By Max Cacas
FederalNewsRadio

Listen to the report: http://www.federalnewsradio.com/emedia/127052.mp3

One of the most lasting legacies of the Bush Administration in the is the degree to which pay for performance programs have been implemented throughout the federal government. A Senate subcommittee got its last opportunity to size up the effectiveness of pay for performance before a new administration takes over next January.

Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka, a Democrat who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, The Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, notes that when Congress granted federal agencies the statutory authority to develop pay for performance, the idea was that systems be transparent, fairly evaluate a worker's performance with a fair appeals process, provide enough training for workers and managers, and finally, provide enough money to properly award all workers for good performance.

The reality, he says, has fallen short of that ideal:

"I continue to hear from employees that their performance rating and pay awards depend not only on their performance, but rather on that of other employees they are in competition with due to limited resources to reward performance."

Akaka is also concerned that officials are not taking the time to help federal workers clearly understand how pay for performance works. He cites the most recent Senior Executive Service Human Capital Survey in which 30 percent of respondents say they don't understand how pay hikes and bonuses are determined. Last year's employee survey at the Department of Homeland Security found that more than half of the workers at the Transportation Security Administration don't believe their pay is based on performance:

"If employees do not understand their pay system," he said, "or think that it is unfair, it will not work."

Of course, the Federal officials most responsible for the spread of pay for performance programs in the government see things differently.

Linda Springer, the outgoing director of the Office of Personnel Management, believes pay for performance is a success.

But under later questioning by Chairman Akaka, she was asked about the disconnect between the success stories, and the countless Feds who paint a less rosy picture:

"It's important to draw the distinction between the execution of specific programs, and the notion of performance based pay."  Springer adds that wherever there are problems, its usually because of poor execution of the program.

Akaka says he is also concerned about reports that in a budgetary environment where domestic programs are taking a backseat to military and anti-terror programs, some agencies simply do not have the funds to properly implement pay for performance, and instead, implement a "bell curve" distribution to define quotas for distributing raises and bonuses.

Richard Spires, Deputy Commissioner with the Internal Revenue Service acknowledged the problem of insufficient funds for a pay for performance system, and while denying that the IRS is using quotas, says his agency issues "guidance" to advisory groups that review performance evaluations.

Representatives of the major federal employee unions, for their part, had little good to say about pay for performance.

Carol Bonosaro with the Senior Executives Association, cites the case of a former member of the Senior Executive Service:

He received no pay increase for several years, despite receiving fully successful ratings for his performance at the Department of Energy. Largely because of this, he voluntarily resigned his position in the SES and rejoined a position covered by the GS system.

Because he took the move, he received a nearly 4 and a half percent pay hike for employees like himself at NASA.

Whatever the successes, or shortcomings of the various pay for performance programs now in play in parts of the federal government, it will be up to the the next President how far pay for performance goes in the next administration.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?sid=1445240&nid=169