From 2005 to 2014, the civilian workforce (excluding the U.S. Postal Service) grew from 1.88 million to 2.07 million, an increase of 10.3 percent, or 192,951 individuals. Most of this growth (76 percent) occurred between 2009 and 2014. The number of permanent career executive branch employees grew by 221,672, from about 1.7 million in 2005 to 1.92 million in 2014 (an increase of 13 percent). Of the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies, 13 had a higher percentage of permanent career employees in 2014 than they did in 2005, and 11 had a lower percentage (see figure 1). The retirement rate of federal civilian employees rose from 3.2 percent in 2004 to a high of 3.6 percent in 2007 when, according to data from the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began. During the recession, the total attrition rate dropped to a low of 2.5 percent in 2009 before rebounding to pre-recession levels in 2011 and 2012. Beginning at the end of 2007, the recession saw retirement rates decline to 3.3 percent in 2008, 2.5 percent in 2009, and 2.7 percent in 2010, before increasing again to 3.5 percent in 2014. With respect to retirement eligibility, of the 1.92 million permanent career employees on board in 2014, approximately 270,000 (14 percent) were eligible to retire. By September 2019, approximately 590,000 (31 percent) of on board staff will be eligible to retire. Not all agencies will be equally affected. Also by September 2019, 18 of the 24 CFO Act agencies will have a higher percentage of staff eligible to retire than the current overall average of 31 percent. About 23 percent of Department of Homeland Security staff on board as of September 2014 will be eligible to retire in 2019, while more than 43 percent will be eligible to retire at both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Small Business Administration (see figure 2). Certain occupations—such as air traffic controllers, customs and border protection agents, and those involved in implementing government programs—will also have particularly high retirement-eligibility rates by 2019. About 63 percent of career executives may be eligible to retire by 2016. As we reported in 2014, the General Schedule (GS) classification system is a mechanism for organizing federal white-collar work, notably for the purpose of determining pay, based on a position’s duties, responsibilities, and difficulty, among other things. The GS system, which is administered by OPM and includes a standardized set of 420 occupations, grouped in 23 occupational families and 15 statutorily-defined grade levels, influences other human capital practices such as training, since training opportunities link position competencies with the employee’s performance. In 2013, the GS system covered about 80 percent of the civilian white-collar workforce (about 1.6 million employees). The GS system was designed to uphold the key merit system principle of equal pay for work of substantially equal value and other important goals. However, some OPM reports and several public policy groups have questioned the GS system’s ability to meet agencies’ needs for flexible talent management tools that enable them to align employees with mission requirements. For example, in 2002, OPM outlined the advantages and disadvantages of the GS classification system and concluded that agencies should be allowed to tailor their pay practices to better recruit, manage, and retain employees to accomplish their mission. In 2014, the Partnership for Public Service reported that by treating all occupations equally and linking them to the current pay scales, the GS system is unable to distinguish between meaningful differences in complexity and skill across occupations. Also, as federal agencies have taken on additional roles and responsibilities, their missions have become increasingly complex, and their employees need to possess a range of expertise and skills that may not be adequately captured by the GS system. We reported in July 2014 on the attributes of a modern, effective classification system and the extent to which the current GS system balances those attributes. Our analysis of subject matter specialists’s comments, related literature, and interviews with OPM officials identified a number of important characteristics for a modern, effective classification system, which we consolidated in eight key attributes (see table 1). In 2014 we found that, in concept, the current GS classification system’s design incorporates several key attributes including internal and external equity, transparency, simplicity, and rank in position. However, as OPM implemented the system, the attributes of transparency, internal equity, simplicity, flexibility, and adaptability were reduced. This occurred, in part, because some attributes are at odds with one another. So, fully achieving one attribute comes at the expense of another. Thus, OPM, working with its stakeholders, is challenged to determine how best to optimize each attribute. We also reported that the GS system’s standardized set of 420 occupations incorporates several key attributes, but falls short in implementation. For example, the occupational standard for an information technology specialist clearly describes the routine duties, tasks, and experience required for the position. This kind of information is published for the 420 occupations so all agencies are using the same, consistent standards when classifying positions—embodying the attributes of transparency and internal equity. However, in implementation, having numerous, narrowly defined occupational standards inhibits the system’s ability to optimize these attributes. Specifically, classifying occupations and developing position descriptions in the GS system requires officials to maintain an understanding of the individual position and the nuances between similar occupations. We concluded that without this understanding, the transparency and internal equity of the system may be inhibited as agency officials may not be classifying positions consistently, comparable employees may not be treated equitably, and the system may seem unpredictable. We believe that, going forward, these eight attributes of a more modern, effective classification system can help provide criteria for policymakers and other stakeholders to use in determining whether refinements to the current GS system or wholesale reforms are needed. In our July 2014 report, we recommended that OPM, working through the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) Council and in conjunction with key stakeholders such as the Office of Management and Budget, unions, and others, examine ways to make the GS system’s design and implementation more consistent with the attributes of a modern, effective classification system. OPM partially concurred with our recommendation to work with key stakeholders to use prior studies and lessons learned to examine ways to make the GS system more consistent with the attributes of a modern, effective classification system. But it also noted several efforts to assist agencies with classification issues, including its interagency classification policy forum and partnering with agencies to address challenges related to specific occupational areas. While these examples of assisting agencies to better implement the GS system on a case-by- case basis are helpful, they do not fully address the fundamental challenges facing the GS system, which we and others have said is not meeting the needs of federal agencies. In 2014, we also reported that OPM is responsible for establishing new— and revising existing—occupational standards after consulting with agencies. From 2003 to 2014, OPM revised almost 20 percent of the occupational standards and established 14 new ones. However, there was no published review or update of 124 occupations since 1990. OPM officials said they first review occupations identified in presidential memorandums as needing review; however, they do not systemically track and prioritize the remaining occupational standards for review. Therefore, we concluded that OPM had limited assurance that it is updating the highest priority occupations. OPM is required by law to oversee agencies’ implementation of the GS system. However, OPM officials said OPM has not reviewed any agency’s classification program since the 1980s because OPM leadership at the time concluded that the reviews were ineffective and time consuming. As a result, we also concluded that OPM has limited assurance that agencies are correctly classifying positions according to standards. In 2014, we determined that, going forward, OPM could improve its management and oversight of the GS system, and like all agencies, must consider cost-effective ways to fulfill its responsibilities in an era of constrained resources. Using a more strategic approach to track and prioritize reviews of occupational standards—that perhaps better reflects evolving occupations—could help OPM better meet agencies’s needs and the changing nature of government work. We therefore recommended that OPM develop a strategy to systematically track and prioritize updates to occupational standards. However, OPM did not concur with our recommendation and noted that occupational standards are updated in response to a systematic, prioritized process informed by working with agencies and other stakeholders and analysis of occupational trends. OPM officials were unable to provide us with the documentation of such efforts. As we noted in our 2014 report, OPM had not published a review or update of roughly 30 percent of the total number of occupations on the GS system since 1990. Further, OPM officials could not provide the near- or long-term prioritization of occupations scheduled for review. As a result, we concluded that OPM cannot demonstrate whether it is keeping pace with agencies’ needs nor does it have reasonable assurance that it is fulfilling its responsibilities to establish new or revise existing occupational standards based on the highest priorities. We continue to believe that OPM should take action to fully address our recommendation. We also recommended in 2014 that OPM develop a strategy that would enable it to more effectively and routinely monitor agencies’s implementation of classification standards. OPM partially concurred with our recommendation and stated that it will continue to leverage the classification appeals program to provide interpretative guidance to agencies to assist them in classifying positions. OPM also stated it will direct consistency reviews as appropriate, however as we noted in the report, OPM does not review agencies’ internal oversight efforts. We continue to believe that OPM should develop a strategy to fully address the recommendation, and we will continue to monitor OPM’s efforts in that regard. Our past work has shown that mission-critical skills gaps in such occupations as cybersecurity and acquisition pose a high-risk to the nation.