11. Effect on recruitment assistance to other Bureaus and agencies

Washington. Our participation in the point 4 program, which is primarily a responsibility for recruiting of technicians for overseas assignments, would be curtailed greatly.

Brooklyn, N. Y.-Personnel ratios necessitate limitation of efforts to recruit. critically needed hospital attendants and kitchen helpers for Northport Hospital; also limit possibility of assisting central office in special recruiting efforts for engineers and dietitians.

12. Effect on management improvement and incentive awards

Washington. We have not been able to conduct adequate studies in such problem areas as (a) organization units with high rates of turnover, (b) organization units with high rates of absenteeism, (c) principal users of sick leave, (d) distribution of workloads; to achieve satisfactory employee participation in and management of employee suggestion programs; or to provide adequate financial incentives for superior accomplishment such as are contemplated by title X.

Washington. Under current limitations little or no attention is given to personnel operations which have been proven in industry to reduce turnover, to improve morale, and to provide incentives for efficiency and productivity. Awards programs, personnel counseling, and guidance must all be actively deemphasized as the personnel office concentrates on compliance with the laws and regulations to the exclusion of the really basic personnel job.

Washington.-A less specific, though infinitely more important result of a further reduction in personnel employees, would be the loss to management of trained employees whose skills are necessary to the administration in obtaining improved management operations within our agency. (Some of these technicians will undoubtedly find employment immediately in those parts of the Government not subject to personnel ratio limitations.) The total program of merit system selection, fair promotion programs, proper utilization of manpower, decent incentives for efficiency and production, and the maintenance of a proper and equitable classification plan-all of which have been endorsed and requested by the Congress will inevitably suffer; the prestige and efficiency of the Federal Government would suffer likewise.

Bath, N. Y.-It is our experience that the incentive awards program cannot be operated efficiently without full control by the personnel office. Since it is not possible for any personnel employee to devote any appreciable amount of time to this activity, the number of suggestions, efficiency awards, etc., have decreased. New Orleans, La.-The manager's office at the expense of other management programs now operates the special incentives program. Personnel does not have

time.

New Orleans, La.—Study and control of sick leave. Letter provides detailed documentation of "A specific example of the cost of the personnel ratio found in the abolishment of the position of employee nurse due to the personnel ratio." Twofold results: "This [factor] represents a saving of $1,502.73 per month due to an employee nurse being employed." "This [factor] represents a loss of $5,543.06 per month due to the loss of the employee nurse.' Conclusion: "Even though the $5,500-a-month figure seems high, an employee nurse actually would be effecting a much greater savings than this amount at the present time."

Phoenix, Ariz.-Previously, the personnel officer had been used to integrate the various management and personnel activities, thereby achieving a greater degree of coordination and resulting greater effectiveness. Due to lack of strength in the personnel division since imposition of personnel ratios, I am not able to utilize my personnel officer in this respect. For instance, the personnel officer frequently is called upon to do his own typing.

PERSONNEL INVESTIGATIONS OF APPLICANTS FOR

EMPLOYEES

AND

EMPLOYMENT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR LOYALTY, SUITABILITY, AND SECURITY

A REPORT WITH CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE AS A RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE PERSONNEL NEEDS AND PRACTICES OF THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES BEING CONDUCTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL MANPOWER POLICIES PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTION 53, AS AMENDED BY SENATE RESOLUTIONS 206 AND 288, WITH THE PURPOSE OF FORMULATING POLICIES FOR THE MOST EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL DURING THE PERIOD OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL MANPOWER POLICIES

FRANK CARLSON, Kansas, Chairman

JAMES H. DUFF, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana
JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky
DWIGHT GRISWOLD, Nebraska
WILLIAM A. PURTELL, Connecticut

OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina
MATTHEW M. NEELY, West Virginia
JOHN O. PASTORE, Rhode Island
MIKE MONRONEY, Oklahoma
PRICE DANIEL, Texas

FRANK A. PASCHAL, Chief Clerk

PERSONNEL INVESTIGATIONS OF EMPLOYEES AND APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR LOYALTY, SUITABILITY, AND SECURITY

In its study of manpower policies as followed by the various departments and agencies of the Federal Government, the subcommittee has given a considerable amount of thought to the problems arising from the various types of personnel investigations which enter into the hiring and firing of Government employees. These fall into three major categories; viz, loyalty, security, and suitability checks, which are made either prior to or subsequent to employment, and all of which require investigations of varying degrees. While the nature, extent, and thoroughness of the investigation is largely dependent upon the type of work to be done by the employee, as well as the nature of the employing agency, all investigations seek to determine something of the past history and activities of the principal, in order that the employer may determine his fitness for the job, aside from and in addition to his professional qualifications as evidenced by his application for employment.

Confusion exists in the area of personnel investigations by reason of the fact that there are three general programs dealing with the denial of employment, and the suspension and separation of Government employees. The Interdepartmental Committee on Internal Security, in a report dated April 29, 1952, points out that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to draw clear lines of demarcation among the suitability, security, and loyalty programs. This fact often results in multiple investigations of the same individual by numerous Government agencies. For example, it is not unusual for the Civil Service Commission to conduct a loyalty check, the Civil Service Commission and/or an agency to conduct some type of suitability check, and for the agency to conduct a security investigation. Since there is no clear line of demarcation among these program areas, the same ground is frequently covered more than once.

The Civil Service Commission has been designated by law (Public Law 298, 82d Cong.) as the agency which will conduct loyalty checks for all agencies, as well as background investigations for the Atomic Energy Commission, Mutual Security Agency, and the State Department. In addition, the Commission's services are available to other agencies for such background investigations and national agencies' checks as are desired. All these services are performed on a reimbursable basis. It was found, however, that not all agencies avail themselves of the investigative facilities of the Civil Service Commission, but instead maintain staffs of investigators, part of whose duties, at least, parallel those of the Commission, with a consequent duplication of effort, and a resulting waste of manpower and money.

In order to obtain detailed information on the divergent investigative procedures followed in Government, the following letter was sent on July 8, 1952, to some 48 agencies in the metropolitan area:

This subcommittee is conducting a survey of Federal personnel and manpower practices with the aim of recommending legislative or other appropriate changes where advisable. As part of this survey, we are reviewing the practices followed in making administrative checks and investigations of applicants and employees. We are limiting our interests to the areas of suitability, loyalty, and security checks and investigations.

To better aid us in accomplishing our stated legislative purposes, it is necessary that we obtain some preliminary information from you as follows:

(1) Do you have an investigative staff engaged in making suitability, loyalty, or security checks or investigations of applicants and employees of your agency? (2) Does your agency conduct suitability, loyalty, or security checks or investigations for other Federal agencies? List these agencies

(3) Under what legal or administrative authority does the investigative staff operate?

(4) Do any other agencies conduct part or all of your suitability, loyalty, or security checks or investigations? List these agencies and indicate the extent of assistance to you.

(5) Under what legislative or administrative authority is such assistance given? A prompt reply to this inquiry will be greatly appreciated.

From the replies received, it was apparent that 15 agencies maintain complete investigative staffs, while the remaining 35 agencies depended upon the Civil Service Commission for making such personnel investigations as were required. It will be noted, however, that the 15 agencies referred to, while less than 30 percent of the total number queried, actually employ over 85 percent of personnel employed by the executive department.

Of the 15 agencies with investigative staffs, only the Civil Service Commission, the FBI, and the State Department do any considerable number of investigations for other agencies. The Department of State aids various agencies when information is required from foreign countries. The Army Department conducts certain investigations abroad for other agencies. The General Services Administration conducts security investigations for the Defense Materials Procurement Agency. Some of the Treasury Department bureaus with investigation staffs make certain investigations for other bureaus in that Department. It might be well to add here that outside of the Civil Service Commission and the Department of State, personnel investigations make up only a small part of these 15 agencies' investigation workload.

A variety of statutes confer authority for investigative staffs. Even without specific authority, however, it appears that most agencies could conduct security investigations under the authority of the agency head to prescribe regulations for the government of the agency and for the conduct of its officers and employees.

Following receipt of this initial information, a questionnaire was dispatched to the 15 agencies which maintained their own investigative staffs.

For the sake of brevity and clarity, the replies to this questionnaire have been summarized and tabulated in a manner to show the diversity of operations among the several agencies. These tabulations follow: