Fact sheet on Government-wide incentive awards program, fiscal year 1961-Con.

1 A few agencies did not submit complete reports on these statistics; the available totals, however, appea to be representative.

2 From latest available figures-June 1960.

Mr. BROOKS. Measurable benefits of $63 million?

Mr. MACY. From these suggestions. This program has been in operation on a Government-wide basis since the passage of the Incentive Awards Act in 1954, a very significant piece of legislation. Mr. BROOKS. That is over the 8-year period, or 1 year?

Mr. MACY. I referred to 1 year. The program has continued to develop over that period of time. That statute also permitted the Federal Government to give cash awards for superior performance to those employees who had performed in a sustained fashion at a very

superior level or who had rendered a particular service through an invention or through some breakthrough, awards up to $25,000. This has been utilized to a substantial extent.

Last year, for example, 79,000 employees received superior performance awards, and through their performance there was a measurable savings of $37 million.

These are programs which are now in operation. In the Commission's effort to see that major benefits accrue to the Federal Government, we are urging agencies to utilize this program constructively.

We also have advanced, and it is now a part of the President's Federal salary reform program, a proposal that would permit the advance of employees with superior performance at a more rapid rate in within-grade steps than other employees. This would distinguish between the employee who is truly outstanding and the one who just meets the minimum requirements, along the lines that you suggested. I hope the Congress will act favorably on that salary reform proposal so this feature may be adopted.

Mr. BROOKS. The one out of committee, or the one that was sent to the committee by the administration?

Mr. MACY. The one that was sent to the committee or sent to the Congress by the administration, but it is also included in the bill which was reported out by the committee.

This will give another device for recognizing differences in performance.

Getting back to Mr. Moss' point of a few minutes ago, I agree with the three things he referred to as important. I think a part of the advancement is in recognition. Much of the recognition can come through promotion. This is most significant. But there are other honors which can be bestowed. We think under the Federal employees' incentive awards program there are means of recognition that now should be supplemented by this additional salary device in order to make optimum use of incentives in gaining better performance.

Just as we say that management should be alert to doing something about those employees who do not meet the standard, management should also be alert to recognize those who exceed the standard and make a special contribution. I feel the latter type is much more numerous in the Federal service than the former type.

Mr. BROOKS. I am certain they are deserving of every effort to make their life pleasant and to reward them for their exceptional efforts.

Mr. MACY. This is another management responsibility.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Moss.

Mr. Moss. On wage-board employees, do you have the same responsibility and do you follow the same procedure in auditing job standards as in the classified service?

Mr. MACY. The Commission does not have responsibility with respect to wage-board employees. The wage-board system is administered by the individual departments and agencies. The Commission, however, feels that as the central personnel agency, it has an obligation to serve as a clearinghouse on wage-board information, to work with the agencies in coordinating wage-board practices, and to point out deficiencies in wage-board systems as they are detected. We do not have the same statutory responsibility that we have with respect to the 1 million positions under the Classification Act.

Mr. Moss. You are without authority, then, to audit, say, a general downgrading of wage board employees.

Mr. MACY. By "downgrading" in this instance, you mean where there has been

Mr. Moss. Job descriptions.

Mr. MACY (continuing). A change in the level assigned to a particular job in the manual skills?

Mr. Moss. On a wholesale basis.

Mr. MACY. I believe if there were a downgrading that adversely affected employees, the employee would have appeal rights to the Commission.

Mr. Moss. You are not certain of this?

Mr. MACY. Let me put it this way: Again, I am not quite clear on the circumstances that you describe.

Mr. Moss. It recently has been brought to my attention or alleged that a fairly substantial number of employees are going to end up with lower ratings when in fact-again this is all allegation-there has been no change in the nature of their assignments.

Mr. MACY. This will be accompanied by a reduction in compensation.

Mr. Moss. Yes.

Mr. MACY. If the facts were as you and I have developed them, the individual would have appeal rights under section 14 if he were a veteran, and under Executive Order 10988 if he is a nonveteran.

Mr. Moss. Would you have to consider them on a case-by-case basis, or would there be any means whereby the Commission could go in and do a little independent auditing if a substantial number of employees were involved?

Mr. MACY. If a situation of that type were called to our attention, we would investigate it with the department involved on a group basis rather than waiting for the appeals, because it would indicate a major problem which would have to be dealt with. Our relationships are such with the departments involved that I am sure we would secure the information, and in an advisory capacity we would urge action which we felt was appropriate, although we would not have authority to change the action proposed.

Mr. Moss. On a case-by-case basis, you could reverse?

Mr. MACY. We could hear the appeals. The appeals could be filed as a group appeal if all the circumstances at issue were the same. Mr. Moss. That is all I have.

Mr. BROOKS. Is there anything you would like to add, Commissioner Lawton?

Mr. LAWTON. No, thank you. I think it has been covered pretty well.

Mr. BROOKS. Would you like to add anything at this point, Mr. Hampton?

Mr. HAMPTON. No, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. I am very happy to say this is one Government agency which is making an effort to follow the mandate of the President of the United States and do things a little more efficiently for a little less money, and getting some bipartisan support from Commissioner Hampton, too, I notice.

Mr. MACY. Yes, sir.

COMMISSION "SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE"

Mr. BROOKS. Certainly your use of ADP, the abolition of a couple of your departments, the consolidation of some others, new work absorbed by existing personnel, streamlining procedures, increasing your productivity, have resulted, apparently, in the figures specified in your statement submitted, some $2,252,769 in savings you can point to concretely, without making an estimate on those which are a little bit harder to ascertain. This is the kind of savings in which we are interested.

I think you are setting a good example. If the other agencies were to follow it, on the same percentage basis, the savings would be manifold this savings.

I should add that your interest and efforts in manpower and productivity, I believe, will make a very significant contribution to the capability of this country and to an evaluation of that capability in terms that the management and the political leadership and the business leadership of this country can best defend and perpetuate.

We are glad to have had you here. We appreciate Mr. Irons coming down with you and his cooperation.

We appreciate very much your being here.
Without further ado, we will adjourn.

(The subcommittee adjourned at 4:05 p.m.)

APPENDIX

Hon. JACK BROOKS,

U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., August 20, 1962.

Chairman, Government Activities Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BROOKS: I am pleased to submit the enclosed report responding to the questions contained in your letter of August 10 concerning your subcommittee's interest in the part the Civil Service Commission should play in efforts to increase personnel efficiency in the Government service. For the convenience of the subcommittee, the complete text of the questions listed in your letter is included at the beginning of each of the items in our report.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES SUBCOMMITTEE, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

I. JOB QUALIFICATIONS

1. What percentage of Federal classified employees does the Commission itself examine as to qualifications?

During the fiscal year 1962, 14 percent of competitive appointments in the Federal service were made from examinations conducted by the Commission's examining offices and 86 percent were made from examinations conducted by boards of civil service examiners in the agencies. The Civil Service Commission has the responsibility for evaluating the qualifications of all persons entering the competitive, or classified, service. The Commission discharges this responsibility in two ways: First, by the direct evaluation of applicants' training and experience by qualification rating examiners located in our regional and branch offices throughout the country and our central office in Washington, D.C. Second, the Commission utilizes its extensive network of Boards of U.S. civil service examiners to evaluate qualifications of candidates who file applications in examinations issued by these boards. There are approximately 900 boards of examiners distributed throughout the 50 States. These boards are located in the Federal agencies and are staffed by agency personnel specifically approved by the Commission. In the performance of their duties, the boards are under the direct and technical supervision of Commission personnel.

Board members are trained both in Commission offices and at their jobsites and attend conferences on the technical aspects of the examining program. Operations of the boards are supervised and audited by Commission examiners. During these audits, a review is made on a sampling basis of the assignment of qualification ratings in all examinations. In addition, the Commission representatives make one to three visits to each board annually for training and consultant services.

2. In those instances where this function is delegated to the departments and agencies, how does the Commission maintain adherence to its standards? Authority is generally delegated to agencies to make qualification determinations in noncompetitive actions involving positions for which there are CSCapproved qualification standards. However, the qualifications of applicants for positions at GS grades 16, 17, and 18 and comparable levels are evaluated by the Commission. Also, if there is no CSC-approved standard for a particular position the agency must obtain prior approval of the applicant's qualifications.

In those cases where a Commission office does not have qualified eligibles to certify, it issues specific authority to an agency to recruit either under a published standard or one prepared specifically for this purpose.

One of the important responsibilities in the Commission's inspection process is the postaudit and evaluation of qualification determinations made by agencies.