This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-872T 
entitled 'United States Government Accountability Office: Status of 
GAO's Human Capital Transformation Efforts' which was released on May 
22, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony: 

Before Congressional Subcommittees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT: 

Tuesday, May 22, 2007: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Status of GAO's Human Capital Transformation Efforts: 

Statement of David M. Walker, 
Comptroller General of the United States: 

GAO-07-872T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-872T, a testimony before Congressional 
Subcommittees 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The subcommittees asked the Comptroller General of the United States to 
discuss recent human capital reform efforts at the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO). In 2004, GAO conducted its first ever 
market-based compensation study after laying the necessary foundation 
by implementing a modern, competency-based performance management 
system. GAO hired a top compensation consulting firm on a competitive 
basis to conduct a market-based pay study using generally accepted 
approaches and based on independent and professional judgment. As a 
result of the study, the 2006 pay ranges for about 25 percent of GAO’s 
employees were raised and about 10 percent of GAO’s employees were 
determined to be paid above market levels based on their roles, 
responsibilities, and/or relative performance. No GAO employee has had 
his or her pay cut as a result of GAO’s classification and compensation 
changes. Still, GAO’s approach to market-based pay and related Band II 
restructuring efforts, which were very challenging and likely 
unprecedented in government, have been the source of considerable 
attention and some controversy. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO seeks to assist the Congress in improving the economy, efficiency, 
effectiveness, ethics, and equity within the federal government. The 
Comptroller General considers these important principles in connection 
with all of his decision making relating to GAO. Furthermore, because 
GAO audits, investigates, and evaluates others, it seeks to “lead by 
example” in every major management area, including the human capital 
area. GAO fully appreciates that it is not perfect and never will be, 
but it strives to do what is right and to continuously improve. 

While GAO’s transformational human capital changes have required some 
difficult adjustments, they, along with other key reforms, have helped 
GAO to achieve record results for the Congress. Furthermore, GAO has 
continued to achieve very positive results with its key people 
measures. For example, on the basis of the results of GAO’s latest 
employee feedback survey, which was conducted after its classification 
and compensation changes and Band II restructuring effort, GAO was 
ranked number 2 among large federal employers in the most recent “Best 
Places to Work in the Federal Government” rankings. 

GAO is possibly the first major agency to implement broad banding, 
market-based pay, and skills-, knowledge-, and performance-oriented pay 
systems on an agencywide basis. This is a major accomplishment, and 
GAO’s reforms have been the subject of many positive case studies and 
articles by various external parties on how to achieve tough 
transformation changes within the federal government. 

Nonetheless, the Comptroller General regrets that there were certain 
expectation and communication gaps that occurred in connection with 
GAO’s initial implementation of market-based pay ranges and related 
across-the-board pay adjustments in 2006. GAO has, however, taken 
numerous steps to address this matter over the past year so that any 
such gaps should no longer exist. Furthermore, the Comptroller General 
believes that all of GAO’s actions have been fully consistent with the 
law and principles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness, ethics, and 
equity. 

GAO has taken steps in the past year to provide additional 
opportunities for pay increases to many employees. In addition, GAO 
will soon submit legislation that will seek to enhance the pay and 
pension provisions applicable to its employees 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-872T]. 

To view the full product, click on the link above. For more 
information, contact David M. Walker at (202) 512-5500 or 
CGQuestions@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Chairman Akaka, Chairman Davis, and Members of the Subcommittees: 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 
recent human capital reform efforts at the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO). As you know, GAO is in the performance and 
accountability business. We try to improve economy, efficiency, 
effectiveness, ethics, and equity within the federal government. I 
consider these important principles in connection with all of my 
decision making relating to GAO. Furthermore, because we are the ones 
who audit, investigate, and evaluate others, GAO seeks to "lead by 
example" in every major management area, including the human capital 
area. We are not perfect and we never will be, but we strive to do what 
is right and to continuously improve. 

Before I address our recent human capital changes, I would like to put 
this issue in context. As you know, GAO put the issue of Human Capital 
Strategy on our High-Risk List in 2001 as a governmentwide challenge. 
This was due to a variety of factors including the following: 

1. the downsizing of government in the 1990s, 

2. hiring freezes in selected government agencies, 

3. skills and knowledge gaps in many agencies, 

4. governmentwide succession planning challenges, and: 

5. outdated human capital policies and practices within the federal 
government. 

Clearly the government's greatest asset is its employees. Such is 
certainly the case at GAO. Therefore, all of our human capital reform 
efforts need to be designed to attract and retain top talent within 
current and expected resource levels. 

Our recent transformation efforts at GAO, including our human capital 
reforms, have been acclaimed by many and criticized by some. Such 
criticism is not surprising, since transforming government is tough 
business and most people don't like to change, especially when the 
change may not be beneficial to them personally. This is especially 
true in connection with major human capital reforms. At the same time, 
as Comptroller General of the United States, I have a fiduciary and 
stewardship responsibility to focus not just on today but also to do 
what's right for tomorrow. This requires me, among other things, to 
focus on what is in the collective best interest of all GAO's employees 
rather than what might be in the narrow interest of some of GAO's 
employees. It also requires me to consider which policies are 
appropriate to attract and retain a topflight workforce while ensuring 
that such policies are both affordable today and sustainable over the 
longer term. 

With regard to our pay ranges, some of our employees have interpreted 
our market-based pay determination as undervaluing their abilities and 
contributions. Such is clearly not the case. GAO's workforce is highly 
skilled and dedicated to our mission. We have over 3,000 valuable and 
valued employees who work hard and make meaningful contributions to our 
agency each and every day. We appreciate what each GAO employee does 
for the Congress and the country. Our employees are working hard to 
make a meaningful and lasting difference, and so am I. 

The fact is when you are making tough transformational changes you 
cannot make everybody happy. This is especially true when you are 
making changes to an agency's classification and compensation systems. 
Nonetheless, it is important for an agency's leadership to listen to 
the views of all clients, employees, and other key stakeholders, and to 
seriously consider all legitimate comments and concerns. At the same 
time, at the end of the day, it is critically important for leaders to 
make difficult decisions based on what they think is the right thing to 
do, even though it may not be popular. This is the approach that we 
employ at GAO. 

One aspect of our recent human capital changes is our movement to a 
more market-based and performance-oriented pay system. Importantly, we 
are not the only federal agency seeking to do so. As a result, I 
believe it is important to compare what we have done and how we have 
done it to others in order to provide context to your oversight and 
deliberations. 

While our transformational human capital changes have required some 
difficult adjustments, they, along with other key reforms, have helped 
us to achieve record organizational results (see appendix I). 
Furthermore, we have continued to achieve very positive results in 
connection with our key people measures, including in connection with 
our annual employee feedback survey (see appendices II and III). For 
example, based on the results of our latest employee feedback survey, 
which was conducted after our classification and compensation changes 
and Band II restructuring effort, GAO was ranked number 2 among large 
federal employers in the most recent "Best Places to Work in the 
Federal Government 2007" rankings. 

Most employee concerns regarding our recent changes relate to the 
implications of our moving to a more market-based, skills-, knowledge- 
, and performance-oriented pay system. In 2004, we conducted our first 
ever market-based pay study after laying the necessary foundation by 
implementing a modern, competency-based performance management system. 
We hired a top compensation consulting firm, Watson Wyatt, with 
extensive public, private, and not-for-profit sector experience, 
through a competitive process. Our related internal consultation effort 
involved a variety of actions, including task teams, focus groups, 
"town hall meetings," and meetings with our Employee Advisory Council. 
Watson Wyatt conducted the market-based pay study using generally 
accepted approaches and based on its independent and professional 
judgment. Importantly, for a variety of reasons and at our request, the 
study did not consider employee benefits in establishing pay ranges for 
GAO's employees. This resulted in pay ranges that were somewhat higher 
than otherwise would have been the case. 

As a result of the study, the pay ranges for about 25 percent of our 
employees were raised. In this regard, GAO's Executive Committee raised 
several of the pay ranges proposed by Watson Wyatt to ensure our 
competitiveness externally and to enhance equity internally. 
Importantly, we did not lower any of the proposed ranges. This was good 
news for the affected employees. However, the study also determined 
that while most employees were paid within market ranges, about 10 
percent of our employees were paid above market levels based on their 
roles, responsibilities, and/or relative performance. This was not good 
news for the affected 10 percent, and some of them have been vocal in 
their related complaints. As a result, our related restructuring 
efforts, which were very challenging and possibly unprecedented in 
government, have been the source of considerable attention and some 
controversy. 

Our reforms, while very significant, are by no means perfect. 
Perfection does not exist on this earth. We believe, however, that our 
actions have been consistent with both the law and the important 
principles that I outlined at the outset of my testimony. Our reforms 
also recognize the need to modernize the federal government's human 
capital practices, given 21st century realities. 

We believe we are the first major agency to implement broad banding; 
market-based pay; and skills-, knowledge-, and performance-oriented pay 
systems on an agencywide basis. As noted previously, this is a major 
accomplishment, and our reforms have been the subject of many positive 
case studies and articles by various organizations, academics, and 
others on how to achieve tough transformation changes within the 
federal government (see appendix IV). We are proud of what GAO has 
accomplished in the human capital area, including our recent 
classification and compensation system changes. 

Nonetheless, as I have stated previously, in hindsight, I regret that 
there were certain expectation and communication gaps that occurred in 
connection with our initial implementation of market-based pay ranges 
and related across-the-board pay adjustments in 2006. We have, however, 
taken numerous steps to address this matter over the past year so that 
any such gaps should no longer exist. Candidly, there is no easy way to 
tell people that they are overpaid based on the market, their roles and 
responsibilities, and possibly their relative performance. It is also 
difficult to change from a system under which annual adjustments are 
largely on autopilot to one that is more market-and performance-based. 

At the same time, given the express statutory criteria that apply to 
GAO's annual pay adjustments, our constrained budgets since 2003, and 
our dedication to the principles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness, 
ethics, and equity, we took steps that, as Comptroller General, I 
deemed to be both prudent and necessary for GAO. Unfortunately, despite 
our concerted and good faith efforts, there has been a lot of false or 
misleading information circulated and reported about our classification 
and compensation changes. In this regard, I'd like to set the record 
straight in connection with several matters. 

First and foremost, I know that some are concerned that I did not 
follow through on certain assurances I made in 2003 during 
consideration of GAO's Human Capital Reform Act, namely, that we would 
provide across-the-board pay adjustments to GAO employees who received 
at least a "meets expectations" rating. In late 2004, after we received 
the market-based pay study, we were faced with the reality that some of 
our employees were paid above market levels. This fact was not known 
when I testified in 2003. In retrospect, we should have advised the 
Congress and others sooner that we did not view my prior statements as 
applying to employees who were paid above market levels. I am sorry 
that we did not do that; however, the fact remains that I did not 
believe then, nor do I believe now, that it would be appropriate or 
equitable to provide across-the-board pay increase to employees who are 
paid above market levels. The very notion that one would provide across-
the-board pay adjustments to those paid above market is, in my opinion, 
fundamentally inconsistent with the very premise of a market- based pay 
system and the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. Again, 
while I regret that I did not clarify this point in a more timely 
manner, I firmly believe that my exercise of judgment on this matter 
has been fully consistent with the principles and criteria that were 
under consideration in July 2003, when I testified, and that were 
enacted into law in July 2004. 

With regard to our recent Band II restructuring effort, the plain and 
simple truth is that no GAO employee took a pay cut as a result of our 
classification and compensation changes. Furthermore, all GAO employees 
who were on board as of January 2006 were given the opportunity to earn 
what they could have under the prior Band II pay system at the time of 
the conversion.  

As you may know, GAO has a two-tiered annual pay adjustment system. The 
first tier relates to the annual across-the-board pay adjustment that 
is determined by the Comptroller General based on the statutory 
criteria that I am required to consider; general market conditions; and 
certain other factors (e.g., our budget). All employees who achieve a 
"meets expectation" or higher rating on all applicable competencies and 
who are paid within applicable market-based compensation limits, 
including consideration of the Band IIB speed bump, receive this 
increase.[Footnote 1] The second tier is our supplemental performance- 
based compensation (PBC). While the amount of this increase is also 
contingent on our budget, PBC is based on how well an employee performs 
relative to his or her applicable peer group. 

While 308 GAO employees who performed at the "meets expectation" level 
or better did not initially receive an across-the board-pay adjustment 
in 2006 because they were paid above market, this number decreased to 
298 as a result of the recent Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) settlement. 
Of this number, only 47 employees did not receive any PBC for that 
year. Given GAO's constrained budgets, the plain truth is that any 
funds allocated to employees who are paid above market are funds that 
are not available for allocation to employees who are not paid above 
market, who may be better performers, and who may have more 
responsibility. 

The number of employees who did not receive across-the-board pay 
adjustments declined from about 10 percent of our total workforce in 
2006 to about 5 percent in 2007. Furthermore, of the 139 employees who 
did not receive across-the-board adjustments in 2007, only 2 did not 
receive any PBC. Importantly, our limits on across-the-board pay 
adjustments for certain Band IIA employees represent a temporary 
transition issue. As a result, by the time that I leave office, we 
expect there no longer will be any Band IIA employees performing at the 
"meets expectation level" or better who do not receive an across-the- 
board pay adjustment (see appendix V). 

Some have asserted that morale at GAO is poor. This assertion is not 
supported by the facts. While the morale of certain Band II employees 
understandably went down in 2006 as a result of our Band II 
restructuring effort, overall morale at GAO has risen by 33 percent 
from the levels when I became Comptroller General. Furthermore, as 
noted previously, GAO was recently ranked number 2 among all large 
federal agencies across government in the "Best Places to Work in the 
Federal Government 2007" rankings published by the Partnership for 
Public Service in cooperation with American University. This ranking is 
based on the opinions of GAO employees obtained after our 
classification and compensation changes and Band II restructuring 
effort. Furthermore, GAO is also ranked highly by a broad cross section 
of demographic groups (see appendix VI). 

Contrary to assertions by some, GAO's rankings are based on responses 
to the exact same questions as the ones used in the Office of Personnel 
Management's (OPM) survey of executive branch agencies. Moreover, 
despite what some have asserted, GAO employed an extensive outreach, 
employee participation, and communication effort in connection with our 
classification and compensation review and Band II restructuring 
effort. We made a number of important adjustments to our approach based 
on feedback we received from our employees. Our major agencywide 
efforts are summarized in appendix VII. Many of these efforts involved 
a broad range of GAO executives, including myself. The reality is that 
no matter how many outreach and listening sessions we might have 
conducted, some percentage of our employees would not have supported 
any proposed changes, especially those individuals who were deemed to 
be paid above market. 

Importantly, we have taken steps in the past year to provide additional 
opportunities for pay increases to many employees. For example, all GAO 
employees, including those who are paid above market levels, were 
eligible for 100 percent of their PBC in 2007. In addition, all of 
their PBC was added to their base pay up to applicable market-based pay 
limits. We have also eliminated all pay range speed bumps other than 
the one applicable to Band IIB employees. In addition, we will soon be 
submitting legislation that will seek to enhance the pay and pension 
provisions applicable to our employees. GAO's 2007 salary ranges, with 
comparisons to the most applicable 2007 General Schedule (GS) ranges, 
are included in appendix VIII. 

Some have raised questions or criticized our market-based pay 
approaches in ways that reflect a basic misunderstanding of how market- 
based pay studies are conducted. These criticisms also reflect a lack 
of understanding as to how the GS pay ranges are determined and 
updated. 

Just because the GS system is widespread in the federal government and 
persons have a better understanding of how they are likely to fare 
under the system does not mean that it is appropriate, reflects modern 
compensation practices, or that individuals are treated fairly based on 
their skills, knowledge, and performance. On the basis of recent 
briefings by officials from OPM and the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(BLS), in my view, the current GS system is outdated and is designed 
primarily to reward length of service rather than performance. In 
addition, as we found at GAO even before our Band II restructuring 
effort, performance appraisals can be negatively correlated to pay for 
employees paid at the cap for their applicable level. 

Given the apparent widespread lack of understanding of the methodology 
associated with establishing and updating the GS pay ranges, 
determining related annual across-the-board pay adjustments, and other 
annual pay adjustments, I believe there is a need to perform a review 
of the GS system. I would like to do such a study at the request of 
your subcommittees, but I am willing to do it under my statutory 
authority as Comptroller General of the United States, if necessary. I 
look forward to publishing the results of this work. In any event, we 
will keep you informed as we conduct this work, and I hope that your 
subcommittees will hold a hearing on the report after it is issued. 

Some have questioned the degree of diversity in GAO's workforce. These 
assertions do not stand up based on a comparison of GAO's workforce to 
applicable civilian labor force data (see appendix IX), nor are they 
valid based on the change in GAO's diversity profile over time (see 
appendix X). As I have stated on many occasions, GAO is committed to 
maintaining a diverse and high performing workforce with equal 
opportunity for all and zero tolerance for discrimination of any type. 
We take a number of affirmative steps and incorporate a number of 
important safeguards in relation to all major human capital decisions 
to help ensure that we achieve this important goal. Our recent decision 
to voluntarily contract for an independent assessment of African- 
American employees' performance ratings is unprecedented and serves to 
demonstrate our commitment in this area. 

Finally, on May 8, 2007, the International Federation of Professional 
and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) filed a petition with the PAB to start 
the process to organize and represent certain GAO employees. As I have 
said on numerous occasions, I support the rights of our employees to 
organize and have taken steps to ensure that GAO's management complies 
with applicable labor laws. We are willing to support a timely 
election. However, GAO will challenge any attempts by the union to 
organize supervisory or confidential personnel. Ultimately, the PAB 
will be required to decide any issues that are in dispute. We hope that 
this matter can be resolved in a professional and expeditious manner. 

In closing, GAO's leadership team is committed to continuous 
improvement while avoiding constant change. As I said before, GAO is 
not perfect and it never will be. We are, however, a leader in 
transforming many management areas within the federal government, 
including the human capital area. We are proud of this fact and plan to 
do everything that we can, in partnership with our clients and 
employees, to stay that way. 

Thank you for your time and attention. I would be happy to answer any 
questions that you may have. 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: 

Table 1: Organizational Results Measures: 

Measures: Financial benefits (billions of dollars); 
Fiscal Year 1998: $19.7; 
Fiscal Year 2006: $51.0[A]. 

Measures: Nonfinancial benefits (number of actions); 
Fiscal Year 1998: 537; 
Fiscal Year 2006: 1,342. 

Measures: Past recommendations implemented; 
Fiscal Year 1998: 69%; 
Fiscal Year 2006: 82%. 

Measures: New products with recommendations; 
Fiscal Year 1998: 33%; 
Fiscal Year 2006: 65%. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Additional years of data are available for comparison. See GAO, 
Performance and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2006, GAO-07-2SP 
(Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2006). 

[A] $51 billion dollars represents a $105 return on every dollar the 
Congress invests in GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: 

Table 2: People Measures: Attracting and Retaining Staff: 

Measures: New hire rate; 
Fiscal year 2002[A]: 96%; 
Fiscal year 2006: 94%. 

Measures: Acceptance rate; 
Fiscal year 2002[A]: 81%; 
Fiscal year 2006: 70%[B]. 

Measures: Retention rate with retirements; 
Fiscal year 2002[A]: 91%; 
Fiscal year 2006: 90%. 

Measures: Retention rate without retirements; 
Fiscal year 2002[A]: 97%; 
Fiscal year 2006: 94%. 

Source: GAO. 

Note: Additional years of data are available for comparison. See GAO, 
Performance and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2006, GAO-07-2SP 
(Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2006). 

[A] Fiscal year 2002 was the first year in which GAO publicly reported 
all four of these people measures for trend purposes. Prior to fiscal 
year 2002, data were not collected for either the new hire rate or the 
acceptance rate. 

[B] The acceptance rate was lower in fiscal year 2006 due, in large 
part, to the uncertainty of our appropriation, which affected our 
ability to make hiring offers in a timely manner. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: 

Table 3: People Measures: Developing, Using, Leading, and Supporting 
Staff: 

Measures: Staff development; 
Fiscal year 2002: 71%; 
Fiscal year 2006: 76%. 

Measures: Staff utilization; 
Fiscal year 2002: 67%; 
Fiscal year 2006: 75%. 

Measures: Leadership; 
Fiscal year 2002: 75%; 
Fiscal year 2006: 79%. 

Measures: Organizational climate; 
Fiscal year 2002: 67%; 
Fiscal year 2006: 73%. 

Source: GAO. 

Notes: These measures are based on responses to selected questions in 
GAO's annual employee feedback survey, which was revised in 2002 to 
reflect GAO's organizational realignment. While GAO conducted annual 
employee feedback surveys prior to 2002, these prior instruments are 
not comparable in their content or design. 

Additional years of data are available for comparison. See GAO, 
Performance and Accountability Report, Fiscal Year 2006, GAO-07-2SP 
(Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2006). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: 

Table 4: Excerpts from Case Studies and Articles Highlighting GAO's 
Human Capital System: 

Published source: The IBM Center for The Business of Government; 
"Designing and Implementing; Performance-Oriented Payband; Systems". 
James R. Thompson; Associate Professor; Graduate Program in Public; 
Administration; University of Illinois at Chicago; May 2007; 
Excerpted text: * "The interest in pay banding derives in substantial 
part from the flexibility paybanding affords managers in matters of pay 
and classification. There is widespread agreement among those who have 
examined compensation practices in the federal government that the 
approach embodied by the traditional General Schedule (GS) is obsolete. 
A common complaint is that the system is too rigid and that the 15- 
grade structure induces excessive attention to minor distinctions in 
duties and responsibilities that can affect how a position is 
classified."; 
* "Another concern is that pay increases are granted largely on the 
basis of longevity rather then performance."; 
* "The GAO and DoD systems link the pay of their employees more 
explicitly to the market then do the systems in the other agencies. The 
intent is both to insure that they can compete for talent and to avoid 
paying more than is necessary to get the talent."; 
* "GAO has the most sophisticated of the eight systems reviewed here."; 
* "GAO's system is one of only two that are explicitly market-based. 
GAO determines a 'competitive pay rate,' which represents the market 
median for positions within each band. The amount of performance-based 
compensation is calculated as a percentage of the competitive pay 
rate."; 
* "The standardization of rating averages by pay groups, which makes 
rating consistency across groups less important and which de facto 
identifies relative levels of performance within each group."; 
* "Similar to GAO, at the Navy Demonstration Project, the link between 
the overall rating and the pay increase is direct; no additional 
intervention by the supervisor is required at the pay setting stage."; 
* "GAO follows a private sector practice by conducting surveys to 
determine the market rate for each occupational group."; 
* "Of the eight systems reviewed here, only GAO's is market-based: 
Salaries are periodically adjusted according to compensation levels for 
similar positions in the private sector."; 
* "Several of the agencies included in this study use boards of senior 
managers to review ratings across units. GAO's system, on the other 
hand, does not assume or require rating consistency. The standardized 
rating score on which each employee's pay increase is based is a 
function of relative performance within each employee's work group."; 
* "GAO does not use pay pools. Adjustments to ensure that salary costs 
stay within budgeted amounts occur only at the top. The comptroller 
general determines both the 'annual adjustment' analogous to the 
general pay increase received by GS employees and the 'budget factor,' 
which figures prominently in the calculation of individual performance- 
based compensation increases." 

Published source: Harvard Business Review; "Change Management in 
Government". Frank Ostroff. May 2006; 
Excerpted text: * "The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, which 
investigates other federal agencies and issues reports on their 
performance, adopted many of the talent-management practices found in 
the private sector."; 
* "To encourage GAO staffers to embrace new procedures, Walker focused 
on incentives. GAO had been a place where almost all employees received 
pay increases largely on the basis of time on the job and job 
classification or grade, regardless of performance. Now, compensation 
is structured on market-based salary ranges, and employees are rewarded 
for expertise, leadership, increased responsibility, and other 
contributions to performance."; 
* "At GAO, for example, David Walker began by talking with Congress and 
the agency's two key internal groups-the agency's managing directors 
and the 25 employee representatives who sit on the Employees' Advisory 
Council. 'We talk about what we need to do. I discuss it with them live 
so that they can provide input and ask questions.'"; 
* "As Walker puts it, 'I find that often you have more flexibility than 
people believe. Many rules, as well as civil service limitations on 
what you can and can't do, are good, and they need to be followed. But 
there is a difference between what you can and can't do and what has 
been done and not done in the past.' As reported by GAO, during 
Walker's tenure, that agency has roughly doubled savings achieved and 
resources freed up from $19 billion per year to $40 billion at other 
agencies as a result of its recommendations." 

Published source: IBM Center for the Business of; Government; The 
Transformation of the Government; Accountability Office: Using Human; 
Capital to Drive Change. Jonathan Walters; Governing Magazine. Charles 
Thompson; IBM Business Consulting Services. July 2005; 
Excerpted text: * "Many close observers of federal personnel systems 
believe GAO has a significant amount to offer in answering questions 
around public sector human capital reform. 'GAO is worth paying 
attention to,' says Steve Nelson, director of the Office of Policy and 
Evaluation at the Merit Systems Protection Board. 'They've been well 
ahead of other federal agencies in implementing changes, including 
large ones like pay for performance and going to market based pay.'"; 
* "Nobody interviewed for this report complained about being underpaid; 
indeed many staff said that the combination of interesting work and 
decent pay and benefits made GAO a very attractive place to be."; 
* Remarks attributed to Colleen Kelly, President of the National 
Treasury Employees Union regarding GAO's human capital transformation: 
'If the administration were really sincere about improving human 
capital management, they would pay closer attention to what's gone on 
at GAO".  

Published source: Partnership for Public Service; Case Study "GAO: 
Leading by Example". November 5, 2003; 
Excerpted text: * "GAO has some of the best analytical talent in the 
country. More then 60 percent of its 3,000-plus employees have master's 
degrees and PhDs, and their expertise covers the entire range of 
federal government programs."; 
* "GAO's strategic objectives and annual operating objectives are now 
strongly linked to its performance appraisal system through the use of 
a competency approach as the centerpiece of its performance management 
and all other human capital systems."; 
* "In GAO's performance management process, the employee is front and 
center. They are expected to play an active role in defining their 
annual goals and performance expectations. Moreover, employees' self-
assessments of their own performance serve as the starting point for 
formal evaluations."; 
* "After the close of the first year under the new system, GAO gathered 
feedback from its Employee Advisory Council and Managing Directors 
about the results of the first performance appraisal and management 
cycle. Based on that feedback, several important improvements to the 
system were made to continue the change process." 

Published source: Government Leader. "Walker takes GAO from accounting 
to accountability". John Pulley. May 14, 2007; 
Excerpted text: * "Walker's overhaul of GAO's job classification and 
employee appraisal systems links pay to market forces and raises to job 
performance. Broad pay bands have replaced the regimented General 
Schedule, which was created in 1949 to manage a largely clerical 
federal workforce. The results is the most far-reaching overhaul of pay 
and job classification that any agency of the federal government has 
undertaken."; 
* Remarks attributed to John Palguta, Vice President of Policy at the 
Partnership for Public Service: 'At a time when 70 percent of federal 
jobs are professional or administrative, linking pay to performance and 
rewarding high achievers is overdue. Kudos to GAO for trying to 
demonstrate--very personally and very aggressively--that this should be 
the compensation system of the future. It's a bold move on the part of 
GAO, and it has caused some consternation within the agency.'"; 
* Remarks attributed to Elizabeth Singer, a member of GAO's Employee 
Advisory Council: "The critics are very intense, very vocal, very 
angry, very bitter, but they do not represent the majority opinion."; 
* Remarks attributed to Robert Tobias, Director of American 
University's Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation: 
'If I'm in the executive branch and I'm an appointee, my focus is on 
creating public policy, not implementing it. The Washington Post 
focuses on fights in Congress, not on agencies that do good work. A 
sustained, focused attention on public policy implementation was not 
present until Walker came on the scene." 

Published source: FCW.COM. "A question of ranking". Richard W. Walker. 
May 2007; 
Excerpted text: * "In response [to allegations that GAO's survey did 
not include the same questions posed to other executive branch 
employees], Robert Tobias, director of the Institute for the Study of 
Public Policy Implementation, said, 'That is not accurate. The three 
questions in the GAO survey that we used to provide an overall ranking 
[for the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government ranking] were 
the exact same questions that were used in the federal human capital 
survey.'". 

Published source: Mike Causey's Federal Report. May 9, 2007; 
Excerpted text: * "GAO has ruffled lots of feathers in its day doing 
its duty. But most people conceded it is one of, if not, the best run 
operations in government. But even in the best places, not all the 
troops are always happy."; 
* "Washington attorney Bill Bransford says the small number of 
complaints may be an indication that GAO has a winner. Comptroller 
General David Walker said the PFP [pay for performance] system must 
have reviews and a safety valve, and Bransford, whose firm specializes 
in helping feds in trouble, says 'it appears to be a good program.'"; 
* "Anyhow after the dust settles, it is likely that GAO will turn out 
to have the best PFP system in government. It's a highly-trained, 
motivated place with lots of talented people and a boss, Comptroller 
General David Walker, who has a number of strengths." 

Published source: Partnership for Public Service. Written Testimony of 
Max Stier; President and CEO, Partnership for; Public Service. Prepared 
for the House Committee on; Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness 
hearing: "The National Security Personnel System: Is it Really 
Working?". March 6, 2007; 
Excerpted text: * "We know that the GS [General Schedule] pay system 
and the traditional performance management system is in need of reform 
by listening to federal employees themselves. In OPM's 2006 Federal 
Human Capital Survey, to which over 50,000 DOD civilian employees 
responded, less than one-third (31 percent) agreed that 'In my work 
unit, differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way.'" 

Published source: Government Leader. "Pay for the Right Results". Wyatt 
Kash. January 13, 2006; 
Excerpted text: * "There have been pockets of success: at the Federal 
Aviation Administration, the IRS, the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology and the Government Accountability Office. Each 
demonstrated that progressive leadership could break the chains of the 
General Schedule system and attract and retain the talent government 
needs. Indeed, more then 90,000 federal workers are now in some form of 
performance-based pay system."; 
* "GAO and its chief, David Walker, are widely credited these days with 
doing the job right. Critics quickly dismiss GAO for having some 
distinct advantages: its workforce is small, relatively homogenous and 
highly educated. But the lessons of GAO--and the principled approach of 
comptroller general Walker… offer important leadership examples worth 
emulating." 

Published source: Federal Times. "GAO's Worthy Example". November 28, 
2005; 
Excerpted text: * "GAO's first, and possibly most important, step was 
to institute a credible performance appraisal system--three to four 
years before it attempted to tie performance to pay. Having established 
that system during the three years that followed, the agency is now 
ready to tie that system to pay raises."; 
* "GAO leaders also avoided making decisions by fiat. Walker invited 
employee input at open meetings, through advisory councils and by 
circulating draft plans that invited comments. Employee suggestions 
were then incorporated into the final plan.". 

Source: GAO synthesis of published sources, as noted. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: 

Disposition of Band II Staff Initially Placed in Band IIA on January 8, 
2006 Projected Through 2012: 

[See PDF for Image] 

Source: GAO. 

Notes: Figures represent staff counts going into the annual adjustment 
and PBC process each January after the salary ranges have been adjusted 
upward. Thus, staff in the IIT range are those who would receive no 
annual adjustment that cycle. 

Calculations assume 3.19 percent annual adjustments; 3.19 percent 
salary range growth; 2.15 percent PBC (with 75/25 allocation); and 
current IIT rules. 

The actual transition period could be shorter if persons are placed in 
Band IIB before the adjusted pay cap for Band IIA catches up to the 
Band IIT cap. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: 

Table 5: GAO's Ranking among Large Federal Agencies, by Demographic 
Group: 

Demographic category: Overall; 
Ranking: 2. 

Demographic category: African-American; 
Ranking: 2. 

Demographic category: Hispanic; 
Ranking: 2. 

Demographic category: Asian; 
Ranking: 6. 

Demographic category: Female; 
Ranking: 2. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: 

Table 6: Examples of Employee Outreach Related to the Classification 
and Compensation Review and Band II Restructuring Efforts: 

[End of section] 

2002. 

August; 
Employee Advisory Council and Executive Committee conduct regular 
quarterly meeting: begin to discuss the feasibility of splitting the 
Band II level. 

December; 
Employee Advisory Council and Executive Committee conduct regular 
quarterly meeting: discuss the role of the EAC in future discussions of 
splitting the Band II level. Also discuss that the project will not get 
under way until calendar year 2003 and that no changes are expected 
until 2004. 

2003. 

April; 
Executive Committee conducts three town hall forums with Band II staff 
to discuss human capital reforms; 
Explanation for Human Capital II legislation posted to GAO Intranet for 
all employees. 

May; 
Questions and Answers document for Human Capital II legislation posted 
to the GAO Intranet for all employees. 

June; 
Memo on proposed reforms to the performance management system, based on 
Employee Advisory Council and Managing Directors' feedback, posted to 
the GAO Intranet for all employees. 

September; 
Employee Advisory Council and Executive Committee conduct quarterly 
meeting: discuss the distinction between jobs performed at the Band II 
level. 

December; 
Employee Advisory Council and Executive Committee conduct quarterly 
meeting: discuss status of congressional action related to Human 
Capital II legislation; note that a project team (Band II Advisory 
Group) had been formed to study the Band II split, with EAC 
representation, and that the earliest the split will happen will be 
October 1, 2004. 

2004. 

January; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" discusses the planned split of 
the Band II level into two bands--one for those who act as Analysts-in-
Charge on a recurring basis and one for those who function primarily as 
Senior Auditors, Analysts, and Investigators, and occasionally serve as 
Analysts-in-Charge; 
Detailed work plan on Band II restructuring posted to the GAO Intranet 
for all employees. 

February; 
Employee Advisory Council and Executive Committee conduct quarterly 
meeting: discuss the reasons for the proposed Band II split and note 
that the split likely will occur between October 2004 and January 2005; 
Executive Committee conducts special town hall forum with Band II 
staff; 
Executive Committee conducts meeting with Advisory Group on Band II 
restructuring. 

March; 
Executive Committee conducts special town hall forum with Band I 
population on Band II restructuring; 
Executive Committee conducts special town hall forum with Band IIs to 
discuss the compensation and classification review. 

April; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" discusses the upcoming 
classification and compensation review; how it evolved from the "Band 
II split;" and its underlying objectives, principles, processes, and 
time frames. 

May; 
Employee Advisory Council and Executive Committee conduct quarterly 
meeting: discuss the status of the Band II Advisory Committee's efforts 
and the fact that the group will not meet again until the 
Classification and Compensation Review (CCR) is complete (planned for 
summer 2004), note that January 2005 will be the earliest date for 
implementing any CCR results, and add that no employee's pay would be 
cut, including locality pay. Employee Advisory Council members asked to 
provide input by June 2004 on the kinds of organizations that GAO 
should consider for pay comparison. 

July; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" provides a status report on the 
CCR; 
Contract awarded to Watson Wyatt for compensation study. 

August; 
Watson Wyatt briefs the Managing Directors; 
Watson Wyatt briefs the Employee Advisory Council; 
Watson Wyatt conducts approximately 35 hours' worth of meetings with 
Career Stream Focal Points. 

September; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" discusses CCR and notes that 
starting with the next pay adjustment for Analysts, Attorneys, and 
Specialists, all pay categories will be eliminated and all performance-
based pay increases will be made on an individual-by- individual basis. 

October; 
Employee Advisory Council and Executive Committee conduct quarterly 
meeting: discuss the hiring of Watson Wyatt to start the CCR and note 
that the study is expected to be completed by the end of the month; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" discusses performance appraisal 
and pay issues; 
Watson Wyatt briefs employees on compensation design elements. 

November; 
Watson Wyatt conducts meeting with the Executive Committee and Managing 
Directors on GAO's adaptation of their findings. 

December; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" shows briefing slides to 
explain how GAO will use Watson Wyatt's findings to determine salaries 
for Analysts, Attorneys, and Specialists. 

2005. 

January; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" explains how pay adjustments 
will be made; explains methods used to calculate 2005 performance based 
compensation increases for Analysts, Attorneys, and Specialists; 
explains the concept of standardized rating scores. 

April; 
Employee Advisory Council and Executive Committee conduct quarterly 
meeting: discuss a future briefing for the Employee Advisory Council by 
the end of April on the proposed plan for updating the roles of Band 
IIA/IIB; the selection criteria; and the process for initial placement. 
Also request that the Employee Advisory Council nominate three of its 
members to serve on a GAO-task team related to Band II restructuring 
that will convene in May. 

May; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" reviews plans for next year's 
pay adjustments for Analysts, Attorneys, and Specialists; announces 
plans for placing Band II staff members in IIA and IIB salary ranges, 
establishing a career path for Written Communications Specialists, and 
developing a process for Communications Analysts to transfer to Band 
IIA analyst positions. CG also released a project plan to (1) make the 
initial placements to implement the Band IIA and Band IIB market-based 
compensation ranges, (2) establish a career path for Written 
Communications Professionals, and (3) provide a process through which 
Communications Analysts may apply for a transfer to generalist analyst 
positions at the Band IIA level; 
Project plan for Band II restructuring posted to the GAO Intranet for 
all employees. 

June; 
Project plan and announcement of employee task teams' creation to study 
and develop proposals to implement Band IIA and IIB market-based 
compensation ranges for Analysts and Specialists posted to the GAO 
Intranet for all employees. 

July; 
Executive Committee and Employee Advisory Council conduct quarterly 
meeting: discuss topics for July 15, 2005, "CG Chat" and provide an 
update on the Band II restructuring effort; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" notes that the Executive 
Committee will review reports from the task teams established to 
develop recommendations for the roles and responsibilities of Band II 
Analysts, Specialists, and Communications Professionals; 
"Phase I" draft proposals for identifying the IIA and IIB roles and 
responsibilities for Analysts and Specialists and a career track for 
Written Communications Professionals posted to the GAO Intranet for all 
employees for comment. 

August; 
Executive Committee conducts special town hall meetings with all staff 
on Analyst proposals; 
Executive Committee conducts special town hall meetings with all staff 
on Attorney proposals; 
Executive Committee conducts special town hall meetings with all staff 
on Specialist proposals; 
Notice announcing that focus groups are forming to discuss "Phase II" 
proposals for implementing Band IIA and IIB market-based compensation 
ranges for Band II Analysts and Specialists (to be effective January 
2006) posted to the GAO Intranet for all employees. 

September; 
Draft Band II restructuring "Phase II" proposals for identifying the 
criteria and process for placing Analyst and Specialist staff in the 
IIB pay range posted on the GAO Intranet for all employees for comment; 
Notice posted to the GAO Intranet for all employees announcing the 
availability on the Intranet of the Band II Restructuring roles and 
responsibilities for Senior Analysts in the IIA and IIB pay ranges, 
Specialists in the IIA and IIB pay ranges, and Communication Analysts 
in the Band I and II pay ranges. 

October; 
Questions and Answers document on the Band II restructuring posted to 
the GAO Intranet for all employees; 
Draft GAO Order on the Band II Restructuring, containing the latest 
"Phase I" roles and responsibilities and additional information about 
the "Phase II" straw proposal regarding the criteria and process for 
initial IIB pay range placement, posted to the GAO Intranet for all 
employees to comment; 
Executive Committee and Employee Advisory Council conduct quarterly 
meeting: CG notes that not many comments were received on "Phase I" 
(roles and responsibilities) of the Band II restructuring effort and 
reminds EAC members that the GAO order on "Phase II" (criteria and 
process) is currently out for comment; 
Notice posted to the GAO Intranet for all employees announcing the 
extension of the comment period for the draft GAO order on the Band II 
restructuring. 

November; 
Executive Committee conducts special meeting with Managing Directors on 
Band II restructuring; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" announces the kick off of an 
accelerated process for placing current Band II staff members in the 
IIA and IIB pay ranges by announcing final decisions on the criteria 
and process to be used and announces decisions about 2006 pay rates for 
Analysts, Attorneys, and Specialists, with a warning that they were 
contingent on GAO's final budget; 
Notice posted to the GAO Intranet for all employees announcing the 
availability on the GAO Intranet of the slides used in the previous 
day's "CG Chat."; 
Draft GAO order related to GAO's administrative grievance procedure, 
updated to include information related to the restructuring of Band II, 
posted to the GAO Intranet for all employees to comment; 
Notice posted to the GAO Intranet for all employees announcing changes 
in eligibility requirements found in the restructuring order and 
changes in the dates that Band IIB selection panels would convene; 
Questions and Answers document on the Band II restructuring for "Phase 
II" posted on the GAO Intranet for all employees. 

December; 
Band IIB selection panels convene; 
Staff noncompetitively placed in Band IIB are notified of their 
selection; 
Information describing the Band IIB reconsideration process posted to 
the GAO Intranet for all employees. 

2006. 

January; 
Effective date of reassignment for staff placed in IIB; 
Notice posted to the GAO Intranet for all employees to comment 
announcing the procedures for Band IIB Placement Reconsideration 
Requests; 
Notice posted to the GAO Intranet for all employees to comment 
clarifying the status of Criminal Investigators (series 1811) as a 
result of the recent Band II restructuring; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" reviews results of Band IIB 
placements and notes that there will be other opportunities for 
competitive placement in Band IIB--the next one by the end of June and 
conducted at the same time as the Band IIA promotion process; announces 
that a proposed procedure for current Communication Analysts and PT-II 
staff members to apply for certification as Band IIA Analysts, as 
recommended by a special employee task force, will soon be posted for 
comments. Notes that--based on the employee task team's work--the 
Executive Committee decided not to employ a certification process for 
moving staff from Band I to Band IIA, meaning that for the time being, 
the process will remain competitive and there will be no speed bump in 
the IIA pay range; 
Executive Committee and Employee Advisory Council conduct quarterly 
meeting: Employee Advisory Council members raise concerns about how the 
selection criteria for the Band IIB position were applied, inquires 
about how future rounds of placements will be conducted, and notes the 
perceived decrease in staff morale as a result of the restructuring. 
Discusses the employee task forces' work related to a certification 
process for Communication Analysts and APSS staff interested in 
converting to Analyst positions; 
In response to issues raised by the Employee Advisory Council, a memo 
providing additional information on the Band II restructuring process; 
Personnel Appeals Board and GAO's Office of Opportunity and 
Inclusiveness appeals processes and filing deadlines; Managing Director 
feedback on central panel results; and other related issues is posted 
to the GAO Intranet for all employees; 
Staff who applied for reconsideration to be placed in IIB are notified 
of decisions. 

February; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" reviews the results of Band IIB 
reconsideration and discusses the rationale for recalculating 
standardized rating scores to determine the amount of performance-based 
pay for Band IIA and IIB staff members; 
Employees file petitions with the Personnel Appeals Board on Band II 
restructuring. 

April; 
Executive Committee and Employee Advisory Council conduct quarterly 
meeting: Employee Advisory Council members summarize the results of 
their Band II outreach effort and all parties discuss possibilities for 
how and when to post the list of staff placed in IIB; discuss the 
process for future rounds of IIB placement; 
Question and Answer document on the Band II restructuring posted to the 
GAO Intranet for all employees. 

May; 
Notice of the implementation of a uniform appraisal cycle for Analysts 
and Specialists, based on feedback from the Employee Advisory Council 
and the Managing Directors, posted to the GAO Intranet for all 
employees; 
Revisions to Band IIB Performance Appraisal Standards posted to the GAO 
Intranet for all employees to comment. 

July; 
Comptroller General conducts "CG Chat:" announces that subject to 
budget constraints, the Executive Committee is considering various 
proposals: all GAO staff, regardless of their salary level and their 
position within their pay band, will be eligible to receive their full 
performance-based compensation (currently, staff who are at or above 
their applicable pay cap are not eligible for PBC). Notes that the 
minimum merit percentage could be set at greater than 50 percent 
(current guidelines call for 50 percent of PBC to be paid in merit or 
base pay). Also announces that speed bumps will be eliminated in all 
pay ranges for both mission and APSS staff, except for Band IIB. Notes 
that GAO staff will be provided an opportunity to review and comment on 
these proposals before they are implemented. Reviews results from the 
first round of IIA and IIB placements following the initial 
restructuring effort; 
Executive Committee and Employee Advisory Council conduct quarterly 
meeting: review the proposed enhancements to the compensation system 
that were discussed in the prior day's chat. 

October; 
Executive Committee and Employee Advisory Council conduct quarterly 
meeting: discuss rating periods for staff recently placed in IIB. 

2007. 

April; 
The PAB cases, filed in February 2006 regarding the Band II 
restructuring and involving 12 employees, are resolved via settlement. 

May; 
Watson Wyatt briefs the Employee Advisory Council. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: 

Table 7: Comparison of GAO's 2007 Banded Salary Ranges with 2007 GS 
Levels (All Steps) for the Washington/Baltimore/ Northern Virginia 
Locality Area: 

GAO band: I[A]; 
GAO minimum: $42,900; 
GAO competitive rate: $60,600; 
GAO speed bump: N/A; 
GAO maximum: $78,200; 
GS ranges (all steps within grade): $37,640--$86,801 (GS 7-12). 

GAO band: IIA / IIT[B]; 
GAO minimum: $71,900/$77,400; 
GAO competitive rate: $88,300; 
GAO speed bump: N/A; 
GAO maximum: $104,700/$118,700; 
GS ranges (all steps within grade): $79,397--$103,220 (GS-13). 

GAO band: IIB; 
GAO minimum: $84,600; 
GAO competitive rate: $108,400; 
GAO speed bump: $121,600; 
GAO maximum: $132,200; 
GS ranges (all steps within grade): $93,822--$121,967 (GS-14). 

GAO band: III; 
GAO minimum: $107,200; 
GAO competitive rate: $117,500; 
GAO speed bump: N/A; 
GAO maximum: $143,471; 
GS ranges (all steps within grade): $110,363--$143,471 (GS-15). 

Source: GAO and OMB. 

[A] Analyst ranges only. Does not include ranges for IT Analyst, 
Financial Auditor, or Communication Analyst positions. 

[B] IIT is not a separate band, but rather a separate classification of 
staff with unique salary circumstances. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: 

Table 8: GAO Analyst and Related Staff Compared with the 2000 Civilian 
Labor Force (CLF) Data (Note: GAO data as of October 1, 2006): 

GAO occupations: Analyst; 
Total GAO staff: 1,816; 
African American: % in CLF: 5.87%; 
African American: % in GAO: 11.78%; 
Asian: % in CLF: 5.71%; 
Asian: % in GAO: 7.38%; 
Hispanic: % in CLF: 3.58%; 
Hispanic: % in GAO: 5.23%; 
Women: % in CLF: 38.61%; 
Women: % in GAO: 54.24%. 

GAO occupations: Auditor; 
Total GAO staff: 239; 
African American: % in CLF: 7.89%; 
African American: % in GAO: 13.81%; 
Asian: % in CLF: 8.06%; 
Asian: % in GAO: 11.72%; 
Hispanic: % in CLF: 5.13%; 
Hispanic: % in GAO: 7.11%; 
Women: % in CLF: 57.02%; 
Women: % in GAO: 53.56%. 

GAO occupations: Computer sci/telecomm; 
Total GAO staff: 115; 
African American: % in CLF: 7.83%; 
African American: % in GAO: 13.91%; 
Asian: % in CLF: 10.79%; 
Asian: % in GAO: 19.13%; 
Hispanic: % in CLF: 4.70%; 
Hispanic: % in GAO: 6.09%; 
Women: % in CLF: 33.23%; 
Women: % in GAO: 50.43%. 

GAO occupations: All other analyst related[A]; 
Total GAO staff: 256; 
African American: % in CLF: 7.98%; 
African American: % in GAO: 14.84%; 
Asian: % in CLF: 9.63%; 
Asian: % in GAO: 6.25%; 
Hispanic: % in CLF: 5.05%; 
Hispanic: % in GAO: 1.95%; 
Women: % in CLF: 39.62%; 
Women: % in GAO: 39.84%. 

Total; 
Total GAO staff: 2,426; 
African American: % in CLF: 6.62%; 
African American: % in GAO: 12.41%; 
Asian: % in CLF: 6.81%; 
Asian: % in GAO: 8.24%; 
Hispanic: % in CLF: 4.13%; 
Hispanic: % in GAO: 5.11%; 
Women: % in CLF: 43.24%; 
Women: % in GAO: 52.47%. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] Includes occupations like Economists, Financial Analysts, Criminal 
Investigators, Statisticians, and other specialists with as few as 1 
GAO employee. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix X: 

GAO's Diversity Profile among Senior Analysts, Assistant Directors, and 
SES Level (Note: scales on vertical axes differ, reflecting the 
differences in representation for each group): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] With regard to the speed bump, employees at the Band IIB level must 
meet the criteria above, and they also must be in the top 50 percent of 
their peer group if their salary exceeds the market-based speed bump. 
The speed bump for staff at the Band IIB level is necessary, given the 
significant degree of overlap in the salary ranges for Band IIB and 
Band III level employees. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: