Report - Government Executive

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Role of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) Operating under the Pay Modernization framework and the NGA model, OUSD(I) began to develop its own human capital system in 2006 for the DoD intelligence components, including itself, the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Defense Security Service, NGA, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence, and Air Force Intelligence. This new performance-based compensation system, the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS), was developed through a joint effort involving all DoD intelligence components. In 2007, the decision was made to use a phased approach, with the components implementing all or portions of DCIPS over several years. 19 Figure 2-2 identifies major events along the path of DCIPS’ development. Figure 2-2. DCIPS Timeline 19 See Table 1-1 for further detail regarding this phased approach. 12
OTHERS FACTORS THAT IMPACTED DCIPS Differing Perspectives on Performance-Based Compensation Linking employee pay more closely to job performance is not new to the federal government. A table published by the MSPB’s Office of Policy Evaluation identifies some of the major efforts to bring this about over the past half century. Table 2-1. Major Efforts to Link Federal Pay to Performance Major Efforts to Link Federal Pay to Performance 1954 Incentive awards program greatly expanded to encourage managers to reward outstanding contributors 1962 • Federal Salary Reform Act provides managers with quality step increase to reward top performers • Civil Service Reform Act passed • Performance appraisal reforms 1978 • Large cash awards for employees • Merit pay and cash awards for GS13–15 managers • Senior <strong>Executive</strong> Service (SES) and performance incentives established • Demonstration projects (Pay-banding, China Lake, etc.) 1980–1982 Bonuses limited to 25 percent of salary and 20 percent of career SES members 1984 Congress creates Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS) to replace merit pay for mid-level managers 1989 Agencies covered by Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) receive authority to develop their own pay systems 1990 Concerns about pay resulting in recruitment and retention problems lead to the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA) 1993 PMRS terminated 1995 • Performance management systems decentralized • Federal Aviation Administration receives authority to develop new compensation system 1998 Internal Revenue Service receives authority to redesign its pay system 2000 OPM decentralizes control of SES performance ratings 2002 Homeland Security Act creates Department of Homeland Security and provides authority for it to design its own pay system 2003 • National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 grants DoD authority to develop and implement a new pay system • Human Capital Performance Fund established 2004 SES performance-based compensation plan implemented 13
Page 1 and 2: A Report by a Panel of the NATIONAL
Page 3 and 4: FOREWORD The terrorist attacks of S
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.........
Page 7 and 8: Governance ........................
Page 9 and 10: ACRONYMS Academy CWB DCIPS DIA DIHR
Page 11 and 12: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The terrorist att
Page 13 and 14: • It is too soon to draw conclusi
Page 15 and 16: CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND, METHODOLOGY A
Page 17 and 18: • The adequacy of the training, p
Page 19 and 20: • Chapter 6: The Way Forward for
Page 21 and 22: CHAPTER 2 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT FO
Page 23 and 24: National intelligence is still orga
Page 25: ewarded longevity over performance
Page 29 and 30: • Partisan politics could play an
Page 31 and 32: Administration (TSA), which operate
Page 33 and 34: NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
Page 35 and 36: CHAPTER 3 ASSESSING DCIPS’ DESIGN
Page 37 and 38: FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DCIPS’ DE
Page 39 and 40: Figure 3-1. Objectives of the NICCP
Page 41 and 42: PRINCIPLE The system is transparent
Page 43 and 44: The Defense Intelligence Enterprise
Page 45 and 46: discourage teamwork…to the organi
Page 47 and 48: Figure 3-2. DCIPS 2010 Pay Band Str
Page 49 and 50: enable managers and supervisors to
Page 51 and 52: they achieve their goals. Given the
Page 53 and 54: Element Definition Supervisory/Mana
Page 55 and 56: cooperation with ODNI. The review w
Page 57 and 58: Source: OUSD(I) Human Capital Manag
Page 59 and 60: eplaces the current government-wide
Page 61 and 62: esults, but the final DCIPS evaluat
Page 63 and 64: The Panel believes that adequate fu
Page 65 and 66: HOW DCIPS COMPARES TO THE GS/GG SYS
Page 67 and 68: Table 3-7. Comparison of DCIPS and
Page 69 and 70: Design Feature DCIPS NSPS quality s
Page 71 and 72: Recommendation 4. To ensure equitab
Page 73 and 74: CHAPTER 4 ASSESSING DCIPS’ IMPLEM
Page 75 and 76: Table 4-1. Overview of the OPM Obje
Page 77 and 78:
In the DCIPS context, “leaders”
Page 79 and 80:
intelligence component would do so.
Page 81 and 82:
• Credible, timely, and original
Page 83 and 84:
Finding 4-5 The DCIPS website and R
Page 85 and 86:
Finding 4-6 The lack of a communica
Page 87 and 88:
No training needs assessments have
Page 89 and 90:
pay pool exercises to be helpful an
Page 91 and 92:
• The Commerce Department used fo
Page 93 and 94:
3. Implementing DCIPS; 4. Evaluatin
Page 95 and 96:
created a separate document for som
Page 97 and 98:
lack of an overall change strategy
Page 99 and 100:
changed and by whom. 149 This appea
Page 101 and 102:
How pay pools are constructed and w
Page 103 and 104:
DCIPS survey results indicate that
Page 105 and 106:
CONCLUSIONS The Panel finds that a
Page 107 and 108:
CHAPTER 5 ASSESSING DCIPS’ IMPACT
Page 109 and 110:
• Disincentives to become a super
Page 111 and 112:
employees received performance rati
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 5-1. DCIPS Interim Array of
Page 115 and 116:
Table 5-1. NGA Indices and Comparat
Page 117 and 118:
of implementation. Nonetheless, OUS
Page 119 and 120:
CHAPTER 6 THE WAY FORWARD FOR DCIPS
Page 121 and 122:
OUSD(I) has advised the Panel that
Page 123 and 124:
CHAPTER 7 PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS Bas
Page 125 and 126:
• Clarify and strengthen its guid
Page 127 and 128:
Recommendation 23. OUSD(I) should d
Page 129 and 130:
APPENDIX B APPENDIX A PANEL AND STA
Page 131 and 132:
APPENDIX B Committee on U.S. Nation
Page 133 and 134:
APPENDIX B PARTICIPATING INDIVIDUAL
Page 135 and 136:
Michael Jackson*—President and Fo
Page 137 and 138:
Defense Intelligence Agency Kendrea
Page 139 and 140:
APPENDIX C APPENDIX C BIBLIOGRAPHY
Page 141 and 142:
APPENDIX C Langbein, L. “The impa
Page 143 and 144:
APPENDIX D APPENDIX D MERIT SYSTEMS
Page 145 and 146:
APPENDIX D (10) Discriminating agai
Page 147 and 148:
APPENDIX E APPENDIX E DCIPS PERFORM
Page 149 and 150:
APPENDIX E EMPLOYEE NAME: _________
Page 151 and 152:
APPENDIX E EMPLOYEE NAME: _________
Page 153 and 154:
APPENDIX F APPENDIX F OPEN FORUM LO
Page 155 and 156:
APPENDIX G APPENDIX G MITRE’S PER
show all

Report - Government Executive

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?