INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT OF THE JOB EVALUATION AND PAY REVIEW TASK FORCE OF THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 76
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 31, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: March 31, 1971
• Content Type: REPORT

ttt~ N cOWISEL
Approved For Relers 0U/ -RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
i
92d Congress l
1st Sessiom-
I COMMITTEE
1 PRINT No. 6
INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT
JOB EVALUATION AND PAY REVIEW
TASK FORCE
UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND
CIVIL SERVICE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Printed for the use of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-7540 WASHINGTON : 1971
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/-[J[38TId'296R000100150001-4
COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York, Chairman
DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina, Vice Chairman
MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania
DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey H. R. GROSS, Iowa
ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois
JAMES M. HANLEY, New York ALBERT W. JOHNSON, Pennsylvania
CHARLES H. WILSON, California WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia
JEROME R. WALDIE, California TAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho
RICHARD C. WHITE, Texas LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, Maryland
WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California
LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana ELWOOD HILLIS, Indiana
FRANK J. BRASCO, New York WALTER E. POWELL, Ohio
GRAHAM PURCELL, Texas C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
TOM BEVILL, Alabama
BILL CHAPPELL, In., Florida
JOHN H. MARTINY, Chief Counsel
B. BENTON BRAY, Associate Staff Director
VINCENT M. GAUGHAN, Staff Director and Special Counsel
VICTOR C. SMIROLDO, Counsel
WILLIAM A. IRVINE, Assistant Staff Director
THEODORE J. RAZY, Senior Staff Assistant
FRANCIS C. FORTUNE, Coordinator
ROBERT E. LOCKHART, Assistant Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
JAMES M. HANLEY, New York, Chairman
FRANK J. BRASCO, New York LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, Maryland
MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona ELWOOD HILLIS, Indiana
CHARLES H. WILSON, California WALTER E. POWELL, Ohio
RICHARD C. WHITE, Texas
Ex Officio Voting Members
THADDEUS J. DULSKI, New York ROBERT J. CORBETT, Pennsylvania
RICHARD A. BARTON, Staff Assistant, Room 207, Cannon Building-Ext. 36295
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
This print contains the interim progress report of the U.S. Civil
Service Commission's Job Evaluation and Pay Review Task Force
and its accompanying letter of transmittal to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, Hon. Carl Albert.
The Task Force was established under the provisions of the Job
Evaluation Policy Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-216), which was signed
on March 17, 1970. The act requires a full interim report at the end
of 1 year and a final report with a draft of recommended legislation
within 2 years after date of enactment.
Public Law 91-216 was developed by the Subcommittee on Position
Classification chaired by Representative James M. Hanley. The func-
tions of this subcommittee were included in the jurisdiction of the
new Subcommittee on Employee Benefits established early in the
92d Congress.
The subcommittee intends to conduct a complete review of the in-
terim progress report during this session.
A complete review of the steps leading to the enactment of Public
Law 91-216 is included in the report.
TIIADDEUS J. DULSKI,
Chairman.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
LETTER OF TRANSM,TTTAL
U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., March 25,1971.
Hon. CARL ALBERT,
Speaker of the house of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER : The enclosed Interim Progress Report is sub-
mitted in compliance with Section 304 of Public Law 91-216, Job
Evaluation Policy Act of 1970.
The Job Evaluation and Pay Review Task Force, established in
and reporting to the U.S. Civil Service Commission, has reached the
halfway point in its development of a coordinated job evaluation
plan for Federal employees in the executive branch of the Government.
The major tentative findings of the Task Force can be summarized
as follows :
1. A variety of evaluation systems is needed in order to cover the
breadth and scope of positions occupied by Federal employees.
2. Tentative models for each of several such systems have been
prepared and will be tested and revised as necessary.
3. An interrelationship system, through the use of common job
evaluation factors, is being developed to provide the common thread
among the various systems.
4. The executive branch will need expanded authority for the crea-
tion of salary schedules and salary administration rules to provide a
more direct relationship between evaluation and pay for the j9b.
5. The more than 500,000 clerical and other support personnel who
are primarily recruited and work in localities now covered by the
Coordinated Federal Wage System should, for pay purposes, be
treated in like manner, i.e., to achieve comparability their pay should
be based on locality prevailing salaries.
Extensive discussions have been, and will continue to be, held with
representatives of Federal employees as well as with management
officials throughout the Government as the work continues to progress.
Liaison is being maintained with both the Military Personnel Direc-
torate at the Department of Defense and the Postal Service. The
former group is interested in the interface between its evaluation
program for officers and enlisted men and their counterparts in the
civilian Federal work force. The Postal Service is interested in the
evaluation systems being developed as guidance in the design of its
own job evaluation program.
(V)
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
Public Law 91-216 requires that the Civil Service Commission
submit this interim report to the Congress. In submitting it, my
colleagues and I wish to make it completely clear that we have not
come to any determinations at this time as to the soundness of the
tentative conclusions or thinking of the Task Force as expressed in
this report. It seems desirable, however, to bring these tentative ideas
into the public domain at this time so as to secure the views and
reactions of all interested parties during the months of refinement
and recommendation which lie ahead.
By direction of the Commission.
Sincerely,
ROBERT E. HAMPTON,
Chairmav.
(Enclosure.)
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
'a mal
MEMO
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
U. S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
SECTION II - Development of Evaluation Systems by the Task Force 21
SECTION III - Relationship of Pay to Evaluation Systems 29
SECTION IV - Work to be Done 41
APPENDIX I - Temporary Members of the Job Evaluation and Pay Review
Task Force 47
APPENDIX II - AFL-CIO Advisory Committee 48
Federal Personnel Directors Advisory Committee 49
Independent Unions and Associations Advisory Committee 50
Industry Advisory Committee 51
APPENDIX III - Background Material 52
APPENDIX IV - List of Miscellaneous Federal Job Evaluation Systems 53
APPENDIX V - Survey of Job Evaluation and Pay Systems Used by
State Merit and Civil Service Systems 56
APPENDIX VI - Job Evaluation and Pay,Systems in Canada, Great Britain,
and Australia 57
APPENDIX VII - Models of Evaluation Systems Developed by the Task
Force 60
APPENDIX VIII - Disposition of Exceptions to Existing Major Job
Evaluation Systems 73
APPENDIX IX - Public Law 91-216, Job Evaluation Policy Act of 1970 78
58-754 0 - 71 - 2
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0100150001-4
Public Law 91-216, enacted March 17, 1970, requires a two-year
study leading to the preparation of a plan for the establishment
of a coordinated system of job evaluation and ranking for civilian
positions in the Executive Branch. This law resulted from a
comprehensive review of Federal job evaluation and pay practices
conducted by the Subcommittee on Position Classification, House
Post Office and Civil Service Committee, under the chairmanship
of Representative James M. Hanley.
In accordance with the requirements of Public Law 91-216, a Job
Evaluation and Pay Review Task Force has been established within
the U.S. Civil Service Commission. This interim progress report
outlines the activities of the Task Force thus far, as well as
the work which lies ahead.
The Task Force has completed a thorough study of job evaluation
and compensation practices in private industry, State governments,
and certain foreign countries. Research projects have been
completed on a wide variety of topics basic to the establishment
of sound job evaluation and pay policies for the Federal
Government.
From an evaluation view, the tentative findings of the Task Force
appear to indicate that the Federal positions can be grouped into
five broad categories. Models for evaluating positions in these
categories appear in APPENDIX VII. These can be summarized as
follows:
1. Executive Evaluation System (EES). This includes
positions involving basic responsibility for plan-
ning, developing, and directing programs or managing
organizational entities. This is directly related
to recently proposed legislation for a Federal
Executive Service.
2. Administrative, Professional and Technological Evaluation
System (APTES). This includes positions in the
physical and social sciences, managers, the
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
administrative support positions, and the para-
professional or technological positions that support
full professional positions.
3. Clerical. Office Machine Operation and Technician
Evaluation System (COMOT). This includes positions
that furnish clerical support, office equipment
operation, and technician support positions subordinate
to those in "2" above.
4. Coordinated Federal Wage System (CFWS). This includes
positions of trade, craft, and manual operation and
the supervisors of these types of positions.
5. Special Occupations Evaluation Systems (SOES). This
includes specialized subsystems related to "2" and-
"3" above which emphasize rank-in-man elements.
Since proper pay policies are essential to the success of a job
evaluation system, the Task Force has concerned itself with the
subject of pay equity and pay relationships for Federal employees.
The following principles have evolved, thus far:
1. The Federal work force does not comprise a homogeneous
group of employees, similar in training and education,
career patterns, geographical and career mobility, and
labor market characteristics.
2. While common pay principles should undergird pay treat-
ment, a single Government-wide pay schedule cannot meet
the needs of all Federal agencies and employees.
3. Pay rates should be based on such factors as recruit-
ment sources; the mobility of groups of employees;
and industry practices. Thus, locality rates would
continue to apply to nonsupervisory wage board employees;
and could be extended to occupants of nonsupervisory
clerical, machine operation and technician positions.
Most other categories of employees could be compensated
on nationwide pay schedules.
4. Overlapping pay scales would be required to recognize
overlapping levels of responsibility among different
categories of employees. For example, pay rates for
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/'0 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
the Executive Evaluation System could overlap with
the bottom rates of the Federal Executive Schedule
and in turn be overlapped by the top rates of the
Administrative, Professional and Technological
Evaluation System.
5. Special occupational pay schedules may be required
for certain categories, e.g., medical professions,
attorneys, teachers.
Substantial work must be accomplished by the Task Force during
the duration of its assignment period. Among the projects to
be completed are the following:
1. An evaluation model for each of the five categories
of employees to be covered by the coordinated job
evaluation plan.
2. Field tests conducted to determine the validity of
the five evaluation systems, and necessary revisions
made where indicated.
3. Clearances of the proposed evaluation and pay systems
with all interested parties.
4. An administrative structure and a transition plan to
support the coordinated job evaluation and pay systems.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
k~uod~t~on
SECTION I
A. Historical Background
1. Origin of Study by Subcommittee on Position Classification
Public Law 91-216--The Job Evaluation Policy Act of 1970--had its
beginnings in the first session of the 90th Congress. In April 1967
the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee created a Sub-
committee on Position Classification, under the chairmanship of
Representative James M. Hanley, for the purpose of holding hearings
on proposals for the reclassification of certain positions in the
Postal Service. The Subcommittee's hearings and investigations
brought to light two significant facts about job evaluation in the
Federal Government:
-- a sound system for job evaluation is essential to
the maintenance of a good personnel system,
particularly. in an organization the size of the
Federal Government. Proper job classification is
essential to the recruitment of qualified employees,
the establishment of meaningful training courses,
the selection of employees for promotion, and the
payment of fair and equitable salaries for work
performed;
-- the classification systems of the Federal Government
are out of date and are not keeping pace with the
changing needs of society and the changing structure
of the Federal service.
The Subcommittee then explored with employee organizations and with
the Executive Branch the possible approaches to a thorough review
of the job classification structures of the Federal Government, and
outlined an ambitious study program for the second session of the
90th Congress.!/ The purpose of the study program, the Subcommittee
later stated ". was to determine whether the need for differing
independent classification and ranking systems still exists; the
effectiveness of the systems in meeting the current and future needs
of the Federal Government and the taxpayer; the need for changes in
the classification and ranking systems; and, where necessary, to
develop proposed changes in policy and procedures which will update
l~ House Committee Print "Summary of Activities and Program of the
Subcommittee on Position Classification during the First Session of
the Ninetieth Congress, December 1967."
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
10
classification and ranking systems, correct inequities in the
systems, and to provide a basis for continuous maintenance of the
systems to meet future needs for adapting to the ever-changing
functions of the Federal Government. . . ."?/
The basic study occupied the better part of the Subcommittee's
time during the second session of the 90th Congress. Members of
the staff of the Subcommittee compiled background and historical
information on each classification and ranking system used in the
Federal Government; solicited views of departments and agencies,
employee organizations, Federal executive associations and
personnel councils, and operating personnel officials; examined
the job evaluation systems of several state and foreign govern-
mental jurisdictions; and reviewed previous studies of the Federal
personnel system. The findings of the study group were:
"1. Since the studies of job evaluation and ranking
practices in the Federal, service leading to the
enactment of the Classification Acts of 1923 and
1949, several additional studies have been made
by competent groups but little attention has been
paid them by the Congress. Also, the executive
branch has not taken the initiative to implement
those phases of the studies dealing with the
basic systems, the methods of job evaluation, and
improvement of standards.
"2. Classification and ranking of positions is
accepted throughout the Federal service as
necessary to orderly personnel administration.
"3. Although job evaluation and ranking should pro-
vide the basis for good personnel management,
many believe it is not doing so.
"4. Classification and ranking systems have not been
adapted to, maintained or administered to meet
the rapidly changing needs of the Federal
Government.
Report on Job Evaluation and Ranking in the Federal Government,
U. S. House of Representatives Report No. 91-28, February 27, 1969,
page 5.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
11 -
"5. The number and variety of classification and ranking
systems in the Federal service create confusion and
result in.differences.in the methods of selection
and appointment, promotion, conditions of work, and
pay of employees in comparable positions.
"6. The different methods of evaluation or ranking for
specialized groups of positions are not related to
one another and therefore create inconsistencies in
pay, qualification standards and other personnel
practices.
No effort has been made by the Congress or the
executive branch to bring all departments and
agencies under a single system."3!
3. Introduction of H. R. 13008
Representative Hanley introduced H. R. 13008 on July 22, 1969,
for himself and for the entire membership of the Subcommittee on
Position Classification. The language of Title I of the proposed
legislation summarized the major findings of the study, and stated
the intent of Congress that the Federal Government operate under a
job evaluation and ranking system which would be at once
coordinated--to assure equitable treatment to employees--and
flexible--to accommodate the wide variety of occupations and
employment conditions existing in the Federal service.
Hearings were held on H. R. 13008 over the course of several
months--from August to December 1969. Witnesses included repre-
sentatives of the major departments and agencies and employee
unions and associations. The testimony supported the findings of
the report on Job Evaluation and Ranking, and was overwhelmingly
in favor of enactment of H. R. 13008. With this demonstrated need
for in-depth review and overhaul of the Government's job evaluation
systems, the Post Office and Civil Service Committees of both
Houses of Congress reported favorably on H. R. 13008. In its
report, the House Committee wrote:
"Changing the 'job evaluation and ranking systems of the
Federal Government is a delicate and time-consuming task.
It raises many questions and doubts in the minds of
employees subject to the systems. It breaks patterns of
thought and action with which personnel officials have
become comfortable--perhaps too comfortable--over the
31 Ibid, page 11.
Approvdd7F6r Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
12
past 47 years. Nevertheless, the task must be begun.
H. R. 13008 represents the first legislative step toward
much needed and major reforms in the structure of and
concepts behind job evaluation and ranking--as it is
utilized in the executive branch. The end result will
hopefully be a system or systems which will provide
greater cross-agency equity and will recognize the need
for modern and flexible personnel management in the
Federal Government today."4i
On March 17, 1970, President Nixon signed H. R. 13008 as
Public Law 91-216.
4. Creation of Task Force
Within one month of the President's signature, implementation of
Section 301 of the Act was begun. The Job Evaluation and Pay Review
Task Force was created within the Civil Service Commission as an
independent staff office reporting directly to the three
Commissioners. Mr. Philip M. Oliver was selected as Task Force
Director.
Mr. Oliver's first task was to recruit a small permanent
professional and administrative staff. Six professional personnel
were selected as well as two administrative support personnel.
John S. Bynon, formerly Chief, Planning and Analysis
Branch, Division of Personnel, Tennessee Valley Authority
William S. Fradkin, formerly Deputy Chief, Compensation
Division, Department of Commerce
James A. Lambie, formerly Chief, Civilian Personnel
Division, U. S. Army in Europe
Barry E. Shapiro, formerly Personnel Management Specialist,
Bureau of Policies and Standards, Civil Service Commission
Harold Suskin, formerly Personnel Officer, Office of
Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Robert J. Trudel, formerly Chief, Salary Survey Support
Office, Bureau of Policies and Standards, Civil Service
Commission
U. S. House of Representatives Report No. 91-823, February 3, 1970,
page 4.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
13
Miss Ocie R. Fisher, Administrative Assistant to the
Director
In addition, personnel have been detailed from other agencies for
short-term assignments with the Task Force. Several key Task
Force projects have been developed by these temporary personnel.
(See APPENDIX I for a listing of the temporary personnel.)
Under the terms of Public Law 91-216, the Task Force is required
to "consult with, and solicit the views of, appropriate employee
and professional organizations" /Section 304(d)/. Furthermore, it
is clear from the legislative history of the Act that Congress
wished the Task Force to consult with all interested and concerned
parties. To this end, the Task Force created four advisory
committees representing, respectively, private industry, Federal
personnel directors, AFL-CIO unions and independent unions and
associations. (See APPENDIX II for a listing of the membership
of these committees.) Specific areas of interest varied from
committee to committee, but the same basic agenda was employed
for all four. Among the many topics discussed in varying degrees
among the committees have been:
1.
Need for numerous job evaluation and pay plans
now in Federal service.
2.
Alternative groupings of Federal positions for
job evaluation purposes.
3.
Traditional job evaluation techniques and their
usefulness in the Federal service.
4.
Rank-in-Man vs. Rank-in-Job.
5.
Job Evaluation as a management tool.
6.
Professionalism in the Federal service.
7.
The role of line management in the evaluation
process.
8.
The role of employee unions and organizations
the evaluation process.
in
9.
Definition of the competitive position of the
Federal Government as an employer.
10.
Methods for changing pay.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
14
11. Locality vs. national salary schedules.
12. Open vs. stepped salary ranges.
The contributions made by the members of the four advisory
committees have been extremely helpful to the Task Force.
Also, in accordance with the desire of Congress to be kept abreast
of the activities of the Task Force, monthly activity reports
have been prepared for the Post Office and Civil Service Committees
of the two Houses of Congress. These reports have presented
specific topics being studied by the Task Force, brief summaries
of the topics discussed in advisory committee meetings, and an
indication of the scope of Task Force contacts with other Federal
agencies, as well as with a wide variety of public and private
organizations.
1. Review of Background Material
The Task Force approached the problem presented by Public Law 91-216
with an intensive review of background material (see APPENDIX III).
These materials have a common thread running through them, namely,
a continuing identification of the need for an improved coordinated
job evaluation plan with supporting pay structures that would
enable the Federal Govkrnment to maintain an effective work force
without disruption to the general economy (or unfavorable
competition with the private sector).
2. Review of Existing Systems
The next step was to understand the existing job evaluation and
pay systems. Upon cataloging, over 60 different systems were
found within the Executive Branch. These systems included not
only General Schedule, but, also all of the special systems
created by specific legislative acts for certain agencies and
departments within the Executive Branch, such as the Tennessee
Valley Authority, Veterans Administration Department of Medicine
and Surgery, Department of State Foreign Service, Atomic Energy
Commission, Central Intelligence Agency and the U. S. Information
Agency, to name a few.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
15
Because of the complexity of some of the systems in the Executive
Branch, and to assure that each of the separate and distinct
systems being used was thoroughly understood by the Task Force,
arrangements were made for individual briefings by appropriate
agency officials. Accordingly, a series of meetings was held with
and formal presentations made by many of the major independent
systems users. These briefings not only gave current information
to the Task Force, but also provided the agencies with an
opportunity to point out their own developmental plans for the
future, weaknesses in the existing systems, and their systems'
linkages with the General Schedule.
In addition, it was felt desirable to hold discussions with
appropriate officials in the Library of Congress, General Accounting
Office, Government Printing Office, and the District of Columbia
Government.
Contact was also established with the Department of Defense to
learn as much as possible about the job evaluation techniques
used for military personnel. A continuing liaison has been
maintained since there is a common interest between the military
and the civilian components of the Executive Branch in job
evaluation.
3. Conduct of Research Projects
The review of background material and the briefings by agencies
placed the Task Force in a position to identify specific topics
for areas of study and research, and a series of work papers have
been developed. These work papers have formed the basis for
discussion and development of the specific evaluation approaches
and philosophies expressed in this report.
Certain fundamental precepts were established by the Task Force
and can be enumerated as follows:
a. A series of related evaluation systems would be needed to
cover broad horizontal and vertical strata of workers within
the total of approximately 2,100,000 Federal civilian
employees (this figure does not include the approximately
700,000 postal workers). Upon specific advice from the
General Counsels of both the Civil Service Commission and
the Postal Service, the approximately 700,000 postal workers
were excluded from the work of the Task Force. It was
determined that the intent of the Congress in passing the
Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 was to permit that
organization the freedom and latitude to develop evaluation
and pay systems to meet its specific needs.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
16
b. The evaluation systems would have to be simple enough for
managers and employees at all levels to understand.
Intensive training would be required at all levels to
achieve this objective.
c. The evaluation systems would have to produce consistent and
accurate identifications of skill levels.
d. The basic evaluation systems would be built with master job
factors that measure uniform characteristics of jobs to be
covered. In each system the job'factors would be specifically
tailored to the occupations to which applied by placing
emphasis on differing elements within the factors, depending
upon the positions to be evaluated.
e. Many career ladders in the Federal service start at fairly
low skill levels and rise to executive level positions. In
developing evaluation systems, therefore, provision would
have to be made for an interrelationship of grade levels
and pay ranges. This interrelationship would be needed to
facilitate an employee's movement from jobs in one evaluation
system to jobs in another.
f. The evaluation systems should be sufficiently flexible to
accommodate new occupations resulting from technological
developments and changing social values.
g. A wide range of ma igement processes should be served by
the job evaluation +systems. These systems would have to
be designed so that they could be utilized as tools to
improve the overall efficiency of Federal programs.
h. The pay systems that would be related to the evaluation
systems should provide pay scales that would be appropriately
competitive with those of other major employers.
4. Consultation with Advisory Committees
As indicated above, and in compliance with Section 304(d) of
Public Law 91-216, the philosophical concepts and the workpapers
developed as a result of study and research have, during the
past year, been reviewed with the Advisory Committees. These
committees have given inch assistance and advice and have been
instrumental in guiding the thinking of the Task Force in its
work. It is acknowledged that the work presented in the following
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
17
sections of this report does not represent complete acceptance
by or unanimity of opinion of the Advisory Committee members. It
would be unrealistic to expect to develop proposals that would
carry the total endorsement of the diverse interests represented
by the Advisory Committees.
In the development of a coordinated job evaluation plan as
requested by Congress, evaluation systems for five broad categories
of positions have been tentatively identified as follows and
described in more detail in APPENDIX VII:
a. Executive Evaluation System (EES). This includes positions
where the basic responsibility is for planning, developing,
and directing programs or managing organizational entities.
b. Administrative, Professional and Technological Evaluation
System (APTES). This includes administrative support positions,
professional positions in the physical, engineering and social
sciences, and the paraprofessional or technological positions
that support full professional positions.
c. Clerical, Office Machine Operation, and Technician Evaluation
System (COMOT). This includes positions that furnish clerical
support, office equipment operation, and technician support
subordinate to those in "b" above.
d. Coordinated Federal Wage System (CFWS). This includes positions
of trade, craft, and manual operation and the first level
supervisors of these types of positions.
e. Special Occupations Evaluation System (SOES). This includes
specialized subsystems related to "b" and "c" above which
emphasize rank-in-man elements as well as one of the rank-in-job
systems.
A relatively new plan is now in effect for item "d" above, i.e.,
the Coordinated Federal Wage System. The Task Force recommends
retention of that system. New systems are being designed for the
other four categories. After very careful consideration of the
many different techniques for measuring jobs, the factor ranking
evaluation method has been tentatively selected, with point values,
in some categories. (Descriptions of methodology appear in
APPENDIX VII.)
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
18
6. Existing Civil Service Commission Standards
The Task Force is fully aware of the tremendous investment repre-
sented by standards development by the Civil Service Commission
for General Schedule positions. These standards are a highly
valuable asset, and it is proposed to utilize them to the greatest
extent possible.
Specifically, Civil Service Commission standards would serve as an
excellent source of occupational data. These documents are, and
will be utilized as, encyclopedias of work information providing
basic materials for constructing new job evaluation tools and
benchmark jobs by the Task Force now, and by the Commission at a
later date.
7. Exclusions from the General Schedule
Public Law 91-216 exempts no executive agencies or occupational
groups. Therefore, the Task Force made a study of the exclusions
listed in 5 U.S.C. 510(c) and (d). It was necessary to review not
only the background of the individual exclusions, but the history
of the purpose and implementation of the Classification Act of 1923
as well. It was found that the exclusions are defined in four ways:
a. There are entire organizations, within which all positions,
of whatever character, are excluded.
b. Certain kinds, classes, or groups of positions are excluded
under all circumstances.
c. There are certain circumstances'or employment conditions under
which all positions are excluded.
d. Certain kinds, classes, or groups of positions are excluded
under certain designated circumstances.
In the foregoing categories, the term "excluded" refers to
positions not covered by Chapter 51 of Title 5, U. S. Code. Such
positions are not covered by the eighteen statutory grade definitions
and accompanying pay schedule for the General Schedule, or not
subject to regulation by the Civil Service Commission. Most of the
exclusions were originally written into law because of the
inappropriateness of the statutory grade definitions of the
Classification Acts of 1923 and 1949; the inappropriateness of the
fixed compensation schedules of those Acts as pay-setting mechanisms;
or problems connected with Civil Service Commission review of an
agency's classification program. Task Force recommendations as to
the continuation of any individual exclusions would, therefore,
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
19
depend less on the validity of the exclusion under the present
system than on the practicality of application of the proposals
for new evaluation systems being recommended by the Task Force.
(APPENDIX VIII addresses this problem.)
In the following portions of this report, suggested authority by
the Civil Service Commfssion for post-audit and for approval of
benchmark positions would be worked out with agencies currently
having exemptions for reasons of national security.
Approve, For, Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0100150001-4
SECTION II Development of Evaluation Systems
by the Task Force
1. Job Evaluation Systems inside the Federal Government
The Report on Job Evaluation and Ranking in the Federal Government,
issued February 27, 1969, by the House Subcommittee on Position
Classification, states "There are at least 20 separate systems for
evaluating and ranking jobs."5/ The Report makes clear that this
multiplicity of systems underlies many (and perhaps most) of the
numerous problems identified and described by the Subcommittee.
Actually, the number of separate "systems" for evaluating and
ranking jobs is considerably greater than 20. These systems
differ from one another in many characteristics. Some of these
differences are of profound importance, others are often trivial.
It is the lack of coordination among these many systems that has
produced the discrepancies in job evaluation, employee treatment,
and pay described throughout the Subcommittee's report.
The Task Force has listed the existing job evaluation and job
ranking systems and identified the major or significant character-
istics of each. For purposes of this list, a job evaluation
system was assumed to exist in each instance in which:
a. A formal plan existed for sorting positions into classes,
grades, or levels for any purpose; or
b. An authority existed to fix pay for individual positions.
It was assumed in the latter instance that the exercise of the
pay-fixing authority necessarily entailed some type of evaluation,
formal or otherwise, of the worth of the position relative to
other positions.
Of particular significance is the fact that 88% of the Federal
workers are included under three job evaluation systems, and
12% are scattered among about 60 other job evaluation and pay
plans. The three systems that cover almost all of the workers
are:
a. The General Schedule system, witli approximately 44% of all
Federal employees;
.2/op. cit., page 1.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
22
b. The Coordinated Federal Wage system, with approximately 19%
of all Federal employees;
c. The Postal Service, with approximately 25% of all Federal
employees. Since this is excluded from the Task Force study,
no further mention will be made of this system.
Over 40% of the other 12% of the workers are foreign nationals
employed overseas in craft or labor occupations.
Two of the job evaluation plans that include the largest number
of workers are administered by the U.S. Civil Service Commission.
These are:
a. The General Schedule System
This is a formal job evaluation system applicable to a wide
range of office, administrative, and professional positions
in most executive departments and agencies. This plan
utilizes job evaluation standards issued by the Civil Service
Commission for each occupation. A wide variety of factors
and job evaluation techniques are used in these standards,
and other evaluation techniques may also be used, provided
the resultant grade level for each position is the same as
that authorized by the standard. Standards have been provided
for about 65% of all occupational series and 90% of all employees
are covered by class standards or grade evaluation guides.
Approximately 1,300,000 positions are under the GS system.
b. The Coordinated Federal Wage System
This is a formal job evaluation system applicable to trades
and crafts, skilled mechanical crafts, and unskilled, semi-
skilled, and skilled manual labor positions (including foremen
and supervisors) in 60 executive departments a.-' agencies.
A factor-comparison plan is used, and job grading standards
are issued by the Civil Service Commission. As of June 30, 1970,
there were nearly 560,000 employees under this system,
exclusive of: (1) employees stationed in U.S. Territories;
and (2) foreign nationals. Also included under this system
are over 20 "special schedules" or subsystems that involve
separate job evaluation techniques and pay practices.
c. Other Executive Branch Job Evaluation Systems
As indicated above,, approximately 12% of the Federal workers
are distributed among about 60' separate and uncoordinated
job evaluation systems. These systems are of many different
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
types and have many different characteristics. Some encompass
entire agencies; others include only a few workers. Some are
formal, highly structured systems; others represent nothing
more than an administrator's judgment as to an appropriate
pay level for a type of job. Some are rank-in-job systems;
others are rank-in-man systems. Some are closely related to
the General Schedule system; others are entirely different,
highly individualistic plans. Some exist in only one agency;
others are to be found in several agencies, but with no
coordination of actions or results. Some cover permanent
full-time employees; others apply only to temporary employees
or jobs. (A full list of these categories appears in APPENDIX IV.)
As part of the development of additional background material, a
comprehensive survey was made of the practices and experience
of State governments, certain foreign governments, and a select
group of national private firms. It was found, particularly in the
public sector, that many of the governmental jurisdictions have
completed, or are in the process of making, major overhauls of
their job evaluation and pay systems. Others indicated the need
for improving their job evaluation systems. Many of these changes
in job evaluation and pay systems have been brought about by
changing requirements of modern government services, changing
social values and tradition, and by the impact of unionization
among government employees. Within the private sector, the
situation appears to be more stable. This may be due to the
fact that most private employers have a greater degree of flexi-
bility in their job evaluation and pay systems than is found in
the public sector. Therefore, adjustments are made without
general overhaul of the system itself.
With the assistance of the Jacobs Company, Inc., Management
Consultants, the Task Force made a general survey of job
evaluation and pay systems of all 50 State governments. A
closer review was made by the Task Force of seven states whose
systems appeared to warrant more careful consideration. It was
found that experience of the states has provided the Task
Force with valuable background information. Traditionally,
there have been many parallels between the Federal and State
systems.
Each state, based on its own uniue requirements, has a some-
what different approach to job evaluation and pay. However,
as our summary i,dicates, there are common threads throughout
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
both the Federal and State systems. The work of the Task
Force will, no doubt, have a significant impact on the
future course of job evaluation methodology in these
governmental jurisdictions. (See APPENDIX V for details of
this study.)
The Task Force has directed its attention primarily toward
developments in the Australian, British, and Canadian Civil
Service systems. Each system currently is undergoing change.
There are two common threads, however, which run through the
three foreign government systems which have been reviewed:
(1) The systems emphasize occupational groupings for job
evaluation and pay purposes rather than a single,
monolithic structure such as that which exists in the
General Schedule in our country.
(2) Collective bargaining in determining comparability in
the setting of pay rates is recognized.
Additional information on job evaluation and pay practices
for positions in the public service in Canada, Great Britain,
and Australia is contained in APPENDIX VI.
c. Systems Used by Private Employers
A review was made of the literature on the practices of
American industry and in-depth investigations were made of
the practices of a selected group of major private concerns.
The information collected indicates certain patterns of
practice. In general, private corporations break their jobs
into the following major categories:
(2) Exempt employees (these are employees in managerial,
professional and administrative positions who are exempt
from the Wage and Hour requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act).
(3) Nonexempt employees (these are employees in nonsupervisory
positions who are subject to the Wage and Hour provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act).
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
Within the nonexempt segment, private employers usually
group positions into nonexempt white-collar and nonexempt
blue-collar categories. These, groupings are generally
used by private employers for both job evaluation and pay
purposes.
The three categories mentioned above overlap somewhat in both
evaluation and pay treatment. For example, it is common for
the upper levels of the nonexempt white-collar structure to
overlap one or more with the lower levels in the exempt status
grouping. A similar overlap normally exists between the exempt
status group and the executive group.
Most large, nationally organized employers use a factor ranking
system for evaluating or ranking white-collar positions in the
nonexempt category. These systems rank jobs by comparing each
job with all others in the same category, one factor at a time.
The process is normally facilitated by the use of rating scales
with point scores and benchmark jobs. The benchmark jobs serve
as guides or standards in applying the rating scales.
Factor ranking is also the most frequently used technique for
evaluating exempt status positions. While most jobs may be
evaluated under a single plan, certain specialized occupations
are frequently treated separately. For example, attorneys,
medical doctors, as well as research, engineering and scientific
positions are often evaluated under a rank-in-man system. Pay
rates for exempt status employees are generally tied to the
national market for administrative and professional personnel.
Executive positions in private industry are also systematically
evaluated and ranked. The two methods most frequently used are
factor ranking and simple "whole job" ranking. In the rankings
of such positions, the impact and contributions of the individual
PlaY an important role in determining the relative level of a
position.
The Task Force has taken the position that certain types of evaluation
systems are needed to resolve some of the operating problems and
inequities in the existing systems as identified by the Hanley
Subcommittee. Before these models can be finalized, the Commission
will have to reach certain conclusions and decisions which are policy
determining in nature. These are under consideration by the Commission
and are identified he_-ein for the purpose of apprising the Congress
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
26
and other interested parties of these issues so that reactions and
comments can be solicited before final decisions are made. The
Commission's final report and legislation would, therefore, reflect
the Commission's determinations in these matters after having
thoroughly studied the issues themselves and public reaction. These
can be summarized as follows:
1. The Administration has recently submitted legislation
for the creation of a Federal Executive Service. This
provides for major changes in the way in which jobs at
the present GS-16/18 and equivalent levels are established,
filled, classified, and paid. Among other provisions,
the FES proposal contemplates that each agency will develop
and administer a position management system geared to its
special needs. To assist agencies in administering such
a plan, a tentative model of an evaluation system for
positions in this category has been prepared as described
in APPENDIX VII. This model will be submitted for review
and comment through the Interagency Advisory Group to all
agencies and will also be made available for review and
comment to unions and employee associations.
2. The division of positions below the executive level into
two broad categories, i.e., exempt and nonexempt, is being
considered. This division would be more in harmony with
the common practice in the private sector and models of
evaluation systems for specific occupations within these
broad categories are found in.APPENDIX VII.
3. Certain special groupings of occupations within the exempt
and nonexempt categories are being considered for evaluation
and pay treatment in a combined rank-in-job/rank-in-man
proposal. The details of this proposal appear in APPENDIX VII.
Among the needs for different treatment for these occupational
groups are the resolution of recruitment and retention diffi-
culties and the intent to place the Federal Government in a
more competitive light with the private sector.
4. Consideration is being given to the feasibility of achieving
greater comparability for nonexempt employees with their
counterparts in the private sector by treating these employees,
for pay purpose, in the same manner as those employees covered
under the Coordinated Federal Wage System. Specifically,
under review is the proposal to establish locality salary
schedules for nonexempt employees in the clerical, office
machine operation, and technician grouping. This would broaden
the locality pay principle from the present half million
employees to more than a million. It is directly related
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
27
to the posture the Federal Government wishes to take in
establishing its competitive position in the labor market
wherever Federal Government employees are utilized.
5. From a'pay administration viewpoint, the practicality of
having a series of step increments within salary ranges
is under review. Under recent legislation, Federal
employees will now be considered for annual salary adjust-
ment based upon Bureau of Labor Statistics' comparability
studies, which studies include'longevity or service
recognized by employers in the private sector in establishing
private sector salary rates.
6. Within the framework of the Commission's long-range goal
to strengthen personnel management among the agencies and
their field organizations, the evaluation and pay structures
which would evolve from the Task Force study have a direct
correlation with this long-range goel. Therefore, additional
consultation and discussion is needed to insure that the
needs of the agencies and the objectives of the Commission
are, in fact, in harmony.
7. Related to "6" above is the proposal to delegate decision-
making responsibilities in job evaluation to the lowest
possible managerial level within agencies and their field
organizations. Extensive training and continued post-audit
would be required to achieve this objective. This would
also broaden the role of the personnel staff to that of
consultative service rather than assuming managerial preroga-
tives in this area.
The details of the evaluation system models presented in APPENDIX VII
will be submitted shortly for detailed review and comment to all
interested parties. SECTION III, which follows, deals with pay relation-
ships to these detailed systems. It is understood that as the Task
Force work progresses both the evaluation models and the pay relation-
ships will continue to undergo modification to the point at which the
Commission is ready to endorse or recommend legislation to the Congress
which will permit the installation and administration of proposals
contained herein.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
Relons of Pa
ionhipSys'Sytems to
SECTION III t
The need to examine pay policy and practice in relation to job
evaluation has been recognized in Title I, Section 101(2) of the
Job Evaluation Policy Act of 1970, Public Law 91-216, which states
"the large number and variety of job evaluation and ranking systems
in the executive branch have resulted in significant inequities in
selection, promotion, and pay of employees in comparable positions
among these systems." Section 101(3) of Title I also points out
that a coordinated system of job evaluation and ranking must be on
a set of principles providing coherence and equity throughout the
Executive Branch.
Since pay policy and pay fixing are functionally related to job
evaluation and should assure the equitable application of compensa-
tion schedules to evaluated positions in the Federal service, the
Task Force has concerned itself with problems of pay equity and pay
relationships for Federal employees.
The existence of over 60 pay systems, schedules, and authorities
currently used for the compensation of Federal employees also
provides compelling reasons for the Task Force to examine existing
pay policies and pay-setting authorities in Government. In this
connection, the Task Force is investigating the equity of pay
relationships among many job evaluation and ranking systems in
order to determine the possibility of establishing an effective,
economical, comprehensive, and coordinated set of Federal pay
policies.
1. Review of Legislative History (Pay Policy and Pay Setting)
The historic principle of "equal compensation for equal work,
irrespective of sex," first enunciated in the Classification
Act of 1923 and applied only to classified employees in the
departmental service in. the District of Columbia, has been
extended over the years (with slight variations in language)
to all Federal employees paid under statutory salary schedules.
In compensation legislation enacted at various periods since
1923, basic principles have been established for the statutory
pay systems providing that there be no discrimination against
any person, or with respect to the position held, on account
of race, creed, or color; that pay distinctions be maintained
in keeping with work and performance distinctions; that Federal
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
30
pay rates be comparable with private enterprise pay rates for the
same levels of work; and that pay levels for the several Federal
statutory pay systems (General Schedule, Foreign Service, Veterans
Administration Medicine and Surgery) be interrelated.
The Congress has not only established pay policies for compensa-
ting many Federal employees in the Executive Branch, but has
also exercised pay-setting authority for over 40 years in
establishing and adjusting the rate structures of the statutory
salary schedules. However, the enactment of two very important
laws in Fiscal Year 1971 has indicated Congress' willingness to
begin to divest itself of pay-setting functions.
In Public Law 91-375, "The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970,"
approved August 12, 1970, Congress authorized and directed the
Postal Service to classify and fix the compensation and benefits
of all officers and employees in the Postal Service through
collective bargaining; and, as a matter of pay policy,_to maintain
compensation and benefits on a standard of comparability to the
compensation and benefits paid for comparable levels of work in
the private sector of the economy.
In Public Law 91-656, the "Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970,""
approved January 8, 1971, the Congress authorized and directed the
President to make annual adjustments in rates of pay in the
statutory salary systems based on comparability with private
enterprise rates. This is subject to review by Congress only when
the President considers it inappropriate in a particular year to
make the pay adjustments indicated by application of the directed
pay comparability studies. The subject law also continues in
existence the pay policies promulgated in previous legislation,
i.e., equal pay for equal work, maintenance of pay distinctions
in keeping with work and performance distinctions, comparability
of Federal. pay rates with private enterprise pay rates for the
same levels of work, and maintenance of interrelationships of pay
levels for the statutory systems.
In regard to compensation for Federal blue-collar employees,
Congress has entrusted to the Executive Branch complete pay-
fixing authority under locality prevailing rate systems, subject
to such policy guidance as compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act
and pay comparability on a prevailing rate basis consistent with
the public interest, and direction as to application of overtime
and certain other premium pay provisions. The exercise of this
pay-setting authority by the Executive Branch is now being
coordinated by the Civil Service Commission with the institution
of the Coordinated Federal Wage System.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
31
2. Federal Pay Policy Today
The "Federal Pay Comparability Act of'1970" is now the basic law
governing the pay of Federal white-collar employees under the ,
statutory salary systems. Although setting and adjusting of pay
rates has now been vested in the President, subject to the
restrictions indicated above, the Congress has not yet legislated
changes (or authority for the Executive Branch to make changes)
in the physical structure of the statutory schedules with respect
to number of steps, intragrade differentials or pay increments,
waiting periods for salary advancement, and other related aspects
of salary administration. In addition, certain agencies and
occupations are still exempt from the pay schedules and pay
provisions of the above Act.
On the other hand, with respect to postal employees and blue-collar
employees, the Congress has vested in the Executive Branch relatively
complete authority to establish pay policy, pay structures, and pay
rates.
In addition, by means of legislation or executive direction, certain
principles serve as a basis for Federal statutory pay systems.
These principles are equal pay for equal work, pay distinctions
in keeping with work and performance distinctions, pay comparability
with private enterprise, and some degree of interrelationship of
pay levels.
3. Need for Broader Federal Pay Policy
For further development and improvement of Federal pay policy,
the responsibility of the Government to the Nation as a whole
must be recognized. Government pay policy must be equitable,
coordinated, flexible, and responsive to a variety of public
interests. Consideration must be given to the need to attract
and retain competent staff to accomplish Government functions,
reasonableness of cost to taxpayers, equity and fairness of pay
for Federal employees, with equal fairness to private enterprise
as competitors for talent, and correlated to the evaluation
systems used for Federal employees.
In developing an improved, effective, and comprehensive Federal
pay policy for all Federal employees, certain questions must be
answered and additional principles promulgated in order for
Government pay policy'to be truly equitable, flexible, and respon-
sive. In this connection, it is the judgment of the Task Force
that:
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
32
a. The Federal work force does not comprise a homogeneous group
of employees, similar in training and education, career
patterns, geographical and career mobility, and labor market
characteristics.
b. While common pay principles should undergird pay treatment,
neither a single Government-wide job evaluation system nor
a single Government-wide pay plan will or can truly serve
the needs of all agencies.
c. The relative competitive position of the Federal Government
as an employer, vis-a-vis private enterprise employees, must
be defined in terms of staff needed, role as a leader or
follower of changes in pay, and social implications; and,
in accordance with the public interest, should be uniform
insofar as may be practicable in both national and local
labor markets.
d. In determining comparability of Federal pay rates with private
enterprise pay rates, the comparability of Federal and private
enterprise practices in recruitment, retention, transfer, and
compensation of groups of employees should be taken into
consideration as well as the concomitant labor market character-
istics of the groups and occupations for whom comparability
in compensation is to be achieved. Simply stated, comparability
of Federal pay should be more directly related to comparability
with pay practices and labor market or employment characteristics
in the non-Federal sector than is presently the case.
e. Job evaluation and pay systems should provide realistic
opportunities for job progression and salary advancement for
nonsupervisory and nonmanagerial personnel as well as for
administrative, managerial, and executive employees in
Government. Progression in such professional fields as law,
medicine and science, should be attainable to approximately
the same degree for individual performance as for executive
responsibilities.
f. The highest degree of coordination among agencies and depart-
ments in the administration of job evaluation and pay plans
should be effected in order to avoid duplication of effort,
assure maximum equity in pay, and prevent individual agencies
(and their employees) from having an advantage or disadvantage
with respect to other agencies in recruitment, motivation, and
retention of employees because of diverse pay treatment. Simply
put, the need for over 60 pay systems, schedules, and authorities
must be carefully examined.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
33
g. The highest degree of coordination among agencies and the
greatest degree of equity for employees in pay treatment
will best be achieved by establishing pay setting for all
Federal employees as a personnel management function in the
Executive Branch. Congress, which has ultimate control by
way of appropriation of funds, should establish the basic
pay philosophy of the Federal Government as an employer and
perhaps the general policies or guides to be followed in
formulating or adjusting pay structures, but full accounta-
bility for setting pay and administering pay structures
should be vested in the Executive Branch.
Relationship to Evaluation System
A competitive, flexible pay schedule must be provided for the
system applicable to executive positions described in APPENDIX VII.
Inadequate pay schedules inevitably create pressures on the job
evaluation system, resulting in misalignments in order to provide
competitive pay rates. This condition results in loss of confi-
dence in the job evaluation system, dissatisfaction an the part
of employees and supervisors, and poor morale, with resultant
deterioration of efficiency and productivity, within an organization.
C. Administrative, Professional and Technological
Pay Schedules
1. Necessity for Flexibility
The Task Force recognizes the need for flexibility in pay. plans
applicable to the Administrative, Professional and Technological
occupations. A review of pay practices in non-Federal situations
indicates that some professions are organized in fewer levels,
with wider pay bands, than are found in most other occupations.
Locality differences in pay appear appropriate for certain
occupations where there are wide variations in locality rates
and limited mobility for the typical employee, e.g., nurses.
A separate pay schedule may be justified for a particular profession
for many of the same reasons which would justify a separate evalua-
tion system for that occupation. Essentially, this would be
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
34
conformance to the general treatment in society outside the
Federal Government; the, way the occupation is typically
organized; the pay distinctions that would be accepted as
reasonable by the members of the occupation; and a need to
recognize differences in performance, qualifications, and
situational elements which would motivate well-qualified
persons to accept aid retain employment, e.g., doctors.
2. Relationship to Evaluation Systems
Basically, positions of equivalent value within the general
system for this category, or in special systems established
and coordinated with this system, should receive like pay
treatment. However, adjustments of the following types should
be permitted:
a. Conformance to universal occupational practices which vary
from the norm, e.g., computer personnel.
b. Adjustments for occupational shortages in particular classes
of positions, nationwide or in a specific locality.
c. Individual pay adjustments, within the range normally
established, because of prior pay or unusual qualifications
of a candidate or because of a special need for his services.
3. Methodology
For the large majority of positions in this category, the basic
pay schedule should be determined through Bureau of Labor
Statistics surveys, in the manner established by Public Law
91-656, the "Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970." Where
special schedules are established or adjusted for occupational
categories, nationally or in a community area, this should be
done by annual surveys. Data as reported in existing sources
could be used or, as required, special surveys could be made
by the'Bureau of Labor Statistics. Provision should be made for
participation through review and consultation by appropriate
union and/or professional associations, following the general
principles established for the Professional, Administrative,
Technical survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
4. Relationship to Executive Pay Schedule
The pay schedules, both general and special, in this category
could overlap at the upper end with the schedule for the
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
35
executive category. Hence, there is need for consideration of
relationships with that category. For example, top scientific,
diplomatic, or other specialized personnel below the executive
category might well be evaluated as high as key executive
positions. Evaluations using a common tool such as the factor
ranking-benchmark system for this category could be used to
establish the basic pay relationships. Adjustments in pay
could be made, as required, for special recruitment, occupational
practice, and environmental situations.
For positions evaluated under the general APTES category, without
special pay adjustments, there is no reason why the pay rates
should be different in dollar amounts; in this overlapping area,
from those of executive's. There could well be advantages in
emphasizing the equivalence in evaluation and thus in pay of
higher-level employees, some of whom have chosen to rise in the
administrative-managerial functions to executive ranks, and some
who become recognized experts in professional or equivalent
occupational fields. This dual-ladder concept is well recognized
and accepted in the private sector.
D. Clerical, Office Machine Operation, and Technician
Pay Schedules
Task Force studies indicate that private industry generally utilizes
separate evaluation and pay systems for exempt and nonexempt posi-
tions. The private sector pay systems for blue-collar, office
clerical, and technician positions are most frequently prevailing
rate, locality-based pay schedules. On the other hand, the Federal
Government compensates its office clerical and technician positions
on the basis of nationwide Cates.
Thus, in some areas Federal pay for office clerical and technician
occupations is higher than average industry pay; in other areas
the reverse is true. The competitive position of the Federal
Government in paying its employees is ambivalent and inconsistent.
2. Relationship to Coordinated Federal Wage System
Establishment of the Coordinated Federal Wage System (CFWS) put
into effect a single system of job evaluation and uniform pay
policies covering wage board positions in all departments and
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
36
agencies. Wages for such positions have traditionally been set
on the basis of rates found in private establishments for work
of like difficulty in the locality of employment.
Adoption of the locality approach for wage board jobs would
enable the Federal Government to compete equitably in the
immediate employment market, since employees for such types
of positions are normally recruited in the local labor market.
In general, the same conditions apply in meeting the recruitment
requirements for clerical, office machine operation, and tech-
nician positions. Accordingly, it would appear desirable to
consider utilizing the same policy of setting pay on a locality
basis for this segment of Federal Government employment.
3. Relationship to Evaluation System
A prime consideration in determining compensation for clerical-,
office machine operation-, and technician-type positions is how
closely evaluation of such positions in Government produce the
same general relationship as do the pay relationships found in
private industry. It has been found that: (1) job relationships
in this group, as reflected in pay, generally follow similar
patterns in the private sector regardless of locality; and
(2) private sector pay-rates for the same job may vary as much
as 40 percent among localities.
The Congress, in the Salary Reform Act of 1962, established the
policy of setting, for Government "white-collar" jobs, salaries
comparable to those in private industry. However, to achieve
comparability in a true sense the evaluation system should provide
grade relationships that correlate with rate relationships. The
current classification standards for positions in the Clerical,
Office Machine Operation, and Technician occupations do not produce
a relationship that correlates with industrial rate patterns.
The new approach to evaluation of such positions, outlined in
APPENDIX VII of this report, would change the evaluation relation-
ships to bring them into a better correlation with industrial rate
averages.
E. Coordinated Federal Wave S stem Schedules
1. Relationship to Private Sector
Pay schedules under the Coordinated Federal Wage System are
locality-based, prevailing rate, step schedules. Wage rates
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/010 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
for nonsupervisory schedules reflect the general level of rates
paid by private employers in the same wage area for kinds and
levels of work performed in the Federal service. Wage rates
for leader and supervisory schedules are derived from the rates
of regular nonsupervisory schedules by means of established
formulas which provide differentials above the rates of workers
led or supervised and which are reasonably in line with those
in private industry.
Thus, there are three types of pay schedules, varying in rates
from area to area in accordance with the differences in levels
of private sector rates in the respective localities. To the
extent that step structures characterize athhe pay e payrsschedules,
average Federal rates may, or may
rates because of the effects of seniority.
2. Relationship to Evaluation System
The Coordinated Federal Wage System job evaluation system requires
that the relative worth of positions be stated in terms of grades
or grade levels. Accordingly, the pay schedules show rates for
grades, or levels, and not for positions such as plumbers, carpen-
ters, or machinists.
Naturally, the pay rates for the higher grade levels are higher
than the pay rates for the lower levels, so that positions
classified in the higher grade levels receive more pay than
positions in the lower grade levels. Continuation of this
approach is recommended by the Task Force.
F. Special Occupations Pay Schedules
1. Relationship Lo Evaluation Systems
The evaluation approach discussed in APPENDIX VII for special
categories of employees within the broad category of administra-
tive, professional and technological employees will require, if
installed, a variety of pay schedules. These pay schedules will
be needed to provide direct relationship between the evaluation
techniques and the competitive salaries for like positions in
the private sector. Since the primary purpose of this evaluation
approach is to place the Federal Government in a more favorable
relationship is criticalston
ategories,u the e pay and
these i special terms
the total concept.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
2. Enumeration of Special Category Pay Schedules within APTES
At a minimum, it appears at this point that the following special
category pay structures will be needed:
a. In the Health Services field, the pay structures for the
doctors, dentists, nurses, and other specialized professions,
would each be geared to studies of like positions in the
private sector. The pay structures for support positions
to these specialized professional jobs would be the same
as those used for the COMOT and APTES employees indicated
in earlier portions of this section, This means that in
the Health Services field some of the employees will be on
national schedules and some on locality schedules in order
to achieve, as closely as possible, comparability with the
private sector.
b. It is envisioned that one pay structure could be developed
for the various skill levels of attorneys that would result
from the application of the special evaluation approach.
This pay structure would be linked to private sector salary
data.
c. A basic Federal pay schedule for the teaching profession
would be developed that would be nationally competitive.
This could then be used both domestically and overseas.
The overseas personnel would continue to be the recipients
of additional allowances and differentials for working in
areas outside the continental limits of the United States.
An educational administrative structure linked to the
teacher pay structure, as well as to the national APTES
structure, would be needed.
d. For the Foreign Service personnel within the Department of
State, U.S. Information Agency, Agency for International
Development, and Peace Corps, it is believed three basic
structures are needed. One schedule would cover professional
Foreign service personnel, and would be based on nationwide
salary data. Another schedule would cover the clerical
support personnel, both domestic and overseas. This latter
pay structure could be determined to be the Washington, D.C.,
COMOT locality structure. For employees on this structure
assigned to Foreign Service duty, overseas allowance and
differentials would be added. For the Foreign Affairs
Specialist category which the Department of State is establish-
ing, a basic pay structure that would coincide exactly with
the APTES pay structure would be appropriate.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/109 CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
By providing both national and local relationships with pay
structures for the other evaluation systems enumerated in
APPENDIX VII, the broad concepts of both equal pay for equal
work and comparability would be achieved.
3. Special Category Pay Schedule within COMOT
Within the COMOT category, those positions concerned with protec-
tive services also lend themselves to rank-in-man/rank-in-job
evaluation. From a pay standpoint, relationship would have to
be developed, on a regional or local basis, with COMOT schedules.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
SECTION IV Work to be Done
1. Completion of Evaluation Models
Using the framework of evaluation systems described in APPENDIX VII
of this report, the Task Force will, during the next year, complete
its development of an evaluation model for each of the five
categories of employees to be covered in the coordinated job
evaluation plan. Built into these models will be a relationship
so that the evaluation results under any one of the individual
systems can be cross-identified with the other systems. This will
show the evaluation changes that result as positions of increasing
responsibility within occupational career ladders are identified.
While any one of the five systems, in theory, could be used to
evaluate any position within the five broad categories, the most
accurate results would be obtained by the evaluation system
designed for the particular category. Finally, one or more methods
for the evaluation of supervisory and managerial jobs below the
career executive level has to be developed and related to each of
the evaluation models.
2. Field Test and Validation
Prior to submitting the evaluation models in the final report, it
is expected that actual field tests will be conducted to determine
the validity of the evaluation systems. These field tests will be
done in conjunction with staff of selected agencies. It is hoped
that the field tests and the validation studies will reveal weak-
nesses, if such exist.
3. Revision and Revalidation
The field test results referred to above should indicate areas
where modifications of the evaluation models are needed. Any such
changes once made, therefore, will require retesting and revalida-
tion. At the conclusion of this phase of the job, the evaluation
models can be assumed to meet the criteria established by the Task
Force and would be ready for the final step, namely, that of
securing concurrence from using organizations.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
42
4. Clearances and Concurrences
As each of the evaluation systems are field tested, validated,
modified, and revalidated, the systems would be submitted to the
Interagency Advisory Group and to interested employee organizations
and associations for review and comment. All effort would be made
to secure as much acceptance of and concurrence in these evaluation
techniques as possible. The Commission would then be in the
position, in submitting this coordinated job evaluation plan, to
report to the Congress the degree of acceptance obtained. This
would simplify the transition plan once the total program had been
enacted into legislation. The Civil Service Commission would, of
course, assume the full responsibility for a transition from the
existing systems to those encompassed in the coordinated job
evaluation plan.
5. Exceptions to the Coordinated Job Evaluation Plan
A careful review and analysis has been made during this first year
of the legislative exceptions to the General Schedule. The final
report, therefore, should address itself to the exceptions that
should be authorized under the proposed legislation. Every effort
would be made to keep the number of exceptions to the coordinated
job evaluation plan to an absolute minimum.
1. General Review
In developing the evaluation systems, the Task Force has been
considering the impact and effect that the evaluation systems would
have on the statutory pay structures. It is evident not only from
the Subcommittee Report but from the many comments, both written and
oral, made by individuals who appeared before the Subcommittee and
at the public hearings, that there is deep concern over the
inequities existing among the various pay systems. It is believed
by the Task Force that while it is possible to develop an evaluation
system or systems with total disregard to the pay implications, this
is neither practical nor the intent of the Congress. The Task Force
has not presumed to make detailed reviews of all of the Federal pay
systems. However, the interface problems have been constantly con-
fronted. It is expected, as described in SECTION III, that some
significant revisions in pay philosophy and policy will be required.
The locality vs. national pay policy'is one example. Other examples
are the pay relationships that exist with the establishment of special
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/1 CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
occupational evaluation systems, such as health services employees,
attorneys, teachers, guards, and fire fighters; and the interface
between the pay structures for the Coordinated Federal Wage System
and those employees in the clerical support occupations. Finally,
in developing the model for the Executive Evaluation System, pay
problems arising because of the relationship with the Federal
Executive Schedule will have to be reviewed.
In the year ahead, the Task Force will continue to review the
implications arising from the consolidation of the many evaluation
systems into five broad categories described in APPENDIX VII, and
the pay structures presently administered under the three-score
systems in effect today. In an effort to achieve both the general
concept of equal pay for equal work and comparability with the
private sector, the Task Force will endeavor to make recommenda-
tions for pay structure changes to meet these goals.
2, Concurrences
The Task Force recommendations on pay as related to evaluation
systems will, of course, require the thorough review and considera-
tion of the Civil Service Commission, just as will the evaluation
systems recommendations themselves. The Task Force will be seeking
the views of its Advisory Committees and the Interagency Advisory
Group. The final recommendations of the Civil Service Commission
will be forwarded to the President through the Office of Management
and Budget, in accordance with standard practice, as part of the
final report and proposed legislation. Many of these recommenda-
tions will require additional developmental work if the legislation
proposed is acted upon favorably.
1. General Review
Most evaluation systems can be made operationally effective only
if there is a strong supporting administrative structure acceptable
to all interested parties. The specific responsibilities of the
Congress, the President, the Civil Service Commission, the Office
of Management and Budget, and the department and agency heads in
the evaluation and classification area will be reviewed. A series
of recommendations will be made to describe precisely the roles
of these parties in the administration of the coordinated job
evaluation plan.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : fIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
2. Classification and Pay Appeals Procedure
One of the areas that the Task Force is going to consider during
the coming year is an administrative mechanism to insure that the
individual employee or his representative has a simple and
expeditious method of appeal in the areas of classification and
pay.
3. Union Participation
The Task Force objective is to insure that the individual Federal
employee is treated equitably within the overall plan, and in no
way is discriminated against or suffers discriminatory action by
line management without an impartial review. In the many meetings
the Task Force conducted with unions, employee organizations and
associations, extensive discussions were held on the role of the
unions and associations in the evaluation process. The evaluation
and pay systems resulting from the Task Force studies should
recognize union views.
4. Concurrences
In the area of administration, concurrence also will be sought
from all interested parties (agencies, unions, and associations)
so that the Commission and the Administration can give full
consideration to these views in deciding upon the final shape
of the Civil Service Commission's recommendations to the Congress.
Whatever concurrences can be obtained in the administrative area
will simplify the transition period needed to implement the Civil
Service Commission's final recommendations.
1. Transition Plan Development
As provided by Public Law 91-216, the Task Force will develop
an orderly transition plan in phased steps with a timetable
that will provide for the Civil Service Commission to install,
with the cooperation and assistance of the agencies and depart-
ments, the coordinated job evaluation plan. This transition
plan must include a program for review and revision of pay
structures, where necessary, to provide the proper relationships
with the evaluation systems.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
45
Operating officials as well as unions and associations will be
given an opportunity to review and comment on the transition
plan, in terms of the time intervals and schedules. This will
assure a minimum of disruption to employees and supervisors as
the plan is implemented.
The main body of the final report by the Civil Service Commission will
contain the detailed description of the coordinated job evaluation
plan and the relationships among the evaluation systems within the
plan. It will contain detailed models of the evaluation systems which
will have been field tested and validated. The report will also contain
specific recommendations on the design of pay structures; and the
transition plan.
The Task Force will be required, during the latter part of this
coming year, to prepare supporting legislation to facilitate the
installation of the coordinated job evaluation plan. This legisla-
tion will have to include the exceptions to the plan, both for
evaluation and pay purposes.
Finally, the legislation will have to be cleared within the
Executive Branch so that the Congress can hold hearings and
proceed to act upon the proposed legislation.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
APPENDIX I Temporary Members of the Job Evaluation
and Pay Review Task Force
John Baker, Management Intern, United States Information Agency
Philip I. Brennan, Chief, Litigation Control, Tax Division,
Department of Justice
Barry Cohen, Federal Personnel Intern, Agency for. International
Development
J. Meredith George, Chief, Classification and Wage Division,
Headquarters Air Force Systems Command, Andrews Air Force Base
Robert A. Gray, Jr., Associate Superintendent of Schools,
Dependents Schooling Office (Atlantic), Department of Defense
Overseas Dependents Schools (Navy)
William G. Noffsinger, Director, Central Office Personnel Service,
Veterans Administration
Mrs. Sylvia Rosemergy, Personnel Officer, Overseas Private
Investment Corporation
Bernard E. Shultz, Technical Adviser to the Director, Personnel
Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury
Richard Silver, Assistant for Staffing and Development, Veterans
Administration
A. LeRoy Sykes ?Chief, Classification and Position Management
Branch, Agricultural Research Service, Department of Agriculture
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
50
INDEPENDENT UNIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
American Foreign Service Association
Robert Nevitt, Member, Board of Directors
American Nurses Association, Inc.
Muriel A. Poulin, Chaitman, Commission on Economic and General
Welfare, New York
Patrick Zembower, Federal Representative, Washington, D. C.
Association of Civilian Technicians
Vincent Paterno, President
John Hunter, Executive Vice President
Federal Professional Association
Vincent Say, Legislative Director
Lionel V. Murphy, Executive Director
National Association of Government Employees
Kenneth T. Lyons, President
National Association of Internal Revenue Employees
Vincent L. Connery, President
Robert Tobias, Staff Assistant
National Federation of Federal Employees
Nathan T. Wolkomir, President
National Federation of Professional Organizations
William Lawson, President
National Society of Professional Engineers
Gayle N. Wright, Staff Director, Professional Engineers in
Government
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
51
James Barker, Associate Director of Personnel, Union Carbide
Corporation
Richard Fremon, Director, Salary Administration, Bell Telephone
Laboratories
James Gillen, Director of Personnel Research, General Motors
Thomas Harrington, Director, Industrial Relations, COMSAT
David Lederer, Assistant Secretary, The Rand Corporation
Dwight Meader, Consultant, Executive Compensation, General Electric
Vernon Mickelson, Executive Assistant to the President and the
Provost, Case Western Reserve University
William Sorensen, Secretary, ESSO Inter-America
Kenneth Warner, Executive Director, Public Personnel Association
David Weeks, Director, Compensation Research, National Industrial
Conference Board
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
APPENDIX III Background Material
Legislative History of the Job Evaluation Policy Act of 1970 (Public
Law 91-216)
-Report on Job Evaluation and Ranking in the Federal Government
(H. Report 91-28, February 27, 1969)
-Hearings before the Subcommittee on Position Classification of
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of
Representatives, 91st Congress, 1st Session, on H. R. 13008
(Serial 91-16)
-Job Evaluation Policy Act of 1970 (H. Report 91-823,
February 3, 1970)
-Job Evaluation Policy Act of 1970 (S. Report 91-713, March 2, 1970)
Legislative Histories of major job evaluation and pay statutes,
particularly,
-The Classification Act of 1923 (Public Law 67-516)
-The Classification Act of 1949 (Public Law 81-429)
-The Federal Salary Reform Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-793)
-The Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-656)
Other related documents
-Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the
Government (First Hoover Commission)
-Report on Personnel Management (February 1949)
-Appendix A, Task Force Report on Federal Personnel
(January 1949)
-Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the
Government (Second Hoover Commission)
.Report on Personnel and Civil Service (February 1955)
-Task Force Report on Personnel and Civil Service
(February 1955)
-Report of the Defense Advisory Committee on Professional and
Technical Compensation (Cordiner Committee, 1956-57)
-Report of the U. S. Interdepartmental Committee on Civilian
Comnr,nsati_on (0'r ,nnell Committee, 1957-58)
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
53
APPENDIX IY List of Miscellaneous Federal
Job Evaluation Systems
The following enumerates agencies having independent evaluation systems
for certain groups of employees:
Agency for International Development
1. Foreign Service Officers
2. Foreign Service Staff
3. Participating Agency Employees (PASA)
4. Administrative employees
Department of Agriculture
5. County agents
Bureau of Census
6. Temporary employees
7. Enumerators
Environmental Science Services Administration
8. Commissioned Officers
Department of the Interior
9. U. S. Park Police
Department of Justice
10. U. S. Attorneys and Assistant U. S. Attorneys
11. Special Attorneys
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
12. Exempt employees
Panama Canal Zone
13. Nonmanual employees
14. Manual employees
15. Special category employees
U. S. Patent Office
16. Board of Patent Appeals
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
Peace Corps
17. Foreign Service Officers
18. Foreign Service Staff
19. Unenumerated employees
U. S. Public Health Service
20. Commissioned Officers
Selective Service System
21. Local Draft Board'employees
Smithsonian institution
22. National Zoological Police
23. Exempt employees
Department of State
24. Foreign Service Officers
25. Foreign Service Staff
26. Consular agents
27. Foreign Service Institute
28. Exempt employees
Department of Transportation
29. Alaska Railroad (white-collar employees)
30. Alaska Railroad (operating employees)
31. Lighthouse keepers.,and civilian employees on lightships
Department of Treasury
32. National Bank Examiners
33. Currency manufacturing
34. Executive Protective Service
United States Information Agency
35. Foreign Service Information Officers
36. Foreign Service Staff
Veterans Administration
37. Doctors, dentists, nurses
38. Canteen Service (white-collar employees)
39. Canteen Service (blue-collar employees)
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
55
Personnel in the Entire Agency
40. Atomic Energy Commission
41. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
42. Tennessee Valley Authority
43. National Security Agency
44. Central Intelligence Agency
Personnel in Many Agencies
45. Overseas Foreign Nationals
46. Teachers in overseas dependents schools
47, Scientists and Engineers (5 U.S.C. 3104 and 5361)
48. Executive Schedule
49. Statutory individual salaries
50. Experts and Consultants
51. Teachers, domestic dependents schools
52, Support personnel, domestic dependents schools
53. Service Academy faculties
54. Students and interns (medical)
55. Emergency and seasonal employees
56. Employees on contract or fee basis
57. Employees providing part-time service
58. Employees paid zero or nominal salaries
59. Inmates and Patients
Other
60. Staff of Former Presidents
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
56
APPENDIX Y Survey of Job Evaluation and Pay Systems
Used by State Merit and Civil Service Systems
The Task Force made a general survey of job evaluation and pay systems
of all 50 State governments. A brief summary of findings is:
1. While many of the states have more than one personnel system, the
most prevalent arrangement is a common job evaluation and pay
.system which covers most state merit employees. Frequently, however,
certain specialized state functions, e.g ? colleges or hospitals;
or certain occupational groups, such as doctors, teachers, or
nurses, are covered under separate systems.
2. Position classification continues to be the basic technique used
in evaluating positions. Forty-eight of the 50 states use this
system for all or part of their positions. A significant number
use other techniques--i.e., rank-in-man, point rating, or factor
comparison--as supplementary techniques in the application of
standards to certain groups of positions. In fact, there appears
to be a trend toward the use of various quantitative techniques to
supplement or to operate alongside the existing position classifi-
cation standards.
3. There is one marked difference in the position classification
systems used by the states as compared to that currently used in
the General Schedule. The state systems generally provide greater
flexibility in making internal occupational adjustments better to
reflect pay comparability. Only a few have a single, monolithic
classification grade system suco as that in the General Schedule.
4. About one-third of the states indicated significant problems
existing in the administration of their job evaluation systems.
For the most part, these problems are associated with the need for
better standards or guidelines for use in the allocation of certain
groups of positions--i.e., higher administrative positions,
specialized high-demand occupations, or highly organized groups.
5. More than one-half of the states either have more than one pay
schedule or expressed the need for additional pay schedules to
cover special categories of employees. The lack of competitive
pay schedules (with private industry and, in many cases, the
Federal Government) causes problems in recruiting and retaining
adequate staffs.
6. Tn union--naon?emer- elations, the states are faced with growing
unionization of t..sir employees. Most of the stat?s are
cautiously feeling their way in developing the legal and admini-
strative frar,e'?ork within which to deal with employee organizations.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
57
APPENDIX VI Job Evaluation and Pay Systems in
Canada, Great Britain, and Australia
A. Canadian System
A brief summary of the Canadian system is incorporated into the
House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee on Position
Classification's report on job evaluation and ranking in the
Federal Government. This summary outlines the history of job
evaluation in the Canadian civil service, coverage of the system,
and events leading up to its major renovation. Of these events,
the following are the most significant:
1. The Glassco Commission Report in 1960, which recommended the
adoption of a more systematic approach to job evaluation.
2. The Government's endorsement of collective bargaining in
the civil service in 1963.
3. The establishment of a preparatory committee in 1964, and
Parliament's adoption of the recommendations of the
preparatory committee in 1967.
The Canadians are nearing the completion of implementation of
their new system. The classification plan includes six primary
categories or groupings:
1.
Executive
2.
Engineering and Scientific
3.
Administrative
and Foreign Service
4.
Technical
5.
Administrative
Support
6.
Operational
These categories are further broken down into 76 occupational
groups. Occupational groups are based on the nature of the work
and identifiable outside labor markets. Through this grouping
process, the government has struck a balance between the requirements
of relating government jobs to the outside pay market and the require-
ments for internal equity between positions. The system permits
varying approaches to job evaluation and pay for different groups of
employees. Within the 76 occupational groups, there are eight
different methods of job evaluation. The most prevalent method is
a factor comparison system, with points and benchmark jobs identified.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
58
The government negotiates pay for each occupational group
separately. Bargaining units were predetermined consistent with
the occupational group?. This has required some rearrangement of
representation by employee unions operating in the civil service
area. In general, both management and the employee organizations
are satisfied with the progress made in the implementation of the
Canadian system. However, there are many items yet to be resolved
in the bargaining process.
B. British System
The British have a sophisticated system of job classification. It
is a system of upper and lower classes in which distinctions are
based not onlyon the work performed but also on the educational
background of the individual. An employee generally does not
progress to the next higher level within a class without demonstra-
ting a proficiency to do the full range of work at that level.
Once he attains the higher rank, it remains with him as long as he
is in the government service regardless of his individual assign-
ment. It has been practically impossible for an employee to move
across class lines. Thus his education and preparation before
entering the government service play a controlling role throughout
his career. Sweeping changes were recommended in the British
system by the Fulton Committee which was established in 1966. In
brief, the conclusions and recommendations of the committee were:
2. Establishment of a systematic job evaluation system to
replace the class membership system;
3. Establishing training arrangements that lead to faster
promotion; and
4. Certain other changes regarding employment and organization
of the British civil service commission.
To date, the British government has completed a major restructuring
of the executive levelt and elimination of certain barriers
between these executive levels and lower classes within the system.
The other aspects of the Fulton report are currently under joint
study by labor and management in the British civil service.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
59
C. Australian System
The Australian system provides for the grouping of positions into
four main divisions. The first division is composed of permanent
heads of departments. These are the highest level career positions
in their government. The second division includes executive
positions and senior professional jobs in the more important offices
of the government.
The third division is composed of professional, administrative, and
clerical positions. The fourth division includes certain entry-
level and low-skill operating positions. These divisions represent
not only broad divisions in level of difficulty of work, but also
distinct differences in entry qualification requirements. Within
each division there are occupational groupings which are generally
comparable to class series in our General Schedule classification
system. The Australian system provides for standards or guidelines
for allocating positions within each of these occupational structures.
Since 1961, the Australian government has been engaged in a review of
all occupational groups within their system to see whether they may
be simplified in terms of groupings and structures. They have also
been experimenting with the use of a new standards format which
appears to be similar to the factor.comparison benchmark system used
by the Canadians. Pay rates for each occupational group are
determined on the basis of comparison with industry and through
negotiations with the appropriate employee union.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
60
APPENDIX VII Models of Evaluation Systems
developed by the Task Force
A. Model for Executive Evaluation System
1. Coverage
This section pertains to the development of a system for position
evaluation to be applied to executive positions in the Federal
Government. Incumbents of these positions play a highly signifi-
cant role in the management of the Executive Branch of the Federal
Government. They are? responsible fof planning, directing, and
executing major programs throughout the departments and agencies
of the U.S. Government. Incumbents of these positions often
recommend, develop, or approve policies to govern their program
areas. The Federal executive is concerned with defining program
objectives, staffing an organization, coordinating the efforts
of organizational components, and evaluating the performance
of subordinates who manage the various units under his control.
He is normally held accountable for the attainment of program
objectives.
2. Relationship to Federal Executive Service
The President has submitted proposed legislation to establish a
Federal Executive Service, embracing approximately 7,000 employees
now in grades GS-16/18. That system covers the appointment,
compensation and other personnel functions applicable to Federal
executives. The proposed Executive Evaluation System could be
utilized by agencies in carrying out their obligations under
the Federal Executive Service with respect to setting rates of
pay. EES could assist in the ranking of positions for pay-setting
purposes.
3. Methodology
The Task Force has developed a tailor-made job evaluation system
for executive positions. This project was accomplished with the
assistance of Cresap, McCormick and Paget, Inc., Management
Consultants.
The system was designed around an initial sample of 635 positions
in 29 Federal agencies. These positions are presently classified
in gray^s 3t'-16' , or at equivalent levels under other pay systems.
By eliminating duplicate positions and positions for which current
data were not readily available, the sample was reduced to a final
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
61
figure of 368 positions. The 29 sample agencies covered 11 cabinet
departments, the large independent agencies, a variety of boards,
committees and commissions, small independent agencies, as well
as certain legislative agencies, i.e:,, General Accounting Office
and Library of Congress. A factor ranking system with points was
developed for evaluating these positions. Four factors were
utilized, with the following titles, definitions, and weights:
a. Job Requirements.. This factor measures the range of informa-
tion or understanding of necessary subject matter, and the
skills needed to apply this knowledge (Weight of 35%).
b. Difficulty of Work. This factor measures the nature of work
in terms of the magnitude, variety and scope of activities
assigned, as well as the types of decisions and actions
necessary to perform the activities effectively (Weight of 25%)..
c. Responsibility. This factor measures the significance of the
work in terms of results affecting the public, the economy,
and the Government (Weight of 25%).
d. Personal Relationships. This factor measures the need for
the ability to meet and deal effectively with other people
at all levels within and without the organization (Weight of 15%).
The 368 sample positions were ranked under each of the aforementioned
factors. The next step consisted of developing grade levels. The
criteria were established for this purpose:
a. The number of grades should, be sufficient to recognize distinct
levels of difficulty and responsibility.
c. The point ranges for each grade should be equal.
It was found that six significant levels of difficulty and responsi-
bility exist within the sample of 368 executive positions now in
GS-16/18. This takes into consideration the levels created by
organizational structuring in the various agencies and eliminates
the problem of having several levels of executives reporting upward
but all classified in the same grade.
As an additional evaluation tool, benchmark positions would be
provided to illustrate these various levels within each factor.
The Task Force is continuing to determine the validity_of the
proposed Executive Evaluation System.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
62
B. Model for Administrative, Professional and Technological
Evaluation System
The positions considered for inclusion in this system are most
of those under the General Schedule in grades GS-7/15, and
equivalent levels in other systems.
a. Administrative. This group includes occupations where
entrants frequently have college-level education, but
there normally is no qualification requirement for special-
ized subject-matter courses. Included are such occupations
as personnel, procurement, budgeting, management analysis,
etc. There are about 200,000 positions in this grouping.
b. Professional. This group includes occupations where
typically there is a positive educational requirement for
entrance, normally obtained by a baccalaureate or higher
degree in a university or equivalent institution of higher
learning, with a major in the area of the profession. This
includes physical and social science professions, mathe-
matics, law, health professions, engineering, and education.
There are over 200,000 positions in this grouping.
c. Technological. This group includes occupations where
necessary specialized training and experience are acquired
on the job. These positions are often closely associated
with occupations in the professional or administrative
groupings, and for the occupations under the General Schedule,
currently have a similar grade pattern. Included are computer
specialist positions, most inspector jobs, and various
specialized technical, regulatory and enforcement occupations,
such as air traffic; controllers and tax auditors. There are
about 400,000 such positions.
The Task Force has tentatively developed a general method of
evaluation and classification administration for these positions
which it believes will ameliorate the shortcomings reported as
existing in the Classification Act standards and system.
The basic or general method of evaluation being developed by
the Task Force for the APTES category is a factor ranking-
benchmark technique.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
63
The Task Force has developed a sample collection of benchmark
descriptions. They are much fewer in number (65) than the
Civil Service Commission, with the aid of agency collaborators,
would be expected to develop for Government-wide use. However,
the sample benchmarks cover all the levels in the APTES category
(mostly equivalent to the present grades GS-7/15). The occupa-
tions represented in this small collection include some of the
most populous in this category, with a total of about 250,000
positions. The duties statements are uniformly presented, with
a Position Summary showing organizational setting and position
purpose, followed by more detailed listings of tasks and
responsibilities. They are adapted from actual descriptions
from a number of agencies, particularly those already employing
benchmarks or standard position descriptions.
The factors as used in the Task Force's sample collection, with
a brief description of each, are as follows:
a.
Job Requirements.
The nature and variety of knowledges;
skills and abilities needed for acceptable performance of
the work.
b.
Difficulty of Work.
The relative complexity of the work
and the level of mental demands involved.
c.
Responsibility. Covers three elements:
(1) scope and effect of work, including impact on the
organization, other agencies, and the public, and
the consequences of error;
(2) job controls, a limiting or modifying element measuring
the nature and limiting effects of supervision received
and guidelines available; and
(3) responsibility for others, measuring the nature and
extent of line and/or staff responsibility for work
performed by others.
d. Personal Relationships. The purpose, nature and difficulty
of person-to-person work contacts, both internal and external
to the organization.
e. Other Level-Determining Factors. Any job-relevant elements
or requirements not adequately covered above, as required
in special positions or types of positions, such as unusual
job conditions, physical demands, intensity of effort
required, or continuing hazard.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
64
3. Administration
In the operation of this system, the evaluation factors described
by the Task Force and the benchmarks developed for varying levels
within the APTES system would be the core. The Civil Service
Commission would add additional benchmark positions developed in
the same format as those prepared by the Task Force. These would
include both jobs common to all or most agencies and also positions
found in a few or even a single agency where the job population
was quite numerous.
To this basic manual of benchmark positions, each agency would
add its own benchmarks, developed to cover positions unique to
that agency's needs and if necessary to cover the agency's
organizational structurg. The agency's benchmark manual would
also
include field positions where appropriate. In like manner,
field
organizations could develop benchmark positions as supple-
ments
to the agency and the Commission benchmarks. In all
cases,
these
benchmark positions would require Commission approval
and
would
be made available by the Commission to other agencies
for
their use.
In the day-to-day classification process, a local office would
consider the duties of a position to be evaluated against the
available benchmarks. In a large number of cases, consistency
should be achieved after the benchmark system is fully developed.
Where minor differences exist, a determination could be made
locally as to the effect of these differences, which determination
would be recorded. These judgments should be within the ability
of local operating personnel (line and administrative) to make
after limited training, without the necessity for pre-audit by
experienced position classifiers. Where there were no clearly
applicable benchmarks, or where observed differences were
substantial, review of.individual descriptions and comparison
to benchmarks would be expected at a level where there is
available classifier advice. With the process of comparison
being limited to only,a handful of benchmarks at a time, even
though the whole body of benchmarks in the Federal service would
be quite numerous, it would be easier than at present for the
line official or the employee to comprehend the basis for the
classification decision.
A major difference between the present method of evaluation for
positions in the General Schedule and the factor ranking-benchmark
technique is that in the current system positions are separately
described, and the classification of each position requires a
fresh evaluation against the standards, often requiring difficult
interpretations a assumptions where the standards are not directly
applicable; whereas the benchmarks represent real positions, and
are used, where applicable, as the descriptions of record. Experience
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
65
by agencies using standard descriptions shows that a limited
number of such descriptions, if written to fit agency or local
conditions, can cover substantial numbers, often hundreds, of
individual jobs. With the use of satellite benchmarks prepared
in the agencies centrally or at lower levels such as regional
offices, commands, or local installations in their field services,
it is expected that a large proportion of positions in this
category will be covered by benchmarks, eliminating much of the
paperwork required in the present classification system.
4. Relationships
The factors selected for position analysis in this factor ranking-
benchmark technique can also be used to evaluate positions in the
systems immediately above and below APTES at the points where these
systems overlap APTES. Thus, while a specialized set of factors
has been developed for the clerical and equivalent. positions and
another set for the executive job population, positions in those
categories at the point of overlap are also susceptible to analysis
and evaluation using the APTES category factors. This will make
it possible to establish equivalency of levels. Thus, senior
purchasing clerks or assistants can be compared with junior
procurement officers; laboratory or engineering technicians at
the upper end of their category can be compared with junior
professionals or technical employees at the lower part of the
APTES range; and accounting technicians and senior accounting
clerks can be compared to junior accountants. Similarly, jobs
in the lower part of the executive range can be compared with
top nonsupervisory or first-line supervisory jobs in the same
occupational area, with appropriate grade equivalence. This
should establish the necessary relationship to insure coordination
of the broad systems.
C. Model for Clerical, Office Machine Operation, and
Technician Evaluation System
1. Coverage
One of the major groupings of related jobs under study by the
Task Force is that which has been tentatively identified as the
Clerical, Office Machine Operation, and Technician category.
This group is made up of approximately 525,000 nonsupervisory
positions currently allocated to one of 57 clerical, 34 tech-
nician, and 13 office machine class series in the General
Schedule. Thus, this category represents a variety of jobs,
all of which have similar career patterns and are treated alike
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
66
in private industry for pay and career development purposes.
These are also jobs that possess many of the same character-
istics of nonexempt status employees in private industry,
i.e., production-oriented clerical, technician, and operational
jobs requiring nonprofessional qualifications.
2. Existing Problems
Investigations to date have revealed inadequacies in the Federal
Government's position classification system as applied to this
group of positions. Some of these problems are:
a. The present occupational grade alignment within this category
does not permit a reasonable reflection of comparability with
private industry in setting pay rates for many of the occupa-
tions.
b. There are more grade levels in the occupational series within
the present General Schedule structure than there are clearly
identifiable levels of work.
c. The present classification standards have certain weaknesses,
i.e., standards are written in terms too general to be
specifically applicable; some do not define the range of
difficulty of work in a given level adequately; and some
standards appear to define artificial levels.
d. The present system, as reflected in the House Subcommittee on
Position Classification Report, is too complex and requires
more time and effort than is available to maintain it
adequately.
3. Methodology
With these deficiencies of the present system in mind, the Task
Force has investigated various systems now in use in the Federal
Government, e.g., Atomic Energy Commission, National Security
Agency, etc., and those used by the more progressive state
governments and major private employers, to determine what system
or systems seem to fit best the current needs of the Federal
service with respect to the positions under discussion. The
factor ranking method appears to be the system with the most
promise for overcoming the deficiencies of the present system.
Factor ranking is essentially a technique of comparing each job
with all others, one factor at a time. The technique forces the
rater to make critical analyses of jobs on a factor basis, each
job in relation to each other.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 :6C,CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
The Task Force is in the process of developing a model factor
ranking plan applicable to the clerical, office machine operation
and technician category of jobs. The model system, as presently
conceived, will consist of:
a. Significant factors identified in the ranking of positions
in this category. These factors will be further defined
in terms which can be used to measure the relative worth
of jobs.
b. Benchmark jobs defined in terms of the significant factors
and representative of the full range of jobs to be covered
by the system. (Supplemental benchmark jobs will be
identified by the agencies to cover those jobs of a special-
ized or limited use nature.)
c. Factor rating scales which identify the measurable levels
within each factor and provide appropriate numerical values
for each level. (These factor levels, factor weights, and
scores are derived from a ranking of benchmark positions.
The scores serve as an administrative convenience in deter-
mining overall job ranking in relation to each other job.)
d. A manual of instructions, reference keys and conversion
tables.
Four factors have been developed, tentatively, for the evaluation
of clerical, office machine operation, and technician positions.
These factors are defined as follows:
a. Job Requirements and Difficulty of Work. This factor measures
the nature and lever of know-how and ability required in
performing work.
b. Responsibility. This factor measures the need to make choices
and the nature of instructions, guidelines, and supervisory
control.
c. Personal Relationships. This factor measures the importance
of interpersonal contacts and relationships to the accomplish-
ment of results.
d. Physical Effort and Work Environment. This factor measures
the type and amount of physical effort required to perform
the assigned work and the nature of the work environment.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
68
4. Administration
It is envisioned that the Civil Service Commission will maintain
control over the system, particularly over_the benchmark positions.
Agency benchmarks, which would be encouraged, would need approval
by the Civil Service Commission before they would be authorized
for use in the classification of positions. The benchmark jobs
serve as the key element in such a system. They are the standards
and guides for classification of positions and interpretation
and application of the factor rating scales.
The factor rating scales give the user an overall view of the
system and the interrelationships among the several factors.
The scales are also used in assigning scores and in making inter-
occupational comparisons. The rating scales are particularly
helpful in evaluating new jobs for which job relationship patterns
have not yet been established. This permits the system to be more
responsive to the dynamics of a changing Federal work force.
As is true under the current system, agencies would have responsi-
bility for classifying individual positions to appropriate levels.
Preliminary studies indicate that the system contemplated is one
which will be relatively easy for line management and employees
to use and understand. It will, most importantly, eliminate or
substantially reduce "grade creep." Systems of this type can be
used to evaluate a wide variety of jobs with reasonable assurance
of consistency of job treatment among agencies. It should result
in a more equitable internal job alignment and better external
pay comparability than exist under the present system. Field
tests are presently being conducted on this evaluation model to
determine validity and reliability.
1. Coverage
The urgent need to develop common job standards and wage policies
and practices to insure interagency equity in fixing pay for
Federal blue-collar employees provided the impetus for the
institution and current operation of the Coordinated Federal Wage
System. Approximately 560,000 employees and supervisors are
evaluated and compensated under this system. These are exempted
from the General Schedule by 5 U.S.C. 5102(c)(7).
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 :CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
2. Job Evaluation Methodology
The job-grading system developed by the Civil Service Commission
includes: (1) an orderly grouping of the occupations covered by
the system; (2) a grade framework to establish the basic pegpoints
of the grading system; (3) job standards to provide the criteria
for determining the relative worth of jobs in terms of grades;
and (4) a job-grading method to assure consistency in the applica-
tion of job standards.
The rankings of thirty-nine key jobs provide the framework for
the 15-grade nonsupervisory structure of the CFWS. Four factors
are utilized and described in official job standards. These are:
Skill and Knowledge; Responsibility; Physical Effort; and Working
Conditions. Individual jobs are compared with appropriate job
standards by use of factor comparison, without points; but the
jobs are graded by use of whole job comparisons, i.e., a deter-
mination is made of the most appropriate grade value, overall,
rather than a mechanical addition of individual factor judgments
or point values.
Supervisory positions are evaluated on the basis of three factors:
(1) level or nature of supervision or management exercised;
(2) level of work supervised; and (3) scope of work operations
supervised.
Leader positions are not graded on the basis of a set of classifi-
cation factors. The grades for these positions are linked directly
to the grades of the positions of employees led; and a compensation
differential of 10 percent over the pay of subordinates is paid to
leaders.
3. Relationship to Other Systems
The CFWS grading system is not now related to any other job
evaluation and ranking system in the Federal service, either by
common classification factors or by grade-level equivalents.
The Civil Service Commission serves as the coordinator and monitor
of the CFWS, promulgating job-grading standards, defining the
boundaries of wage areas, and issuing, policies and regulations
for administration and maintenance of the system. The CSC Bureau
of Personnel Management Evaluation, as part of its appraisal of
personnel management in the departments and agencies, conducts
inspections to determine compliance with regulations governing
the CFWS.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/107- CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
To advise the Commission in operating this system, the Chairman
of the Civil Service Commission has established a National Wage
Policy Committee, consisting of representatives from Federal
management and recognized labor unions. This Committee's
functions are, in brief, to consider new or revised basic
policies and procedures and to make recommendations to the
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission.
5. Observations and Conclusions
Now a little over two years in operation, the CFWS seems to be
achieving its goals relatively satisfactorily. It is the view
of the Task Force that the system should continue in effect.
However, the following steps are considered appropriate:
a. An attempt should be made to achieve a degree of coordination
in job evaluation between blue-collar positions and clerical,
office machine operation, and technician positions. With
changes in technology, jobs are being created which fall into
a "grey area"--being considered sometimes as in CFWS and at
other times in that portion of the present GS system which
would be replaced by COMOT. Evaluation techniques for the
two systems should be coordinated, therefore, so as to
produce consistent determinations of relative skill level
within either system.
b. Serious consideration should be given to the need for
retaining such supervisory positions as General Foreman and
Superintendents in the CFWS. These positions cover responsi-
bilities to such an extent that they might more appropriately
be evaluated by a system geared to the classification of
white-collar supervisory and managerial positions. During
the next year final determinations on these points will be
made by the Task Force.
1. Coverage
During the course of study of the many occupational job families
within the General Schedule and certain other evaluation systems,
the Task Force came to the conclusion that the concept of rank-in-
man should be considered for more extensive application. Accord-
ingly, a review we made of those occupations which would lend
themselves to a rank-in-man concept not only because of the
inherent characteristics of the occupations but because in the
private sector these occupations are treated in a unique manner.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 ~clA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
As a result of this review, certain specific occupations were
earmarked for in-depth analysis. These were occupations in
the health services field, attorneys, teachers, and positions
in the Foreign Service. Further, because of their quasi-military
organization in the private sector and other public governmental
organizations, positions in protective services have also been
studied. The Task Force has for the past several months been
considering the feasibility of using the rank-in-man concept
to assist in providing compensation practices more compatible
with those in the private sector for the types of positions
enumerated above.
Since one of the basic principles that the Task Force has adopted
is that all positions within the Federal Government, not only lend
themselves to being, but must be, described, evaluated, and
classified, a rank-in-job system would be required for these
special categories of personnel. The Task Force, therefore, is
considering a combined rank-in-man/rank-in-job evaluation system
for some or all of these special categories.
First there would be established an appropriate skill level for
the job. The evaluation systems enumerated in this appendix would
be used to the maximum extent possible. Then an individual
employee--or incumbent--classification under the rank-in-man
concept for pay purposes would be used. The individual's rank
would be carried with him from job assignment to job assignment.
A selection and promotion board would be required to determine
eligibility for both appointment and advancement, as is presently
done both in the Veterans Administration Department of Medicine
and Surgery and in the Foreign Service.
The key to success in using a combined rank-in-man/rank-in-job
evaluation technique is the effectiveness of its administration.
The military services of the Government have for many years used
this combined approach. The principle should be that promotions
in number are directly related to positions in number that exist
at any particular skill level. By this is meant an individual's
personal rank should almost always correlate to the rank or skill
level of the duties to which he is assigned.
For the special categories enumerated above, therefore, the
respective agencies and departments where this combined evaluation
technique would be used would have to adopt a common approach.
Specifically, promotions from one rank to another under the
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/1072 CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
rank-in-man side of the equation would be correlated with the
numbers of positions at corresponding levels that exist under
the rank-in-job side of the equation. While it is understood
that imbalance may exist during periods of governmental contrac-
tion or expansion, overall the percentage of "mis-classifications"
would have to be held to a minimum. It would be necessary for
management to conduct an aggressive program for elimination of
these mis-classifications through job assignment or restructuring.
The Civil Service Commission would have a continuing responsi-
bility through its Personnel Management Evaluation Program to
insure that such efforts were underway and that the agencies
were in fact administering the program as intended.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : QJA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
APPENDIX VIII Disposition of Exceptions to
Existing Major Job Evaluation Systems
1. Statement of Problem
A major objective of the Task Force is to improve the coordination
of job evaluation systems and practices in the Executive Branch.
The current existence of 60 different, uncoordinated job evaluation
systems applicable to 12% of the Executive Branch positions is the
root of this problem. This portion of the Task Force report dis-
cusses possible solutions to the coordination problem.
2. Tentative Disposition of the 60 Separate Systems
Brief background information and proposed actions follow:
a. There are a considerable number of uncoordinated systems using
the General Schedule voluntarily. The new job evaluation
systems being developed to replace the General Schedule would
indicate that the following currently independent systems
should be mandatorily included under appropriate parts of the
Coordinated Job Evaluation Plan;
All positions
Local Draft Board employees
All positions
All positions
All positions
Temporary employees
National Bank Examiners
Administrative employees
Atomic Energy Commission
Selective Service System
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
National Security Agency
Central Intelligence Agency
Bureau of Census
Department of Treasury
Agency for International
Development
U. S. Patent Office
Exempt employees Department of State
Unenumerated employees Peace Corps
Participating Agency employees Agency for International
Development
b. There are a number of the uncoordinated systems that appear to
exist only because at some time the General Schedule System did
not provide aiv ropriate job evaluation procedures or did not
produce adequate salaries. Special provision has been made
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/1 Q74 CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
under various parts of the Coordinated Job Evaluation Plan for
many of these, and certain of the following separate systems
may no longer be needed:
Doctors, dentists, nurses
Commissioned officers
Teachers, overseas dependents
schools
Scientists and engineers
(P. L. 313 types)
Statutory individual salaries
U. S. Attorneys and Assistant
U. S. Attorneys
Teachers, domestic dependents
schools
Foreign Service Staff
personnel
Service Academy faculties
Foreign Service Institute
Special Attorneys
Specified. employees
Specified employees
U. S. Park Police
Executive Protective Service
National Zoological Police
Experts and Consultants
Support personnel, domestic
dependents schools
(white-collar only)
Canteen Service (white-collar)
Veterans Administration
U. S. Public Health Service
Many agencies
Several agencies
Several agencies
Department of State, U.S.I.A.,
A.I.D., Peace Corps
Several agencies
Department of State
Department of Justice
Smithsonian Institution
National Security Agency
Department of the Interior
Department of Treasury
Smithsonian Institution
Many agencies
Several agencies
Veterans Administration
c. There are currently several rank-in-man systems used in a
number of agencies that are not effectively coordinated with
one another nor with other job evaluation systems of the
Executive Branch.. Flexibility in moving employees among
geographically dispersed work sites is a critical need. Without
disturbing the assignment flexibility, the following systems
should be brought under the Coordinated Job Evaluation Plan for
billet evaluation and for coordination of basic pay levels for
the several classes:
Foreign Service Officers
Foreign Service Officers
Foreign Service Information
Officers
Foreign Service Officers
Commissioned Officers
Department of State
Agency for International
Development
U. S. Information Agency
Peace Corps
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
75
d. There are several uncoordinated systems that, in whole or in
part, could well be considered to be part of the Coordinated
Federal Wage System. These include:
Support personnel of domestic
dependents schools (blue-collar
only) Several agencies
Currency Manufacturing Department of Treasury
Lighthouse keepers and civilian
employees on lightships Department of Transportation
Canteen Service (blue-collar) Veterans Administration
e. The following systems are much like the General Schedule or
other portions of the Coordinated Job Evaluation Plan but are
now separate systems because of certain provisions of the
Treaty with Panama relating to pay. These systems could be
brought under the appropriate portions of the Coordinated Job
Evaluation Plan. Detailed pay administration would remain a
responsibility of the Panama Canal Company. These systems are:
Panama Canal nonmanual employees
Panama Canal special category employees
f. It is suggested that jobs occupied by Panama Canal manual
employees, whose pay is covered by provisions of the Treaty
with Panama, be placed within the CFWS as a special schedule.
g. There are several current schedules, each individually used by
a Government-controlled corporation (or comparable entity),
which are not coordinated in any formal manner with schedules
of other agencies. These systems are comparable to the newly
organized Postal Service system, although they have existed for
many years as independent systems. No real basis can be set
forth for treating any of these as less independent than the
Postal Service. They possess the following common character-
istics:
(1) Each has a corporate-type structure;
(2) Each has as its primary mission the provision and sale of
a commercial-type service to the public;
(3) Each is required to maintain its income and expenses in a
prescribed profit-type relationship;
(4) Each esta)iishes its job evaluation and pay practices by
some degree of negotiation with its employees; and
(5) Each has evolved a job evaluation (and pay) system different
from the system used by any other Executive Branch agency.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
76
These systems, then, should remain independent following
the newly-reiterated precedent of the Postal Service:
(1) Alaska Railroad, Department of Transportation; and
(2) Tennessee Valley Authority, all employees.
h. There are a number of schedules or systems that should
continue to exist for a variety of individual reasons.
These systems, and the reasons for their continued independence,
are:
(1) Overseas Foreign Nationals. It would be unrealistic to
try to impose continental U. S. job evaluation practices
and pay levels on citizens of other countries employed for
the most part in their own homelands.
(2) Experts and Consultants employed 10 or fewer days in any
three consecutive months. The time and cost of evaluating
such employment is too high to be practical. '
(3) Temporary Enumerators, Bureau of Census. Employment of
these individuals is too short in duration, and too
irregular in scheduling, to make job evaluation and pay
based on annual rates a practical procedure.
(4) Consular agents.
(5) Employees providing part-time service inseparable from
other employment.
(6) Employees on alcontract or fee basis, where employment is
too- irregular and too short in duration to make job
evaluation and pay based on annual rates a practical pro-
cedure.
(7) Inmates and Patients. Work is frequently assigned for
therapeutic reasons, is always temporary and part time,
and, in terms of general working conditions, bears little
relationship to gainful employment in the general labor
market.
(8) Students and Interns. These individuals are not employees
in the normal sense, but rather beneficiaries of
Government-furnished training. In a real sense, there is
no "work" to be evaluated. Stipends are related to living
costs and conditions, not to services rendered by the
student or intern.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/107CIA-RDP731300296R000100150001-4
(9) Pay for those persons where there is a joint responsibility
of both the F&deral Government and the county in which the
employee is stationed, e.g., County agents, U. S. Department
of Agriculture.
(10) Emergency and seasonal employees. In most cases, there is
not time or opportunity to follow normal job evaluation
procedures.
(11) Employees paid a zero or nominal salary. Job evaluation
procedures would serve no purpose.
(12) Staffs of Former Presidents. The current practice is to
permit the former President to choose members of his staff
and fix their pay as he sees fit. A change in this practice
would be difficult to justify and would accomplish little
because of the nature of this employment.
3. Extension of Systems to Other Portions of the Government
It is believed that the evaluation systems proposed in SECTION I..
are sufficiently flexible and useful that they be considered for
adoption by appropriate organizations in the Legislative and
Judicial Branches, nonappropriated fund employees and other govern-
mental organizations not covered by Public Law 91-216, where
deemed advisable.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0100150001-4
78
APPENDIX IX Public Law 91-216, Job Evaluation
Policy Act of 1970
Public Law 91-216
91st Congress, H. R. 13008
March 17, 1970
an 2(t
To improve position classification systems within the executive branch, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and (louse of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may Job Evaluation
be cited as the "ob Evaluation Policy Act of 1970". Polioy Aet of
1970.
TITLE I-CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT
TO JOB EVALUATION AND RANKING IN THE EXECU-
TIVE BRANCH
SEC. 101. The Congress hereby finds that-
(1) the tremendous growth required in the activities of the Fed-
eral Government in order to meet the country's needs during the
past several decades has led to the need for employees in an ever-
increasing and changing variety of occupations and professions,
many of which did not exist when thbasic pprincipples of ]ob
evaluation and ranking were established-by the Classification Act
of 1923. The diverse and constantly changing nature of these 63 Stat. 954,
occupations and professions requires that the Federal Government 972.
reassess its approach to job evaluation and ranking better to 5 USC 5101 et
fulfill its role as an employer and assure efficient and economical seg and notes.
administration;
(2) the large number and variety of job evaluation and ranking
systems in the executive branch have resulted in significant inequi-
ties in selection, promotion, and pay of employees in comparable
positions among these systems;
- (3) little effort has been made by Congress or the executive
branch to consolidate or coordinate the various job evaluation and
ranking systems, and there has been no progress toward the estab- 84 STAT. 72
lishment of a coordinated system in which job evaluation and s4 STAT. 73
ranking, regardless of- the methods used, is related to a unified
set of principles providing coherence and equity throughout the
executive branch;
(4) within the executive branch, there has been no significant
study of, or experimentation with, the several recognized methods
of job evaluation and ranking to determine which of those methods
are most appropriate for use and application to meet the present
and future needs of the Federal Government; and
(5) notwithstanding the recommendations resulting from the
various studies conducted during the last twenty years, the Federal
Government has not taken the initiative to implement those recom-
mendations with respect to the job evaluation and ranking systems
within the executive branch, with the result that such systems have
not, in many cases, been adapted or administered to meet the
rapidly changing needs of the Federal Government.
SEC. 201: It is the sense of Congress that-
(1) the executive branch shall, in the interest of equity, efficiency,
and good administration, operate under a coordinated job evalua-
tion and ranking system for all civilian positions, to the greatest
extent acticable-
(2) tpe system shall be designed so as to utilize such methods of
job evaluation and ranking as are appropriate for use in the
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/1079CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
executive branch, taking into account the various occupational
categories of positions therein; and
(3) the United States Civil Service Commission shall be
authorized to exercise general supervision and control over such
a system.
TITLE III-PREPARATION OF A JOB EVALUATION AND
RANKING PLAN BY TIIE CIVIL SERVICE COMMIS-
SION AND REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
CONGRESS
SEC. 301. The Civil Service Commission, through such organizational
unit which it shall establish within the Commission and which shall
report directly to the Commission, shall prepare a comprehensive plan
for the establishment of a coordinated system of job evaluation and
ranking for civilian positions in the executive branch. The plan shall
include, among other things-
(1) provision for the establishment of a method or methods for
evaluating jobs and alining them by level ;
(2) a time schedule for the conversion of existing job evaluation
and ranking systems into the coordinated system;
(3) provision that the Civil Service Commission shall have
general supervision of and control over the coordinated job evalua-
tion and ranking system, including, if the Commission deems it
appropriate, the authority to approve or disapprove the adoption,
use and administration in the executive branch of the method or
methods established under that system ;
(4) provision for the establishment of procedures for the peri-
odic review by the Civil Service Commission of the effectiveness
of the method or methods adopted for use under the system; and
(5) provision for maintenance of the system to meet the chang-
84 STAT. 73 ing needs of the executive branch in the future.
84 STAT. 74 SEC. 302. In carrying out its functions under section 301 of this Act,
the Commission shall consider all recognized methods of job evaluation
and ranking.
SEC. 303. The Civil Service Commission is authorized to secure
directly from any executive agency, as defined by section 105 of title 5,
80 Stat. 379. United States Code, or any bureau, office or part thereof, information,
suggestions, estimates statistics, and technical assistance for the pur-
poses of this Act; and each such executive agency or bureau, office, or
part thereof is authorized and directed to furnish such information,
suggestions, estimates, statistics, and technical assistance directly to
the Civil Service Commission upon request by the Commission.
SEC. 304. (a) Within one year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress
an interim progress report on the current status and results of its
activities under this Act, together with its current findings.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/10 gCIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4
(b) Within two years after the date of enactment of this Act-
(1) the Civil Service Commission shall complete its functions
under this Act and shall transmit to the President a comprehensive
report of the results of its activities, together with its recommenda-
tions (including its draft of proposed legislation to carry out
such recommendations), and
(2) the President shall transmit that report (including the
recommendations and draft of proposed legislation of the Com-
mission) to the Congress, together with such recommendations
as the President deems appropriate.
(c) The Commission shall submit to the Committees on Post Office
and Civil Service of the Senate and House of Representatives once
each calendar month, or at such other intervals as may be directed by
those committees, or either of them, an interim progress report on the
then current status and results of the activities of the Commission under
this Act, together with the then current findings of the Commission.
(d) The Commission shall periodically consult with, and solicit the
views of, appropriate employee and professional organizations.
(e) The organizational unit established under section 301 of this
Act shall cease to exist upon the submission of the report to the Con-
gress under subsection (b) of this section.
Approved March 17, 1970.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
HOUSE REPORT No. 91-823 (Comm, on Post Office & Civil Service).
SENATE REPORT No. 91-713 (Comm. on Post Office & Civil Service).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 116 (1970):
Feb. 16: Considered-and passed House.
Mar, 4: Considered and passed Senate.
Interim
reports to
Congress.
Approved For Release 2002/01/10 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000100150001-4