THE APPLICANT ADVISORY - RECRUITMENT TO EOD

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82-00357R001000040028-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 12, 2001
• Sequence Number: 28
• Publication Date: October 22, 1974
• Content Type: MF

' Approved For Release 2006/08/31 : CIA-RDP82-00357R001000040028-0
22 October 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Personnel
FROM : Office of Personnel Advisory GROUP
SUBJECT The Applicant Process - Recruitment to EOD
1. General: The following paragraphs contain recommendations
for your consideration concerning the applicant in process system.
In approaching our study of the applicant process, OPAG attempted
.to gather information from all parties involved in converting an.
applicant to employee status. To this end, we talked with individuals
from Recruitment Division, Correspondence Branch, Clerical Staffing
Branch, Staff Personnel Division, Office of Security, Office of
Medical Services, Applicant Review Panel and with various operating
components (Commo, OWI, OTS, OTR, NPIC, Finance, Logistics, and
OD&E). From the customer (operating components), we found there
were several universal concerns, namely:
a. The length of time required to process an
applicant once the operating component has expressed
an interest.
b. The lack of feedback from OP/SPD to the customer
on the status of the applicant.
c. An apparent lack of communication between OP/SPD,
OS, and OMS.
d. Untimely and inappropriate correspondence.
e. The lengthy wait for polygraph and medical
appointments.
f. An inordinate time lag between OP, OS, and OMS
in moving an applicant from one stage of processing to
another.
Approved For Release 2006/08/31: CIA-RDP82-00357RO01000040028-0
 Approved FgLRelease 2006/08/31: CIA-RDP82-00R001000040028-0
Although the above six concerns are universal in nature, each
operating component was armed with specific cases to reinforce their
concerns. In actuality however, we found the one universal complaint
to be that the applicant system is not operating to anyone's satisfaction.
The remainder of this paper concerns itself with each phase of the
process and contains OPAG recommendations for corrective action. We
do not represent this paper to be a panacea, in fact, we would like
to recommend a working level review of the process in order that
more time can be devoted toward improving the applicant processing
system. Nevertheless, the following represents OPAG's views and
'recommendations on the applicant in process.
2. Recruitment:
a. The one overriding problem we encountered in our
study is the current overloading of the system, i.e., far
too many applicants for far too few positions. We recommend
that the recruitment guides be made part of a viable
and working system rather than the. static system it appears
to be today. Initially we recommend Recruitment Division
go to every Office in the Agency indicating what guides
they currently have on record, requesting updatings or
cancellations as appropriate, and asking the Office to
estimate how many employees fitting this category will
be required in the next six months. This procedure would
be a continuing one under the control of Recruitment
Division and completed on a semiannual basis. The
objective of course is to reduce the quantity of
applicant files reaching Headquarters by placing the
recruiter in a better position to "screen out" not
only those marginal candidates as they are doing now
but also those good candidates for which the Agency
has no current requirements. This system gives the
recruiter a better idea of what he should be looking
for and will ensure him that his information is current.
Operating components could update their requirements
at any time but would be compelled to do so on a
semiannual basis. As part of this system, some type
of retrieval system (possibly computerized) could be
established in order that an otherwise good applicant
is not lost forever but could be retrieved from the
system if such a requirement did arise in a reasonable
time frame.
b. We recommend that the recruiters, on their
occasional visits to Headquarters, be given substantive
briefings by substantive officers on the recruitment
requirements. Although we understand this is done
Approved For Release 2006/08/31: CIA-RDP82-00357R001000040028-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/31: CIA-RDP82-00357R001000040028-0
to some extent now, we believe the Office of Personnel
can be more aggressive in this field. Coupled with (a)
above, we believe these recommendations can give the
recruiter a much greater input as to where he ought
to be placing his priorities. This in turn can
substantially reduce the. excessive number of applica-
tions received at Headquarters and reduce the overload
currently bogging down the system.
c. OPAG also questions the usefulness of the two-
part PHS form recently introduced. We recognize the
paper savings and the applicants viewpoint, however,
it appears to us to be another device to encourage
more applicants at a time when applicants substantially
exceed requirements. The applicants eventually placed
in process. have to complete the entire form anyway
at the cost of additional time. The basic question
then, as we see it, is applicant convenience versus
additional time in process. We would opt for the
"old system" with the resulting decrease in the
time the applicant is in process.
d. In the current climate of decreasing employment,
we also question the need for the apparent relatively
large number of professional recruiters employed to
recruit the relatively small number of EOD's. Basically
this is a "gut" reaction as we do not have access to
the relevant figures, however, we do recommend the
Director of Personnel take a look at this aspect with
an eye to reducing the number of professional recruiters
(or redirecting them toward clerical recruitment in
the Eastern United States).
3. Correspondence:
a. We understand the Agency's position of replying
to each and every letter received covering the gamut from
legitimate applicants to kooks. We see it as a protective
device from Congressional ire and the like and, based
on the current political climate, we accept this policy.
We do believe however that routine correspondence can
be stretched from 30 to 60 days by simply adding to each
letter a statement such as "As you were advised by our
field recruiter, processing of your application will
take from 4 to 6 months. In the past, we have tried
to keep each of our applicants apprised of his standing
by a letter each 30 days. As an economy measure, we
are now extending this to 60 days. During this period
you can be sure your application is receiving the most
expeditious review possible. If developments do occur
-3-
Approved For Release 2006/08/31: CIA-RDP82-00357ROO1000040028-0
 Approved ForRelease 2006/08/31 : CIA-RDP82-00 7R001000040028-0
16
within the 60 days'we will of course be in touch with you.
In any event, you can expect to hear from us within 60
days on the status of your application. Please feel free
to contact us at any time during this period if your
personal circumstances should change, etc..." Again,
we believe this will relieve another burden on the over-
loaded internal system.
b. Another all too obvious problem in the correspondence
field is the physical location of the Correspondence Branch..
We understand no correspondence is sent unless the applicant
file itself is available. We recognize this as a neces-
sity to prevent embarrassing duplicate letters, etc.
Obviously retrieving 'a file from review, forwarding it
to OP/SPD and then to OP/CARB in Rosslyn, back to OP/SPD,
and then back to the reviewing component adds considerable
time to the process. Extending the "interim letter" to
60 days will help, however relocating OP/CARB physically
with OP/SPD would also reduce the time span.
4. Staff Personnel Division/Skills Bank
a. OPAG believes the prostitution of the Skills Bank
system is a major factor in the overload of the system.
We believe, once an applicant file is. banked, the onus
is upon the operating component to express an interest..
If no interest is expressed during. the ten day (extended
from seven) banking period, the applicant should be
rejected. If he is a good applicant, he.should be
included in the retrieval system recommended. under
the recruitment section. If interest is expressed,
the file is forwarded to that Office. If there is
more than one Office expressing interest, we recommend
the duplicate file system with each interested Office
reviewing the folder at the same time. As soon as
one expresses an interest, the clearance and invitee
procedure can commence.
b. We further understand resumes are not included
on the Skills Bank listing but rather are circulated
independently because they are not "complete cases."
This puts an additional load on SPD for no valid reason
that we can ascertain. We recommend resumes be included
on the Skills Bank listing just as PHS' and handled
in the same manner at the end of the banking period.
5. Components
a. To turn the tables for a moment, one of the major
complaints of those involved in the processing system
is the inordinate amount of time taken by operating
Approved For Release 2006/08/31: CIA-RDP82-00357R001000040028-0
 Approved For Release 2006/08/31 : CIA-RDP82-00357R001000040028-0
components in reviewing and deciding on placing an
applicant in process. One reason is that under the
current practice components are bogged down reviewing
unsolicited applicant folders, tinder our Skills Bank
proposal, if there is no component interest, the
applicant is rejected. Thus, the components review
only those folders in which they have expressed an
interest,
6. Processinn
a. In our review so far, we have addressed only
recommendations that will get the applicant in process
sooner and simultaneously reduce the overload on the
entire system. Since the individuals in SPD are
concurrently handling applicants and applicants in
process, it is felt a reduction both in the number
of applicants being reviewed and the number of
times each file must be reviewed will allow these
individuals to devote more time to the applicant
in process. We note that the operating components
are principally concerned about the applicants
status once he is in process. However, upon reviewing
the procedures we find little of substance that we
can add to expedite the process. In other words,
the system as designed appears to be equipped to
handle the situation, yet it does not to anyone's
complete satisfaction. As noted, reducing OP/SPD's
review of applicants will allow them to devote more
time and attention to the applicant in process and
should reduce. the time span.. Simply reproducing
the thirteen copies. of the PHS required by Security
at Headquarters rather than shipping them to Rosslyn
for reproduction could save 3 days processing time.
Another factor OPAG and the operating components
find disconcerting is that no follow-up appears
to be made on an applicant in process unless the
operating component requests such a follow-up.
Anyone who has worked in an operating component
is aware if we followed this system on overseas
processing, it is unlikely anyone would ever get
overseas. It is incumbent upon OP/SPD to devise a
"tickler" system to monitor the applicant in process;
to "needle" Security, Medics, the component, or the
applicant at appropriate intervals to ensure that the
processing continues at a reasonable pace rather than
waiting for an inquiry to initiate corrective action.
Periodic feedback of the status of an applicant to the
operating component would help to alleviate misunder-
standings and distrust on their part.
Approved For Release 2006/08/31: CIA-RDP82-00357R001000040028-0
 r
Approved For Release 2006/08/31 : CIA-RDP82-00 7R001000040028-0
k
7. Conclusion: OPAG believes the applicant process to be an
issue of primary importance to the Office of Personnel: As the system
provides a service to all Agency components, its effectiveness or
lack thereof is a direct reflection on the managerial and administra-
tive capabilities of the Office of Personnel-and its careerists.
We believe the foregoing recommendations can substantially increase
the effectiveness of the system and request your consideration of
these proposals. OPAG of course stands ready to discuss these
proposals with you at your convenience.
Chairman, OPAL'
7PAT"TIFL
Approved For Release 2006/08/31: CIA-RDP82-00357R001000040028-0