[Senate Hearing 106-586] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 106-586 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS ======================================================================= HEARING before the OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ May 2, 2000 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs _______________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 65-172 cc WASHINGTON : 2000 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut TED STEVENS, Alaska CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi MAX CLELAND, Georgia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel Darla D. Cassell, Administrive Clerk ------ SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, RESTRUCTURING, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey Kristine I. Simmons, Staff Director Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel Julie L. Vincent, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Voinovich............................................ 1 Senator Durbin............................................... 3 Senator Akaka................................................ 4 WITNESSES Tuesday, May 2, 2000 Roberta L. Gross, Inspector General, National Aeronautics and Space Administration........................................... 5 Henry Romero, Associate Director, Workforce Compensation and Performance, Office of Personnel Management.................... 9 Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury Employees Union................................................ 12 Michael Brostek, Associate Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues, General Government Division, U.S. General Accounting Office.............................................. 14 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Brostek, Michael: Testimony.................................................... 14 Prepared statement........................................... 80 Gross, Roberta L.: Testimony.................................................... 5 Prepared statement........................................... 31 Kelley, Colleen M.: Testimony.................................................... 12 Prepared statement........................................... 69 Romero, Henry: Testimony.................................................... 9 Prepared statement........................................... 43 Appendix Letter from Ms. Gross to Senator Voinovich dated May 16, 2000.... 93 Letter from Mr. Friedman to Senator Voinovich dated May 19, 2000. 98 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS ---------- TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2000 U.S. Senate, Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee, of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:14 a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V. Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Voinovich, Akaka, and Durbin. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH Senator Voinovich. The Subcommittee will come to order. I first want to apologize for being late, I was presiding this morning. This morning's hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management is on the effectiveness of Federal employee incentive programs. This is the fourth hearing that we have held in our effort to empower Federal employees, change the culture of the Federal workforce, and address the human capital crisis that is confronting our Federal Government. Last July, we examined the experiences of State Government. In October, we learned how some Federal agencies are significantly changing and modernizing their operations, and in March, we examined whether the government is positioning itself to address the human capital challenges of the future. Today's hearing will explore whether the Federal Government has the right programs in place to attract, retain, and motivate a world-class workforce. I am reminded of a story that Senator Durbin told at our last hearing. He mentioned how law firms are increasing the salaries of their lawyers by $50,000 to $75,000 a year to compete with rapidly growing high-tech companies which can offer sky-high salaries and generous stock options to individuals. When I think about that story, I question whether current Federal incentives, including recruitment bonuses, flexible office hours, telecommuting, on-site daycare, vacation time, and performance pay are adequate to bring the best and brightest people into government service. The Subcommittee will ask whether existing employee incentive programs are effective in encouraging innovation and creating an atmosphere in which employees feel there are substantial rewards for excellence and productivity. I am especially interested in learning whether agencies have adequate budgets to offer whatever customized incentives they may have developed in order to meet their particular human capital needs. You have to have the money to offer them. In short, are the current incentives enough to persuade people to come to work for the Federal Government and, once working for the Federal Government, remain with the Federal Government? The government faces many challenges in this area. We understand that most people who seek employment in the Federal Government are motivated by the desire to serve their country, and thank God there are still many people like that in our Nation today. However, we cannot take that spirit for granted when the employment opportunities in the private sector are more attractive than ever before because of this country's thriving economy. The pull for people to stay in the private sector is greater than ever before. According to the Office of Personnel Management, by 2004, 32 percent of Federal employees will be eligible for regular retirement and 21 percent will be eligible for early retirement. So the prospect is that by 2004 over half the Federal workforce could say ``good-bye.'' As the baby boomers leave government service en masse, the government will be hard pressed to hire new workers with the right skills, which will increasingly mean high technology skills. How do we get those skills? This will require a much greater investment in pay and benefits than Federal employees currently receive if the government hopes to compete with that private sector. Furthermore, surveys of Federal employees conducted by OPM and others during the last few years indicate a majority of Federal employees do not believe that creativity and innovation are rewarded. Regardless of whether that understanding is true or a misperception, if people believe that is the way it is, then we need to respond to it. Coupled with the example I mentioned earlier about the enormous salaries being offered to young professionals, it becomes clear that something has to be done. For one, we should look at the private sector where many companies are finding new and innovative ways to attract and retain people. I am sure that many of you have heard that several large companies have begun to offer all employees home computers. They are not doing this as a give-away; rather, they have determined that universal computer literacy of their workforce is going to be essential to their company's future success. It sends a strong signal of what they value and that they are willing to invest in their employees. I think it is a very interesting idea, and it underscores an important point, and that is, the Federal Government needs to undertake a substantive review of how it motivates and retains its workforce in the information age. It is an important element to building the kind of quality government that our Nation should have. It is interesting that as the private sector moves along, they are going to expect their Federal Government to move along. And if they are going 85 miles an hour with technology and innovation and we are at 25 miles an hour, in effect we end up being an impediment to the growing economy and our Nation. It is really important that we start thinking about that. We are very, very important to the future of this country's economy, and more and more government is being involved, and when it is involved, it should be involved in such a way with the technology and people that are necessary in order to grease the skids and at least not get in the way of progress in our country. Today, the testimony we will hear will tell us about incentives that are currently available, and hopefully our witnesses will share their suggestions on how to improve the current situation. That is what I am more interested in than anything else. I now yield to Senator Durbin, our Ranking Minority Member, for his comments. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the panel for joining us this morning. Virtually every successful business that you have a chance to analyze or get to meet the leaders of will tell you that the reason for their success is the people that work there. They can have the best technology in the world, but if they don't have a creative, hard-working, inspired workforce, they are not going anywhere. I think that is the story of human experience, that we are as good as our Senate staff people who represent us and come in contact with our voters and constituents much more than we do on a personal basis. And the agencies of government that we rely on to do the most important work also are as good as the people that work there. This is, I guess, an appropriate time for this hearing because I understand that it is Public Service Recognition Week. And although we haven't heard a lot of trumpets blaring and people announcing this on the morning talk shows, the fact is that public service for many of us who have dedicated our lives to it means a lot. And for those who are here today representing so many agencies, I thank you for your personal contribution to public service and your continued devotion to it. It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that we just went through a hearing in the Armed Services Appropriations Committee about the question of recruitment and retention of men and women in our military. And it appears that our friends at the Marine Corps are doing very well. They have a certain image which attracts good men and women, and they continue to meet their requirements in terms of recruitment. But the other branches are having a tougher time. The Navy is having a tough time, the Air Force as well, and the Army, one of the worst. The thing that has kept them going and has managed to maintain their work in place is retention. They have convinced a lot of men and women who are eligible to quit or retire to stick around, stay a little while longer. And I am wondering, as we look at this Federal workforce and the challenge that we face here and talk about recruiting new Federal employees, whether we ought to devote a few moments as well to talking about what it will take to keep some of the veteran career employees on the job a little while longer. It can make a significant difference in terms of maintaining the key services that we count on from the Federal Government. I said to the Chairman at a previous hearing that before he was elected to the Senate, we went through a very sad and tragic period of time during the government shutdown, and there were talk-show hosts who were blaring at full volume that no one would ever notice if the Federal Government shut down, that these were all faceless, bureaucratic paper shufflers who, frankly, really didn't do anything important to the lives of Americans across our Nation. Those commentators were wrong, and as a result of that shutdown, I think a lot of people on Capitol Hill and maybe even some of the radio commentators learned a lesson. The agencies of Federal Government do important work, and I can list here 50 different examples my staff put together, from getting out Social Security checks to making sure our planes land safely at the airports, and everything in between. And we know that we need the very best people to make that happen. Thank you for having this hearing, and thanks to this panel for joining us. Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Senator Akaka, welcome. Would you like to make a statement this morning. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate's International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services Subcommittee, I commend you on your unwavering interest, Mr. Chairman, in empowering the Federal workforce. I know that our Subcommittee jurisdictions overlap, and I just want you to know that I appreciate sitting with your Subcommittee this morning. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today who support my belief that our Federal civil servants are the government's most valuable asset. How we recruit, train, and retain these fine men and women is a critical dialogue that deserves our full attention. Having sat on civil service panels for most of my congressional career, I know how important salary, benefits, and other compensation incentives are to attracting and retaining qualified employees. Federal agencies, if given adequate funding, would be better positioned to utilize incentive programs that are already available. Flattened budgets and the pressure to reallocate limited resources do not benefit Federal employees or the ultimate end users, and that is the American taxpayers. Our Nation's civil servants have given much to their country, especially when Congress was balancing the budget during times of crunching deficits. Now that the country is enjoying record-breaking surpluses, I believe Federal employees should be rewarded for their contributions, and I will continue to push for realistic budgets and salaries for Federal agencies and their employees. Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing today and for this opportunity to say a few words. Thank you. Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Akaka. I would now like to introduce today's witnesses. The Hon. Roberta Gross is the Inspector General of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. She will discuss how NASA motivates its workforce and the policy her office follows to do the same. Henry Romeo is the Associate Director of Workforce Compensation and Performance at the Office of Personnel Management. He will discuss various incentives that are currently available to Federal agencies through OPM. Colleen M. Kelley is the National President of the National Treasury Employees Union. Ms. Kelley will offer the union's perspective on how to best attract, retain, and motivate Federal employees. And last, but not least, Michael Brostek is an Associate Director of the Federal Management and Workforce Issues at the General Accounting Office, and he will discuss GAO's work in this area. And I have also asked Mr. Brostek to comment on how GAO motivates its own employees. We are interested in that, Mr. Brostek. We thank you for coming, and we look forward to hearing from you. And as is the custom of this Subcommittee, please stand and I will administer an oath. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Ms. Gross. I do. Mr. Romero. I do. Ms. Kelley. I do. Mr. Brostek. I do. Senator Voinovich. Let the record show that all four witnesses answered in the affirmative. I would now like to hear first from Ms. Gross, and I think the witnesses understand that we would like you to limit your testimony, to the best of your ability, to 5 minutes. Your written testimony will be made part of our record. We will start then with Ms. Gross. TESTIMONY OF ROBERTA L. GROSS,\1\ INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Ms. Gross. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to be here today to talk about retention and recruitment of NASA and NASA OIG employees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Gross appears in the Appendix on page 31. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA has a cutting-edge mission, and that requires a creative and an informed workplace. The failure to recruit, to train, and retain skilled workers has, in fact, caused some problems for NASA: Very recent shuttle flights had some anomalies. This problem caused, in part, the mission vulnerabilities of the costly Mars Climate Orbiter failure. Because of past flattened and reduced budgets, only recently has NASA begun hiring again. This hiring authority will allow the agency really to right-size, that is, it can replace staff with essential skills that have been lost through attrition and buyouts, and it will ensure new personnel so that we can have future leaders. There are statistics that show the aging force compared to the new recruits. At NASA, there have been no recruits, almost, because of the downsizing. A significant aspect of NASA's new staffing plans, however, will be the use of temporary and term appointments, and in my mind, it is a real question whether this strategy will attract hard-to-reach skilled workers, and we will be following that through some of our inspections and audits. But let me turn to the NASA Inspector General experience, and let me particularly focus on our efforts to increase and manage the information technology environment at NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG). We needed to recruit professionals who could effectively audit, inspect, and investigate information technology security, which is obviously critical to an agency such as NASA. We have a Computer Crimes Division which is small, but it is smart and efficient. (I will take the time to say and recognize my workers.) And, in part, we have been able to successfully recruit some skilled staff for the CCD because I made a policy we are going to offer them higher grades and higher salaries, and, generally, compared to the workforce, my other workforce, they are at higher levels. We have also created a workplace known for its leadership in the computer crimes field. It is the place to be. We sort of look at ourselves as the Chicago Bulls. If you want to combat computer crime, come to the NASA Inspector General's Office. Senator Durbin. I appreciate that analogy. [Laughter.] Ms. Gross. It is also a challenging agency environment. After all, IT security at NASA impacts astronaut security, satellite mission success, and protection of cutting-edge technology from inadvertent loss or malicious attacks. However, recruitment in this occupational field is increasingly difficult because of the lure of the private sector: Higher salaries, more lucrative benefits, profit sharing, stock options, and greater flexibility to balance work and private life. And it has been much more difficult because of this lure. We have had similar difficulties, and in some ways even more difficulties, in recruiting for our IT audit staff. Over the last few years, we have tried to use bonuses to recruit experienced IT auditors and evaluators, but that is not good enough. The private sector--your Big Ten firms that are going to be using this kind of workforce for consultants . . . are snapping up IT auditors with large salaries in the six figures, promises of advancement, and education benefits. It has just been very, very difficult. There is also just a ``where the government does it to itself'' problem. The occupational series for auditors requires 24 academic credit hours of accounting to qualify as an auditor. If I need an information technology auditor, information technology security auditor, I really don't need those 24 hours of financial accounting. That is for the financial audits. Everybody doesn't have to know how to do financial audits. But if they are going to be called auditors, they have to qualify in this series. And so I have had very qualified people from the outside sector who want to retain their title of auditor. They are qualified, they have passed all sorts of tests, but they don't come because we have the requirement of 24 hours of accounting. That is where we do it to ourselves. And before the hearing, I did speak to Mr. Romero on that. Moreover, it is my experience that it just takes too long to hire staff. We have lost leading candidates in both audit and computer crimes arena to the private sector competitors because companies can hire top-performing candidates faster than we can. I would say a fast recruit--bringing somebody on board--is 3 months. That is ridiculous. This is a fast-moving market. People do not have to wait around for the Federal Government. They want to know where they are going to work, and they are always unsure about budgeting. Is the Federal budget going to be there? The process is just too long. We believe a key to one possibility for the recruitment issue is to forge some partnerships with schools and departments that emphasize criminal justice, computer science, and other related academic disciplines. And here is where we do hope for support from the administration, which does have proposals in this arena, and Congress, because it is a real budgeting issue to subsidize loan forgiveness programs for graduates with IT specialties. Let me turn to the issue of high-cost labor markets. This is a huge problem. NASA and other Federal organizations face a very real problem with the high cost of living in those areas like Northern and Southern California. During the last 4 years, we have continuously, but unsuccessfully, recruited for an information technology criminal investigator and analyst in the San Francisco Bay area. We have had two people that accepted, and we told them make sure they looked at the housing market. And after they did that, they turned down the offer. The high cost of housing is just too high. We could always force people to relocate, but then those valuable employees would then take a different job rather than move. The ability to subsidize or otherwise provide housing may be one way to attract capable IT employees to such high-cost- of-living areas, and maybe some of those base-closing areas or other Federal facilities may be one way of looking at it. But certainly something has to be done. This Committee is rightfully emphasizing human resources management. The private sector human resource community has been aggressively recruiting in the current boom economy. They have been focusing how to get the best and the brightest. But look at what has been happening for the Federal human resource community in the last couple of years. What are they focused on because of the budget? It is not because they are bad people or they are unenthusiastic about their job. They have had to focus on running reductions in force, early-out retirements, and buyout plans. Many of them have maybe lost the skills as well as the network for recruitments. They just haven't had to learn what to do to compete in this kind of market. So this Committee's attention on human resource management is very, very key if you think of what those human resource people have been doing in the past several years and what they have to do in the current employment situation. I am going to suggest a few ideas that this Committee can be considering, that OPM needs to consider, and that the private sector does use. We have got to be able to have those flexibilities. Aggressive pay banding so that people don't have to incrementally go up year by year for their step increases. We should have that kind of flexibility where staff have a range of salaries so we, as managers, can advance employees on. I also think that we need limited, noncompetitive hiring authority for highly specialized, hard-to-fill positions, such as IT auditors. If it takes me 3 months at best to get somebody in and I am able to locate people through some affirmative recruitments, I should be able to have limited, noncompetitive hiring. And let OPM or let GAO audit me to make sure that I am not just doing an old-boy system or an old-girl system and not getting the best and the brightest. We should be expanding recruitment and retention bonuses greater than the 25 percent of annual salary because we know it doesn't work in all locations. The other one, flexibility in annual leave entitlement for experienced non-Federal recruits. If I have somebody from the private sector who has spent 10 years in the private sector and wants to work for NASA and wants to work in my Computer Crimes Division--remember, it is a great place to work--that person may have 4 weeks vacation in their current job. As a new Federal employee, they get to start off with 4 hours per pay period for the first 3 years. In other words, they get 2 weeks vacation. That is a huge sacrifice. For all of us, time is money. Time is very important. How are you going to be family- friendly with that kind of inflexibility? I have other ideas, but I see my time is coming to an end. What I would say is that I was very glad to hear both Senators using their offices as a bully pulpit in recognizing civil servants. It is very important that in evaluating the work of Federal employees--and, of course, that is one thing that we do at the Inspector General's Office for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. But we all have to make sure that it is well balanced because government service is important, and that is really something that we need to say is one of the chits of why people come to serve. They come to serve because you can make a difference, and like I said, I was very happy to see you using your offices as a bully pulpit. In conclusion, we know that budget constraints limit use of incentives. However, the government cannot afford not to attract and retain the best of Federal Government employees. I would like to personally thank this Committee for emphasizing this whole need to get the best and brightest for public service. Thank you. Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Ms. Gross. Senator, before you go on to the next witness, my parents are here, and they have an Ohio connection. So I couldn't help but introduce them to you. My mother was born in Ohio. My father met my mother at Wright-Patterson where they were working. My brother and I were both born in Dayton. So I am sure they wanted to say hello. Senator Voinovich. Well, thank you for being here, and I say hello to you. One of the wonderful things that we have in Ohio is Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which I think is the finest facility in the world. It is nice to know that it has brought some wonderful people to Ohio, and I am sure you are very proud that your daughter is working for NASA. Thanks for letting me know that. Mr. Romero. TESTIMONY OF HENRY ROMERO,\1\ ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, WORKFORCE COMPENSATION AND PERFORMANCE, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Mr. Romero. Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the numerous Federal employee incentives and their effectiveness. As OPM's Director Janice Lachance stated before this Subcommittee in early March, the Federal Government is engaged in the war for talent. Winning this war requires not only aggressively competing for highly skilled new employees, but also retaining and developing our current workforce. We intend to meet these challenges by ensuring agencies effectively existing incentives and flexibility tools, as well as developing additional flexibilities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Romero appears in the Appendix on page 43. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Traditionally, the most important incentive to attract new Federal employees or to motivate current employees has been pay. It is important that the basic salary we pay our employees be competitive with other employers for similar kinds and levels of work. This is a goal that has historically been difficult to achieve. Also, there has been considerable controversy over the years on how to compare the salaries of Federal and non-Federal employees in a meaningful way. During the last 2 years, the President and Congress have agreed to increase Federal employee pay by more than 8 percent. The President's budget for fiscal year 2001 continues that trend by proposing an overall pay increase of 3.7 percent. If enacted, this 2-year increase would be the largest 2-year jump since the 1981-82 period. A competitive salary is just one part of any employer's strategy for attracting and retaining the workforce it needs. Over the years, OPM and Congress have provided several flexibilities for agencies. For example, current law authorizes OPM to establish higher basic salaries, which we call ``special salary rates,'' for specific occupations or geographic locations when Federal agencies are experiencing significant recruitment or retention problems. In addition, Congress has also authorized recruitment bonuses and retention allowances. The recruitment bonus authority gives Federal agencies a tool to attract a specific candidate with special skills when the position involved would be difficult to fill. Similarly, the retention allowance authority helps Federal agencies retain employees with special skills when they otherwise would likely leave. These payments can be up to 25 percent of basic pay. Since 1991, when these tools were created, Federal agencies have taken a cautious approach toward their use. During fiscal year 1998, however, we witnessed significant growth. In that year, 1,089 recruitment bonuses were given. Retention allowances were given to 2,300 employees in fiscal year 1998, and we expect that when we get data from fiscal year 1999 the numbers will be higher as a lot of agencies used these retention bonuses to deal with the Y2K problem. We are looking at legislative and administrative options to enhance these authorities and make them more flexible. We are exploring increasing the size of recruitment and retention incentives and allowing a variety of payment methods. But compensation is not the only component of a successful strategy. That is why we have adopted a perspective we call the strategic rewards approach. This acknowledges that an organization's reward system involves all aspects of a work situation. Employers must recognize that many workers face the need to balance work and family responsibilities on a daily basis. On this score, the Federal Government, as an employer, clearly has been a leader for more than 2 decades. Flexible work schedules were first introduced in the Federal Government in the late 1970's. We are proud that about half of all Federal employees take advantage of this program, which has become a model for non-Federal employers as well. We have also been a leader in introducing family-friendly leave programs. The annual vacation leave and sick leave system has been supplemented in recent years by a number of new programs, including leave sharing, unpaid family and medical leave, paid sick leave for family care and adoption purposes, and additional paid leave for organ donation purposes. In response to a Presidential directive last year, we will implement a major enhancement to our sick leave program. Very soon Federal employees will be able to use a total of up to 12 weeks of accrued paid sick leave each year to care for a family member with a serious health condition. The government's awards statute provides a broad framework for recognizing superior performance and significant accomplishments. OPM regulations and policies continue this decentralized approach that allows agencies to design programs that will work for them. OPM provides extensive guidance about ways to use the incentives. Over the years, the Federal Government has included many more lower-level employees in such awards programs than the private sector. Awards programs also give agencies a means of providing additional compensation to reward short-term accomplishments as well as designing long-term incentive programs that focus employee energy on attaining specific agency outcomes and goals. During the 1980's and early 1990's, agencies primarily gave cash awards to employees using bonuses tied to the employee's annual performance ratings. Agencies are now moving toward making greater use of awards based on specific accomplishments. This reinforces the line of sight and recognition value of the award by specifying what accomplishment is being rewarded. Generally agency spending on awards has remained fairly constant at about 1 percent of total salaries over the last 10 years. For fiscal year 1998, agencies gave out 589,000 rating- based performance awards; about 33 in every 100 employees received one. Agencies also granted over 650,000 other awards based on specific employee contributions, a rate of 36 awards per 100 employees. Awards programs must be flexible to permit local organizations to tailor their programs and to allow for appropriate recognition of different forms and degrees of accomplishment. Further, to be successful, awards programs must be credible to employees and their representatives. Agencies must develop more transparent and credible criteria and increase employee involvement in the development of their programs. Awards programs have provided an arena where agency labor-management partnerships produce positive results for the entire organization. In addition, design flexibility is important for keeping programs fresh and appealing to employees and managers alike. Adapting and refining awards programs and criteria are a natural part of an organization's ongoing use of rewards and recognition. However, there is growing evidence about other factors that really make a difference in retaining scarce talent to meet future goals. Reward system designers have identified two. The first typically is called ``learning and development,'' and the second is often referred to as ``workplace environment.'' In other words, the rewards that really matter to people and make a difference in their decision to stay relate to how well the organization supports their skills building and the kind of work setting the organization provides. With regard to the first item, for many years agencies have had the authority to establish tuition assistance and reimbursement programs. These programs pay some or all of the cost of college courses and provide Federal employees with opportunities to round out their academic backgrounds or professional knowledge. A more recent innovation is the individual learning account which is now being piloted by 13 Federal agencies. These accounts allow agencies to set aside specific dollar amounts and/or official time for Federal employees to use for their learning and development. Federal employees have access to more than 250 federally sponsored or assisted child-care sites around the country. We are very pleased that recent legislation permits agencies to use appropriated funds to make child care more affordable for their lower-income employees. We also need to focus on the leadership of the agencies to ensure that they are motivating their employees. In summary, we have special challenges and opportunities in the Federal Government to keep employees engaged and working toward shared goals. The fact is that many, if not most, people do not enter public service for the money. They want a chance to contribute and make their country a better place to live and raise a family. Often the obstacles they face are enormous, and the results of the policies and programs they developed to conquer disease or clean up the environment may not be apparent for years. In such situations, it is incumbent upon us to recognize our employees' contributions. It does not take piles of money or stock options to let public employees know that they are valued and make a difference. We do not have the money or stock options to give, in any event, but we do have a powerful reward in the recognition we can confer. When we do these things, I am confident we can implement strategies that will foster commitment and promote excellence. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Romero. Ms. Kelley, we are anxious to hear your perspective on how good our incentives are and perhaps some other ideas that we ought to undertake. TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY,\1\ NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION Ms. Kelley. Thank you, Chairman Voinovich, and Ranking Minority Member Durbin. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley appears in the Appendix on page 69. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NTEU represents more than 155,000 Federal employees across the country, and I want to thank you for holding this hearing today to examine the Federal Government's incentive programs and their effectiveness. I share your belief that Federal employees, just like their private sector counterparts, must believe that substantial rewards and incentives exist for excellence and for productivity. Without appropriate compensation and incentives, the Federal Government will find it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain quality employees in the future. The most critical compensation elements of Federal employment--pay, retirement, and health benefits--have each faced setbacks in recent years that have limited their competitiveness within the private sector. As you know, the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act, or FEPCA, has not been followed, leaving pay lagging far behind private sector wages for similar work. Moreover, Federal employees have been forced to pay more toward their retirement with no corresponding increases in retirement benefits, and premiums for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program have increased almost 30 percent over the past 3 years. According to many analysts, for most prospective employees the most critical element in deciding whether or not to accept a job offer is salary. Under the 1990 FEPCA law, Federal employees were to receive an annual pay adjustment designed to begin to close the gap between Federal and private sector salaries, measured at that time at approximately 30 percent. The law has never been implemented as intended, and a substantial pay gap remains today. Fully implementing FEPCA would do more to address recruitment and retention in the Federal Government than all of the remaining incentive programs in place today combined. The same law that created this new Federal pay authority also authorized a number of other programs geared toward helping agencies to recruit and to retain employees. One provision permits Federal agencies to offer retention allowances of up to 25 percent. Another gave agencies the authority to offer one-time bonuses of up to 25 percent of basic pay to recruit employees and/or to relocate employees to less desirable locations. However, only 0.14 percent, less than one-quarter of 1 percent, of all Executive Branch employees have received recruitment, retention, or relocation incentives that are known as the three R's in fiscal year 1998. Furthermore, when these incentives were awarded, they were most often paid at a rate of only 10 percent of basic pay or less, versus the 25 percent that is allowable. When asked what the most common impediments were to greater use of the three R's, agencies cited budgetary constraints and prolonged hiring freezes. The same is true of performance awards, incentive awards, and even bilingual awards. Agencies simply do not have the resources to adequately fund these important incentives. Until Congress provides adequate discretionary funding to Federal agencies, these problems will remain. The fact is the Federal Government faces stiff hiring competition. While the Federal Government struggles under artificial budget constraints to adequately fund its basic pay and benefits package, private industry has recognized the impact our full employment economy has had on attracting the best employees. They have forged ahead with meaningful incentives, most of which are not available in the Federal Government. They include stock options, investments in employee education, top-notch training programs, fitness centers, and a laundry list of other benefits. In the past few years, family-friendly programs such as alternative work schedules, telecommuting options, leave banks, child-care facilities, and opportunities to use personal sick leave to care for ill family members have all provided incentives to employees to join or to remain in the Federal workforce. These family-friendly incentives have proven effective in both the public and the private sectors, but here, again, in the Federal Government funding remains an issue. One of the benefits made available to private sector employees is on-site subsidized child-care facilities. For working families with children between the ages of three and five, child care is their second or third largest household expense. Private industry has found that making affordable child care available to its employees helps make the inevitable choice between family and work a little less stressful. NTEU encouraged and Congress passed language in the fiscal year 2000 Treasury appropriations bill giving all Federal agencies the discretion to use their appropriated funds to subsidize child-care expenses for their lower-paid employees. Unfortunately, this language will expire on September 30, providing little time to determine whether this provision is helping to make safe, quality child care available while positively impacting morale and worker productivity. And here again, however, due to budgetary constraints, agencies have not been provided with any new funding for this important purpose. NTEU is seeking an extension of language permitting these subsidies and would certainly appreciate assistance in this effort. I also want to bring to your attention what NTEU believes has become a major disincentive for employees who we represent at the Internal Revenue Service. As part of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, known as RRA, of 1998, Congress enacted Section 1203, which lists ten infractions for which IRS employees face mandatory dismissal. IRS employees work in fear of what have come to be known as the ``10 Deadly Sins.'' The broad scope and the vague nature of the 10 Deadly Sins have created anxiety and confusion in the workplace. These infractions, which range from IRS employees not paying their taxes on time or improperly placing a lien on a delinquent taxpayer, have always subjected employees to discipline, up to and including dismissal, and rightly so. However, the RRA's requirement for mandatory dismissal of employees is having a chilling effect on the collection efforts and morale at the IRS. No other government employee in the Executive, Judicial, or Legislative Branch, and, in fact, no other American taxpayer, must be fired solely on the basis of paying their taxes 1 day late. NTEU vigorously opposed Section 1203 and continues to believe that this section of the act should be repealed or changed. We would be grateful for any assistance with this matter. In conclusion, I believe we are in agreement that the most valuable resource the Federal Government has is its employees and that there is a direct link between employee job satisfaction and whether or not the Federal Government's customers are satisfied. NTEU hopes to work with you toward solutions on these important issues. Thank you very much, and I would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you might have. Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. Mr. Brostek. TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL BROSTEK,\1\ ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL MANAGEMENT AND WORKFORCE ISSUES, GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE Mr. Brostek. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to discuss the role of incentive programs in motivating and rewarding employees to achieve high performance that supports agency missions and goals. Incentive programs can be an important part of performance management systems because they serve to align employee expectations with agency missions and goals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Brostek appears in the Appendix on page 80. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my testimony today, I concentrate on awards given to employees for their performance on the job, although I would be happy to participate in a discussion about other awards. I will summarize my three main points. First, Federal agencies have broad authority to design and implement a variety of incentive programs, and this is very useful because no one incentive program is optimal in all circumstances. Second, over the last 5 years, agencies have used this flexibility to decrease their emphasis on awards that are tied directly to employees' performance appraisals and to increase their emphasis on alternative forms of monetary compensation or awards such as special act or service awards or gainsharing awards. And, finally, while agencies have been making use of the range of incentives available to them and have been altering the types of awards they make, many agencies do not assess whether their award programs are actually effective in motivating employees. Under their broad authority, agencies can and do offer employees a mix of awards that include monetary and nonmonetary recognition. Monetary awards include, as I mentioned, performance awards that are based on the employee's rating of record, and there are at least four other types of monetary awards. Those include special act or service awards, quality step increases, time-off awards, and gainsharing awards. Nonmonetary incentives include such things as medals, certificates, and other honorary recognition. The broad flexibility available to agencies is key because it enables agencies to devise incentive programs that their employees are most likely to find to be motivating. Incentive programs require careful construction because some employees may respond well to monetary awards, other employees may respond better to simple public recognition of their performance, and those preferences can change over time. Over the past 5 years, agencies have generally moved to provide fewer employees performance awards, but to give those who do receive those awards larger dollar amounts. In addition, over that same period agencies have increased the use of other monetary awards and increased the dollar amounts that are given for those awards. We do not know precisely why these trends are developing. However, based on some work that we have done in the past, the decrease in the use of performance awards, those tied to performance appraisals, may be partly attributable to the common perception that employees' performance appraisals may not accurately reflect differences in employees' real performance. Because the motivating power of incentive programs is difficult to predict and can change over time, it is essential that agencies assess whether their incentive programs are, in fact, effectively motivating employees to improve their performance and to align that performance with the goals and strategies of the agency. Unfortunately, many agencies do not do so. In assessing whether their incentive programs are effective, agencies may benefit from considering key elements that high-performing public and private sector organizations have used in their incentive programs. These elements include top management support, clearly defined and transparent criteria for the awards, use of multiple awards for both individuals and teams, targeting the awards only to high performers, publicizing those awards, and regularly monitoring and updating the program. Mr. Chairman, you also asked me to comment a little bit about the awards that GAO uses, and the incentive program that GAO uses. We include, as do Federal agencies, a broad array of awards and honorary recognition for our employees. Those range from annual awards that the Comptroller General gives to a small set of employees, distinguished service awards, and meritorious service awards. We have various group awards that relate to things like EEO and the functioning of teams. We also provide throughout the year spot awards to employees as quickly as possible after an act that is noteworthy. It is very clear in the literature that the motivating power of an award is often best if it is given as contemporaneously as possible with the act that you really appreciate. So we have a spot award program through which we do that kind of thing. The last thing I would like to mention is that under our pay system, we are a banded agency as opposed to having a GS system. The pay that one gets within a band, and the pay increases that one gets over time, are tied to performance. We have an annual process in which we assess the performance of each employee, and we consider the contributions they have made to achieving the mission of the agency and decide upon salary increases for employees based on that assessment. In conclusion, the Federal Government's employees--as we all agree, its greatest asset--define an agency's character and its capacity for performance. Incentive programs can be a critical element in aligning individual and team performance expectations with the goals and objectives of the agency. But incentive award programs are challenging to design and maintain. Poorly designed programs can actually de-motivate employees. Therefore, agencies should periodically assess their incentive programs to ensure that programs do, in fact, motivate their employees. That concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer questions. Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. I think that the first question I would like to ask is, in a nutshell: In your opinion, are the incentives that we have, adequate? And, second, if you had your way, what additional incentives would be added? Maybe we ought to start with the latter question. What new ideas do you have for incentives for our folks in the Federal workforce? Let's start with that. Ms. Gross. I would say that the greatest boon to being able to manage a workforce that works at a creative agency like NASA would be greater flexibility. And every kind of specific reform that I would put would have flexibility at its root. I think we are in a very inflexible personnel system, from the speed at which it takes to bring people on to being able to package incentives to recruit them, package incentives to retain them. And I just don't need those kind of flexibilities but also the budget. If you gave me all those flexibilities that I will now start listing, it doesn't matter, if I don't have an appropriate budget. The NASA's Inspector General's Office is something like 93 percent personnel. What we do is audit, inspect, ane evaluate. And so we have a very small percentage of our budget that is remaining for discretionary spending. Discretionary means travel, like go to where you have to go for the investigation. That is not exactly discretionary. This year, because of the circumscribed budget, I have allocated $75,000 for my awards pool. It was larger last year, smaller now because of a decrease from the President's recommended budget. GAO asked whether or not you would know whether there is a difference if your awards pool is larger and smaller. I can tell you, my staff is very demoralized about a smaller awards pool. I have 200 people, and we are spreading out $75,000. So I am not flexible at all. But when good times come, what I would like to be able to have is the ability to have pay banding. Pay banding--GAO has said they now have it. Right now you have employees that are GS-11's or GS-12's or GS-13's. And to get them promoted, many of them, you have to--even though you know who is eligible to be promoted, you have decided who is going to be promoted, you have to announce and have the eligibles apply for a promotion. And everybody that is eligible for that level of promotion applies for it. And then you go through a process. If you had pay banding, you would have people that are GS- 11's, or whatever, and there is a range of salaries, a large range of salaries, maybe $20,000 or something like that, and you can decide who among those GS-11's is eligible to receive more money because of their work. And you don't have to go through this laborious, time-consuming process of announcing a promotion. You are rewarding people on the basis of performance. So that is a huge flexibility that I don't have. I am recruiting people for information technology security, criminal investigators and auditors. They are a rare commodity. But because NASA is a nice place to work--NASA is a great place to work--I have to say that as a NASA employee--and I think that we (OIG) are on the cutting edge for this IT arena. But I can't noncompetitively find people who are the best and brightest who would like to come to NASA and say I could bring you on in 2 or 3 weeks. I have lost prospective employees because it took so long to get through the process. And by the time we went and announced the position (like I said, a fast recruitment would be 3 months--they can range anywhere between 4 and 6 months between the time that you announce it and bring people on.) That is terrible---- Senator Voinovich. Ms. Gross, may I ask you something? Ms. Gross. Yes. Senator Voinovich. Why does it take so long? Don't you have the authority within your agency to go out and hire, or do you have to go through the Office of Personnel Management and fill out paperwork and they are the ones that do the hiring? Ms. Gross. The Inspector General's Office has more flexibility than most of the agency enterprises. I am able to write the personnel descriptions, and that takes a long time because what you are having to do is write it very carefully so that you select out all those people that you don't want applying who look and say, hey, it would be nice to work for NASA, but they don't really have the qualifications. And you have to be very careful of your wording so that you are really getting only those you want to apply. Then what happens is you have to put the announcement out for a period of time, 2 weeks to 30 days. Then you wait until-- because of the postmark, so you wait another 10 days because mail can still come in. And then what happens is your personnelist looks at it, and I have delegated authority from OPM, so they look at it to weed out the unqualified people, which you always want to do. If I have more than five applicants, I have to have a panel of three people sit all day, and I have to get panels of people who are qualified, either my own staff who have to stop working or I get some people from the agency if they have the expertise, and they sit and do a paper screening to rank the highly qualified. Then the resulting list is then referred to the selecting official who does interviewing. Then we notify the people, and then they have to work with their personnel offices and give notice to their current employer. So if we were able to circumvent this process, the candidates could be giving notice a long time before current practices. This current process just takes a long time. It is a long process. It is not all with the Federal Government. It has always been every job I have had. It takes a long time. But with the Federal Government, it is particularly a long time. And I am flexible. The Inspector General's Office has its own personnel authority. It really is a nightmare. I would request flexibilities to be able to just have some limited noncompetitive hiring authority, where you have highly difficult to recruit personnel--I am not asking that for most of my staff. You know, half my staff are auditors. Except for the IT auditors, I don't mind living with the normal slow process. I could live with it. But where I am looking for people who have skills that are highly competitive and they are wanted by the private sector, I want to move like the private sector. You know, I can't offer them the same kind of pay. I can't offer them stock benefits. But there are people that really want to work for NASA, and they really want to work for the Inspector General's Computer Crimes Unit. I can't get those people because they have got families and they have got to have certainty in life. So it is a huge flexibility to hire noncompetitively and provide pay bands. I think also even though Mr. Romero was talking about a number of bonuses, we are not able to necessarily package all these bonuses. Sometimes personnel are allowed just a one-time bonus. Also they don't impact on the base of an employee. If you had some flexibility of saying it is going to be 25 percent but for you it is going to be a base--it is not that you are just a GS-11. This 25 percent will be on your base pay, and it will always be with you so the next year you actually have 25 percent higher than other GS-11's, it is not just a one-time only, then that is an incentive. If you go to the private sector, they do have incentives that they give people, like recruitment bonuses, but they have high bases. For select employees, if I had the budget, I would like to be able to do a salary base change, and that would give me the flexibility. Remember I said my key theme is flexibility. It is fine to have all of these different if personnel tools I could package them in my way. I would be willing to give the paper trail and let somebody audit me on that--even the inspector general could be audited, right?--so that I would justify that really what I am not doing is abusing the system but really hiring for merit. Senator Voinovich. So what you are saying is that the incentives that you have right now, if you had the flexibility and the budget, they would be adequate? You wouldn't be asking for housing allowances or something of that sort? Ms. Gross. Yes. Senator Voinovich. Which are not included in a package to date. Ms. Gross. No, I don't think they are adequate. I think what you don't have is the ability to bundle these up. A lot of these are one-time bonuses. And so that is not flexible. I might want for a certain employee to offer 25 percent every year for the next 5 years, because for me this employee would be worth it. I don't have these housing allocations. I don't have a banding so that I could promote people. Let me give you another example. We have had people who have graduated---- Senator Voinovich. So you don't have pay banding now? Ms. Gross. No. Senator Voinovich. OK. So that would help. Ms. Gross. It would help a lot. Another thing, again, the inflexibility of the Federal Government system, students that graduate with a master's in computer science, a number of them have written to us and would like to get hired for my Computer Crimes Unit or even for my IT audit group. Personnel with an advanced degree in computer science come in without any work experience, they have to be hired at a GS- 9. Well, excuse me, but people with a master's in computer science is going to go to Microsoft or they are going to go to KPMG. They can't afford to come to me even though I might be their first choice. Talk about inflexibility. And you are not--it is just a system that does not give---- Senator Voinovich. Let me ask you this: Is it regulated-- because I am new here--by law that you can't have bands, or is it done by---- Ms. Gross. Right now that is by law. Senator Voinovich. It is by law. Mr. Romero. Senator, there is no statutory authority to have agencies have broad banding systems other than in demonstration projects, and we have several that are in effect right now throughout the Federal Government, and most demonstration projects, when agencies have undertaken them, have really focused on pay-for-performance systems, and they have been very positive in their results. I think that we have found that when you have pay for performance, which is the net result of having a demonstration project that has a broad banding system, you do wind up with a situation where the employees that are better performers wind up getting rewarded at a higher rate or getting rewarded more than marginal performers. And that is both good for them and also a strong message to the ones that might be marginal performers. So there is a strong notion that pay-for-performance systems such as you would have with broad banding systems are effective in terms of rewarding and recognizing your good performers. Senator Voinovich. But the thing is, from what I heard, the pay for performance is not being used as often---- Mr. Romero. It is not available to all Federal agencies. Senator Voinovich [continuing]. Because, from what I have read from testimony of others, many employees are not confident of the performance evaluations that are being done. Therefore, because there is an issue of whether or not they are adequate or not, then you shy away from that and you go to some other ways of rewarding employees. Ms. Kelley. Right now, unless you have the authority, as Mr. Romero said, under a demonstration project, the agencies can't even do that. Ms. Gross. Right. Ms. Kelley. But when they do--and from NTEU's perspective, moving away from the grade and step system might be a good thing to do, if the employees believe that the performance appraisal system is a fair and a credible one. And so where NTEU is on this is that the employer representative must be involved in the design of a system that would be seen as credible to employees. But it all does come back to the issue of budget because, in a pay-banding system, if one employee is going to move up the ladder faster someone else must lose out. There is only so much money in the agency's budget. That money has to come from somewhere. So the involvement of the employer representative in the design process is something that we have supported and have worked in the past with OPM on and with agencies where we have had that opportunity. Senator Voinovich. Well, I would welcome some recommendations on how the system could be improved. Mr. Romero, you should gather together folks that really have the knowledge to make recommendations and understand that there is a variety of needs that are out there. New programs should be fairly flexible. And once you have done that, you estimate the amount of money that is needed. I mean, $75,000? Ms. Gross. Is a joke. Senator Voinovich. You have got to be kidding me. Ms. Gross. I am not. I wish I was. Senator Voinovich. These unmet needs that are very important to retaining and attracting people are getting the back of the hand, and we are going off on a lot of what I sometimes refer to as boutique programs, which have high visibility and popularity, and we neglect basic necessities. It is like the shoemaker whose kids are going around with holes in their shoes. Mr. Romero. I agree, Senator, and that is why we are working right now with the various stakeholders in designing legislative proposals that would give agencies authority to begin the design of broad banding systems. And we recognize that the key would be to have the authority out there so that agencies can determine for themselves what will be a valid performance management system that will have credibility and that will be accepted by the employees as being fair and equitable. So we are looking at that in terms of giving broad banding authority to all Federal agencies. Also, Ms. Gross mentioned the flexibility in the existing three R's, and as I indicated in my written statement, there was a cautious approach when the statute was first enacted, and we have taken steps to provide more flexibility and more information about those authorities, because in a recent study, it was determined that even the current authorities, which may or may not be flexible enough for all agencies, there was not as extensive use made of them as there could be. And a lot of the reasons were that, for one thing, there wasn't information about them outside of the headquarters organization. There may not have been even the knowledge at the operating level that a manager or supervisor could exercise that kind of authority and have that flexibility. Also, in many cases, agencies kept the authority level at a very high level, so it became an administrative burden to even request authority to give a recruitment or retention bonus, and that is something that we are trying to get the agency to push down to operating levels. Finally, there is also the problem that it is always a budget problem where both Senator Durbin and Senator Akaka talked about the budget crunch in the 1980's, and it is no surprise that awards and recognition programs were the ones that were sacrificed first whenever there is a budget crunch. And even now with the case of retention and recruitment allowances, there is not a sufficient amount of money budgeted to provide them even where you have a situation where it is most appropriate. Where you have that highly skilled candidate that is the perfect situation that these allowances and bonuses are designed for, there may not be enough money to pay that bonus, whether it is 10 or 25 percent, because of the budget situation in many agencies. But we are working on a proposal to provide even more flexibility to be able to give larger amounts, provide more variety of the situations in which these allowances might be payable, and to provide more payment options so that there could be biweekly or lump-sum or scattered payments. All of these will be features of what we are looking at in terms of more flexibility in these allowances and bonus programs. Senator Voinovich. Thank you. I would just make one more comment, and, Senator Durbin, I am sure you have some questions that you would like to ask. The question is: How do you get people's attention to this crisis that we have? You mentioned, Ms. Gross, that you are having some real problems where your personnel issues were impacting on your agency's mission. Ms. Gross. Yes. Senator Voinovich. I met recently with some folks from the Air Force, and their lack of people in the area of maintenance and maintaining military aircraft. Ms. Gross. Scary. Senator Voinovich. I met a pilot who is leaving the Air Force who said, ``I am leaving because I don't have confidence anymore.'' This is starting to impact our national security and our government. We ought to try to make the public and Members of Congress more aware of the importance of this issue. Sometimes people say, well, you are losing half your employees. That is good because you have too many people working for the Federal Government anyhow. Ms. Gross. Right. Senator Voinovich. Too many of them don't understand how important what you do is to our country and to their future, quality of life and well-being. Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, as I listened to this panel suggest that Congress has been remiss meeting its responsibility in appropriating appropriate funds for incentives and daycare centers and some of the things that we did as the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights when it came to the changes at the IRS, I am reminded of the Walt Kelly ``Pogo'' cartoon where he announced, ``We have met the enemy and they are us.'' When we called in these agencies to find out what they were doing wrong, they told us that we are doing it wrong here on Capitol Hill. And I think there is a lot of truth to that. I have listened carefully to what they have said. It appears that in most instances there are many incentives that could be funded and used to attract and retain Federal employees. But it depends on Congress doing its part. We have to appropriate the money. And if we don't put the money in place, all the authority in the world isn't very valuable, and also be a little sensitive, as Ms. Kelley says, to the climate that you create in a punitive environment. I note, incidentally, that recently OPM had a survey of some 32,000 Federal employees, and 40 percent of them responded out of 48 agencies. Sixty percent of the Federal employees in the survey indicated they were satisfied with their jobs. That is slightly below a comparable private sector rate of 62 percent. That is pretty encouraging, really, when you consider it, all things considered. When you took the highest levels of job satisfaction, two of the agencies that have a high level are represented here today: NASA and OPM. When it came to low job satisfaction among Federal agencies, it was interesting that INS and Customs Service came out, and I wouldn't be surprised if the IRS wasn't too far away in terms of the job satisfaction of the employees. It may reflect to some extent contact with the public. If you have to work with the public every day under a stressful situation, it takes it out of you after a while. We find that in our business because we are constantly in touch with our constituents, and you have to be ready for your game every day or it shows. But I guess the point that I am driving at is I want to get down to some specifics here of some areas that have been discussed, and I want to ask for some response. We had a previous hearing, and at the previous hearing, there was talk about one incentive that is available, and that is the forgiveness of college loans, educational debts. And I thought to myself that is a pretty good one, because so many young people come out of college burdened with heavy debt, and if you could offer an incentive to them to reduce their college indebtedness if they come work for the Federal Government, that is as good as a pay raise. In fact, it may be, as soon as you get out of college, a great incentive to consider public service. And so I wrote to the Director of OPM, Ms. Lachance, and asked her to give us some background on these programs. And, again, it comes down to appropriations. If we don't appropriate enough money for you to offer this incentive, it is on the books but it doesn't mean anything. It is an incentive that might work, but won't unless you can pay for it. But a couple things came through that were interesting, Mr. Chairman. The student loan repayments basically say up to $6,000 a year, not to exceed $40,000 per employee. They apply to 22 job classifications containing almost 300 job series. I am not sure exactly what that means, but it appears it is fairly limited in terms of those who could quality for it. In order to qualify for it, you agree to work for the Federal Government for at least 3 years, absent some extraordinary circumstances. And if you continue beyond 3 years, you can obviously make beyond the first 3 years' reimbursement. Here is the part that I found interesting, though. We passed this law in 1990. The OPM is still working on the rules. It is 10 years later. And they haven't put the rules in place to implement the legislation that we passed 10 years ago. That is not encouraging. We have a responsibility to appropriate the money, but, Mr. Romero, could you comment on the fact that it would take so long to develop the rules for this incentive, which I think could be very appealing on college campuses. Mr. Romero. We agree, Senator, that in this climate it is the most appropriate incentive, and that is why we are proposing regulations to implement the provisions of 5 U.S. Code 5379. During the 1990's, as you talked about the budget crunch, there really wasn't any call on the part of the agencies for this kind of added authority, primarily because they wouldn't have had the money to pay--first of all, there wasn't any recruiting being done. In fact, as several of the other witnesses have indicated, most people were involved in downsizing and being concerned about maintaining current staffing levels. So there was not a climate, there was not a mentality of we need all these tools to recruit new people, new college hires. Some agencies have not done college hiring in 4 or 5 years. So there was not a demand, even though the law was on the books. It is a different situation right now, and now it is why have we waited so long. But we are proposing regulations to make this available to all agencies, the authority to repay student loans. All the Perkins, Stafford, and PLUS loans that most college students take out would be covered. You mentioned the coverage. We are talking about 22 occupational categories, 300 job series. That is a lot of jobs. A single series might have as many as 10,000, 20,000 Federal employees in that series. The statute was clear that it was supposed to be for those kind of occupations that college graduates usually pursue in terms of Federal employment, and that is why it wouldn't be applied to just some of the occupations that we didn't think that you would need to give this kind of benefit to. So there is in the statute some coverage limitations, but it still covers an awful lot of Federal employees. Primarily all the technical, scientific, and more professional kind of jobs that we have in the Federal Government would be ones that would be able to apply the student loan repayment benefit. Senator Durbin. Your explanation makes sense, but at this moment in time, can you give me an idea when the rules and regulations might be coming out of OPM on this law? Mr. Romero. Today I don't know where they are right now in the clearance process, but I can get that information to the Committee by the end of the day or tomorrow. Senator Durbin. If you would, please. Let me go to Ms. Kelley, because I think you raised a point regarding my daughter and son-in-law--my daughter works for the Department of Agriculture. When our new grandson came along, they were very excited at the possibility of getting our grandson into the U.S. Department of Agriculture daycare. It takes a year or two in advance for you to apply--I don't know how that works--but in order to be admitted, and for some reason it didn't work out. But it was disappointing to my daughter because the thought of having her new son close by so she could visit on break or at lunchtime meant a lot to her. So when you mentioned daycare, it really struck me. That is something as a grandfather that I thought about, that I like a lot. And it appears from what you say we just haven't done enough in that. We haven't really made that a priority. And after college loans, if you are talking about new parents, I can't think of another thing that you could offer to an employee at that stage in their life that might be more appealing: Affordable, quality daycare, accessible to your place of work. I am going to focus on that a little more now. You have really piqued my interest in it. And I also think you have done a good job in your testimony talking about the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. Ms. Kelley. Thank you. Senator Durbin. And maybe we ought to revisit it. I know it was extremely popular. I voted for it. I think everybody in sight voted for it. Go after that mean old IRS and protect the taxpayers. I am going to take a look and see how we are doing on enforcement actions now that we have created this different environment, and take a look as well as to whether or not we are creating an onerous and really unjustifiable burden when it comes to the employees who have this special responsibility. But thank you for your testimony on that. Ms. Kelley. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that and will look forward to your help. Senator Durbin. We will. Ms. Gross, one of the things that you brought up that I thought was interesting is, if you want to hire an experienced employee and bring him on the job, many times you don't have the flexibility to say, incidentally, we will match the leave time you have already accumulated in the private sector. Ms. Gross. Right. Senator Durbin. You don't have to go up the ladder to the point where 10 years from now you will have the same number of vacation days you already have at your private firm. Now, is that statutory? Is that regulatory? What would it take to give you the authority to make that decision? That doesn't seem like it has a direct budget impact, direct appropriations impact. Ms. Gross. It is statutory. Senator Durbin. Statutory. Here we are again. Ms. Gross. It is such an amazing inflexibility. I have hired, for example, an investigator who had worked at Amtrak, which is a Federal corporation. It is a mixed-government Federal corporation. And he had something like 5 weeks' vacation, but he is a new Federal employee because the Federal corporation, you are not a Federal employee. He didn't qualify for that. And so now at this stage of his life, he is starting back with 2 weeks. It is the same kind of issue that really is a door closer for some people in the private sector that are interested in working in the criminal investigative---- Senator Durbin. It is very understandable. And, Mr. Chairman, I can't speak for you, but I would like to take a look at that, and maybe we can work on this together. Ms. Gross. Thank you. Mr. Romero. Senator, we are working, we are already working with many of our stakeholders on a proposal that would give new Federal employees--and we started talking first about senior executives, but the discussion has centered around any Federal employee that is in a hard-to-fill occupation. We ought to be able to have the flexibility to give them the accrual rate benefit of someone who has been around 15 years that from the start you actually can be accruing at a high--or get credit for some of what you might have earned had you been working for the government for a while. So that is something--the idea of providing people a greater annual leave benefit is something we are looking at. Senator Durbin. The last thing I would like to ask you--and any one of you can comment on it--is on this retention question. When you have reached a person who has the time in and they are eligible for retirement, do you find that there are one or two things that they are particularly sensitive to? If you went to them and said we can change things a little bit in terms of your workload or in terms of time off, would you stick around for another year? We are going to need you in this job while we transition into a new project or bring someone else on board. Is there anything that stands out on this retention question that seems particularly appealing to career employees? Mr. Romero. We have always surveyed employees as they leave, exit interviews of a lot of employees, especially those that may be leaving because it appears that they are unhappy. But it is very constant through the years that people want to stay and will stay around if they value their work, if they enjoy what they are doing, and if they feel they are valued. And this is why this hearing is so appropriate in terms of how do you recognize and reward people so that they feel like they are doing something meaningful and want to stick around. Something very interesting that has been emerging in a lot of recent surveys is that they also--something that is very critical is who they work for. And a lot of people leave not because of the money or the leave accrual rate. They just don't like the person they are working for. They don't feel that that is a nurturing environment, and so I think we need to do a lot of work in terms of our supervisory and management development and training. People leave because they just don't like their bosses. Mr. Brostek. Mr. Durbin, we did some work on this very issue: How could you get employees who are nearing retirement age to stay on longer? It has been a while since we did that. It was in the early 1990's, and I don't remember all the specific reasons why employees said they might stay, and what kind of things would induce them to stay. We will be sure you get a copy of that report. One of the things that they did mention was compensation and whether they might get an increase in their retirement benefit for staying longer with the government. I think some of the reasons that were mentioned here today are probably appropriate as well. I would like to go back, if I could for a moment, though, to your point about, once again, it is Congress' responsibility here or fault, if we were giving fault. I would give you a small out on that, if I could, Senator. We continually bring to the table the message that what agencies need to do in this whole area of their greatest asset, their human capital, is do some self-assessment on how well their current systems are working and bring to the table some fact-based analysis about where there are impediments to improving their performance. And what I would ask you, Senator, is how often you have seen that kind of fact-based analysis, how often you have seen in the budget submission from an agency a case that they needed greater money to offer retention allowances or bonuses or to pay their employees differently. I think that it would be useful to take a look at that, because our impression based on the plans that are required under the Results Act, the Government Performance and Results Act, is that agencies frequently have not included any kind of analysis about what they really need in order to use their people more effectively. Senator Durbin. Good point. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Senator Voinovich. I have always said to my directors, if you can't measure it, don't do it. And so if you don't measure how this is working out, then it is very difficult to pinpoint what works and what doesn't work. You have X number of dollars in a budget, so, first, we need to determine what percentage of a budget is adequate to do some of these things that the Federal Government allows you to do. And second, is something that we ought to look at in terms of appropriations: When a budget is submitted by a department, do you specifically earmark X percent that would be used for taking advantage of these incentives? Do agencies get a salary or personnel level? Mr. Romero. Usually just a salary--an expenses line item. It is an additional earmark for---- Senator Voinovich. So that is what you get. You get a personnel line item, and then you are supposed to deal with all the things related to personnel through that. That might be something, Mr. Romero, that the administration at this stage of the game might look at. We have these incentives, and maybe there should be a specific budget allocation for them. Mr. Romero. I know that in the past, though, where there has been on the part of Congress in a statute a sort of mandatory minimum or maximum, there have been problems where people see that as a dictate that they have to meet certain goals, or whenever there is a budget crunch, there is a statutory requirement that X amount go to awards, and in order to meet that requirement, they sacrifice other things. So there is always a caution in terms of having any minimum or maximum that are generally applicable to the whole workforce. Senator Voinovich. Well, let me just say this to you. I don't know the answer to that. That is your baby. But you ought to look at what other governments do, maybe in other States, or what the private sector does and how they work that into their budget so that they have the flexibility to get the job done. Obviously, there isn't enough money now to do it. I request that you look into this and take it to the Office of Management and Budget and talk about that issue. I am not kidding you. We are talking about creating new programs this year, and we are not taking care of the things that need to be taken care of. The house is not in very good shape right now, and we want to go out and build new houses when the one that we have is in bad shape. So I think that we ought to do first things first. The other thing is, which of these incentives would really make a difference in terms of retention? We want to attract, but how do we retain people? If you look at the numbers and know 31 percent are going to retire, and you have another 21 or 22 percent that could retire early, what can we do now to make sure that that 21 percent doesn't retire early? What is it that will create the kind of environment that convinces them to stick around? Is it the training budget? We have a survey out right now asking questions like what percentage of the agency budget is being used to upgrade the skills of individuals and what kind of opportunities do you afford them? What would cause employees to say, I want to stick around here? Ms. Kelley and I have talked about quality and empowerment of employees and getting them involved in the operation of their departments. What influence does that have on somebody wanting to stay in an agency? A friend of mine had a son that worked at one of our Federal agencies at Los Alamos. He is a Ph.D. and the rest of it. He left this Federal agency because he said it was Dullsville. It lacked excitement, and he decided not to stay. So I think that even though, Mr. Romero, this is the end of an administration, I think it is incumbent on the current administration to make some serious recommendations on how to respond to this human capital crisis that we have. I would like to work out a timetable with you and see if we can't gather the people together that are necessary so you can come back with some recommendations in the next maybe 6 to 8 weeks regarding what we can do in the short term and then look at some of the long-term solutions that we need to incorporate that will be looked at by the new administration when they come in. The new administration needs to know that they have a real problem here and they had better get on this one and give it a high priority, because if they don't, they are in deep trouble. So I would like to figure out something that we can do to address this immediately. Mr. Romero. We will be glad to work with you on that. Senator Voinovich. And then look at the long term and get the folks that are necessary to deal with this in a very constructive way. Mr. Romero. Yes, sir. Senator Voinovich. Would any of you like to add anything to your testimony here today? Ms. Gross. I would just like to add that one of the issues is if you have stable funding and you know what your funding is going to be as agencies and they know that they are not going to be in a downsizing environment, then you can have these reforms, both the current ones as well as future ones that are needed. I think it is very difficult, and I think as Mr. Romero said, OPM just stopped looking at what to do to implement the law on---- Mr. Romero. Loan repayment, student loans. Ms. Gross [continuing]. The student loans, because everybody was in a spiraling downsizing mode. Now, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have still been proposing the regulations, but, nevertheless, I know it is true about NASA. NASA offers many opportunities to its employees for training, for going to school, but what happens is, we have to get the work done. We have a space station that NASA has to finish. In my case, we have computer crimes and hackers are there all the time. I mean, they are not just waiting for us to go to school. And because of that, you don't have the staffing levels that you may need, so it really makes it difficult to take advantage of some of the training. But my staff tells me that is something they absolutely do want. Technology changes so fast. They feel that also they want to have those credentials for when they have to testify in court that they have a master's in some of these programs, they want to be credentialed. And so we are balancing that need. I think a stability in terms of funding and workforce will go a long ways so that, in fact, you can do these other things that are absolutely crucial so that you can have the Federal Government that the public deserves. Senator Voinovich. When I first became Governor of Ohio we had very little in the area of training, but when we finished, we were able to offer each employee of the State Government up to $2,500 a year for upgrading their skills or pursuing higher education. And it was a combination of the State and the unions working together. In fact, the unions gave up some of their pay increases and said, look, we will give this up, if we put a nickel in, you put a dime in, so that we could build this fund, because they understood how important it was for their workers to be upgrading their skills. Ms. Kelley, you were talking about the child-care issue. Refresh my memory. We need to get that reauthorized so it doesn't sunset. Ms. Kelley. Yes, the current legislation expires on September 30, and we need to have that language extended into the 2001 budget so we can really get this thing going. Senator Voinovich. And repeat it again. Ms. Kelley. The ability to use appropriated funds by the agencies to subsidize child care, and this is the first time that has ever been authorized. Now, no additional funds were allotted to the agencies to do it, but the fact is they now have the authority to use appropriated funds, and we are working with many of them to try to put pilot programs in place. But it is due to expire September 30. Senator Voinovich. OK. This would be---- Mr. Romero. The legislation has a 1-year limit. Senator Voinovich. Is it subsidizing the cost of child care, or is it money out of your budget for building child care? Mr. Romero. No. Senator Voinovich. It is just strictly---- Ms. Kelley. The cost of child care. It is a reimbursement. Senator Voinovich. It is additional money that you would provide someone as part of their compensation for child care? Ms. Kelley. Yes. Senator Voinovich. Was it experimental? Ms. Kelley. Well, it was just set up with a 1-year life on it in this appropriations bill, and that is why it will expire September 30. Mr. Romero. The President has included in his budget request, Senator, that the law be extended for another year. Senator Voinovich. Well, it probably ought to be extended for 5 years. In Ohio, we offered businesses up to a $100,000 tax credit to create a facility either on their premises or work in conjunction with other businesses in their area to create the physical facility. We gave them a tax break and said if you paid up to X dollars in subsidizing child care for your employees, this would be a direct credit against your State tax. This would seem to be a major incentive that would attract new people, but I don't know what impact it would have on retaining folks that have been around for 20 years. All these things have to be put on the table and looked at, the costs involved in implementing them measured, and then figure out which ones within a limited budget you would offer to make a difference. One last comment. This Thursday we are going to have a hearing on the National Partnership for Reinventing Government. We have had significant downsizing of the Federal Government but the administration did not consider the effects that downsizing would have on the delivery of government services. When we consider downsizing an agency or creating new incentives, we need to keep the mission of the agency in mind and ensure that we do not adversely affect the ability of the agency to carry out its mission. So I am interested in the testimony that we are going to hear on Thursday. But I want to emphasize again that we need to evaluate this human capital crisis, do something short term, and then look at the long-term picture. And we need, Mr. Romero, some recommendations back from the administration. I will certainly do what I can to let the appropriators know that this is something that they ought to be paying some attention to. I know we are going to see an increase in the defense budget this year. One of my concerns there is that it is all going to be spent on hardware when we have a human capital crisis in our military. Thank you very much for your testimony today. Ms. Gross. Thank you. Mr. Romero. Thank you. Ms. Kelley. Thank you. Mr. Brostek. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5172.068 -