Report - Government Executive

“Black/African American” and “Two or More Races” and the “Targeted Disability” (less than
one percent of the rated workforce) “merit expert analysis and attention.”
The analysis concluded:
As a group, the race/ethnicity indicator variables explained only 0.64 percent of the
variance in performance ratings. However, the regression confirmed results obtained
earlier in the report: individual rating differences are related to differences in median
ratings by pay pool, supervisors and higher paid individuals tend to receive higher
ratings, and employees in the Analysis & Production mission category tend to receive
higher ratings than those in “support” categories, where racial/ethnic groups tend to be
over-represented compared to their proportion of the overall population. 177 Further,
statistically significant differences in ratings and performance payouts among protected
groups are not equally evident across the entire NGA workforce; they tend to be clustered
in pay bands 3 and 4.
The regression points to the conclusion then that while median pay pool rating is the key
indicator of a given individual’s rating (and hence, performance payout), there is also an
important interaction of several other factors, all relatively weak in and of themselves,
but somewhat more powerful in collectively explaining the overall variance in
performance ratings.
The NGA analysis reviewed prior year data and concluded that these results have “existed at
NGA for at least the last few years before DCIPS implementation. [Thus], it is difficult to infer
from the historic data that this is a new result under DCIPS.” In essence, there are unexplained
variances in ratings assigned to employees in certain protected classes. NGA plans to study
these to determine whether they reflect legitimate performance differences.
CONCLUSIONS
OUSD(I) and the intelligence components, including NGA, are trying to introduce fundamental
change to the way employees are evaluated, compensated, and progress through their careers.
The creation and introduction of DCIPS have been approached with great seriousness, hard
work, and creativity. The Academy Panel has been impressed both with the DCIPS system and
the people who work within it.
As noted, determining DCIPS’ impact is not possible at this time given the intelligence
components’ limited experience with the system. Supervisor and employee perceptions and the
impact of DCIPS Interim provide a somewhat negative picture. And, the NGA experience does
not provide clear evidence of potential impacts.
The Panel finds that there is nothing inherent in the DCIPS’ design that would lead to negative
impacts on career progression or diversity, but that it is too soon to determine the actual impacts
177 This finding is similar to the findings resulting from the mock pay pools conducted by the other (non-NGA) DoD
intelligence components.
102