Report - Government Executive

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Our delegates…(believe) the whole intention of NSPS was to bust unions and dismantle the federal civil service…(I)f it’s any way related to NSPS, it’s going to be toxic, it’s not going to have employee buy-in. 25 Adding to the controversy, as recently reported in the press, a 2008 report found that white employees received higher average performance ratings, salary increases, and bonuses under NSPS than employees of other races and ethnicities, and that raises and bonuses were sometimes inconsistent with corresponding performance ratings. 26 In 2009, DoD asked the Defense Business Board, an independent advisory body that operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to establish a task group to conduct a review of NSPS. The task group was to provide recommendations to help DoD determine “if the underlying design principles and methodology for implementation (of NSPS) are reflected in the program objectives; whether the program objectives are being met; and whether NSPS is operating in a fair, transparent, and effective manner…” 27 The Review of the National Security Personnel System, published in June 2009, called for DoD to “reconstruct” NSPS in a way that challenged the system’s assumptions and design. The report stated that a fix would not be sufficient to solve the problems that NSPS faced. It stopped short of calling for the abolishment of NSPS but recommended that the existing moratorium on transitions of more work units into NSPS be continued. The report recommended that DoD engage the workforce in the reconstruction; re-commit to partnership and collaboration with the unions; and commit to strategic management and investment in career civil servants. It also recommended changes to processes that involved trust, transparency, monitoring of progress, performance management, and classification. 28 These recommendations were never acted upon given the elimination of NSPS. Department of Homeland Security Performance-Based Compensation When Congress created DHS in 2002, it gave the new department authority to replace the GS system with a performance-based compensation system. 29 NSPS aside, the DHS effort covered the largest block of federal employees under such a system. It, too, was vigorously opposed by employee unions and halted by a series of court rulings in 2006. DHS put the performancebased compensation portion of the system, known as MAX HR, on hold in 2007 but continued with the performance management, appeals, and adverse action portions. In DHS’ fiscal year 2009 appropriation, Congress withheld funding for this new system 30 and DHS chose to cease its implementation efforts except at the Transportation Security 25 Union leaders make NSPS repeal, personnel reform major priorities. Alyssa Rosenberg. Govexec.com, Sept. 4, 2009. 26 Defense, OPM to review NSPS performance pay system. Federal Times.com. March 16, 2009. 27 DoD News Release. http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspxReleaseID=12679. May 15, 2009. 28 Report to the Secretary of Defense. Review of the National Security Personnel System. Report FY09-06. 29 Pub. L. 107-296, T. VIII, Subtitle E, Sec. 841, Nov. 25, 2002. 30 Pub. L. 110-329, Sep. 30, 2008. 16
Administration (TSA), which operated under a different statute. 31 Non-TSA DHS employees were returned to the GS system. Office of Personnel Management OPM is considering significant revisions to the GS system, including employee evaluation, recognition, and reward. At this time, it has not unveiled its new proposals, but some of the office’s 2010-2015 Strategic Plan objectives relate to performance-based systems: Ensure the federal workforce and its leaders are fully accountable, fairly appraised, and have the tools, systems, and resources to perform at the highest levels to achieve superior results. Help agencies become high-performing organizations by: • Designing performance management systems that are integrated with agency program planning and clearly show employees how their actions drive agency results; and • Creating fair and credible standards for individual performance appraisal and accountability. . Recognize, select, and sustain individuals who provide strong leadership and direction for agencies by: • Evaluating the agency’s effectiveness in holding leaders accountable for agency performance; and • Ensuring agencies make meaningful distinctions in evaluating and recognizing different levels of management performance. 32 Notwithstanding these themes of accountability, performance management, and individual performance standards, OPM has not yet publicly stated how the proposed changes to the GS system will affect existing performance-based compensation systems. Government Accountability Office The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has extensively studied performance-based compensation systems, including DCIPS and NSPS. 33 Its most recent examination of the former found that although DOD had taken “steps to implement internal safeguards to ensure that DCIPS is fair, effective, and credible…” the implementation of some safeguards could be improved. 34 As a result of discussion groups conducted with DoD employees and supervisors, 31 Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Pub. L. 107-71, Sec. 111(d), Nov. 19, 2001. 32 http://fehb.opm.gov/strategicplan/StrategicPlan_20100310.pdf 33 In addition to reviewing the performance-based compensation systems of other federal agencies, GAO has a performance-based compensation system of its own. Under authorities provided by the GAO Personnel Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-191), GAO implemented a broad-band performance-based compensation system for GAO analysts and specialists in 2006 and 2007. This system was designed to provide rewards based on knowledge, skills, and performance, as opposed to longevity. It also provided managers with additional flexibility to assign and use staff. See GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-271. 34 DOD Civilian Personnel: Intelligence Personnel System Incorporates Safeguards, but Opportunities Exist for 17
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 and 26: ewarded longevity over performance
Page 27 and 28: OTHERS FACTORS THAT IMPACTED DCIPS
Page 29: • Partisan politics could play an
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?