PART 8-USE OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGISTERS

The traditional method of recruiting for Federal employment is through the announcement of examinations by the Civil Service Commission. At the end of the filing period-a few days to several months -registers of eligibles are established and as vacancies occur in agencies certificates are issued from which selection is made.

In the year ending June 30, 1952, appriximately 22 percent of Government hiring came from these registers. A defense agency with annual hires around 200,000, reported the following experience as to sources of applicants covering a 9-month period:

To get a true picture [the agency reports] consideration should also be given to two facts:

1. We have barely begun to use the assistance which the USES has shown itself able to provide in most areas.

2. The 7 percent credited to Civil Service Commission central and regional registers includes people whom we have recruited and submitted for ranking on the Commission's open-continuous examinations.

Another large defense department reports that only 6.5 percent of their personnel comes from Civil Service Commission regional and central registers.

The Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch in 1948 found that the traditional method of recruiting was vague and impersonal, the process was slow and could not adjust to needs in time. of emergency, and it did not assure that the best qualified were selected.

The Korean emergency has served to validate these findings.

Our inquiry has focused attention again on the problem and illumined basic defects which stand in critical need of correction:

(1) The present formal examining system breaks down under stress of emergency or near emergency as indicated by the fact that in 1951, 47 percent of all Government hires were made outside the system.

(2) As pointed out earlier, the examination announcement as now administered is not an effective or reliable applicant-attraction device. (3) The central examination and measurement of applicants by the Civil Service Commission central and regional offices against standards of experience and training is in classes of positions so broad that they do not reflect the real specifications of the jobs.

The Civil Service Commission has been slow to recognize this and positions of administrative officer, accountant and other key positions are still examined for by the central or regional commission offices even though the positions require specialization. This policy is apparently not confined to top level or technical jobs, but also includes lower rated positions which are common to all or many agencies. One agency says:

In the present examination, the whole field of clerks, with rare exceptions, is considered interchangeable and subject to the same written test. We have found that RIF's caused interchange even within the Bureau, that clerks who performed one job satisfactorily failed when placed in a supposedly interchangeable position.

(4) The central register system is not flexible or responsive to agency needs and frequently deprives the Government of the services of persons who are qualified and available. One example of this is that of an installation which needed several organization and methods examiners, GS-5. The field official reports

The Commission had no eligibles but stated that an examination was in process of rating and eligibles would soon be available. The examination was entitled "Social Science Analyst.' When eligibles were certified they were found to be generally undesirable because they were recent graduates in a variety of general major fields whose only common denominator was a certain number of semester hours in the social sciences. The height of silliness in this situation was indicated when a qualified organization and methods examiner applied for a position directly to us and it was necessary to inform him that he would be required to take an examination for social science analyst at the regional office and acquire eligibility so that we could request certification of his name.

(5) Central registers are slow and unreliable sources of applicants. The Hoover Commission found in 1948 in a study of 607 registers that on an average the announcement and examination steps alone took 4 to 51⁄2 months. In 1952 the Commission reported to the subcommittee they had reduced the lapse of time for central registers from 191 days, or from 6 months to 3 months. The unreliability of registers, in part occasioned by inherent delays in the system, is shown by the rate of declinations or failures of certified applicants to reply to agency inquiries.

One agency has reported the following typical experience:25

Even from the junior professional assistant register, where the Commission. has made most effort to interview before final grading and to keep results current, a certificate in May 1951, carried 6 names which resulted in 2 declinations, 1 failed to reply and 1 returned unclaimed. Another certificate in November 1948 carried 12 names, there were 6 declinations, 2 failed to reply and 1 communication was returned unclaimed.

(6) Closed registers are costly and do not provide the best qualified available applicants. A register resulting from an examination open for a limited period of time, may continue to be used for a period of years. In the meantime, candidates who filed when the examination was open are not available when they are circularized, and thousands.

25 Another agency reports: "Prior to our announcing our own examination we attempted to recruit. from the engineering aide register maintained by the Civil Service Commission. We had extremely poor results in securing personnel to fill our jobs. We got 98 percent declination from this register maintained by the Commission. After we announced our own examination in which we could explain our position thoroughly, which was not possible in the Commission announcement, we got fewer than 50 percent declination and were able to fill our positions. In fact we have now exhausted our register.

"We feel that we obtain better qualified applicants, and persons more willing to accept our appointments from examinations announced by the examining boards. Persons who rate the examinations will be experts in the field and can give a much better and meaningful rating than can persons who rate the examina-tions at the Civil Service Commission who rate from a form and not through actual knowledge of the position they are rating."

of well-qualified individuals cannot secure employment because the examinations are closed to them. One agency reports typically:

Applications received by the Civil Service Commission in 1947 and 1948 have been certified to us in 1951 and 1952. This results in many letters to people who are no longer interested in a position they applied for 4 or 5 years ago 26

Thus, under "normal" conditions of partial unemployment, the system of centralized registers results in the examining of thousands of applicants who are rated eligible but who do not find employment as a result of such examinations. At the same time, the system prevents the hiring of qualified available people.

The Civil Service Commission has recognized many of these problems and the Examining Division in particular has instituted many progressive measures designed to decentralize recruiting responsibility to the boards. The Commission has, however, retained central examining responsibility for positions which are commonly found in all or many agencies; these positions are assumed to be of similar content and difficulty. This policy also assumes that such central examining is cheaper and prevents unnecessary duplication by agencies in examining for similar jobs.

While the per-applicant-certified cost to the Commission may be low, it does not include the costs to the agencies in screening out those who are unavailable or unsuitable, costs in lost production through long delay and actual costs of appointing those who are selected. Agencies have reported that costs of training of those selected from central registers are higher because they lack specialized knowledge of jobs they are required to fill. As another, more tangible example of these hidden costs, the Post Office Department estimates that it costs them over $2,250,000 27 annually to service Commission examinations. Recommendation

The subcommittee endorses the current policy of the Civil Service Commission with respect to the delegation of authority to agency boards to recruit, examine, and certify. We recommend, however, that this should be a total delegation covering all positions, according to the plan outlined in Part 11 of this report. This will not only achieve faster, more accurate recruiting at less overall cost to the Government, but will enable the Commission to focus its limited resources of men and money presently being dissipated by ineffective shotgun recruiting, on areas of personnel leadership, research and improvement sorely needed by the Government.

PART 9-BOARDS OF U. S. CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINERS

Boards of United States civil service examiners are authorized by section 2 of the Civil Service Act of 1883 and have been used to some extent from the Commission's earliest years. Since 1940 they have increased in number from 150 to 778.

In 1951, 31 percent of Government hiring was through boards.

26 Another report: "The experience reported to us by the various bases indicates that delays are experienced when attempting to recruit personnel from Civil Service Commission central office or regional office registers of eligibles. This is due, chiefly, to the fact that many registers in these offices were established several years in advance of the present use and the eligibles have not been circularized to determine current availability or eligibility. In one instance, a certificate was issued in 1951 from a register established in 1947-48. The activity concerned had to circularize all eligibles certified to determine their availability and eligibility. This was a timely and costly process which netted no available persons. The process had to be completed, however, before the certifying Civil Service office would issue authority for direct hires." 27 Senate hearings on S. 1135, 82d Cong., 1st sess.

There is no solid agreement as to the proper role of boards in the Federal hiring picture. The Civil Service Commission adheres to the position that they are integral parts of the Commission's organization, "little commissions" responsible only to the Commission itself. The agencies, on the other hand, point out that board personnel are agency employees, paid by the agency and performing administrative functions at the direction of the agency.28

A view held by some officials is that the act of 1883 contemplated that boards should do all Government recruiting and examining under rules and standards promulgated by the Commission and, that in lieu of this, the Commission has imposed procedural requirements geared to the Commission's internal operations which unnecessarily restrict the boards in performing their duties. These officials believe the only remedy is through a change in the act which will transfer board responsibility to the agencies. Others have advocated an outright abandonment of the board concept.29

The subcommittee has carefully considered these arguments, since there is imposing evidence that the present relationship, with its divided responsibility of board members to the agency on the one hand and the Commission on the other, is having a sharp impact on the cost and effectiveness of recruiting and examining activities. It has resulted in duplicate systems in the personnel office, duplicate records and separate applicant files, even though the same agency employees are responsible for everything. Board records, for example, must be turned over to the Commission upon dissolution of the board, regardless of whether the sponsoring agency remains in business. The tight control imposed upon the boards by the Commission seems, in many cases, totally unresponsive to agency recruiting needs. To illustrate, one board, in complaining of a Commission ruling, received a rejection of the complaint from the regional office:

This office, of course, does not have the authority to reverse the Commission's decision nor does this office feel that it should request the Commission to reverse its decision in view of the fact that the decision was made by the Commission with full knowledge of the complications which would result such as those cited in your letter.

We have found in our study that the relative effectiveness of board hiring is second to direct agency hiring, with Civil Service Commission registers running a poor third. In some agencies, board functions are integrated to the maximum degree with employment functions of the personnel office. 30 Separate systems, controls, and procedural relationships, however, must be maintained. In other agencies, board functions are isolated from regular personnel office activities, and diminish in effectiveness while increasing in cost.

28 A defense agency: "It must be pointed out that the 70,000 employees recruited through our Civil Service local boards do not truly represent a service to the agency by a unit of the Civil Service Commission. In actual practice, the board stiffs are on our payroll and agency personnel carry the recruiting load of the boards by developing qualification information, direct recruiting, persuading applicants to apply and submission of applications to the local board for board approval. The boards, in effect, perform a certifying rather than a recruiting function."

29 The role of our personnel offices in relation to our boards is literally one in which the agency meets the needs of the boards in locating people and persuading them to apply and in providing them with information as to the qualifications required by the jobs being filled. If responsibility for board activities were transferred as suggested, it is recommended that the boards as such, be eliminated and that the activity be made an integral part of normal personnel office operation. There seems to be no need for this separate type of administrative machinery.

30 The Chief of our Employment Section is also the executive secretary of our Board. The qualification rating examiners doing agency ratings are approved members of the board and, therefore, also perform board ratings. The clerical personnel support work on both agency and board functions as they are needed.

FILLING POSITIONS FROM REGISTERS MAINTAINED BY BOARDS IN OTHER

AGENCIES

Many of the problems pointed out with respect to Commission registers applies equally to the use of registers maintained by boards in other agencies. The relationship of the agency having the vacancy to such boards is approximately the same as it is to Commission examinations and registers.

The underlying theory of having a board announce an examination on behalf of all agencies, with reciprocating announcements by other boards for different positions, is a distribution of the workload. We have found that this does not work too satisfactorily. In addition to the complaints against Commission registers cited previously, the one most heard is that the agency board announcing the examination gets first crack at the best people, leaving the customer agencies with second bests. The mechanics of the system do make this possible.

The existing system is essentially as follows: The Civil Service Commission requests periodically a report of estimated recruiting needs of the agencies for a stated period, usually 6 months. These reports are consolidated and a projected examining program drawn up. If sufficient demand is apparent to warrant reannouncing examinations to reestablish depleted registers, the agency board which originally announced the examination and maintains the register is requested to reannounce the examination. Also, agency boards are required to submit to the Civil Service Commission, for coordination and prior approval, their examining schedule for a 1-year period. A decision is reached as to which examinations will be announced by the Civil Service Commission and which by the boards. Those examinations which do not logically belong to the Civil Service Commission or a specific board are parceled out to other boards or retained by the Civil Service Commission on the basis of mutually agreeable arrangements. Thus, agencies usually have little if any participation in examinations announced by other boards, and for this and other reasons cited above, they try to avoid the use of registers in other boards. agency reports, for example, that out of 600 appointments in one 6-month period, only 73 were from registers held by boards in other agencies.31

Commission coordination of examinations by boards has not been too satisfactory largely, we believe, because the Commission is too far removed from fluctuating work level needs. One agency, for example, reports:

This agency's board has approximately 600 eligibles for laborer positions and is not utilizing the register to any extent, yet another base in the same area has recently announced a laborer examination.

31 Other comments: "This office has not participated in the board activities of other agencies and we have not utilized any registers established from their examinations, except for an occasional position of laborer, fork-lift operator, or office-appliance repairman."

"The biggest deterrent to hiring through boards of other agencies is the excessive length of time required to fill a position through this method."

"Past experience has been that chauffeur registers were handled by the Chicago board. We are 35 miles from the Chicago Loop and the certificates furnished us were of no value in that qualified chauffeurs living in the Chicago area were not interested in jobs 35 miles from the Loop. After the chauffeur registers were set up by our board, we have been reasonably successful in keeping our chauffeur positions fil'. d."