U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness

REPORT OF A SPECIAL STUDY

Veterans: Getting Their Preference?

December 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

APPENDIX A	Potential Problem Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A1

APPENDIX B	Delegated Examining Sites Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B1

APPENDIX C	Supplemental Questions on Hiring Veterans . . . . . . . . . .C1

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Federal Government places high priority on ensuring that veterans receive preference in competitive hiring and all of the other benefits to which they are entitled. Certain veterans, spouses, and mothers of deceased or disabled veterans receive preference in competitive examinations for Federal employment. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conducted this study to determine whether Federal agencies fully and fairly considered veterans= preference eligibles in their hiring decisions under delegated examining during Fiscal Year 1999, and to ensure that staffing flexibilities were not being systematically misused to intentionally avoid hiring veterans. The following summarizes our significant findings:

There has been a slight but steady growth in the percentage of veterans hired through competitive examining each fiscal year since 1995.

Sampled agencies are appropriately administering entitlement to veterans= preference in their delegated examining operations.

Agencies properly applied procedures for passing over veterans= preference eligibles when they were not qualified, and we found no formal complaints or grievances with respect to non- selection of veterans.

Selecting officials generally understand their responsibility to provide full and fair consideration to veterans under the competitive examining process. Human resources staff provide training and assistance to managers, and they ensure accountability through the audit of selection certificates.

We identified no instances where agencies systematically misused staffing flexibilities to intentionally avoid hiring veterans. However, we did find sites where agencies improperly issued multiple certificates for single interdisciplinary positions. As explained in OPM=s Delegated Examining Handbook, dated October 1999, agencies should not issue multiple certificates for single interdisciplinary positions. OPM's General Counsel held in a May 18, 1998 opinion that this practice violates the Veterans Preference Act requirement that selection must be made from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are available for the job, and may possibly violate veterans' preference if a preference eligible is certified. We found no indication that the issuance of multiple certificates harmed any veterans. The agencies were unaware of this opinion in the Handbook and agreed to discontinue the practice.

II. INTRODUCTION

Background

During Fiscal Year 1999, OPM found a systemic pattern of non-selection of veterans during a delegated examining review. Fact finding established that selecting officials were inappropriately announcing interdisciplinary jobs at multiple grade levels in order to intentionally avoid hiring veterans. Announcing positions at multiple grade levels is an acceptable practice if used appropriately. For example, supervisors who plan to fill multiple positions with workers of varying skill levels might advertise a position at multiple grade levels. However, supervisors who intend to avoid hiring veterans, might advertise a position at multiple grade levels so they may choose a candidate from one list while failing to consider a veteran who appears on another list.

Veterans= preference does not require Federal agencies to use a particular method for hiring workers. Rather, agencies have discretion to fill positions using any appropriate hiring authority. Although some preference was provided earlier, the first legislated Veterans Preference in appointments in Federal jobs occurred right after the Civil War. At present, veterans= preference results from the Veterans= Preference Act of 1944, as amended, and is codified in various provisions of title 5, United States Code. In accordance with the law, veterans who are disabled or served on active duty during specified time periods or in military campaigns are entitled to receive preference over others in competitive hiring and in retention during reductions in force.

The Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 gives veterans access to Federal job opportunities that might otherwise be closed to them, including vacancies advertised under an agency=s merit promotion program when the agency is accepting applicants from outside its workforce. The law also makes it a prohibited personnel practice for an agency to knowingly take or fail to take a personnel action if that action or failure to act would violate a statutory or regulatory veterans= preference requirement.

This study was conducted to determine whether Federal agencies fully and fairly considered veterans= preference eligibles in their hiring decisions under delegated examining during Fiscal Year 1999. We focused on ensuring that staffing flexibilities were not being systematically misused to intentionally avoid hiring veterans.

Methodology

The data for this study was gathered as part of our regularly scheduled annual oversight of delegated examining. Prior to making onsite delegated examining audits, we analyzed several information sources to identify potential anomalies in veteran hiring patterns. These sources included Federal hiring statistics, USA Jobs listings, quarterly reports of agency delegated examining, and statistics on complaints filed by veterans with the Department of Labor under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998. The lack of common data fields for organization and geographic identifiers across these databases limited their usefulness in pinpointing specific potential problem areas for review. Although the data did not allow for identifying specific potential problem areas, we were able to develop four criteria that provided indicators of possible problems to be explored during scheduled delegated examining reviews (See Appendix A). By using the criteria together, we were able to identify sites with potential anomalies in veteran hiring patterns. Case reviews and interviews were conducted onsite to further clarify the data.

During the first and second quarter of Fiscal Year 2000, we reviewed Fiscal Year 1999 delegated examining operations at 30 sites in 9 departments and 5 independent agencies. Sites visited are listed in Appendix B. These sites included a representative sample of high volume and low volume delegated examining operations. Appendix C lists the supplemental questions that we explored in addition to our traditional delegated examining oversight agenda.

FINDINGS

OPM=s Fiscal Year 1998 Annual Report to Congress on Veterans= Employment in the Federal Government noted that the Federal Government is the Nation=s leader in veterans= employment. Veterans constituted 26.7 percent of the Federal workforce in Fiscal Year 1998 versus 11.6 percent of the Civilian Labor Force (Source: BLS Current Population Survey, September 1997).

The primary reasons for the government=s high employment of veterans are the laws that entitle veterans to preference in appointments to Federal jobs. The purpose of this study was to verify that the preference requirements are being met in the delegated examining process. This verification is particularly important since the amount of delegated examining has increased 70.9 percent since FY 1995. Delegation of examining has increased agencies= authority, which in turn requires that OPM maintain an active oversight program to ensure that the authority is being used appropriately. OPM routinely looks at 90 delegated examining unit sites annually that account for 15 percent of the appointments.

What is the veteran population in the agencies reviewed?

The percentage of veterans in the workforce represented by agencies in our sample ranged from a low of 8.4 percent to a high of 47 percent. Only three of the 30 sites were below the percentage in the Civilian Labor Force. Agencies with relatively high percentages of veterans were Department of Defense organizations. Agencies with relatively low percentages of veterans were a mixture of those with a high proportion of professional and scientific positions or those with a high proportion of clerical or technical support level positions.

How is vacancy information provided to veteran job candidates?

All agencies post their positions on USAJOBS. Some target veterans specifically. One reason agencies conduct targeted recruitment of veterans is to increase minority representation. As a group, higher proportions of veterans are minorities than the general population. Additionally, agencies are required by law to establish affirmative employment plans for hiring, placement, and advancement of disabled veterans. Agencies conduct targeted recruitment in support of these plans. Thirteen agencies include special mailings of vacancy announcements to veterans= organizations. A few make recruiting visits or attend job fairs at military processing centers and veterans= organizations.

Did the hiring actions meet regulatory requirements?

We found no errors in providing veterans= preference. Agencies made proper determinations regarding eligibility for veterans= preference. Five agencies had one or more lists where a preference eligible was passed over for a non-preference hire. In each case, the process for passing over the veteran who was not qualified was properly applied. No formal complaints or grievances were filed regarding non-selection of veterans at the installations visited.

We also looked for indicators that agencies might be misusing staffing flexibilities to avoid hiring veterans. The proper use of staffing flexibilities helps agencies to meet their staffing needs. However, the inappropriate use of flexibilities may result in violations of veterans= preference, merit system principles, and prohibited personnel practices.

The two primary indicators reviewed were unused lists of eligibles with veterans at the top and high numbers of duplicate announcements for the same job. A high number of duplicate announcements might indicate that a position was advertised numerous times in an attempt to circumvent a veteran who appeared at the top of a certificate. During a FY 1999 delegated examining review, OPM found a systemic pattern of non-selection of veterans by selecting officials who were announcing interdisciplinary jobs at multiple grade levels. During the current review, no patterns of veteran candidate avoidance emerged.

At 12 of the 30 delegated examining unit sites we visited, agencies hired more often from certificates with veterans at the top. At 13 sites, agencies hired more often from certificates with non-veterans at the top. At five sites, agencies hired from both types at the same rate. Although there was variety in rate of selection, we found no instances where agencies systematically avoided using certificates with veterans at the top. Eligible lists headed both by veterans and by non-veterans were returned unused. Where differences existed in the rate of unused lists headed by veterans and non-veterans, we did not find evidence in records or interviews that suggested agencies avoided hiring veterans by returning lists unused.

At 25 of the thirty sites we visited, agencies issued separate lists at multiple grade levels for the same position. We found a mix of veteran and non-veteran selections from these lists. No patterns emerged at any location suggesting that multiple grade announcements were used to avoid hiring veterans.

At ten sites, agencies did improperly issue multiple certificates for single interdisciplinary positions at the same grade level. Interdisciplinary positions involve duties and responsibilities closely related to more than one occupation, and are relatively uncommon in the Federal service. OPM's Delegated Examining Handbook, dated October 1999, provides that agencies should not issue multiple certificates for single interdisciplinary positions. The Handbook references an OPM General Counsel opinion dated May 18, 1998 which held that this practice violates the Rule of Three, i.e., selection must be made from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are available for the job. The opinion also says that this practice possibly violates veterans= preference if a preference eligible is listed on the certificate. Although agencies at these ten sites did issue such multiple certificates, we found no instances where a veteran was improperly passed over and no patterns of non-selection of veterans in these cases. Personnel at these ten sites were unaware of this opinion in the Handbook and agreed to discontinue the practice.

Factors such as Aall sources@ advertising, multiple grade level advertising, candidate quality, hiring freezes, and budget cutbacks affected the rate of unused eligible lists. The three most frequent reasons that selecting officials gave for not using lists included: filling the position internally, requesting multiple lists for one position, and not filling the position because of a hiring freeze or a budget shortfall. Most sites provided multiple reasons for not using lists. Table 1 summarizes those reasons.

Table 1: SELECTING OFFICIALS= REASONS

FOR NOT USING LISTS OF ELIGIBLES

Filled through merit promotion or reassignment 28 Multiple lists at different grade levels requested for one position 25 Position not filled/hiring freeze/budget shortfall 21 Position changed/re-advertised 14 Selection of outstanding scholar or bilingual/bicultural candidate 10 Inadequate candidate qualifications/job match 8 CTAP/ICTAP selection 6 Filled through other special appointing authority 5

Do selection officials understand their responsibilities and are they held accountable for supporting veterans= hiring?

Our interviews indicated that selecting officials generally understand their responsibility to provide full and fair consideration to veterans. We found only one site where some selecting officials did not understand these responsibilities. In the report of that review, we recommended that training or briefings be provided to remind them of their responsibilities related to veterans= preference requirements.

Human resources specialists provide a variety of training and individual technical assistance to selecting officials in the area of veterans= preference. The three most frequent forms of assistance included: HR staff advice, check lists, and group training sessions. All of the services are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2: TRAINING AND ADVISORY SERVICES

PROVIDED TO SELECTING OFFICIALS

HR staff provides individual advice and assistance 16 Checklist/guidelines/instructions with certificates 13 Group training sessions 12 Periodic supervisory training 1 New supervisor training 1 Internet website 1 Supervisor=s manual 1 Newsletter articles 1

Most sites post audited selection lists before the appointment was made. These audits were made to ensure that the rule of three was followed and that preference eligibles were not passed over for non-preference eligibles. Twenty-five sites relied exclusively on post audit as the main form of veterans= preference accountability. Five sites also used one or more of the following methods to hold selecting officials accountable.

Individual performance plans/appraisals

EEO and Outreach Recruitment Plan Accomplishment Reports

C.	Monthly hiring reports

C.	Organizational self-assessments

Did the hiring of veterans affect diversity in the organization?

We reviewed CPDF data for FY 1995 through 1999 to determine whether veteran hiring had an impact on organizational diversity by comparing the diversity among veteran hires against the diversity in all competitive hires. While there is some small variation based on specific minority group, overall the representation of minority veteran hires tracked closely with all competitive hires. As expected because of the general composition of the military, the percentage of women veteran hires is significantly smaller than the percentage of women among all competitive hires. The diversity statistics are provided in Table 3.

TABLE 3: DIVERSITY TRENDS IN PERCENTAGE OF COMPETITIVE HIRES

Competitive Hires American Indian Asian Black Hispanic White Men Women FY99 All 1.1% 4.7% 20.9% 8.7% 63.6% 45.9% 54.1% FY99 Veterans 1.2% 2.9% 18.0% 7.2% 68.9% 83.6% 16.4% FY98 All 1.0% 4.4% 20.7% 9.5% 60.2% 46.1% 53.9% FY98 Veterans 1.2% 2.6% 16.6% 8.7% 69.9% 86.2% 13.4% FY97 All 1.0% 4.6% 19.6% 8.4% 65.7% 50.3% 49.7% FY97 Veterans 1.0% 2.6% 15.3% 9.5% 70.1% 88.1% 11.9% FY96 All 1.0% 5.7% 18.6% 8.1% 67.1% 50.2% 49.8% FY96 Veterans 1.2% 2.9% 15.4% 9.5% 70.1% 88.1% 11.9% FY 95 All 0.9% 4.8% 20.5% 8.8% 64.6% 41.5% 58.5% FY95 Veterans 1.1% 2.7% 17.0% 8.0% 71.0% 86.1% 13.9% Source: OPM Central Personnel Data File

How can the process be improved?

We asked delegated examining staff members at each site what recommendations they might have to improve delegated examining operations to ensure appropriate consideration of veterans. Twenty-eight sites recommended no change. Several staff members added they were very satisfied with the content and delivery of the OPM Employment Service=s training program. One Personnel Officer expressed a general concern that the staffing system had grown too complex to ensure consistent fair and open competition. Staff at the remaining site had two suggestions related to delegated examining generally, but not the hiring of veterans.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

Veterans continue to be an important source of highly qualified candidates for Federal employment. Federal agencies are appropriately administering entitlement to veterans= preference under title 5, United States Code. They are fully and fairly considering veterans= preference eligibles in their hiring decisions and are not misusing staffing flexibilities to intentionally avoid hiring veterans. No substantive changes are needed in the current delegated examining process to ensure full and fair consideration of veterans.

Although personnel at 10 agency sites were improperly issuing multiple interdisciplinary certificates at the same grade level, we found no evidence that any veterans were harmed and the agencies agreed to stop the practice. We recommend that personnel at these 10 sites follow up to ensure that interdisciplinary certificates are being issued properly. Additionally, we recommend that agencies continue their work in appropriately administering the veterans= preference laws to ensure that veterans receive preference and any other benefits to which they are entitled.

Appendix A

POTENTIAL PROBLEM INDICATORS

We analyzed the data available to us from the following data bases: Fiscal Year 97/98 OPM Employment Service Delegated Examining Tracking System, Fiscal Year 1998 Central Personnel Data File, Fiscal Year 98/99 USAJOBS, and Department of Labor VETS Enforcement Division complaints filed by veterans. We applied the following four criteria to that data to identify potential sites to include in our study.

Delegated examining sites with a high percentage of unused lists with veterans at the top. Specifically, DEU=s were identified as having a high percentage of unused lists when the difference between the percentage of used certificates with preference eligibles at the top and used certificates with non-veterans at the top exceeded twenty percent.

Delegated examining sites that have high numbers of USAJOBS announcements and/or high numbers of duplicate announcements for the same job. We considered a high number to be fifty or more announcements. We took the volume of announcements into consideration because an active DEU may potentially impact a larger group of applicants than a DEU with little activity.

3.	Delegated examining sites where veterans are less than six percent of total new hires for Fiscal Year 1998. We did not include agencies with small numbers of new hires. In Fiscal Year 1998, veterans comprised an average of 11.8 percent of new hires Governmentwide. In an effort to focus on agencies with relatively few veteran hires, six percent, or approximately half of the Governmentwide average was used as an indicator.

4.	Agency sites that had complaints filed by veterans which Department of Labor accepted for investigation.

These criteria are only rough indicators. By using them together, we were able to identify sites with potential anomalies in veteran hiring patterns that would have to be verified by onsite fact finding.

Appendix B

Delegated Examining Sites Reviewed

Department of Agriculture

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Agricultural Research Service, Washington, D.C.

Department of the Army

West Region Civilian Personnel Operations Center, Fort Huachuca, Arizona

Southwest Region Civilian Personnel Operations Center, Fort Riley, Kansas

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Western Administrative Support Center, Seattle, Washington

Department of Health and Human Service

Health Care Financing Administration, Denver, Colorado

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada

Bureau of Reclamation Lower Colorado Region, Boulder City, Nevada

Bureau of Reclamation Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, Utah

National Park Service Intermountain Region Support Office, Denver, Colorado

National Park Service Pacific Great Basin Support Office, San Francisco, California

Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Attorney, Eastern District, Brooklyn, New York

U.S. Attorney, Newark District, Newark, New Jersey

U.S. Attorney, Southern District, New York, New York

U.S. Marshals Service, Washington, D.C.

Department of Labor

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, Boston/New York Region, Boston, Massachusetts

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service, Atlanta Submission Processing Center/Customer Service Center, Atlanta, Georgia

Office of the Inspector General, Washington, D.C.

Department of Veterans Affairs

Greater Los Angeles Health Care System, Los Angeles, California

Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Miami, Florida

Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salem, Virginia

Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Laboratories, Cincinnati, Ohio

EPA Team Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada

EPA Region VI, Dallas, Texas

International Trade Commission

ITC, Washington, D.C

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas

John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Social Security Administration

New York Region, New York, New York

Seattle Region, Seattle, Washington

Appendix C

Supplemental Questions on Hiring Veterans

The following questions were added to the traditional delegated examining oversight agenda to collect information for the study.

Is the percentage of veterans in the workforce serviced by the delegated examining operation comparable to the agencywide average and the governmentwide average (approximately 26%)? If veterans are underrepresented in the workforce, is recruitment appropriately targeted to veterans groups?

What is the ratio of preference eligibles to non-preference eligibles selected through delegated examining?

What percentage of certificates without preference eligibles at the top had selections made from them?

What percentage of certificates with preference eligibles at the top had selections made from them?

What percentage of certificates with preference eligibles in the top three, but not at the top, had selections made from them. What is the selection pattern with respect to preference eligibles and non-preference eligibles?

Are multiple certificates issued for single, interdisciplinary positions? What is the selection pattern with respect to preference eligibles and non-preference eligibles?

NOTE: The use of multiple certificates for single interdisciplinary positions is improper and a required action is needed if the examining unit does this.

What reasons are provided by selecting officials for returning certificates

unused?

Were any preference eligibles passed over? If so, was the process properly applied?

Have there been any formal complaints or grievances with respect to non-selection of preference eligibles under delegated examining? How were they resolved?

How often are the following alternatives used in lieu of selection from certificates? Are there any patterns with respect to preference eligibles and non-preference eligibles?

Internal promotion or reassignment

CTAP/ICTAP

Outstanding Scholar or Bilingual/Bicultural certification

Position not filled

Position changed or readvertised

Other

Do selecting officials understand their responsibility to provide full and fair consideration to preference eligibles under the competitive examining process? What training or advice and assistance is provided to them by human resources staff? How are selecting officials held accountable for their decisions?

What recommendations, if any, does the agency have to change delegated examining operations or clarify instructions to help ensure full and fair consideration of preference eligibles?

APPENDIX D

List of Abbreviations

CPDF	Central Personnel Data File

CTAP/ICTAP	Career Transition Assistance Program / Interagency Career

Transition Assistance Program

FY	Fiscal Year

HR	Human Resources

OPM	Office of Personnel Management