U.S. Office of Personnel Management - Ensuring the Federal Government has an effective civilian workforce

Appendix G

Table of Contents

Appendix I

Appendix H

ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER PAY COMPETITIVENESS

In this appendix, we analyze the competitiveness of Federal law enforcement officer (LEO) pay compared to pay for State and local law enforcement personnel. As explained below, we find that pay relationships between Federal and State/local law enforcement employees vary by occupational category, by level, and by location. Based on available data, we find that the most significant problem is low pay at the entry/developmental level for certain LEO occupations, with the degree of the problem varying by geographic region. Also, we found evidence that some Federal law enforcement occupations, like non-law enforcement occupations, may have pay disparities at the full performance level in several areas with extremely high labor costs-in particular, San Francisco, New York City, and Los Angeles.

Considerations in Determining Pay Competitiveness

The first step in evaluating pay competitiveness is to identify jobs that are sufficiently comparable in terms of their labor market value to warrant a pay comparison. Ultimately this is a matter of applying informed judgment. First, we need to determine the factors or elements that will be considered in valuing a job. Then, we must evaluate how different jobs measure up against those factors or elements. Obviously, not all law enforcement jobs are equal in terms of mission impact, scope of responsibilities, knowledge/skill requirements, training standards, market value, etc.

It also seems clear that even within general categories of Federal law enforcement jobs, there may be distinguishable levels of work. For example, it there are significant differences among Federal police jobs in the same occupational series. Even within the GS system, we have full performance levels for police ranging from GS-5 to GS-8. As discussed in Part III, section C, we also have police under nonstandard pay systems with higher pay ranges than GS police. Similarly, there can be significant differences between Federal and non-Federal police officers. For example, most Department of Defense or VA hospital police officers likely have very different job and skill requirements than municipal police officers in a major city such as Los Angeles or New York. While police officers at lower levels understandably aspire to higher levels of pay and may argue that all police officers are the same, a reasonable evaluation will demonstrate significant differences in work levels among categories of police officers.

When non-Federal and Federal jobs are significantly different in terms of level of responsibilities, this presents a particular challenge in making salary comparisons. If the Federal job is found to be at a lower level and there are no (or too few) direct matches at that level, then determining whether the Federal salary is competitive in the labor market is not an easy matter. How much lower than the non-Federal rate should the Federal rate for a lower-level job be set? 10 percent? 20 percent? Staffing data may be helpful in making such judgments.

Similarly, if a Federal job is found to be at a higher level and there are no (or too few) direct matches at that level, then what is the basis for determining a competitive level of pay? For example, Federal criminal investigators at the GS-12 full performance level may be comparable to State and local detectives and investigators, but we may be unable find sufficient direct comparators for GS-13 Federal investigators. If a salary survey for a particular locality shows that GS-12 criminal investigators are paid 5 percent less than State and local investigators, it may well be the case that GS-13 rates (which are almost 20 percent higher than GS-12 rates) are competitive enough to attract quality employees. A decision to close the 5 percent gap at GS-12 does not necessarily require a similar increase at GS-13. The GS-13 rates would still be 15 percent higher than the adjusted GS-12 rates. In all of this, we need to keep in mind that the Federal Government's offering of higher levels of work with higher pay provides the Federal Government with a competitive advantage in the labor market over other employers who do not offer such work.

Review of National Advisory Commission on Law Enforcement Approach to Salary Comparisons

In its 1990 report, the National Advisory Commission on Law Enforcement (NACLE) determined points of comparison for the purpose of the salary surveys it conducted. NACLE identified four categories of LEO jobs: nonuniformed officer, uniformed officer, corrections officer, and probation officer. For each job category, NACLE collected data for entry level and full performance level (i.e., the normal nonsupervisory journey level). NACLE chose not to attempt to identify differences within the full performance work level among State and local governments. On the Federal side, it recognized that GS employees could have multiple entry levels and multiple full performance levels for the same job. To make comparisons between Federal and State/local LEO full performance level jobs, NACLE contracted with a private firm to conduct a job comparability survey. The NACLE contractor determined that Federal LEOs were comparable to their State/local counterparts at the full performance level as follows:

NOTE 1: The NACLE contractor found that Federal and State/local law enforcement work was generally comparable at the full performance level. However, it evaluated about half of Federal criminal investigator jobs to be at a level above State and local non-uniformed (i.e., detective) positions. Thus, NACLE identified GS-11 and GS-12 as the levels for comparison and used the midpoint of GS-11 and 12 rates in salary comparisons. At the time of the 1990 NACLE report, GS-13 was the normal nonsupervisory full performance level for about half of GS criminal investigators. Today, about three-quarters of criminal investigators are in jobs where GS-13 is the normal full performance level. In 1990, GS-11 was the normal full performance level for a small percentage of criminal investigators; today, virtually no criminal investigators have GS-11 as the normal full performance level. Given these subsequent developments, it would now seem appropriate to compare State and local nonuniformed officer full performance level rates to GS-12 rates.

NOTE 2: In August 2002, the normal full performance level available to all Border Patrol Agents was raised from GS-9 to GS-11. Previously the GS-11 grade had been limited to certain senior agents (about one-third of nonsupervisory employees at a full performance level). Given this change, it would now seem appropriate to compare State and local uniformed officer full performance rates to the GS-11 rates.

NOTE 3: While correctional officers were matched at the GS-7 full performance level, a significant number of Federal nonsupervisory correctional officers are classified at a GS-8 full performance level or even GS-9. As of September 2003, the GS-7/8/9 distribution was 48, 43, and 9 percent, respectively.

NACLE salary surveys found the most significant pay gaps at the entry level. NACLE also reported significant pay gaps for LEOs in certain geographic areas. These findings led to the 1990 legislation establishing special rates at grades GS-3 through 10 and special geographic pay adjustments in certain locations (first through law enforcement geographic adjustments and then by locality payments that applied to all GS employees). A 1993 OPM report reviewed the original NACLE salary survey data and updated it to take into account the LEO special rates. OPM concluded that those special rates had eliminated or significantly reduced the nationwide pay gap and that further reductions would best be accomplished through additional locality payments targeted to address pay gaps in specific locations. OPM's report also showed that, based on NACLE survey data, maximum Federal pay rates for the nonsupervisory full performance level were already competitive with maximum State and local pay rates in most locations. (See OPM's September 1993 "Report to Congress: A Plan to Establish a New Pay and Job Evaluation System for Federal Law Enforcement Officers," including Section 7 of the Report Supplement.)

Comparing Full Performance Level Rates

In evaluating salary competitiveness, we focus first on the rates for the normal nonsupervisory full performance level. These are the rates that apply to most employees and thus are arguably the most important, since they define a job's pay potential. A discussion of salary competitiveness at the entry and developmental levels will follow in the next subsection.

Because of time and resource constraints, OPM was unable to conduct or contract for a comprehensive salary survey for this report. OPM attempted to identify law enforcement salary survey data from various readily available sources, but our analysis is limited by the data available. In evaluating full performance level pay, we generally focused on minimum and maximum rates that defined the pay range. We did not attempt to compare how quickly employees moved through a pay range.

Most of the salary data we found was for municipal (city) police officers. That data indicated that salaries varied significantly by geographic location, with the lowest salaries in the South and the highest salaries in the Pacific Coast and Northeast regions. As of 2003, regional averages of maximum nonsupervisory rates ranged from about $45,000 to $60,000. However, individual cities could pay below or above these regional averages. For example, the maximum rates for certain cities in California and in the Northeast were in the $65,000 to $80,000 range.

In terms of scope of responsibility and other factors, GS police, especially those at lower grades, may not be performing at the same level as State or local police officers. The only GS law enforcement occupation that NACLE identified as being comparable to State and local police officers at the full performance level was the GS-1896 Border Patrol Agent occupation, which had a GS-9 normal full performance level at the time of the NACLE report, but which now has a GS-11 normal full performance level. The maximum locality-adjusted salary for GS-11 Border Patrol Agents in the United States in 2003 ranged from $61,248 to $67,651, depending on the locality pay area (excluding the normal 25-percent supplement for administratively uncontrollable overtime (AUO) work). Based on available data, it appears that Federal pay ranges for GS-9 and GS-11 are reasonably competitive with or superior to municipal police pay ranges in many locations. However, in certain locations, such as metropolitan areas in California and in the Northeast, GS rates may still lag behind.

For GS Federal police in the 0083 series, the full performance level ranges from GS-5 to GS-8. The majority of GS police officers are covered by OPM- or VA-established special rates that are higher than normal GS salary rates. In locations and agencies where OPM special rates apply, the maximum full performance level salary for GS police in 2003 ranged (depending on locality area) from $38,393 to $44,529 at GS-5 and from $51,003 to $60,030 at GS-8. These rates are lower than the rates for GS-11 Border Patrol Agents, which is appropriate because those agents hold positions that are classified at a higher level than those held by GS police officers.

Certain Federal police officers are not covered by the GS pay system and have significantly higher rates of pay. NACLE identified Park Police officers and Secret Service Uniformed Division (SSUD) officers as being comparable to State and local police officers. These officers are covered by the same pay system. In 2003, the maximum full performance level salary rates for these officers at the Private rank was $72,652 ($77,011 for those receiving technician pay) in Washington, DC, where most are stationed. Park Police officers at the Private rank in San Francisco have a maximum full performance level salary of $78,026 ($82,708 for technicians). Based on available data, these rates seem to be generally competitive with those for municipal police officers in the same location.

OPM also examined Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data for correctional institution officers from the BLS National Compensation Survey, July 2002. That data provided mean (average) salaries by geographic region. The lowest rates were reported in the following three southern regions: East South Central, West South Central, and South Atlantic. The highest rates were reported in the following regions: Pacific and Middle Atlantic. In the three southern regions, the regional average salary ranged from about $23,000 to $28,000. In the Pacific and Middle Atlantic regions, the average salary was in the $45,000 to $46,000 range.

The normal nonsupervisory full performance level for Federal correctional officers (GS 0007 occupational series) is GS-7 or GS-8. The table below shows the lowest and highest GS-7 and GS-8 locality-adjusted pay ranges in effect in 2002 in the United States. These ranges reflect LEO special rates.

While the BLS surveys likely included State and local correctional officers that are at a lower work level than Federal correctional officers, these data do not seem to indicate that Federal pay levels for correctional officers represent a general problem across all locations. Again, pay gaps may exist in certain high-cost locations.

OPM found very limited salary data for detectives and criminal investigators. However, the data we did find seemed to be generally consistent with the NACLE data for 1989. As reported by OPM in its 1993 report, the NACLE data showed that the maximum nonsupervisory full performance level pay rates for Federal criminal investigators (even before including the 25-percent availability pay supplement) were generally higher than the maximum rates paid to most State and local detectives and criminal investigators. Exceptions might exist in some locations such as Los Angeles and New York. As noted earlier in this appendix, most Federal criminal investigators probably work at a higher level (in terms of duties and responsibilities) than State and local investigators. Nonetheless, the fact that the Federal Government offers higher work and pay levels than other employers is a significant factor in assessing labor market competitiveness. In 2004, the GS-12 maximum rates in the United States range from $76,261 to $85,414, and the GS-13 maximum rates range from $90,692 to $101,576. (If 25-percent availability pay is included, the GS-12/13 maximum rates would range from about $95,000 to $127,000, depending on grade and location.)

Entry-Level Rates

Traditionally, entry-level rates for Federal law enforcement-related occupations in the GS pay system have tended to be less competitive than full performance level rates. However, the Government has taken steps to address this problem. LEOs at GS grades 3 through 10 are entitled to special higher base rates that are used in computing GS locality rates. At the most common entry grades of GS-5, 6, and 7 for most LEO occupations, those LEO special rates provide step 1 rates that are 10 to 23 percent higher than regular rates. For GS 1811 criminal investigators, the normal entry grades are GS-7, 9, and 10. At these grades, the increase attributable to LEO special rates is somewhat smaller-3 to 10 percent. Some available salary data indicates that, in certain high-cost locations, the starting rates for Federal criminal investigators lag behind the starting rates for non-Federal detectives and investigators despite the LEO special rates.

For GS-0083 police officers (most of whom do not have LEO status), OPM has established special salary rates that exceed the normally applicable locality-adjusted rates by 11 to 29 percent (depending on location) at the normal police entry grades of GS-5 and 6. In 2003, the police special rates at steps 1 of GS-5 and GS-6 ranged from $29,537 to $41,808. (These special rates apply to roughly 60 percent of GS police officers; others are paid at regular GS rates, which result in a range of $25,697 to $31,638 for GS-5/6 step 1 locality rates.) For comparison, an OPM review of available salary survey data for municipal police officers showed regional average entry rates ranging from roughly $30,000 to $40,000 in 2003. However, for the Pacific Coast subregion, the average entry rate was almost $45,000. Some California cities reported entry-level salaries in excess of $50,000-a level which appeared to be extremely rare outside California. Again, in evaluating all this information, we need to keep in mind that Federal GS police may not be equivalent to municipal police in terms of level of work and that some gaps in pay may therefore be warranted.

Finally, it is also important to remember that the GS pay system generally offers more rapid pay progression in the years immediately after entry because employees commonly receive regular (generally annual) promotions until they reach the full performance level. These promotion increases can be very significant. For example, a Border Patrol Agent hired at GS-5 is generally promoted to GS-7 after 6 months and then to GS-9 after another 6 months, which results in a 27 percent increase after just 1 year. After another year, the agent can be promoted to GS-11 and thus receive another 17 percent increase. In other words, in just 2 years an agent will move from GS-5, step 1, to GS-11, step 1, and receive a total salary increase of almost 50 percent. One policy issue is whether the Government's interests would be better served by having a system that allows higher starting salaries while providing smaller increases during the developmental phase of an employee's career. Such an approach might help attract higher quality employees from the outset without the need to increase full performance level salaries.