so in emergency periods since they tend to result in poor utilization of our total manpower resources. 3. Speedier and more positive methods, which were used to recruit 47 percent of the Federal work force, do not fully meet merit principles. Such positive methods of recruitment tend inevitably to bring the danger of wasteful and inefficient employment practices. They fail, therefore, to assure that the Government is getting the most out of its manpower dollar. 4. Formalized central recruitment through Civil Service Commission registers, which accounted for only 7 percent of those hired in the Defense Department and 22 percent for the Government as a whole, is too far removed from the work level and is applied to occupational categories too broad to permit careful selection and placement. In this sense, it fails to secure the best qualified personnel and impedes the maximum utilization of our total skills resources. Costwise, central recruitment and examining by the Civil Service Commission dissipates limited Commission resources and diverts the staff from areas of personnel staff guidance, research and leadership. 5. The system of 1,800 United States employment offices supervised by the Labor Department, which taxpayers are now supporting with annual appropriations in excess of $100 million, accounted for less than 13 percent of Government hires. Though this nationwide system of offices has existing facilities and the greatest potential for testing and channeling qualified workers into Government employment, it is not utilized in the regular recruiting and examining programs of the Civil Service Commission and the boards of civil service examiners. 6. Formal qualification standards which have been established for broad occupational groups of Federal positions are based on factors which appear to bear an insufficient relationship to ability to perform the work of actual jobs. Other factors which appear to bear a closer relationship are often given no weight and the standards are not readily responsive to supply-demand relationships. To the extent that they are unrealistic in job specifics and fluctuating labor markets, they obstruct the maximum utilization of our manpower resources. 7. Existing examination procedures have not proved adequate to rank applicants in an exact order in terms of their predicted ability to perform on jobs as contemplated by the Civil Service Act of 1883 and the Veterans Preference Act of 1944. This is particularly true of unassembled examinations and direct-hiring examinations which use only a rating of training and experience. Such examining procedures were used in 80 percent of all formal civil service examinations announced during the year ending June 30, 1952. 8. The present procedures governing the establishment and maintenance of closed registers of eligibles are not consistent with the principles of open competition and appointment on the basis of merit. They tend, therefore, to deprive the Federal Government of needed manpower skills. 9. The present civil service system of appointing applicants is hampering the recruitment of all categories of personnel. It is injuring morale, reducing incentive to work efficiently, increasing turnover and placing a premium on direct, noncompetitive hiring. 10. Present civil service selection procedures unduly restrict the appointing official in effectively matching individuals to jobs and frequently result in the appointment of marginally qualified people. The loss to the Nation in lowered production goals, lowered efficiency and morale, and in unnecessary employee turnover requires correction within the existing framework of congressional intent. 11. The provisions of the Veterans Preference Act of 1944 which permit unqualified veterans to qualify on the basis of preference alone without attaining passing grades; and which give special preference for noncompensable disabilities, both impair the quality of selection. for Federal jobs and make it difficult to place those veterans in positions for which they are qualified and in which they can be successful. The subcommittee has ample evidence that these provisions have served to deprive many veterans from suitable Government employment, thus defeating the intent of Congress in passing the Veterans Preference Act. 12. The Federal pay system established by the Classification Act of 1949 imposes hardship on Government in its effort to attract fully qualified personnel. In some areas the pay of the lower-graded positions exceeds the going rate and tends to disrupt the industrial balance. In other areas the pay of lower-graded Federal jobs cannot compete with industry and vital Government production is lost. Generally, Government salary rates for technical and administrative specialists are so inflexible and salary adjustments on the basis of individual worth so restrictive, that incalculable damage is done to crucial defense programs. This problem is the subject of a separate study and report by the subcommittee and is cited here only to point up its impact on the recruitment and employment of personnel for Government jobs. 13. The tendency of the Congress to restrict the administrative responsibilities and prerogatives of the executive department by imposing unsound riders in appropriation bills has served to damage efficiency and economy in the recruitment, selection, and retention of workers. This is particularly true with the Whitten amendment, the Thomas leave rider, and personnel office staffing ratios of the type imposed in the Independent Offices Appropriation Acts of the last several years. These pieces of legislation have served to increase costs and promote inefficiency. In examining and appraising the effectiveness of recruitment and employment practices in the Federal Government, the subcommittee has subjected each of these major problem areas to critical analysis and has formulated a program of changes and corrections which we believe will go far toward overhauling the basic defects of the Government's personnel machinery. These are treated in detail in the report. We are convinced that adoption of the program will save thousands of man-years in lost production and millions of dollars each year through improved recruitment and better utilization of our work force. PART 1-SCOPE OF STUDY In our study of recruitment and employment practices of the Federal Government, the subcommittee has conducted a comprehensive fact-finding inquiry into policies, methods, administrative rules and procedures, and underlying legislation. Our threefold objective has been to (1) Appraise the real effectiveness of the employment process; (2) Identify inefficient, costly, and wasteful practices regardless of the source from which they derive; and (3) Suggest and sponsor measures to correct those practices which clog or cripple our governmental machinery. In examining the employment process, it is important to recognize that the authority to appoint persons to Federal positions is vested in the President and heads of departments by the Constitution of the United States. This authority, however, is restricted by certain laws. One of the most important statutes governing Federal employment is the Civil Service Act of 1883. This act, to regulate and improve the civil service of the United States, established and authorized the Civil Service Commission to make regulations for, and have control of, open competitive examinations which will fairly test the relative capacity and fitness of persons for Government employment. The act further authorized the Commission to designate agency personnel to be members of boards of examiners to conduct examinations. Agency officials now nominate such persons for Commission approval. DESCRIPTION OF EMPLOYMENT PROCESSES The Civil Service Commission, therefore, regulates the manner in which persons may be considered for Federal employment in all agencies not specifically excepted from the Civil Service Act. Our study is concerned with the three main processes, and variety of influencing factors, by which the Commission controls the manner of employment. These three processes are: (1) Examinations conducted by the Civil Service Commission in its central and regional offices; (2) Examinations conducted by boards of civil service examiners; and (3) Direct hiring by the agencies. Each of these processes is discussed below. First processes-Commission examinations and central registers This classic recruiting and examining process was chosen nearly 70 years ago when our entire Government was composed of less than 132,000 people of whom only 13,900 occupied competitive positions. Still used in 1952 for 22 percent of Federal recruiting, the process is carried on wholly by Civil Service Commission personnel in their central Washington office and in their 14 regional offices. Step 1: An examination announcement, inviting applications from qualified citizens, is prepared, printed, and distributed, chiefly through the mails. The announcement covers all jobs of a similar nature in Government, describes generally the duties, and specifies examination requirements. Usually, a time limitation is placed on receipt of applications, a few days to several weeks or months. Step 2: When all applications are in, they are rated against a predetermined rating schedule, and/or graded on the basis of a written or performance test. Numerical scores, or ratings, on a scale of 100, are assigned to each applicant. Those who achieve passing grades of 70 or better are termed eligibles. 1 The average monthly hiring rate in 1952 was 90,000. Step 3: A central register of eligibles in the Washington office or in the regional office for that region is established by ranking eligibles according to their numerical rating. Additional points are added to the numerical scores attained by preference applicants to achieve the final rating. Step 4: In response to a requisition from an agency for eligibles to fill vacancies the Commission issues a certificate of eligibles. Step 5: The agency makes selection from among the top three names certified according to Commission regulations governing the selection. Step 6: The agency returns the certificate to the Commission and the names of unselected eligibles are reentered on the register for future certification. A register is usually maintained by the Commission until all eligibles are selected for appointment or until it has bceome patently obsolete. Thus, a register in a particular occupational category frequently controls appointments in the Government for several years. At the beginning of fiscal year 1951, the average time lapse between steps 2, 3, and 4 was 191 days or over 6 months. By the end of the year, the Commission had cut the time to 83 days. Second process-Board examinations Partly because of the growth of our Federal establishment, and partly because of the inherent defects of time lapse and inaccuracy in the Commission's central examination system, increasing authority was delegated to boards of examiners, located in the agencies, composed of agency personnel office employees and operating supervisors, to conduct their own board examinations. These examinations follow the same procedure as Commission examinations in the first process. They are under Commission coordination and control. Frequently they cover certain occupations for all Government agencies in a geographic area, while boards of other agencies reciprocate by covering different occupations. Thus, boards certify eligibles to each other's sponsoring agencies. The time lapse between steps 2, 3, and 4, for board examinations varies from 1 day to several months, depending upon the urgency of need for eligibles. In 1952 this process accounted for 31 percent of total Government hiring. Third process-Direct hiring Where there is no register of eligibles for a particular position, the Commission or the board authorizes the agency to use direct hiring authority. The agency is required to file a job order with the local office of the United States Employment Service and it may then undertake whatever measures it deems necessary to locate suitable applicants. It is required to consider, in order, disabled veterans, nondisabled veterans, nonveterans. Persons hired must meet minimum qualifications standards for the position as set or approved by the Commission. Because of costly and cumbersome procedural requirements of the traditional Civil Service Commission and board examinations, and other reasons detailed in this report, direct hiring accounted for 47 percent of the Government total in 1952. SOURCES OF INFORMATION Though the subcommittee staff conducting this study represents substantial collective knowledge and competence in the field of personnel administration, it was deemed imperative that all steps be taken to assure a comprehensive, objective inquiry into all facets of the problem. For this reason, information was sought from a wide variety of sources, both in and out of Government, which it was felt could be of assistance to us. Factual information, statistical data, detailed evaluations and informed opinions were drawn from nearly 40 departments, agencies, and field establishments of the Federal Government. The subcommittee staff contacted directly and interviewed over 300 operating officials, line supervisors, and individual employees at all work levels in Government and industry. Previous surveys, studies, reports, and other literature were also analyzed for pertinent assistance. Though a group such as ours, limited in size, time, and funds, is unable to exhaust or even assimilate all the available information in a field of this magnitude and complexity, the subcommittee believes that sufficient data have been assembled to adequately and clearly support the conclusions and recommendations set forth in the report. Our warm appreciation is extended to all the interested groups, key officials and individuals for their whole-hearted support, invaluable assistance, and advice to our staff. APPLICABILITY OF FINDINGS The recommendations contained in this report are intended to apply only to those agencies now within the purview of the Civil Service Act and those agencies which may come under the act in the future. We realize that there exist in Government several agencies which are specifically exempted from the Civil Service Act. The subcommittee does not, however, consider it wise at this time to include these excepted agencies in our recommendations. Congress has seen fit to grant them additional flexibility in their operations and until the plans proposed in this report have proven equally flexible for the Government as a whole, these agencies should continue to operate their recruitment programs free of Civil Service Commission control. PART 2-THE MERIT SYSTEM The Civil Service Act provides and declares, as nearly as the conditions of good administration warrant— *** for open, competitive examinations for testing the fitness of applicants for the public service. Such examinations shall be practical in their character, and so far as may be shall relate to those matters which will fairly test the relative capacity and fitness of the persons examined to discharge the duties of the service into which they seek to be appointed.2 Out of this high and fit principle has emerged a procedural complexity which today bears the label of the merit system. The principle of the fitness of the person has been given secondary consideration Civil Service Act of 1883, sec. 2. |