apparently through fear of personal and political patronage. The measure of relative capacity of the applicant has become entangled in a maze of legalistic and regulatory requirements far removed from the duties of the position to which the applicant seeks appointment. The principle of open competition is frequently compromised by the closing of examinations. This is unfair so long as there are qualified citizens who wish to apply for Federal jobs which remain unfilled. The fitness of applicants and their relative capacity to discharge their duties was determined in 80 percent of the formal examinations announced in 1951 on the basis of an artificial rating of what was written on an application form. Thus, the essential ingredient, the collection of human qualities which constitute an individual, his motivations and his capacity, is not measured. The Civil Service Act does not restrict the fair measurement of fitness and relative capacity. The authors of the act, it is clear, were primarily concerned with a small Federal structure easily manageable by a centralized control organization. But it may fairly be presumed that they envisioned the impracticality of continued centralized management as our country grew and prospered. For this reason, they endorsed and made provision for the assignment of examining functions to Boards of Examiners which *** shall be so located as to make it reasonably convenient and inexpensive for applicants to attend before them. The sheer size of our Federal Government has forced assignment of functions to agencies to the extent that 848,104 appointments, or 78 percent of all hiring, in the year ending June 30, 1952, was accomplished by agencies through Boards and direct hiring. Over 505,000 of these appointments were made directly without regard to formal examining procedures. The Civil Service Commission and the Boards of Examiners, therefore, did not test the relative capacity and fitness of some 505,000 individuals now in the Federal service. Moreover, the absence of any kind of minimum publicity standards to govern this direct hiring and assure public notice to all interested citizens, fosters the danger of personal and political patronage. An underlying cause for this failure to test for relative fitness and provide for suitable publicity is found in the procedural complexities and inflexible requirements imposed by the Civil Service Commission upon the Boards of Examiners. The formal examining system did not meet the needs of the Federal service for qualified workers. It failed to satisfy its purpose and Federal officials were forced to resort to faster and more expedient methods to find people. When the Civil Service Act was passed in 1883, there were 131,200 employees in the entire Federal Government. Over 13,000 of these were in classified or competitive positions. During the next 16 years Federal employment increased at an average annual rate of 5,000 to 208,000 in 1899. By this time, 93,000 employees were in competitive positions and the Civil Service Commission during the 16-year period had examined applicants at the rate of 10,000 new appointments annually. During the year ending December 31, 1951, one board of one field installation screened 76,000 applicants, rated 38,000 applications, offered appointments to 15,000 and placed on duty 11,000 new employees. This one midwestern board exceeded the annual examining workload of the entire Federal Government in the 16-year period following passage of the Civil Service Act. Yet the examining process used in the Government today is essentially the one geared to that 1883 workload. It is evident that this horse-and-buggy system is ill-suited for a recruiting and examining job that now covers over 15,000 basic skills-two-thirds of those found in all of industry-and blankets the largest workforce in the history of the world. The changing needs of the Government should reflect themselves in a continuous reappraisal of program relationships between the Civil Service Commission and the agencies, and of the general effectiveness of personnel policies and procedures. In modern Federal Government, the role of the Commission is clear and within the framework of principles set down by the act: To prepare suitable rules which shall provide for open competitive examinations; and to make regulations for, and thus have control of such examinations. Rather than establishing control through regulations and standards the Commission has historically sought the role of first-hand supervision. This has resulted in a jungle of red tape which has hindered agencies in achieving vital program objectives and obstructed the Civil Service Commission in developing and promoting a progressive program of personnel administration. One Federal official expressed his views as to the proper role of the Civil Service Commission as follows: In The Commission's prime mission should be that of a consultative and auditing body, with strong emphasis placed upon the difficult task of selling the value, the honesty and the integrity of the Government service to the American people. order to do this, the Commission should be relieved of its multiplicity of small time day-by-day operating functions. Instead of trying to recruit for everybody, and failing, it should decentralize that function to Government installations, who do it anyway under adverse conditions. Instead of questioning and passing upon the validity of a single promotion, it should be promulgating, at the staff level, a basis for sound promotion policies and standards, so that the margin for honest error would be reduced. Instead of questioning the abilities of supervisors, it should be expending more effort in establishing criteria for selection of leaders. Instead of questioning individual position classification action, it should be providing clearer and better allocating standards to replace those that now exist, or better still, provide standards for the myriad of positions for which there are no standards at all. Let us have a strong staff agency, the CSC. But let us place the operation of a sound personnel management program where it belongs with the agencies and their field installations ***. There will be a smaller, more efficient workforce; there will be less waste; there will be a higher caliber average employee in the Government-when the tools to make it so are provided. It is a good thing to look forward to. The Civil Service Commission has made great strides to disencumber itself of operating detail through its program of decentralization. This is particularly true of recent forward-looking measures of the examining division as evidenced by its current board of examiners program. 3 The personnel director of one Federal agency which enjoys an excellent reputation in the field of personnel, but is not under the jurisdiction of the CSC, had the following to say: "The CSC system has been deemed by this agency to be inconsistent with our personnel management philosophy for various reasons, but primarily because it places emphasis upon the procedural processes and the mechanics of personnel transactions. It measures the personnel job in quantitative terms, rather than qualitative ones, and imposes restrictive centralized controls on personnel actions which basically require work level judgments. In addition, the CSC itself, gravitates toward actually performing operating personnel functions which are inherently a part of an agency's management responsibilities. While this is primarily true with respect to the functions of recruitment and examining, it also applies to certain aspects of classification and investigation." We are convinced, however, that this policy of delegating operating tasks to the agencies and concentrating Commission efforts and resources on leadership in the broad field of personnel administration can be greatly accelerated by adoption of the recommendations contained in this report. This, we believe, will result in renewed emphasis of service to merit principles which have been in danger of eclipse through preponderant attention to the procedural system of the past. PART 3-THE RECRUITING OF APPLICANTS COMMON DETERRENTS IN OBTAINING SUFFICIENT APPLICANT SUPPLY In its study of recruiting methods the subcommittee has found a number of existing factors which act as deterrents to obtaining a sufficient number of qualified applicants for Federal employment. Several of these deterrents to recruiting are listed below: (1) Inadequate Federal pay scales.-Beginning at the grade level GS-5, $3,410, and up, Federal pay is significantly below comparable jobs in industry. One large company, in a typical case, offers a college graduate with a 4-year B. S. degree and no experience, $4,200 per annum. This is nearly $800 higher than the Federal entrance salary. The same company pays $6,000 and up for a college graduate with a Ph. D. degree and no experience, as against the Government's top of $5,060. One agency reports that in a 9-month period with over 2,500 unfilled vacancies in 20 professional fields, they lost 900 people largely for pay reasons, and were able to recruit only 600 replacements. (Compensation and classification are being treated in another subcommittee report.) (2) Insecurity of tenure under current appointment and separation regulations.-Though all Government positions are subject to annual appropriations of funds and budget allocations, the current practice of giving only indefinite appointments as contrasted with so-called permanent appointments has served to emphasize unnecessarily the instability of Government employment. This is true in all but the lower graded positions which have a salary advantage over industry in certain areas, and has impeded recruitment all along the line. We have noted a marked adverse influence on the attraction of high caliber scientific and professional personnel, as well as key administrative personnel. (3) Limited promotional opportunities.-It is generally felt that industry offers a better opportunity than Government for advancement in position and salary if an individual merits such advancement. Limitations in Government which are not found in industry are lengthof-service requirements imposed by civil-service qualification standards and by the Whitten amendment, and limitations of the Federal pay structure. These limitations do not give recognition to the employee based upon the real value of his services. Both have served to deprive the Government of many well qualified people. (4) Delays by the Government in giving definite offers of employment after interviewing applicants.-The Government has many top qualified applicants who do not need to await the grinding out of appointment redtape when they can sell their services immediately to private employers, frequently at higher salaries. Least difficulty is experienced in this respect in direct hiring by agencies. Boards of Exam iners generally are not as efficient as they could be, and Civil Service Commission registers, in the hiring market which has prevailed in the last 2 years, are virtually impotent. (5) Adverse effect of personnel office staffing ratios as imposed by legislation. In many cases, this has limited the employment of skilled recruiters and resulted in the use of high-priced line operating officials to perform routine recruiting functions. (6) Insufficient housing and commutation facilities in many geographical areas. (7) Inadequate fringe benefits to Government workers in comparison with those offered by private employers, such as free hospitalization, low cost eating facilities, recreational activities, etc.-The parsimony of the Government in instances where such policy appears not to be warranted, is illustrated in a ruling by the Comptroller General that proceeds from soft drink, candy, cigarette, and other coin machines on Government premises must be turned into the Treasury Department and could not be used for the support of employee recreational and other activities. A Federal official in the Philadelphia area has estimated that Federal pay rates for stenographers, generally considered liberal, are at least $10 a week below those offered by private industry when fringe benefits are considered. (8) Lack of Federal authority to pay for such items as the movement of dependents and household goods to the first duty station, and for travel to be interviewed for Federal employment. These policies have gained wide usage in industry and place the Government at an appreciable recruiting disadvantage. (9) Delays in appointment because of security investigations has in many cases been excessive and resulted in the loss of qualified people. (This problem is being treated in another subcommittee report.) (10) The unrealistic maximum of $9 per diem and travel allowances of the Government have impeded the recruiting of qualified applicants whose duties would involve constant or frequent traveling. (11) Recruiting of applicants for assignment at isolated or otherwise undesirable locations without compensating salary, leave and other benefits usually recognized by industry. (12) Indiscriminate attacks on Federal employees which reflect on their integrity, ability, and industry have seriously damaged the prestige of Government employment. This has done incalculable harm to the productivity and morale of present employees and undermined the attraction of high-caliber applicants to the Government service. This report treats with several of the above common problems and recommends specific solutions where feasible. ATTRACTING APPLICANTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT Another major topic related to the recruiting of applicants is the means whereby knowledge of the job vacancy is conveyed to applicants. Providing an opportunity to all interested and qualified persons to apply and compete under equal conditions for jobs, whether in Government or industry, is essential if the principle of open competition is to be maintained. Publicity of job openings is the indispensable means whereby the knowledge of the job vacancy is conveyed to the potential applicant. ♦ Modified by Comptroller General's decision B-11280, dated December 10, 1952. Officials responsible for recruiting have run the whole gamut of ingenious methods to attract applicants. Some of these methods" are: (1) Newspaper and magazine publicity, free and paid; (3) Personal contacts and speaking engagements with schools, veterans' organizations, labor unions, churches, professional associations, YMCA's, etc.; (4) Participation in placement and employment conferences with organized groups of young people; (5) Window displays, posters, and bus cards; (6) Direct mail solicitation; and (7) House-to-house canvassing. The traditional and chief publicity device employed by the Civil Service Commission, and required for use by agency boards, is the examination announcement. Our inquiry has found no general agreement as to the relative effectiveness of the various methods of attracting applicants in terms of quality, cost, and speed. All methods are effective if used when needed. The most costly method is the one not used if it would be productive of qualified applicants when other methods fail. The subcommittee believes there are four major areas where improvements are needed to modernize Government recruiting publicity methods: (1) The formal examination announcement. (2) The prohibition against paid advertising. (3) The utilization of the United States Employment Service. (4) The need for the Civil Service Commission to promulgate minimum standards for publicity to assure equal opportunity of competition. These four areas are discussed below. Use of the examination announcement This device is "an official notice inviting applications from the public for consideration in an open competitive examination to establish a list of eligibles for filling positions in the Federal Service subject to the Civil Service Act." In evaluating the use of the examination anouncement, the subcommittee sought answers to two questions: (1) Is it an effective applicant attraction device? (2) Does it bear a reasonable cost ratio to results obtained in comparison with alternative methods which are or might be used? An average announcement runs around 3,000 words. Some are very comprehensive. One consolidated announcement in booklet 5 One large Federal establishment reported: 6 "Beginning in July 1950, we started the job of making our installation, its mission, its equipment, its challenge to researchers, the rarity and interest of its problems known to as wide an area as possible. Personnel visited engineering and scientific colleges not just to recruit but to explain our installation. A movie was made (at a cost of $30,000), copies of which were loaned to schools and technical societies to graphically portray the things that make up a great installation. Our professional and personnel people made scores of speeches and demonstrations before technical groups, civic groups, church groups, etc., to build up interest in our installation. Today applications are received from professional people who are interested only in working for us and are content to wait for openings." 6 No. 4-34-3 (1952). |