to OPM, The Federal Government gives strong priority to hiring United States citizens and nationals, but non-citizens may be hired in certain circumstances. Agencies considering non-citizens for Federal employment in the competitive service must follow usual selection procedures and also meet the requirements of all three of the following: immigration law; an appropriations act ban on paying certain non-citizens; and an executive order restriction on appointing non-citizens in the competitive service. In addition, agencies are responsible for applying any citizenship requirements that may appear in their individual agency's authorization and appropriation laws. Another key issue for government is the aging workforce. As shown in Figure 6 , while the number of federal S&Es is decreasing in the 35-39 and 40-44 year old age groups, the number of S&Es above the age of 45 is increasing. These older individuals represent almost 60% of all federal scientists and engineers, with this percentage consistently increasing over previous years. Between 2003 and 2005, the number of federal scientists and engineers who were between 35-39 years of age decreased by 12.9%, and those from 40-44 years of age by 5.4%. When looked at more broadly, as illustrated in Figure 7 , the majority of the federal science and engineering workforce are over 45 years of age. The number of federal scientists and engineers over 45 years of age is increasing, while those below 45 years of age is decreasing. At some agencies, more than 50% of these employees are eligible for retirement in the next five years. To respond to this concern, some federal agencies have undertaken initiatives to increase their workforces. For example, Figure 8 identifies the occupational categories that the Department of Commerce (DOC) has identified as mission critical, and where high turnover rates are expected. In response, the DOC has undertaken initiatives at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to recruit patent examiners. As noted at the beginning of this report, the federal civil service system has become increasingly fragmented in recent decades. The next two sections are included to provide context for this complexity and to help explain the configuration of statutory authorities that relate to hiring and pay of the federal government's S&T workforce. The two sections briefly outline developments relating to statutory authorities that are (1) executive-branch-wide and (2) agency-specific in nature. Two major acts, the Pendleton Act of 1883 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), provide a basis for understanding the evolution of statutory authorities related to the federal government's S&T workforce. (See Box 2 .) Among other things, the Pendleton Act, CSRA, and other laws may serve as guideposts to a long-term issue that Congress has confronted when legislating on the topics of hiring and pay for federal employees. On one hand, Congress frequently has been willing to grant flexibility for expedited hiring or higher-than-usual rates of pay, in order to better equip agencies to accomplish congressionally determined public policy objectives. On the other hand, however, Congress frequently has been wary of providing too much flexibility, or unaccountable flexibility, because of the potential for flexibility to be abused (e.g., hiring or pay decisions being based on considerations other than merit or achievement of congressionally determined public policy objectives). Therefore, federal personnel-related laws continually raise the issue of how to balance providing flexibility, on one hand, with preventing abuse of the flexibility, on the other. CSRA and other laws, including the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) provided government-wide statutory authorities that are relevant to the federal S&T workforce. Taken together, these laws provide authorities that federal agencies may utilize to enhance their ability to recruit and retain highly qualified and effective workforces. The executive-branch-wide authorities that are discussed here include appointment of high-level scientific and professional ("ST") personnel; demonstration projects; intergovernmental mobility; critical pay authority; recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives; special pay rates; and direct hire authority. After the Second World War, Congress authorized the Secretaries of War and the Navy to establish and fix the compensation for a limited number of highly paid positions in the "professional and scientific service," subject to the approval of the Civil Service Commission (the precursor agency to today's OPM). This type of position, later renamed "scientific and professional," eventually proliferated to other departments in agency-specific allocations of positions. Eventually codified at 5 U.S.C. § 3104, and further amended, this authority requires the Director of OPM to allocate a finite number of these "ST" positions among agencies. According to OPM's description, "[t]he Scientific or Professional (ST) personnel system covers non-executive positions classified above the GS-15 level that involve performance of high-level research and development in the physical, biological, medical, or engineering sciences, or a closely related field." The Senior Professional Performance Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-372 ) established a new pay system for scientific or professional employees. In the late 1970s, one of the proposals that was submitted for congressional consideration as part of CSRA focused on "new approaches" to personnel management. Specifically, the Administration urged new statutory authority to pilot test new management techniques. According to one account, however, "Congress was wary of steps that might provide an opening wedge for new ways in which to undermine the merit system ... and enacted only a very limited version." This reference is most likely to the CSRA's provisions related to "Personnel Research Programs and Demonstration Projects," which were codified in Chapter 47 of Title 5. These provisions have direct relevance to the federal S&T workforce. Some of the resulting demonstration projects, which colloquially are known as "demos," are briefly discussed below. Some of the most prominent demonstration projects that subsequently were authorized by OPM under Chapter 47 of Title 5 are well known in the human resources community. Congress made some of the demonstration projects permanent. These include the U.S. Navy's "China Lake" demo, which was converted to a permanent system in 1994 by Section 342 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 ( P.L. 103-337 ). A demonstration project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), located within the DOC, was extended indefinitely by Section 10 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( P.L. 104-113 ). Other demonstration projects are currently active, including projects at DOC, for the civilian acquisition workforce of DOD, and at eight DOD science and technology laboratories ("DOD Lab Demos," also authorized by Section 342 of P.L. 103-337 ). For example, in FY1999 ( P.L. 105-261 , Sec. 246) and FY2000 ( P.L. 106-65 , Sec. 245), and again in FY2003 ( P.L. 107-314 , Sec. 241), Congress authorized the Secretary of Defense to carry out three-year pilot programs aimed at revitalizing DOD laboratories and test and evaluation centers. The first of these authorizations focused on improved cooperative relationships with universities and private sector entities. The second included authority to experiment with human capital innovations that would allow laboratories and centers to compete in the hiring of skilled permanent and temporary personnel. The third extended these first two and authorized a third pilot program similar to the first two. In its report on the FY2003 Defense Authorization bill, the Senate Armed Services Committee recommended that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the status of these pilot programs. GAO found that of 178 initiatives proposed under these authorities, only 4 were implemented. One of the primary reasons for the low implementation, according to GAO, was many of the proposed human capital initiatives would have required waiving Title 5 provisions. It was the opinion of many DOD lawyers that the authority granted to conduct the pilot programs did not include authority to waive Title 5 requirements. One of DOD's responses to the GAO report was the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), which had not yet been passed by Congress. DOD indicated that NSPS would allow such waivers and make the pilot programs unnecessary. Until 2007, basic information about demonstration projects was fairly time-consuming or difficult to acquire. However, OPM now has a website that contains information and reports about its demonstration project program and individual demos. As discussed later, subsequent years would bring a proliferation of statutory authorities that were geared to agency-specific S&T workforces. Changes in executive-branch-wide authorities continued, as well, with either intended or potential relevance for S&T employees. CSRA also expanded authority under what has been called the Intergovernmental Mobility Program. This authority originally was included as a title of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (IPA). CSRA modified the authority to allow temporary assignment of personnel between the federal government and "any other organization," with potential implications for employee recruitment and retention. In colloquial parlance, this CSRA-introduced authority oftentimes is referred to as the IPA. The IPA is used by a number of agencies to enhance their S&E workforces. For example, at the NSF, approximately 10% (170-180) of the current NSF workforce is composed of temporary employees hired through this authority. IPAs are known as rotators: they are considered to be federal employees while working at NSF; however, they continue to remain as employees of their home institutions. IPAs are not paid directly by NSF; and as a result, are not subject to federal pay benefits and limitations. NSF reimburses the home institution of the IPA's salary and benefits using the guidelines of the traditional grant mechanism. In addition, IPAs are eligible to receive per diem, relocation expenses, and reimbursement for any "lost" income resulting from their assignment at NSF (i.e., lost consulting fees). According to NSF, Initial assignments [IPA] may be made for up to two years and may be intermittent, part-time or full time. Assignments may be extended at the request of NSF for up to three years. An extension to four years requires approval of NSF's Deputy Director. By law, an IPA assignment may not be extended beyond four years.... It is NSF's expectation that IPA assignees will not be employed by NSF in any capacity for at least one year upon completion of their IPA assignment. During their employment at NSF, rotators assume the responsibilities and operate in a manner analogous to NSF's permanent staff—leading the merit review process, overseeing and managing awards, and developing and designing future program directions. In order to provide a smooth transition for rotators, the NSF Academy organizes training activities and off-site program management seminars several times each year for new rotators and permanent staff. FEPCA included provisions that provided a new pay authority for "critical positions." Codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5377 and subsequently amended, OPM has provided this summary of the provision: OPM may, upon the request of an agency head, and after consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), grant authority to fix the rate of basic pay for one or more critical positions in an agency at not less than the rate that would otherwise be payable for that position, up to the rate for level I of the Executive Schedule under the critical pay authority. Under this same provision of law, a higher rate of pay may be established upon the President's written approval. To apply the critical pay authority, the position must require a very high level of expertise in a scientific, technical, professional, or administrative field and be crucial to the accomplishment of an agency's mission. OPM's guidance to agencies concerning the usage of the authority appears consistent with congressional intent, as it was expressed in a House report accompanying legislation that ultimately was enacted as FEPCA. That report cited testimony before the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service about how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reportedly had retention problems with its research scientists due to low pay compared to nonfederal alternatives. The House report stated the "Committee believes that the pay authority for critical positions will assist the Federal Government in competing for world class experts in scientific, technical, professional and administrative fields." FEPCA also provided authority for the use of recruitment, relocation, and retention incentives, which have become known as the "three Rs" or "3Rs." Codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 5753-5754 and subsequently amended, the provisions authorize incentive payments of up to 25% of an employee's annual rate of basic pay to be made under certain conditions, or at a higher rate with OPM approval. Recruitment and relocation incentives may be paid if an agency determines a position is likely to be difficult to fill in the absence of an incentive. Retention incentives may be paid if an agency determines the unusually high or unique qualifications of an employee or special need of the agency for the employee's services makes it essential to retain the employee and the employee would be likely to leave the federal service in the absence of a retention incentive. FEPCA also provided for "special pay authority." Under 5 U.S.C. § 5305, OPM may establish higher rates of basic pay—special rates—for a group or category of positions in one or more geographic areas to address existing or likely significant handicaps in recruiting or retaining well-qualified employees. OPM may establish special rates for nearly any category of employee (e.g., by series, specialty, grade-level, and geographic area). Patent examiners and attorneys who work at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in DOC, for example, have received special pay rates. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, provisions were included in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to allow the hiring of individuals without regard to certain Title 5 hiring provisions. Codified at 5 U.S.C. § 3304, direct hire authority requires that an agency give public notice of its intention to use the authority and that OPM has determined "there exists a severe shortage of candidates or there is a critical hiring need." In 2004, Congress authorized direct hire authority for certain federal acquisition positions. Implementing regulations at 5 C.F.R. § 337 articulate in greater detail how agencies and OPM make such determinations. OPM maintains online resources related to direct hire authority. In addition, OPM maintains a list of positions and agencies for which OPM has granted permission to use the authority. Beginning in the 1990s, agency-specific statutory authorities that provided agencies with additional flexibility proliferated. Table 7 and the paragraphs below provide some illustrative, historical examples of agency-specific authorities that have focused on hiring and paying the federal S&T workforce. It is important to note that agencies may or may not decide to use these authorities. In addition, a law may allow an agency discretion to make changes to its personnel system through mechanisms other than statute, such as notice and comment rulemaking, internal regulations, and even memoranda. In the wake of major failures with the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS's) investments in information technology systems, IRS received agency-specific critical pay authority in 1998. Another agency that received critical pay authority (in addition to other personnel-related authorities) was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Other authorities appeared to be influenced by flexibilities that were given to an agency within DOD. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) received statutory authority in 1998 that provided flexibilities similar to critical pay and direct hire authorities, albeit with different restrictions. Subsequently, a number of additional authorities were enacted. For example, Section 307 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA). The authority explicitly "piggybacked" on the DARPA authority, for purposes of "hiring and management authorities." Section 1101 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 authorized the creation of a new human resources management system for DOD, called the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). Implementation of NSPS subsequently focused some attention on the department's S&T workforce. In the same section, another provision was included, codified as 5 U.S.C. § 9903 ("Attracting highly qualified experts") that effectively applied flexibilities similar to DARPA's personnel provisions DOD-wide, albeit subject to different restrictions. In 2006, Section 401 of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act established the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), with personnel provisions explicitly piggybacked on DOD's authority under 5 U.S.C. § 9903. Section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act ( P.L. 110-69 ) established the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E) within the Department of Energy (DOE). The act did not piggyback on personnel provisions for DARPA or DOD under 5 U.S.C. § 9903, but provided the agency's director with considerable hiring and pay flexibility. A number of organizations have analyzed the federal S&T workforce. These reports have identified some possible policy options that Congress and federal agencies might consider undertaking in order to better recruit and retain the federal S&T workforce. In 1990, the National Research Council (NRC) prepared a report entitled Recruitment, Retention, and Utilization of Federal Scientists and Engineers for the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government. This report, chaired by a former director of OPM and the Civil Service Commission, found that "[p]erceptions about factors affecting the federal government's ability to recruit and retain scientists and engineers have remained basically the same for the past 30 years, in spite of specific efforts by OPM and individual federal agencies to enhance such recruitment and retention." Figure 9 provides the barriers the report identified and the mechanisms proposed to reduce them. The report also found that To fulfill the missions of federal agencies, science and engineering activity can be undertaken under a variety of scenarios—including the traditional setting within an agency, demonstration projects, federal laboratories, and managed-and-operated (M&O) facilities. Demonstration projects authorized by OPM and the contracting out of S&E work seem to have provided agencies with the flexibility deemed necessary to overcome some of the difficulties associated with recruitment, retention, and utilization of scientists and engineers. A follow-up to this report, released in 1993, entitled Improving the Recruitment, Retention, and Utilization of Federal Scientists and Engineers , discussed recruiting requirements, challenges in coping with the civil service system, federal pay reform, and issues such as who should be responsible for federal S&Es, how the effectiveness of the current system should be evaluated, and special provisions for administering the S&E workforce. Among the report's recommendations are the following: The pay reform provisions and related flexibilities provided by FEPCA should be implemented as fully as possible by the President and the departments and agencies, in order to redress pay inequities and reward superior performance among all federal employees, including scientists and engineers. OPM should follow its aggressive effort to delegate its authorities under FEPCA with an equally strong effort to see that FEPCA authorities and flexibilities are decentralized to the appropriate levels within the departments and agencies. To help carry out its responsibilities for encouraging, assisting, and overseeing the departments and agencies, OPM should develop an organizational focus for science and engineering personnel policy staffed by individuals who have had experience as senior managers of scientists and engineers. Each federal agency with a science and engineering workforce should develop a comprehensive action plan, with assistance from OPM, to (1) identify agency goals and develop an appropriate science and engineering staffing plan, and (2) use the authorities provided under FEPCA to improve recruitment, retention, and utilization of scientists and engineers. A new interagency committee on federal scientific and engineering personnel should be established in the Executive Office of the President under the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) to (1) evaluate and recommend science and engineering personnel policies and their implementation; (2) develop model strategies for combining the relevant flexibilities in FEPCA and for science and engineering personnel program evaluation; (3) share successful and unsuccessful experiences; (4) monitor the overall success of the government in recruiting and retaining scientists and engineers across agencies; and (5) provide a forum for identifying and working out solutions to common problems. Congress and the executive branch should work together to make further changes in the civil service system that address the problems beyond pay flexibility per se. Meanwhile, Congress and OPM should continue the personnel demonstrations as testbeds for policies and practices that are not necessarily permitted under FEPCA or other federal personnel laws. In 2004, the RAND Science and Technology Policy Institute (STPI) prepared a report entitled Will the Scientific and Technology Workforce Meet the Requirements of the Federal Government? for the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). This report provides an overview of the federal workforce, discusses the status of data on that workforce, and proposes possible mechanisms for change. Some of the findings include: •    Workforce incentives are becoming more prominent as a way of attracting and retaining high-quality STEM workers. Some agencies have had success with these techniques and others anticipate using them more aggressively. NASA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for example, have obtained special authority from OPM to offer salaries above typical federal rates. •    A significant proportion of STEM [scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematics] workers employed on federal projects work in fact for private-sector contractors. This mechanism allows the government to reach flexibly into the private sector for more or fewer STEM workers as the requirements change. Accordingly, the workforce constraints become the size and characteristics of the entire national STEM workforce, not just those who choose to be government employees. Many of the mechanisms that are proposed are focused on activities on "filling the pipeline"—measures to attract students into the science and engineering workforce through educational policy mechanisms. The other set of mechanisms proposed entitled "shaping the workforce" are focused on adjusting the labor pool through immigration measures, and adjusting the workforce through federal agency mechanisms to recruit, retain, and promote the STEM workforce. The RAND STPI analysis focuses on OPM authorizing NASA to offer hiring bonuses, the NIH program to repay outstanding student loans for health researchers, and the development by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) of programs to train health professionals. In assessing the effectiveness of the various mechanisms, STPI found that current federal initiatives emphasized filling the pipeline, and that federal agencies were just beginning to use workforce shaping mechanisms. In October 2008, a Jason committee provided a report to DOD entitled S&T for National Security . This report is not classified; however, the DOD has not yet decided to release it to the public. Powerpoint slides provided by DOD summarizing this report and discussions with the director of the Jason program office indicate that the report states that the science and engineering civilian and military workforce are not obtaining sufficient recognition within the DOD, while other professions such as attorneys and health professions are receiving such recognition because they have their own corps. Of particular concern are military personnel who, in order to be promoted, must undertake non-science/engineering duties. The report recommends that DOD enhance its recruitment and retention policies for its S&T personnel. One option proposed is that DOD establish a research corps within each Service (Air Force, Army, etc.) that would include military and civil service researchers at DOD laboratories and research agencies. This option is based on an existing program, the Service's medical corps, which has its own line of authority including a General responsible for managing its operation. The Jason report states that this research corps might enhance professionalism, training, career paths, DOD-wide mobility, visibility, and esprit of DOD's research staff. Human resource management issues relating to S&T personnel have been of ongoing concern to Congress, both government-wide and for particular agencies. If Congress wishes to evaluate the ability of the federal government and its agencies to recruit and retain S&T personnel, the variety of statutory authorities provide illustrations of topics that might be examined. In addition, the federal government's experience with these statutory authorities might inform Congress's deliberations, if Congress wished to consider modifying the ability of the federal government to recruit highly-qualified scientific, engineering, and technical personnel. In evaluating current efforts or considering future modifications, Congress may wish to consider factors that include the following: Given perceived problems regarding recruitment and retention of federal S&E personnel, agency-specific and executive-branch-wide approaches could be considered. If an executive-branch-wide approach were pursued, it may be possible to structure legislation to leverage the involvement of entities such as OPM, the federal Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council, OSTP, and OMB, in addition to agencies with S&E workforces themselves. Tools to galvanize action by agencies, OPM, and OMB might be pursued through several means, including requirements for strategic planning, coordination, evaluation, and solitary or joint reporting. Although many statutory authorities have focused on providing additional flexibilities to agencies, it is not clear how much accountability has been gained in exchange. A number of observers have, over extended periods, expressed concerns about the ability of OPM to effectively oversee agency use of these authorities. The goal of a number of programs is to recruit staff for term appointments of one to five years. However, if the goal is for an agency to build a long-term workforce who stay for more than five years, reliance on short-term appointments may not be an appropriate model. Further, even if an agency has the goal of building a shorter-term workforce of five years or less, prospective recruits may be unwilling to take a position that has a pre-determined endpoint, even if the rate of compensation is higher. Several of the programs only apply to a small number of individuals. If the goal is to recruit a large number of individuals, these may not be appropriate models. Although various recruiting mechanisms have been developed and are in active use, there is insufficient evidence as to whether or not these programs are likely to achieve a given employment goal. Some of the agencies continue to experience challenges in employing the personnel they need despite such programs. Some policies are targeted at entry-level employees, while others are targeted at more senior employees. Each may prefer different incentives. As a result, one factor to consider is whether or not the goal of a program is to recruit entry-level staff, senior staff, or both. According to news reports, the OPM Director John Berry plans to pursue a significant reform of the civil service system in Title 5, including a pay for performance system, in response to concerns that the federal pay system is "balkanized to the point of a risk of failure." The three-pronged strategy, approved by President Obama, would "reform the law on federal employee pay: create a fair and credible performance appraisal and accountability system; develop training that would prepare employees for promotion and support them throughout their careers; and establish genuine parity between federal and private-sector salaries for employees in comparable occupations." The Obama Administration has taken several actions related to federal S&E personnel actions. These include: Halting expansion of DOD's National Security Personnel System (NSPS) pending a review by the Obama Administration; Allowing federal agencies to use excepted service appointments to carry out provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA; P.L. 111-5); Providing agencies with the ability to rehire annuitants (retired federal employees) to help carry out ARRA; and Helping agencies identify specific workforce strategies, including special hiring flexibilities to meet ARRA requirements. A draft energy research and development bill proposed by the chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources would provide DOE with direct hire, critical pay, and rehire authority. As described by the committee: Section 47 – Direct Hire Authority . This section gives the DOE direct hire authority for a period of two years, such hiring must be consistent with merit principals [sic ] and public notice. Such authority originally rested with the Atomic Energy Commission and was transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) but not the DOE. The NRC has recently used this authority to rapidly hire 400 engineers for the surge in nuclear plant license applications. Section 48 – Critical Pay Authority. This section gives the DOE critical pay authority to hire up to 40 highly skilled individuals for key or critical mission positions at the Department for a period of no more than 4 years up to the salary of the Vice-President of the United States. This will enable DOE to attract highly qualified individuals from industry and academia for positions within the Department typical of science and engineering intensive missions. Section 49 – Rehire Authority. This section gives the DOE the authority to rehire retired DOE employees for mission critical positions without impacting their retirement annuity. Many Department employees served in excess of 20 or 30 years in programmatic positions managing large, technically complicated energy related efforts. This authority will enable continuity of knowledge transfer as newer employees are hired.

Summary: In recent decades, the federal government has made many efforts to recruit and retain scientists, engineers, and technical workers, who otherwise may find a more attractive environment in the private and nonfederal sectors. As a group, these science and technology (S&T) personnel may be called the federal S&T workforce. A large subset of the S&T workforce is composed of scientific and engineering (S&E) personnel. By one count, the federal government employs over 200,000 scientists and engineers. Several factors have contributed to concerns about the federal S&T workforce. These include demand for S&T workers, concerns as to whether federal salaries are competitive with the private sector, the need for U.S. citizenship for federal employment, and the aging of the federal S&T workforce as those hired during previous federal S&T hiring "booms" retire. Many federal S&T personnel are hired or paid under agency-specific statutory authorities, rather than government-wide civil service laws in Title 5 of the United States Code. Others may be hired or paid under a variety of executive-branch-wide statutory authorities which allow for, among other things, demonstration projects, direct hiring, and special pay rates. Congress frequently has been willing to grant flexibility for expedited hiring or higher-than-usual rates of pay, in order to better equip agencies to accomplish congressionally determined public policy objectives. However, Congress frequently also has been wary of providing too much flexibility, or unaccountable flexibility, because of the potential for flexibility to be abused. Therefore, federal personnel-related laws continually raise the issue of how to balance flexibility, on one hand, with preventing abuse of the flexibility, on the other. Human resource management issues relating to S&T personnel have been of ongoing concern to Congress, both government-wide and for particular agencies. Because hiring and pay practices are changing constantly, not only by law, but also by agency regulation and administrative action, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive overview or assessment of all policies here. Nevertheless, if Congress wishes to evaluate the ability of the federal government and its agencies to recruit and retain S&T personnel, the variety of statutory authorities provide illustrations of topics that might be examined. In addition, the federal government's experience with these statutory authorities might inform Congress's deliberations. For example, Congress may wish to consider modifying the ability of the federal government to recruit highly-qualified scientific, engineering, and technical personnel. In evaluating current efforts or considering future modifications, Congress may wish to consider options that include agency-specific or executive-branch-wide approaches; leveraging the involvement of the Office of Personnel Management, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the federal Chief Human Capital Officers Council, or other entities; requiring agencies to engage in strategic planning, evaluation, or other activities; and exploring a variety of S&T personnel issues in specific agency and policy contexts. This report will be updated when events warrant.