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

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

This report responds to section 2(b) of the Federal Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits Parity Act of 2003, Public Law 108-196 (December 19, 2003), which calls for OPM to submit a report to Congress providing a comparison of classification, pay and benefits among Federal law enforcement officers throughout the Government and making recommendations to correct any unwarranted differences. This report comes at a pivotal time when the demands on Federal law enforcement agencies and their personnel are global, changing, and increasing; however, the systems of pay and benefits do not reflect this reality and remain fragmented and inflexible. LEOs today are covered by a rigid retirement structure rooted in the 1940s, an archaic classification and basic pay system that is market- and performance-insensitive, and a complex and confusing system of premium payments.

The report focuses on these critical areas: retirement benefits (Part II), classification and basic pay (Part III), and premium pay (Part IV). In addition, we concentrate our analysis on two categories of employees with law enforcement responsibilities: (1) those employees who qualify as law enforcement officers (LEOs) under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) laws and regulations and (2) those other law enforcement employees who have authority to make arrests under Federal law (or an equivalent authority to detain persons under military law) but who do not otherwise qualify as LEOs.

In this report, we make a case for a comprehensive, integrated Governmentwide approach for addressing the above three areas. We recommend a framework established and administered by OPM in consultation with employing agencies and with the concurrence of the Attorney General. Such a framework will permit agencies to tailor systems to meet their diverse mission requirements. All agencies would have 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. The Attorney General's concurrence will ensure that law enforcement personnel Governmentwide are deployed in the most efficient and effective manner.

Retirement Findings

• Legislation has extended enhanced retirement benefits to some Federal uniformed police officers within the broader law enforcement community but not others, exacerbating differences in retirement coverage of similarly situated police officers.
• Merit Systems Protection Board and Federal court decisions have created unwarranted differences in LEO retirement coverage and administrative problems for employing agencies.
• LEO retirement provisions encourage experienced LEOs to retire at an early age, when it may be in the interest of the Government to retain these employees. In fact, a significant percentage of retired LEOs do return to work in Federal LEO positions.
• The mission of Federal law enforcement has expanded over the years, especially since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Federal law enforcement, inspection, and police forces currently include highly-trained, specialized units. Further, the merger of legacy customs inspection, immigration inspection, and border protection positions into a unified customs and border protection position at the Department of Homeland Security shows that law enforcement missions are continuing to expand in the post-9/11 world. This evolution in law enforcement has exacerbated the difficulty of applying the definition of "law enforcement officer" to modern missions and work situations.

Classification and Basic Pay Findings

• The 50+-year old General Schedule (GS) classification and basic pay system does not provide sufficient flexibility to address law enforcement-specific classification and pay problems which may vary by occupation, grade level, location, and level of performance.
• Differences in pay flexibilities among agencies can harm morale, create staffing disruptions, and increase Government costs unnecessarily. With the creation of new basic pay systems for employees of DHS and DOD on the horizon, we anticipate that roughly 50,000 law enforcement employees will be converted from the GS system to more flexible basic pay systems that are more sensitive to the labor market and to performance, leaving other agencies at a disadvantage.
• Pending legislative proposals (i.e., H.R. 466, H.R. 1676, and S. 985) provide across-the-board approaches to problems that require far more targeted solutions; those approaches are unnecessarily costly and produce unintended negative consequences.

Premium Pay Findings

• While most Federal law enforcement employees are covered by the standard premium pay provisions established in title 5 of the United States Code, some LEOs and other law enforcement personnel are covered by nonstandard premium pay provisions that result in perceptions of inequity.
• Caps on aggregate premium pay for FLSA-exempt employees serve important purposes but also lead to pay compression. However, pending legislative proposals to bar their application to availability pay for criminal investigators would result in excessive pay increases for affected employees, produce pay inversions, and create new inequities by providing special treatment for one category of employees.
• Codifying premium pay rules in law precludes rapid response to changing agency mission requirements. In recent years, Congress has provided such administrative authority to the Federal Aviation Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and (with OPM) the Department of Defense. Such administrative authority provides a distinct advantage in flexibility.

Recommendation

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, in consultation with employing agencies and with the concurrence of the Attorney General. This framework would be tailored specifically for law enforcement jobs. 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. Such a framework would provide all agencies with similar flexibilities that could potentially avoid morale problems, staffing disruptions, or unnecessary cost increases. We believe the existence of such a framework also would reduce the likelihood that particular groups would obtain higher pay and benefits through the legislative process in piecemeal fashion. More importantly, such a framework provides an opportunity to create contemporary and effective human resources systems for the critical cadre of Federal law enforcement personnel-systems that will better support the Federal Government's law enforcement missions, which have become even more essential in the post-September 11 world.

With respect to retirement, this framework would allow for consistency throughout the Federal Government, but the structure could accommodate changing special circumstances under which needless consistency would be counterproductive. While continuing to acknowledge the Government's need for a young and vigorous law enforcement workforce, this approach will provide OPM with the ability to establish a more responsive benefits structure that will give agencies maximum flexibility for recruitment and retention of experienced personnel.

With respect to the classification and basic pay system, this framework concept would be much like the framework envisioned for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense National Security Personnel System, but would require OPM coordination with all agencies employing law enforcement personnel and the concurrence of the Attorney General. It would allow for the establishment of contemporary and effective pay systems. It would provide the flexibility to make strategic pay decisions that target specific occupations based on labor market conditions and other factors. Pay ranges and pay adjustments would be coordinated among affected agencies. However, within the framework, agencies would have considerable flexibility to deal with their unique law enforcement human capital challenges-e.g., to design systems for performance management and individual performance-based pay adjustments.

With respect to premium pay, the framework would provide a flexible administrative authority so that premium pay rules can be more easily modified to address current mission-based needs, emerging prevailing practices, or policy/administrative problems that surface. While similar rules would apply to similarly situated employees, the new system would provide the flexibility to establish special rules designed for unique circumstances based on specific mission requirements.

An Integrated Approach to Resolving LEO Retirement and Pay Issues

While we have separately examined each policy area-retirement benefits, classification and basic pay, and premium pay-we believe our recommendations should be acted on as a package, providing an integrated solution based on common principles. We note that some issues cross policy areas and require integration, such as issues related to system coverage or to the retirement-creditability of premium pay. Also, in evaluating how competitive a job is in the labor market, the Government may need to consider the combined value of retirement benefits and pay levels.

OPM needs to have greater flexibility to establish law enforcement pay and benefits policies in coordination with agencies and in collaboration with key stakeholders. These recommendations will support a more strategic, mission-centered approach that recognizes that these policies are management tools for achieving mission goals. Such an approach will allow the Government to target and tailor solutions rather than apply them bluntly (and at great cost) across the board.

OPM understands that with greater authority and flexibility comes greater accountability. We are ready to accept that responsibility and believe focusing accountability will result in a better system. We are convinced that the current state of affairs has actually diffused accountability and has resulted in policies that are inconsistent and not sufficiently focused on mission results and Governmentwide interests. Through coordination with employing agencies and with the concurrence of the Attorney General, OPM will be able to ensure that both agency and Governmentwide interests are considered and balanced in establishing retirement and pay policies for law enforcement employees.

Table of Contents Compensation Administration Main Page