"The Government Accountability Office (GAO) Act of 2007" (H.R.
3268), and Other GAO Reforms (13-MAR-08, GAO-08-587T).
This testimony discusses H.R. 3268, the "Government
Accountability Office (GAO) Act of 2007" and other GAO reforms,
to discuss the results of the survey that Congress previously
requested that the Employee Advisory Council (EAC) conduct of all
GAO employees (except Senior Executive Service/SL and interns) on
GAO's Band II restructuring and the Watson Wyatt market-based
compensation study used to set salary ranges. The EAC was
established by Comptroller General David Walker to provide a
consolidated forum for him to meet with representatives from the
various employee liaison groups (e.g. Advisory Council for
Persons with Disabilities, Blacks In Government, Gay and Lesbian
Employee Association, etc.) so that these groups could voice the
concerns of their constituency groups. He also decided to include
representatives from each of the staff positions (i.e.
Administrative Professional Support Staff (APSS), attorneys, and
each of the Band levels). Consequently, the EAC was chartered in
January 2000 to serve as an advisory body to the Comptroller
General and other senior executives by seeking and conveying the
views and concerns of the individual employee groups they
represent, proposing solutions to those concerns where
appropriate, providing input by assessing and commenting on GAO
policies, procedures, plans and practices, and communicating
issues and concerns of the CG and senior managers to employees.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-08-587T
ACCNO: A81305
TITLE: "The Government Accountability Office (GAO) Act of 2007"
(H.R. 3268), and Other GAO Reforms
DATE: 03/13/2008
SUBJECT: Compensation
Demography
Diversity management
Employee relations
Federal agencies
Federal agency reorganization
Federal employees
Pay for performance
Performance measures
Policy evaluation
Proposed legislation
Reporting requirements
Salary increases
Surveys
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-587T
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-587T
entitled '"The Government Accountability Office (GAO) Act of 2007"
(H.R. 3268), and Other GAO Reforms' which was released on March 17,
2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to [email protected].
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the
District of Columbia, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST:
Thursday, March 13, 2008:
"The Government Accountability Office (GAO) Act of 2007" (H.R. 3268),
and Other GAO Reforms:
Statement of Shirley A. Jones, Esq., Employee Advisory Council (EAC)
Attorneys Representative:
GAO-08-587T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today at your hearing on H.R. 3268, the
"Government Accountability Office (GAO) Act of 2007" and other GAO
reforms, to discuss the results of the survey that you previously
requested that the Employee Advisory Council (EAC) conduct of all GAO
employees (except Senior Executive Service/SL and interns) on GAO's
Band II restructuring and the Watson Wyatt market-based compensation
study used to set salary ranges. My name is Shirley Jones and I am an
Assistant General Counsel at GAO. For the last four years I have served
as the Attorneys Representative to the EAC. Since your hearing last
May, I have worked with the EAC committee that conducted the survey. I
am here today to share the results of that survey with you.
Overview of EAC Creation and Purpose:
The EAC was established by Comptroller General David Walker to provide
a consolidated forum for him to meet with representatives from the
various employee liaison groups (e.g. Advisory Council for Persons with
Disabilities, Blacks In Government, Gay and Lesbian Employee
Association, etc.) so that these groups could voice the concerns of
their constituency groups. He also decided to include representatives
from each of the staff positions (i.e. Administrative Professional
Support Staff (APSS), attorneys, and each of the Band levels).
Consequently, the EAC was chartered in January 2000 to serve as an
advisory body to the Comptroller General and other senior executives by
seeking and conveying the views and concerns of the individual employee
groups they represent, proposing solutions to those concerns where
appropriate, providing input by assessing and commenting on GAO
policies, procedures, plans and practices, and communicating issues and
concerns of the CG and senior managers to employees.
Survey Background:
Five EAC members volunteered to conduct the survey that you requested.
In addition to myself, the committee consisted of Betsy Morris, Senior
Analyst, Defense Capabilities and Management, Beverly Ross, Senior IT
Specialist/Data Analyst, Applied Research and Methods, Nellie Shamlin,
Executive Assistant, Professional Development Program, and Shana
Wallace, Assistant Director, Applied Research and Methods. We received
assistance from a survey specialist, Luann Moy, an Assistant Director
from our Applied Research and Methods group.
Upon completion of our preliminary survey development work, the survey
was pre-tested among a small number of employees representing the
different Band levels and positions in the agency, and representing
both headquarters and field staff. A draft of the survey instrument was
provided to the Chairman's staff for comment. A courtesy copy was given
to the Comptroller General and the attorney representing the IFPTE.
The finalized survey was ultimately launched on Thursday, November 15,
2007. The survey was closed on Friday, December 14, 2007. Your staff
was briefed on the results on January 15, 2008 and March 5, 2008.
Overall Survey Response Rate:
The survey was sent to all GAO employees except Senior Executive
Service/SL and interns (a total of 3,002 employees). 71% of eligible
employees participated in the survey.
To provide a picture of those responding to the survey, respondents
were asked demographic questions regarding their position, years at
GAO, age, race, ethnicity, sex, and location (headquarters or field).
As is normally the case, some respondents chose not to answer some or
all of the demographic questions.
The highest area of nonresponse to the demographic questions was in the
answer to the question about race identification, which was not
answered by 253 or 12% of the respondents. The highest nonresponse was
from Asian employees (the number who responded and identified
themselves as Asian represents only 40% of those eligible) and African
Americans (the number who responded and identified themselves as
African American represents only 49% of those eligible). Because of the
lower response rate for these two races, the EAC survey committee noted
its concerns with presenting comparisons by race and with the possible
under-representation of the views of those two groups in particular.
Analysis of Close-Ended Survey Questions:
Several survey questions asked employees about the Watson Wyatt market-
based compensation study and specifically about staff involvement,
input and transparency. Specifically, respondents who were at GAO prior
to January 1, 2006, were asked if they were involved in several
different types of activities conducted by Watson Wyatt and GAO during
the study. These activities included focus groups, interviews, meetings
with team management, and CG chats.
Of those respondents who were at GAO prior to that date (83% of
respondents), 30% could not recall if they received communications from
management advising that Watson Wyatt would be conducting focus groups.
Of those who recalled whether they participated in focus groups, more
APSS than analyst staff reported participating. Specifically, 19% of
APSS staff reported participating, while only 4% of analysts and 8% of
attorneys reported participating.
Only 4% of all respondents at GAO prior to that date reported being
interviewed by Watson Wyatt. More APSS than other staff reported being
interviewed (21%). Of particular note, no Band I or Band II respondents
reported being interviewed by Watson Wyatt. However, in comparison to
the 4% that reported being interviewed by Watson Wyatt, 21% of
respondents reported having attended briefings conducted by Watson
Wyatt.
A higher number of staff who were at GAO prior to that date, 94%,
reported that they listened to CG Chats or attended town hall meetings.
13% also reported asking a question or making a comment to the CG about
the transition outside of meetings.
53% of respondents reported little or no opportunity to provide input
to management on the transition to market-based pay. A higher
percentage of respondents who identified themselves as Hispanic (67%)
or African American (66%) as compared to other racial groups reported
that they had little or no opportunity to provide input into the
transition.[Footnote 1]
81% of respondents reported that they felt they were only slightly
involved or not at all involved in providing input to management on the
transition to market-based pay. Similarly, 81% of respondents also felt
that employee input on the transition was ultimately only slightly or
not at all considered. 42% responded that employee input was not at all
considered.
57% of all respondents at GAO prior to January 2006 felt the level of
transparency of the Watson Wyatt study to be very or somewhat
unreasonable. Similarly, 58% also felt that the level of transparency
of the GAO decision-making process was somewhat or very unreasonable.
Generally, the more years of service a respondent had at GAO, the more
likely he or she was to report feeling the GAO decision-making process
was somewhat or very unreasonable. 75% of respondents with over 20
years of service felt this way compared to 55% or respondents with 2
years or less.
46% of survey respondents felt generally dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with GAO's market-based pay system compared to 34% of
survey respondents who were generally or very satisfied. 20% of
respondents reported that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
There were notable differences in dissatisfaction level based on
position, age, and race. Band IIAs and Band IIBs reported being more
dissatisfied than Band I and Band III analysts, APSS, and attorneys. A
higher percentage of respondents age 40 and over (59%) than under 40
(25%) reported feeling generally or very dissatisfied with the market-
based pay system. African Americans also had higher percentages of
respondents (64%) than other racial groups who said they were generally
or very dissatisfied with GAO's market-based pay system than those in
other racial groups.
With regard to the effect of the transition to market-based pay on
overall morale, 81% of respondents thought morale in general was worse
or much worse now than before the transition to market based pay. 48%
responded that their own morale was worse or much worse now. A higher
percentage of respondents age 40 and over than respondents under 40
reported that their morale and productivity are worse or much worse
than before the transition. A higher percentage of African Americans
than other racial groups reported that their morale was worse or much
worse (58%).
Regarding the Band II Restructuring (i.e. the restructuring of Band II
into a Band IIA and Band IIB with IIB having a higher salary range),
54% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the Band II
analyst and analyst-related restructuring, while 29% agreed or strongly
agreed. Certain demographics disagreed or strongly disagreed at a
higher rate - African Americans (67%), Band IIA (67%), those at GAO 10
years or longer (66%), and employees 40 years or older (65%).
Regarding specific outcomes of the Band II restructuring, 55% of
respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the restructuring
rewards workers more equitably, while 31% agreed or strongly agreed.
Similarly, 67% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the restructuring
enhances productivity while 13% agreed or strongly agreed.
Conversely, a slight majority (52%) of respondents agreed or strongly
agreed that Band IIB staff lead more complex jobs. These results varied
widely by Band level - 34% of Band IIAs agreed or strongly agreed while
Band IIBs and Band IIIs agreed or strongly agreed at a much higher rate
(69% and 71% respectively).
Regarding the current general climate at GAO, 40% of respondents said
that their own level of morale related to working at GAO was high or
very high. 36% said their level of morale was moderate, while 24% said
it was low or very low.
There were notable differences in responses regarding general climate
at GAO based on position, age, and years of service. Among the
different positions at GAO, Band IIA analysts had the lowest percentage
responding that their morale was high or very high (30%) while
attorneys had the highest percentage (60%). 53% of respondents under 40
years old reported high or very high levels compared to 32% of
respondents who were age 40 or older. Staff with less than 10 years at
GAO (50%) reported higher levels of morale than respondents with 10 or
more years at GAO (only 30%).
45% of respondents reported feeling that their professional
contributions at GAO were valued to a high degree. 33% said that their
contributions were moderately valued, and 22% said their contributions
were valued to a low or very low degree. Lower percentages of Band IIA
analyst and APSS (33% and 38% respectively) felt their contributions
were highly or very highly valued compared to attorneys and Band III
staff (67% and 63% respectively).
The more years of service respondents had at GAO, the less likely they
were to report that they felt their contributions were highly or very
highly valued. A lower percentage of respondents with 10 or more years
of service (37%) than respondents with under 10 years of service (54%)
felt that their contributions were highly valued. Similarly, a lower
percentage of respondents age 40 and older (38%) than respondents under
40 (59%) felt that their contributions were highly valued.
A lower percentage of African Americans compared to other race groups
felt that their contributions were highly valued. 27% of African
Americans responded that their contributions were highly or very highly
valued compared to 51% of White staff.
Methodology for Content Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Question:
To give respondents an opportunity to provide additional thoughts or
concerns, we include an open-ended question which read "What other
comments or thoughts would you like to provide to the House
Subcommittee about the Watson Wyatt study, Band II restructuring,
market-based pay system, the GAO performance management system or GAO
work life, in general?" 1113 respondents provided substantive comments
to this question.
To classify the nature of the comments, we created 29 categories to use
as codes. Two survey committee members independently coded every
comment, and then discussed comments where there were any differences
in coding until 100% agreement was reached. Some comments were coded
into more than one category since some respondents discussed more than
one topic.
Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Question:
The comments to the open-ended question cannot be generalized to the
entire GAO employee population. They do, however, provide some insights
into why some respondents answered close-ended survey questions as they
did.
Our content analysis of respondents' comments showed the top specific
areas of concern expressed as the Band II restructuring being damaging
to employee morale or otherwise providing disincentives (217 comments),
the Pay For Performance (PFP) system being damaging to employee morale
or otherwise providing disincentives (133), PFP ratings not being
accurate (108), GAO employees not receiving the same COLA as employees
at Federal executive branch agencies (107), and the Watson Wyatt study
being flawed or fraudulent (84). (The other two categories among the
top seven most common comments were "other" less specific consolidated
comments.)
Although not generalizeable to the overall GAO population, we noted
that more than twice as many respondents commented that the Band II
restructuring was damaging to employee morale or otherwise provided
disincentives than those that responded that it was the right thing to
do. Specifically, in contrast to the 217 comments noted above from
respondents that said that the Band II restructuring at GAO is damaging
to employee morale or otherwise provides disincentives, 74 of the
narrative comments said the Band II restructuring was the right thing
to do. Some other comments expressed agreement with the Band II
restructuring in concept but didn't believe it was working (74). Some
comments also noted concern with the lack of transparency in the Band
II restructuring (47). Some respondents also noted their belief that
the Band II restructuring should have included "grandfathering"
provisions for staff already within Band II at the beginning of the
process (31).
While 133 respondents commented that GAO's Pay For Performance (PFP)
system is damaging to employee morale or otherwise provides
disincentives, 80 respondents said that they believe that PFP at GAO is
helpful or worthwhile. Similarly, 108 respondents specifically noted
their belief that PFP ratings are inaccurate. Some others agreed with
PFP in concept but didn't believe it was working here at GAO (48). Some
respondents also noted their concern with the lack of transparency in
the PFP system at GAO (69). A smaller number of respondents
specifically noted their belief that the PFP system is flawed,
fraudulent or unethical (45).
Cost of living adjustments (COLAs) were also a consistent theme within
the narrative responses. As noted earlier, 107 respondents specifically
noted their belief that GAO employees should receive the same COLA as
employees at Federal executive branch agencies.
Compared to the 84 narrative comments that noted concerns with the
Watson Wyatt study being flawed or fraudulent, 6 narrative comments
specifically noted belief that the Watson Wyatt study was correct. Some
respondents' comments also noted concerns about the lack of
transparency with the Watson Wyatt study (73).
Some narrative comments conveyed positive thoughts including the belief
that the Comptroller General should be given credit for moving the
agency in the right direction (30) and that GAO has excellent benefits
(32). Other generally positive comments (44) that did not fit into one
of the more specific categories so were coded as "Other-Positive"
included beliefs that GAO's Professional Development Program (PDP) is a
very good one and that GAO's work is cutting edge.
Staff also used the narrative comments, however, to express their
belief that the changes at GAO were going to happen anyway regardless
of staff input (64). Other negative comments included concerns with GAO
losing talented staff because of recent changes (74), GAO's overall
processes being discriminatory (54), lack of trust overall (45), and
locality pay decisions being flawed (27).
The count of combined negative comments that did not fit into the more
specific categories and that were captured as "Other-Negative" had the
highest overall category count (426). This category captured a variety
of negative comments such as promoting Band I staff to IIA faster
results in less qualified staff at higher levels, GAO should deal with
the real problem - poor performance, concerns about the lack of
domestic partner benefits, and concerns about the treatment of
communications analyst positions under the Band II restructuring.
Conclusion:
In general, Band IIA staff reported more unfavorable responses to many
of the topics covered in this survey (Band II restructuring, the Watson
Wyatt studies -analyst and APSS, market-based pay, and overall GAO
climate) than staff in other bands and positions. African American
staff, older staff, and staff with more years at GAO, also had
generally less favorable opinions of these topics. There were few
differences of opinion between male and female staff, and headquarters
and field staff about these topics.
Respondents used the open-ended question that we included to further
highlight their concerns regarding these topics as well as to express
their continued belief in the work of the agency. While the narrative
comments can not be generalized to the overall GAO population, they did
provide insightful and thoughtful feedback for consideration.
Footnotes:
[1] As noted earlier, because of the lower response rate for Asians and
African Americans, the EAC survey committee noted its concerns with
presenting comparisons by race and with the possible under-
representation of the views of those two groups in particular.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: [email protected]:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
*** End of document. ***