COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE FRANK CARLSON, Kansas, Chairman JAMES H. DUFF, Pennsylvania OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina FRANK A. PASCHAL, Chief Clerk EFFECT OF PERSONNEL OFFICE STAFFING RATIOS ON MANPOWER UTILIZATION The Independent Offices Appropriations Acts for 1950, 1951, and 1952 contained provisions limiting the employment of persons engaged in personnel work to an arbitrary ratio of 1 such employee to 115 other employees.1 For fiscal year 1952 ratio limitations were also included in appropriations' bills for Agriculture, Labor, Federal Security Agency, Justice, Interior, State, and Commerce, varying from 1:105 to 1:115.2 For fiscal year 1953 the personnel staffing ratio for the Independent Offices was fixed at 1:135. The main intent of the ratio limitations was to promote efficiency and economy in Government personnel offices by trimming the fat from the staffs. These limitations were imposed, however, without fact-finding studies as to whether the ratios were attainable in an effort to achieve the objective which prompted the enactment. 3 Our findings to date reveal that the major effect the ratios have had on agency programs is the forced curtailment, and in many cases the complete abandonment of those vital functions of personnel management which are designed to increase the efficiency and quality of the organization and work force. Savings in salaries of personnel employees resulting from the ratio are more than offset in lowered morale, high turnover, reduced productivity, and ineffective utilization of Moreover, there is an alarming tendency to transfer personnel functions to operating officials. This lessens their time for program activities and results in staff increases under varying disguises to carry the burden of unfamiliar personnel functions. The indirect cost of this practice is difficult to gage in terms of money, man-hours, employee confusion, and reduced efficiency of program operations. The direct effect of personnel ratios has been one of far-reaching implications in program activities of the agencies studied. For example, to comply with the ratio, the Federal Bureau of Investigation had to reduce certain units below desirable strength, making it impossible to assign personnel to units in anticipation of increased work needs, to provide for fluctuating workloads or for training and replacement. The Immigration and Naturalization Service had to close the Border Patrol Training School at El Paso and has not been able to train adequately several hundred new law-enforcement officers. 11950: Public Law 266, 81st Cong., 63 Stat. 631; 1951: ch. 8, title I of Public Law 759, 81st Cong.; 1952: Public Law 137, 82d Cong. Modifications of ratios for State and Commerce Departments authorized to be made by the President, if warranted. 31.88 percent for calendar year 1951, U. S. Civil Service Commission. 1 1 SCOPE AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS The subcommittee's inquiry into the effect of standard personnel office staffing ratios was undertaken in May 1952 with the objective of gathering and analyzing data which would be useful to the Congress in consideration of appropriation bills then pending. An analysis was made of information received on questionnaires returned from 25 departments and independent agencies having gross appropriations of $14,273,870,000. Agency administrators, executive officers, and personnel directors participated in supplying data which included work-level experience and recommendations from over 200 separate field activities of the Government. Available comparative data from industry was also studied to secure the information for this report. Results of the study, though conclusive in themselves, did not provide a means for realistic attainment of the goals which prompted the enactment of ratio legislation. Further study is necessary even now to identify and assess common criteria which might be used to establish defensible personnel ratios. An analysis of findings and conclusions formulated at the time of our study follows: 1. Funds appropriated or allotted for salaries for personnel office employees in agencies studied was $19,290,724, for fiscal year 1952 This is slightly more than one-tenth of 1 percent (0.135 percent) of gross appropriations. 2. The average expenditure for fiscal year 1952 for personnel office fund allotment per agency employee was $30.35. One industrial survey of 30 private companies in 1947 found an average expenditure of $45 to $50 per employee per year. 3. Although the reduction in ratio from 1:115 to 1:135 appeared to provide a saving of $2,893,000, or slightly more than 0.02 percent of gross appropriations, the effects of such a ratio are to actually decrease the efficiency of the agencies and lessen the effectiveness of the Government operations. (a) The ratio required a cutback in personnel activities of about 15 percent. Processing of personnel actions, records, and reports has been seriously impeded in many cases. This processing, however, has not been diminished, since all actions must be accomplished to insure compliance with laws and regulations. Curtailment has been in those vital functions designed to increase the efficiency and quality of the manpower of the agency, such as— (1) Job orientation and skills training. (2) Executive development. (3) Supervisory selection and training. (5) Utilization and manpower. (6) Performance ratings and standards. (7) Annual review of positions, as required by the Whitten amendment. (8) Placement followup, employee appraisal, and exit interview. (9) Personnel-office-recruiting activity. (10) Incentive-awards programs and management-improvement activities. (11) Employee relations, counseling, and services. (12) Analysis of turnover, excessive sick leave, morale factors, (b) The "saving" has been only apparent and not real, for→ (2) Employee morale, and consequently, productivity has (3) Personnel functions have been transferred to operating offi- (5) There has been a tendency to split personnel functions which (6) Aims of the President and the Congress for improved administration of the programs of the Federal Government have been abrogated with respect to personnel administration and its impact on all agency activities. 4. Standard personnel office staffing ratios and other uniform criteria are worthless with respect to forecasting and measuring personnel program needs and workload requirements of different organizations. (a) Many industrial surveys have confirmed the inadvisability of seeking a "standard" ratio. "Individual situations vary too greatly and personnel programs differ in content too much to develop & measure of general application." 4 (1) Thirty manufacturing companies: ratios from 1:50 to 1:830. (2) Forty-six representative firms in four different locations across the country: 1:32 to 1:364 (Veterans' Administration survey). (3) Five hundred and twenty-five firms surveyed by the University of Minnesota: 1:96 to 1:159. (4) Ten industrial plants average 1:30 (Dartnell Corp. survey). (5) One plant, 1,184 industrial relations employees, approximately 75,000 total employees: 1:60 (Dartnell Corp. survey). (6) Twenty-six industrial concerns: 1:47 to 1:641 (Bureau of the Budget survey). (b) Operating programs of agencies suffer in direct proportion to the extent to which personnel staffing fails to meet their requirements. Realistic personnel programs the most economical and efficient are impossible to achieve under arbitrary standard ratios of any kind. The following factors militating against standard ratios are among those reported by three or more agencies as requiring major consideration in their personnel programs: (1) Geographical dispersion of personnel activities to a large number of personnel offices. (2) Heavy employee turnover. National Industrial Conference Board. (3) Large seasonal or periodic employment. (4) Need for a substantial amount of recruitment in scarce skills categories. (5) Personnel activities performed for other agencies or for (6) Unusually large numbers of applicants for positions. (8) Necessity to operate under two or more separate personnel (9) A major reorganization or a number of minor reorganiza tions. (10) Backlogs of work, in classifying or reclassifying positions, examining, recruiting, etc. Other factors which must be considered in determining the personnel program are (1) Nature of work of the agency. (2) Newness of the agency and expected duration. The general effect congressional ratio limitations have had on personnel administration in the agencies, and the effect anticipated by the proposed ratio of 1:135 are summarized in representative statements attached. Twenty-five agencies and departments responded to the subcommittee questionnaire, and 200 subordinate field activities responded. No significant deviation from the summary opinion was found. Representative comments appear as an analysis of questionnaires has been divided into 12 topics and are attached to the report. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions resulting from our inquiry into the effect of personnel staffing ratio may be summarized as follows: 1. Results of a survey by the subcommittee of over 200 Government activities, and a study of current practices in industry, have not produced evidence that standard staffing ratios are workable. 2. Studies by the subcommittee indicate that personnel programs of Government agencies cannot be subjected to one overall pattern. Rather they should be designed by agency heads to meet the singular program needs and workload requirements of each agency. 3. Management functions essential to modern government and industrial personnel practices have been reduced in Government agencies to the point of inefficiency by existing staffing ratios. 4. Standard personnel staffing ratios, per se, are incompatible with management improvement goals sponsored by the Congress, the President, or the agencies themselves. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The present practice of legislating personnel staffing ratios should be abolished. 2. Further study should be made which will produce criteria designed to establish equitable personnel staffing standards for agencies which will insure freedom for agency administrators to perform all personnel activities found necessary to proper agency management. |