A MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENTI am pleased to present the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM's) report to Congress on law enforcement classification, pay, and benefits. This report responds to section 2(b) of the Federal Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits Parity Act of 2003, Public Law 108-196, which calls for OPM to submit a report to Congress providing a comparison of classification, pay, and benefits among Federal law enforcement personnel throughout the Government and to make recommendations to correct any unwarranted differences. The issues we address in this report are critical in light of the many dramatic challenges that face the Federal law enforcement community in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19, 1995, as well as our Nation's ongoing all-out war on terrorism. The specter of those horrific events and ongoing need to secure our homeland demand we pay careful attention to the strategic management of our Federal lawenforcement personnel. |
|
At present, considerable and sometimes confusing differences exist among law enforcement personnel in those three areas. We believe these differences, often the result of incremental legislation and litigation, are counterproductive to the 21st Century Federal law enforcement mission. In particular, disparities between agencies that have pay flexibilities and those that do not can harm morale, create staffing disruptions, and increase costs unnecessarily. We recommend that Congress provide OPM with broad authority to establish
a Governmentwide framework for law enforcement retirement, classification
and basic pay, and premium pay systems. This framework would be established
in consultation with employing agencies and with the concurrence of the
Attorney General and would be tailored specifically for law enforcement
jobs and their mission requirements. It would provide the flexibility
to make strategic decisions that support mission accomplishment in a cost
effective manner. Both agency interests and Governmentwide interests would
be considered and balanced. Kay Coles James |