4.0 HUMAN RESOURCES The Human Resources Services Unit (HRS) at the Library of Congress supports each of the other service units within the Library on human resources functions, including classification, pay and leave, staffing, recruitment, selection, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)/dispute resolution, affirmative action, training, labor relations, awards and incentives, promotions, and policy development. The Associate Librarian for Human Resources reports directly to the Associate Librarian for Support Services and has 97 permanent employees in the unit. HRS is organized functionally, with managers and team leaders directly responsible for each functional area. The organization structure of HRS is shown in Exhibit 4-1. EXHIBIT 4-1 HRS Organization Chart Four of the service units of the Library outside of HRS have some staff dedicated to human resources functions within their units as indicated in Exhibit 4-2 below. These staff are the direct liaison to HRS. EXHIBIT 4-2 Staff Dedicated to the HR Function Within the Service Units Service Unit Number of Staff Dedicated to HR Function Library Services 5 Office of the Librarian 1 Law Library 1 Congressional Research Service 5 Copyright 2 For the past 20 years, issues have been raised internally and externally about the Library's human resources services, most notably by the Cook Class Action Suit filed in February 1982. A detailed description of this case is provided in the Competitive Selection Process Case Study in Volume 2 of this report. Beginning in the 1980s, several Library studies focused, at least in part, on the improvement of human resources services at the Library, including the following: A study by Arthur Young & Company in 1988 offered guidance and recommendations for a performance appraisal model for senior management. In 1988, the Management and Planning Committee of the Library addressed and made recommendations for many human resources issues, including equal employment opportunity and affirmative action, consultative management, labor-management cooperation, staff development, performance evaluation, staff recognition, incentive awards, adverse actions, and training. A study by Morrison Associates in 1992 examined the Library's overall management framework with emphasis on the personnel processes that were determined to be discriminatory in the Cook case. In December 1992, an evaluation by Edmund Cooke, Jr., an attorney with Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., of the Library's personnel processes against the requirements of the Cook court ruling. In addition to the internal recognition that certain human resources problems need attention, there has also been wide publicity about problems at the Library. Recently, entities outside the Library, including Congress, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), the press, and the courts, have contributed to this publicity in response to employee complaints. Methodology The focus of BoozaAllen's study was to examine the human resources function at the Library for: Impact of the Cook case on human resources and personnel management Effectiveness of the existing training program Effectiveness of the labor-management relations program Relationship between the Library's personnel policies against good management principles Extent to which personnel practices, including adverse actions, selection and performance management, are in compliance with EEOC's Uniform Guidelines for Selection Procedures. In conducting the study, BoozaAllen used several methodological tools to gather data, including: Focus groups Structured interviews Process reviews Document reviews to include policies, contracts, and statutes. During the course of the study of the human resources function of the Library, BoozaAllen completed: Twenty-six focus groups with union members1, union officials2, Library managers, Library employees, and Human Resources staff in order to obtain employee attitudes and process information about the human resources services provided at the Library Twenty-five formal interviews with Library senior managers, union officials, service unit managers, other agencies, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) officials, FLRA, and Library counsel in order to investigate attitudes toward HR services, pinpoint key areas for in-depth study, request relevant documentation, establish areas of concern to managers, and establish contacts for ongoing data requirements Analysis of data collected on topics such as vacancies, tenure, turnover, attrition rates, training course evaluations and attendance, labor relations statistics, adverse actions, fitness for duty examinations, grievances, and disputes. Our findings and recommendations are organized by topic area into the following five sections: 4.1 Labor Relations 4.2 Competitive Selection Process 4.3 Personnel Management 4.4 Human Resources Services Deployment 4.5 Training. BoozaAllen is also conducting an employee satisfaction survey of all Library employees. The results of the survey will be reported in a separate document. 4.1 LABOR RELATIONS The labor relations organization at the Library is composed of a Chief of Labor Relations, four labor relations specialists, and one secretary. The Chief of Labor Relations is an attorney specializing in labor relations and was previously a labor attorney for the Air Force. The labor relations specialists have diverse backgrounds -one was a former union president and another was in academia. The other two labor relations specialists have 15 years of labor relations experience. The functions of the Labor Relations Office are to 1) bargain for the Library, 2) investigate and issue decisions on grievances, 3) represent the Library in litigation, arbitration, and unfair labor practice litigation, and 4) advise on all issues related to labor relations. Three unions represent workers at the Library: American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 2910, AFSCME Local 2477, and Congressional Research Employees Association (CREA). Exhibit 4-3 shows the number of employees represented by the unions and the number and percentage of employees paying dues. EXHIBIT 4-3 Analysis of Bargaining Unit Employees as of November 22, 1995 Labor Organization Occupational Composition of Employees Number of Employees Represented Number of Dues Paying Members Percentage Dues Paying Employees AFSCME Local 2910 Professional employees at Grades 9 through 15 (e.g., librarians, nurses, and computer programmers) 1433 326 23% AFSCME Local 2477 Nonprofessional employees including the police force 1454 293 20% CREA Professional and nonprofessional library employees of CRS 587 354 60% Each union has its own contract, which is standard in nature. However, differences exist among the three contracts. For example, AFSCME Local 2910 has negotiated fairly extensive participation rights in many aspects of the Library's employment policies. AFSCME Local 2910 has the right to have a member on all Library committees whose principal purpose is to consider personnel policies. The CREA collective bargaining agreement appears to have a less legalistic relationship between the union and the Library, although it is similar to those of AFSCME Local 2910 and 2477 in the procedural protection for promotions, evaluations, and the like. Despite these differences, the contracts are similar in many other areas. Historically, the labor relations program has been a source of concern at the Library, with former studies, congressional hearings, and publicity criticizing the labor-management relations. The Management and Planning Committee (MAP) report issued in 1988 initially outlined the problems that exist within the labor-management program. The report referred to the absence of effective communication and training, and the excessive reliance on rules and regulations, as well as a lack of flexibility and cooperation. During initial discussions in late 1995, Library officials continued to voice these concerns. In response to the concerns outlined above, BoozaAllen conducted a review of the labor relations function at the Library. The objectives of our study were to: Characterize the relationship between labor and management and quantify the extent of the labor-relations problem Determine and assess the length of time involved in bargaining and negotiation Evaluate the impact of the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute on bargaining and negotiation processes Determine past and ongoing efforts to improve the labor-management relationship at the Library Determine the typical process for resolving labor disputes Determine whether employees are adequately trained regarding the Library's labor-management relations program Identify opportunities to improve the Library's labor-management relations. Our findings in relation to these objectives are described below. 4.1.1 Labor Relations Findings The Library's labor-management problems relate to lack of communication, collective bargaining, general lack of training in the labor-relations program, and general frustration with the labor-management relationship. Both labor and management focus group participants also expressed frustration with the decision- making process, problems with communication, and lack of trust on both sides. 1. Temporary absence of a labor relations authority figure closed unions' line of communication and resulted in an increased number of grievances. A dramatic increase occurred in the number of grievances filed against the Library between FY 1992 (12 grievances) and FY 1993 (89 grievances). During this time period, the Associate Librarian for Management Services resigned. A major function of this position was for the incumbent to meet with representatives from the three unions to address informal union complaints, permitting settlement before complaints reached the formal grievance process. After the departure of the Associate Librarian, the unions no longer had a channel through which to settle complaints informally. The vacancy of the position further deteriorated communication problems at the Library. The position of the Chief of Labor Relations was vacant from October 1993 to April 1995. Interviews with the FLRA indicated that the number of cases filed with that organization by the Library's three unions during this 18-month period increased from 12 to over 70. The FLRA labor attorneys attribute this increase to the vacancy in the labor relations position. As of February 1996, the number of current FLRA cases filed by the unions has decreased from 70 to 5, and the FLRA views the arrival of the Chief of Labor Relations as a positive factor. A review of the labor-relations programs of three other Federal agencies, and interviews with labor relations experts as well as with the FLRA, indicate that the Library is not unique in the types of grievances filed. Exhibit 4-4 shows the number of grievances filed by the three Library unions from FY 1991 to FY 1995. Exhibit 4-5 shows the types of grievances that have been filed over the past 5 years. AFSCME Local 2477 has been more active than the other two unions in filing grievances. AFSCME Local 2910 and CREA do not have unusually high grievance rates. Based on our review of the data, AFSCME Local 2477's concerns are centered over basic employee rights (e.g., harassment of an employee, supervisors allowing religious and racial jokes, employees being required to visibly display their identification badges). EXHIBIT 4-4 Grievances From FY91 to FY95 Library of Congress FY-Year AFSCME 2477 AFSCME 2910 CREA Agency3 Joint Grievances4 Total 1991 11 10 5 3 29 1992 8 2 1 1 12 1993 42 34 11 2 89 1994 51 15 6 1 6 79 1995 45 14 7 3 69 5-Year Total 157 75 30 8 8 278 2. Management and unions have different perceptions concerning consultative management. A Consultative Management (CM) Pilot, proposed in the Management and Planning Committee Report, was designed to provide Library staff with an opportunity to provide input into work-related issues. However, the pilot has not worked because the Library has not clearly defined its purpose and intent. This lack of clarity results in further breakdown of communication, as indicated by union officials and management. For example, line managers stated that the intent of CM is to keep everyone informed rather than to reach consensus. The union officials indicated that while CM works in some areas, it is sometimes seen as management's attempt to get around the contract.5 Union officials from CREA and Local 2910 indicate that CM is not used on issues that management views as important. While the intent of CM is to get unions involved early in the decision-making process, this is not typically done. The CM approach cannot be successful unless the Library clearly defines the intent and purpose of the CM program. EXHIBIT 4-5 Types of Grievances Unions Have Filed From FY 1991 to FY 1995 General Articles in the Library Unions' Contracts CREA AFSCME 2910 AFSCME 2477 Accountability 0 0 2 Arbitration 0 4 2 Bargaining boundaries 0 0 1 Continuous or frequent posting of positions that have numerous incumbents and frequent turnover 1 0 0 Details 0 0 6 Employee Assistance Program 0 1 2 Employee relocations 0 0 1 Employee rights 0 5 25 Equal employment opportunity 5 0 2 Expedited bargaining 0 0 2 Food services 0 3 0 Health and Safety 0 1 5 Hours of duty 0 0 0 Leave 2 0 8 Library-union cooperation 1 1 4 Management rights 0 0 0 Merit employment 6 13 9 Negotiated grievance procedure 1 1 1 Overtime 0 0 5 Parking 0 1 0 Performance evaluations 0 11 7 Personnel files 1 1 5 Position classification 3 0 0 Promotion review for positions in the promotion ladder 1 0 4 Reassignments 0 3 3 Reduction in force 0 5 2 Reorganization 0 7 2 Training and career development 0 0 1 Union representation functions 0 1 0 Union rights 4 10 17 Use of official facilities and services 0 1 0 Within-grade determinations, quality increases, and incentive awards 1 0 0 Working conditions 0 0 3 Subtotal 26 58 122 Miscellaneous 4 6 35 Total 30 75 157 3. Managers and other employees indicate lack of training in labor relations. Data obtained from focus groups with Library managers revealed that the managers perceive managerial training in labor relations to be fragmented and poorly sequenced. In addition, there is no updated supervisory manual for issues pertinent to management's relationship with the unions. Managers indicate they are unaware of union employees' rights. As a result, managers may inadvertently violate an employee's rights causing the employee to file a grievance. Both management and union members indicate that they lack training on bargaining and negotiation skills. Lack of training for managers results in confusion over determining the negotiability of bargaining issues. Lack of training for the unions leads to difficulty in selecting members who are knowledgeable about the issues at hand as well as knowledgeable about the bargaining process. The consequence of the lack of training for both managers and labor is delay in the bargaining and negotiation process. 4. The Federal Service Labor-Management Statute limits the unions' ability to negotiate critical areas of collective bargaining causing unions and management to have different bargaining emphases. The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute prescribes labor- management relations rights and obligations of the Library and its three unions. The Statute permits management to do the following without bargaining over substantive issues in these areas: Determine organizational aspects such as number of employees "...Hire, assign, direct, layoff, and retain employees in the agency or to suspend, remove, reduce in grade or pay, or take other disciplinary action" Assign work and determine whether to contract work out Select appointees for vacant positions. In the Federal sector, bargaining does not generally cover critical areas pertaining to wages, benefits, or other significant management decisions. With respect to these critical areas, Federal unions can negotiate the "procedures" that will be followed regarding the above- listed critical areas. In addition, Federal employees are prohibited from striking as a means of supporting their contract demands. Rather, the Statute establishes the Federal Service Impasses Panel (FSIP), which functions to help Federal unions and agencies resolve impasses. Because the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute provides only for impact bargaining where management exercises a retained right, much bargaining focuses on procedural issues. Although the Library unions are bargaining within their statutory rights, they emphasize bargaining on procedural issues that management considers "minor." Examples of issues that can be considered minor include bargaining over office equipment and the size of an employee's cubicle. In contrast, management bargains over issues that unions do not consider in their best interest (e.g., bargaining over employees wearing identification badges). Thus, unions and management hold different perceptions of what bargaining issues are considered important. This disagreement over the importance of bargaining issues leads to delays in the bargaining process and to poor relations between unions and management. 5. Management and union officials share similar views on reasons for delays in the bargaining process but hold each other accountable for delays. BoozaAllen conducted separate focus groups with library managers and union officials knowledgeable of contract negotiation.6 They were invited to discuss their perceptions of the bargaining and negotiation process including reasons for delays in the process. From the focus group data, it appears that management and unions share similar perceptions of reasons for delays in the bargaining process. One reason is the length of time to set groundrules. Management and unions both agreed that setting the groundrules can be a lengthy process. The process should last only a week but usually lasts many months.7 A reason for delay is the difficulty in coordinating schedules of individuals involved in the bargaining team. Another reason for delays in the bargaining process is due to the time intervals between bargaining meetings. Because bargaining team members have difficulty in coordinating their schedules for bargaining meetings, union and management teams may meet only a few hours each month. The time interval between meetings may last as long as a month. As a result, the bargaining process digresses and may last for months. The consequence of the delays is stagnation in the bargaining process, leading to postponement in resolving bargaining issues. Management and union focus group participants indicated that effective contract bargaining requires a continuous flow of ideas and discussions until a decision is reached. Managers and union officials have different explanations for the scheduling difficulty. Managers said that union representatives claim they were not given enough advance notice for bargaining even though managers said that they do give unions sufficient notice. Union officials, however, believe that bargaining is not a top priority for managers. According to union officials, managers do not abide by the time frames dictated in the contract or agreed upon in the groundrules in master contract bargaining. In addition, union officials believe that managers will purposely delay scheduling bargaining meetings and are not willing to meet more than a few hours a month for bargaining purposes. Union officials also reported that management often approaches the bargaining table without having developed a suitable management plan. As a result, management does not have a clear focus of what it wants to accomplish during contract bargaining. Managers also attribute delays in the bargaining process to the unions. Specifically, managers reported that unions have little incentive to complete negotiations quickly. Therefore, according to managers, it is to the union's advantage to continue bargaining until it achieves all its goals. Management also reported that unions do not prioritize issues brought to the bargaining table. As a result, the bargaining teams waste time negotiating over issues management considers trivial. However, management admits to holding some responsibility for delays in the process. Managers report difficulty determining what is negotiable and what is not because they find the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute confusing. Further time delays also occur because managers must research issues to determine their negotiability. Managers indicate that the new Chief of Labor Relations has helped greatly in this matter by providing clarification and guidance. In sum, management and union officials do have similar viewpoints regarding the reasons behind delays in the bargaining negotiation process, but they blame each other for causing the delays. Although time frames are either dictated by the union contracts or agreed upon by both union and management, the time frames are not strictly enforced which perpetuates the delays. 4.1.2 Labor Relations Recommendations Labor-management relations can span a spectrum from constant conflict to collaboration; however, most labor-management relationships fall between the two extremes. Often the history of an organization can cause labor and management to institutionalize their disagreements, but development of an effective labor-management relationship can reduce these problems. From our findings, we determined that the general major themes include a lack of communication, a lack of understanding of the bargaining and negotiations process, and a lack of training on the labor relations program. These deficiencies result in a breakdown in communication between labor and management and a lack of trust between the two sides. In order to address the concerns of both labor and management, we recommend the following. 1. Develop systematic ways to increase communication between labor and management. To begin to improve and foster effective labor-management relations, we recommend that the Library utilize external facilitators to lead labor management sessions, encourage communication, and effectively manage conflict. FLRA indicated that facilitated labor-management sessions are commonly used as a first step to eliminate small issues that can weigh down an organization and to identify the major issues impacting labor relations. Federal collective bargaining is process-oriented by nature and facilitated sessions enable labor and management to see past the process and set ground rules for communication. FLRA attorneys concur that while apparent conflicts arise over priorities, both management and the unions share a common belief in the Library as a valuable institution. By building on this shared belief along with the efforts of the Chief of Labor Relations, progress can be made concerning the lack of communication at the Library. These facilitated sessions would enable labor and management to put aside trivial differences and get to the essence of the issues. 2. Identify a Library unit to pilot simplified bargaining terms and thereby improve relations. As a means for creating a breakthrough in more effective labor- management relations, the Library should select a relatively small and severable unit within the larger bargaining unit, especially if that unit has a history of an unfavorable labor-management relationship (which might get the union interested in participating). The Library and the union could then negotiate a much simplified set of terms with stricter adherence to time frames. These guidelines would be applicable to this group only. The format would emphasize discussions, not paper. The pilot would have a definite duration of less than an entire 3-year contract so that it could be properly reviewed, modified, and extended if successful. Training would be included for all employees, supervisors, and managers covered under the pilot. Specific criteria would be identified to show demonstrable improvement (e.g., fewer grievances). If the pilot succeeds, it would demonstrate to other parts of the Library the benefit of working differently. This kind of program has led to improvements in other organizations but only when both sides recognized that their relationship was defective. 3. Revitalize the labor relations training program geared toward management. A focus of the training program should be to increase managers' awareness of individual union members' rights as well as the rights and the demands of the unions. The benefit of managers' greater awareness of union issues is an increased level of trust and open communication between management and union. In addition, training for managers and union members focused on the contract negotiation process may accelerate the negotiation process. Training for both managers and union members can address the inadequacies uncovered in our study and potentially decrease the length of time spent in negotiations. 4.2 COMPETITIVE SELECTION PROCESS Requirements of the settlement of the Cook Class Action Suit, described in the Competitive Selection Process Case Study (see Volume 2), include: Changes in employment policies at the Library of Congress, including a revision to the competitive selection process Promotions (40) and reassignments (up to 10) for a number of the class members Monetary relief to the class totaling $8.5 million, exclusive of attorney fees EEO, workforce diversity, and unlawful stereotyping training for Library of Congress supervisors The elimination of any discriminatory non job-related criteria for noncompetitive personnel actions. As part of the settlement, the court reserves jurisdiction for 4 years to ensure compliance with the settlement. In addition, the Library is required to review the results of its employment decisions quarterly and to provide plaintiffs' counsel with statistics demonstrating whether its selection procedures have resulted in disparate impact on African- Americans. In light of the Court's opinion and settlement agreement, the Office of the Librarian and the Human Resources Service Unit has placed much emphasis on establishing a new competitive selection process that is consistent with the Court's requirements of compliance with the EEOC's Uniform Guidelines for Selection Procedures. BoozaAllen assessed the Library's revised competitive selection process with the following objectives: Determine the length and reasonableness of time required for selection of new employees, with reasonableness determined somewhat by customer (manager) satisfaction Determine whether changes in the hiring and promotion procedures as a result of the Cook case address the inequalities that caused the settlement. The findings, detailed below, address the competitive selection process in relation to these objectives. 4.2.1 Competitive Selection Process Findings BoozaAllen reviewed the competitive selection process (CSP) in relation to the requirements of the Cook Settlement and the Uniform Guidelines and against good management practice. The findings, presented below, highlight our evaluation of the CSP against those requirements and standards. 1. The lengthy competitive selection process inhibits the Library's ability to recruit efficiently; however, at this time changes are impeded by the Cook Settlement Agreement. The CSP, developed prior to and made part of the Cook Settlement, has been described as lengthy and cumbersome by HRS staff, Library staff and OPM. Exhibit 4-6 shows the time required to fill all vacancies posted between FY 1993 and FY 1995. EXHIBIT 4-6 Time Required To Fill Vacancies Posted Between FY93 and FY95 The median number of calendar days to fill vacancies is 177 days. Few vacancies (6 percent) were filled between 1 and 3 months. Most of the vacancies (78 percent) were filled within 4 to 9 months. Some vacancies (16 percent) were filled in 10 months or more. An HRS staff member indicated that some positions are left open because of an ongoing need (e.g., deck attendants); those vacancies were included in the data and were not readily identifiable but are likely represented in the 12 months and above category. Additionally, the HRS staff member noted that different types of positions take different amounts of time. For example, senior-level positions often take longer to fill than more junior-level positions because recruitment is done over a broader area (often nationally) and schedules of senior hiring officials and applicants are difficult to arrange. Because the vacancy data does not identify job type, the calculations cannot distinguish between the types of jobs. In comparing the Library's time to hire to three selected agencies, the Library takes longer to hire. Exhibit 4-7 highlights other agency estimates of time to hire employees.8 EXHIBIT 4-7 Length of Time to Hire for Other Agencies Agency Calendar Days U.S. Government Printing Office 42-56 National Archives and Records Administration 30-60 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 60-120 Participants in employee satisfaction focus groups reiterated the cumbersome and time consuming nature of the selection process. The participants cited such problems as: Unreasonable times for hiring within the Library (over 18 months to 4 years). Managers and Administrative Officers noted that the process should take 120 days at a maximum A cumbersome job analysis9 process that is confusing, lengthy, and difficult to understand Lack of standardized recruitment plan Need for more training for those involved in the process (e.g., subject matter expert (SME) panel training) Poor applicant tracking system. External factors and mechanics of the process also add to the delays such as: Difficulty of scheduling SMEs (internal and external to the Library) for job analysis and rating panels Use of only one selecting official per position to interview candidates, when there are often many candidates to interview Delay by contractors in reporting job analysis results Inefficiency of doing job analysis for individual positions or groups of positions for each posting Rating panel cut-offs (natural break) results in large number of interviews10 (e.g., in FY 1995, an average of 61 interviews were conducted for nonprofessional jobs in Copyright Services and an average of 23 interviews were conducted for nonprofessional jobs in Constituent Services) Vague vacancy announcements are not job-specific and can cause those who should self-select out of the position to apply. This has been a long standing problem within the Library Large number of steps (over 30) with several hand-offs (see Exhibit 4-8). Having a lengthy and cumbersome selection process inhibits the Library from efficiently hiring qualified employees. In the long run, this inefficiency has and will have negative effects including: Potential loss of highly qualified candidates to other jobs Lack of trust in the system Added costs of contractors and internal staff time Inability to handle changes to recruitment and selection requirements resulting from innovations in technology, changes to the Library mission, or sizable staff turnover. The fact that the CSP is a part of the Cook Settlement requires the Library to perform the actions outlined in the Settlement Agreement Appendix B. The Library, therefore, is limited in its ability to make adjustments or changes to the CSP. The Library has taken initiatives to improve the process within the limits of the Cook Settlement as described below. EXHIBIT 4-8 Competitive Selection Process Flowchart (This exhibit not available electronically.) 2. The Library is making progress in addressing problems with the competitive selection process11; however, it has no in-house selection expert to provide oversight of the changes and the overall system. The Library has initiated some improvement strategies to address the length and inefficiencies of the CSP. For example, the "Improve Competitive Selection Process Now!" task group (formed in 1995) outlined several of the aforementioned problems surrounding the CSP and generated possible solutions to the problems in its report. The task force recommendations addressed six key areas: Planning-formulating hiring plans, operational strategies, assessing progress toward achieving agency goals Decentralization-decentralizing aspects of the process that do not sacrifice legal defensibility to the service units Resources-making the staffing function a higher priority with HRS and reallocating staff to this function Technology-automating to reduce operational inefficiencies and improve communications Process-streamlining the process by eliminating unnecessary steps Development/Training-training the HR staff to lessen reliance on external contractors. The task force generated an implementation plan that provided dates for each of the recommendations to be initiated before the end of calendar year 1995. Conclusions cannot currently be made as to whether the changes have had an impact on the length or delays of the process because the changes were made late in 1995. Of the 26 recommendations outlined in the implementation plan, 23 have been initiated or fully implemented. The 3 remaining recommendations and the status of their implementation include: Require annual hiring plans be submitted by each service unit: under discussion within HRS Collapse Level 2 and 3 Affirmative Action reviews and eliminate comparisons of applicant data against civilian labor force data: under discussion because of its potential impact on the Settlement Agreement Eliminate the need for contracting out some affirmative action reviews: initiated through the hiring of a full-time statistician; however, the Library still uses contractors. Another Library initiative to address CSP problems is a contract with OPM applying the Microcomputer Assisted Rating System (MARS) process to Library technician jobs. MARS has many components conceptually in common with the procedure required in the Settlement Agreement. MARS is a computer-assisted job analysis and rating system that has been used by a number of Federal agencies. OPM and HRS staff have indicated that the MARS takes less time (60 days to make 39 selections for the Library Technician (1411) series) than the existing procedure because a) the job analysis segment is faster due to the use of generic job analyses and the current position description, b) fewer panels need convening since subject matter experts are required only for the review of the task inventory and the interview stage, and c) the computer performs the ratings for both minimum qualifications and the quality-ranking factors. The Library has made other changes that should address the issues surrounding the CSP. In December 1995, HRS implemented the Posting and Applicant Tracking System (PATS) aimed at remedying the applicant tracking problem. Also, HRS has contracted with the OPM to do job analyses for entire series within the Library to speed up these analyses. The Library's initiatives to make changes to the CSP seem to be targeted to correct the problem areas in the process. However, the Library does not have a selection expert dedicated to oversee the CSP and the changes being made to improve it. We found that within HRS several offices and staff are involved in different aspects of the process, but no one person is fully responsible for the system and its implementation, or for improvements to it. Without this expertise, this process could be implemented incorrectly. 3. The Library of Congress is in compliance with the requirements of the Cook Settlement Agreement and the Uniform Guidelines. The Library currently does not have to implement all the requirements outlined in the Settlement Agreement because certain requirements are pending final Court Approval12 (see Exhibit 4-9) and must await the disposition of five appeals to the Settlement Agreement. Only those requirements contained within the Settlement Agreement that were contingent upon Preliminary Court Approval13 (August 2, 1994) must be implemented at this time. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Library has developed Human Resource Directives and has revised its competitive selection process, which was incorporated as Appendix B of the Settlement Agreement. In addition, it has provided training to panel members, Human Resource personnel, and selecting officials on the competitive selection process and its core elements. OPM has been contracted to perform the disparate impact review; however, it has not begun pending Final Court Approval. And finally, documentation as outlined on the Settlement Agreement is being maintained within the PATS (which was started in December 1995) in the Personnel Office for the competitive selection process and within the Personnel and Payroll Database through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center (NFC) for the noncompetitive promotion information. The Library's competitive selection written policy is consistent with the Uniform Guidelines. The Library has written policy describing each of the steps in the CSP. A written standard operating procedure for conducting job analyses is in existence. There is a general understanding that the competitive selection procedures must be based on job analysis and job analysis results linked to selection requirements. OPM reviewed the written competitive selection procedures and concluded that if the written policy and procedures were implemented as specified on paper, the Library would be in compliance with the Uniform Guidelines. OPM also noted that implementation of the selection procedures ultimately determines compliance with the Uniform Guidelines. By interviewing Human Resources specialists to determine the procedures they follow and by comparing their responses to policy requirements, BoozaAllen determined that practice meets policy. EXHIBIT 4-9 Review of the Components of the Settlement Agreement Requirement Effective Date Current Status Competitive selection process changes Upon Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94 Implemented Analysis of disparate impact of competitive selection process Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time Not yet applicable Ensuring all noncompetitive personnel actions are job related Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time Not yet applicable Providing training to all managers on EEO, changes to the competitive selection process and noncompetitive personnel actions, diversity, and unlawful stereotyping Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time 640 managers were trained on Diversity awareness - was included as part of the Library's "Diversity Management Plan." Providing to all persons involved in the competitive selection process (Human Resources, panels, and selecting officials) training on the competitive selection process and the need for job-related promoting of diversity prior to participation Upon Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94 Implemented Meet with management no less than 2 times per year (class members, counsel, and Library) Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time -- applicable for 4 years. Not yet applicable Library management shall maintain and make available to Plaintiffs Counsel quarterly reports for competitive selection process - Professional and Administrative positions Upon Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94 Information being maintained; reporting requirement not applicable until 90 days after Final Court Approval. Library management shall maintain and make available to Plaintiffs Counsel quarterly reports for Promotions under the noncompetitive selection system Upon Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94 Information being maintained; reporting requirement not applicable until 90 days after Final Court Approval. Plaintiff class will receive $8.5 million Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time Not yet applicable Library shall promote 40 class members Effective within 90 days of Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time Not yet applicable Library shall reassign up to 10 class members Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time Not yet applicable OPM shall conduct a disparate impact review of the competitive selection process on African-Americans for professional and administrative positions Upon Final Court Approval - Start date unknown at this time. Not yet applicable The Agreement will expire within 4 years. Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time Not yet applicable The Library shall disseminate a notice to potential Class Members of their rights under this agreement Within 60 days After Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94 Implemented Plaintiffs Counsel (after consultation with Class Members) shall appoint a Plaintiffs Committee of up to 13 members who by simple majority shall decide all issues of class membership and allocation or distribution of the relief provided in this Settlement Agreement. Within 30 days after Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94 Implemented All plaintiffs decisions shall be subject to a Fairness Hearing Upon Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94 Implemented All attached appendixes are considered part of the agreement Upon Preliminary Court Approval - 8/2/94 Implemented 30 days notice to be provided to the Library of any alleged violations of the terms of the Agreement Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time Not yet applicable The Agreement will satisfy all conditions of the Class Action Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time Not yet applicable No retaliation may be taken against any Class Member because of participation in this litigation Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time Not yet applicable Plaintiffs Counsel may designate expert consultants to assist in policy review Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time Not yet applicable Library shall pay the Plaintiffs Counsel up to $15,000 in expenses per year Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time Not yet applicable Library will pay attorney fees Upon Final Court Approval - Unknown at this time Not yet applicable Library personnel indicated that content validation was chosen as the Library's method for validation of the CSP. Therefore, in addition to the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, the Uniform Guidelines require that the Library maintain content validity documentation, which should include: employer location and date, purpose of the validity study, job analysis content and method, description of the selection procedure, relationship between selection procedure and the job, alternative procedures investigated, how procedure will be applied/used, steps taken to maintain accuracy and completeness, and a contact person for more information about the study. The Library maintains this documentation (e.g., copy of position description, copy of Affirmative Action recruitment plan, copies of all correspondence) in accordance with the Uniform Guidelines. 4. Lack of methodological soundness in existing Library studies makes it impossible to determine if there is adverse impact in Library employment decisions. The Affirmative Action and Special Programs Office (AASPO) has conducted several studies on whether there are gender, race, or national origin (RNO) differences (known as adverse impact) in terms of library employment procedures. AASPO provided two studies (which were conducted in June 1993 and May 1994) that investigated whether adverse impact existed with four types of awards. The first covered the period from July 1, 1990 to October 6, 1991; the second covered the period from July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1993. Both studies compared protected groups in terms of percentage selections for each award and medians for award amount. It is not possible to conclude the presence of adverse impact in the Library awards system based on these studies for two reasons. The studies did not compute statistics testing the significance or probability of the observed differences. They also did not look at the potential impact of extraneous variables on awards. Number and amount of awards are frequently correlated with other variables such as type of job, grade level, and organizational unit; a conclusion of adverse impact requires accounting for these variables. Two studies by the same division investigated the adverse impact of the CSP. These studies also have methodological shortcomings. They attempted to determine if there were differential rates of selection at three points in the CSP across multiple vacancy announcements. The studies applied the four-fifths rule14 and cited the Cook Settlement Agreement as to the appropriateness of this application. In reality, the Settlement Agreement states that after the four-fifths rule has been applied, a Multiple Pools Statistical Analysis15 must be done in order to draw accurate conclusions. If the Library does not ensure that accurate analyses of adverse impact are performed, it is in jeopardy of not complying with the Cook Settlement Agreement. Additionally, the Library will not be able to adequately monitor the success of its hiring practice in meeting Affirmative Action and diversity goals. The PATS, recently installed in December 1995, collects data on the race and gender of applicants for each competitive selection vacancy announcement in terms of number of applicants, number of qualified applicants, number of better qualified applicants, number interviewed, and number selected. This database will facilitate conducting adverse impact analyses in the future. 4.2.2 Competitive Selection Process Recommendations In our assessment, the CSP and its implementation has room for improvement. Our recommendations focus on improvements that will enhance the existing CSP and will place the Library in a better position for the future when the Cook Settlement period is over. 1. The Library should continue implementing its many competitive selection initiatives and should place an employee selection expert in an oversight role. The Library needs to place an expert with appropriate credentials in an oversight role of the CSP either as an employee or through a contract vehicle. As OPM noted, implementation is the key to compliance with the Uniform Guidelines. This expert could give direction to the process and ensure correct implementation of the job analysis procedures, rating panels, and interview process. The expert also could assist in demonstrating the similarities between MARS and the procedure outlined in the settlement agreement from different perspectives to help obtain approval of more generalized application. Improvements to the system could also be adequately monitored by a selection expert. In addition, the Library should position itself now for when the Cook Settlement Agreement time period is over by continuing to follow up on recommendations for improvements in various studies/initiatives. The existing CSP could have major improvements once the Settlement requirements are no longer applicable. Use of this expert to plan for changes and to set up an innovative process would position the Library well for the future. 2. The Library needs to obtain the appropriate statistical expertise to determine if there is adverse impact in its employment decisions. Determining adverse impact is complex. The Library needs to obtain an appropriately trained person to perform or review all analyses of adverse impact and other personnel analyses. Based on shortcomings of the studies we evaluated, we believe the Library does not demonstrate adequate skills to perform these analyses. A qualified person understands statistics and workforce demography, and how adverse impact has been analyzed in court cases. This person should be familiar with issues related to the multiple pool versus the single pool issue and the variety of statistical procedures available. The Library should also evaluate the adequacy of the outstanding contracts that are investigating adverse impact. 4.3 PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT In assessing the human resources function at the Library, we reviewed several processes to determine if policies and procedures reflect good management practices. Specific focus was placed on the following objectives: Determine employee satisfaction with human resources services and employee perceptions of management Evaluate the Library's use of fitness for duty examinations Determine the typical avenues used by employees and managers for complaints and adverse actions Evaluate performance management at the Library and equitability of personnel actions. We have developed the following findings in relation to these objectives. 4.3.1 Personnel Management Findings Several improvements are needed in the Library's personnel functions. In general, the Library has not given sufficient attention to workforce planning and policy maintenance, and employees reflect negative views of HRS personnel services. Each of these issues is explained in detail below. 1. Lack of attention to a static and aging workforce may result in the loss of crucial intellectual capital upon which the Library depends for its effectiveness. Employees at the Library have an average service there of 16.4 years and an average of 17.9 years of Federal service. In addition, the average age of the workforce is 46.4 years. Because of the workforce's longevity, the Library's major processes are heavily dependent upon deep, long-term intellectual capital resident in its current staff. The Library is nearing a time when it could lose a significant portion of its staff to retirement. The workforce that has been characterized by stability and long tenure is now significantly older. Estimates as of December 1995 indicate that approximately one-third of the Library workforce is eligible for optional or voluntary early retirement.16 Estimates for CRS are that by the year 2005, 50 percent of the workforce will be eligible for retirement, and by 2010 more than 70 percent will be eligible.17 The long tenure of the workforce is both a strength and a weakness. For example, the legacy systems (e.g., Multi-Use MARC System) have been around for 20 years or more and require knowledge of how records are created and in-depth knowledge of the cataloging process itself in order to make changes. The current employees are very knowledgeable of the legacy systems, particularly with the complex code that has evolved over the many years of system service, but new employees will have difficulty learning those complexities because documentation of the systems is not up to date. In addition, people who were hired in the 1970s are experts in mainframes, which allowed for the separation and specification of individual skills. However, in today's Internet environment, different skills are needed. This problem is further exemplified in relationship to the Library's core processes. The core processes require significant specialized skills because of the variations of media, languages, and sources of the Library's materials. Each variation requires a separate and distinct set of skills. For example, the Library processes collections in more than 400 languages and maintains staff with those language skills. These skills will be difficult to replace because of their specialized nature, decreasing applicant pools (particularly in foreign languages), and the decreasing budget available to hire new employees. Another example is CRS, which houses a pool of experts on legislative matters, including legislative context and institutional memory of congressional precedent and experience. Loss of expertise will have a negative impact on the services to Congress and on the intellectual capital of the Library. The Human Resources function at the Library also has some significant issues that will impede the Library's ability to maintain its intellectual capital. Coordinated training is not yet in place. The Human Resources personnel and processes are not equipped to handle changes to recruitment, training, or selection requirements that may result from innovations in technology, changes to the Library mission, or sizable staff turnover. The Human Resources services unit is also not able to strategically plan for workload and staffing requirements because of its poor coordination with, and lack of respect among, the Library service units. Ongoing problems in communications between managers and the unions inhibit their ability to plan together for future directions of the Library. And finally, the individual personnel functions, particularly the CSP and training functions, inhibit the Library's ability to bring on new staff members and get them trained quickly. This situation is evidenced by the fact that it takes members 5 to 6 months on average to recruit and hire new employees and that training is not offered regularly. Failure to plan attrition and skills maintenance will inhibit the Library's ability to maintain the intellectual skills required for its mission in the future. 2. The Library has not completed initiatives to update its personnel policies and regulations. In 1992, a Library task force undertook a detailed review of personnel regulations "to ensure that they are fair and equitable." Of the 157 Library of Congress Regulations (LCRs) dealing with Personnel (some of which were originally issued in the 1960s and 1970s), 96 were part of the review. The task force found that regulations needed updating for many reasons, including removal of dated language, elimination of content no longer reflecting current policy or practice, addition of content to increase the clarity of procedures, alteration to eliminate divisive policy or practices, and updating to reflect current organizational structure. In the fall of 1995, the regulations were updated. Based on our review of the regulations, little evidence exists that significant changes to regulations have been made to address the recommendations of the task force. The task force also noted the need to clarify the relationship between the different types of guiding documentation, such as Human Resources Directives, LCRs, Policy Memoranda, and Collective Bargaining Agreements. Having multiple outdated sources of guidance can be confusing to employees and may result in misapplication of personnel policies and regulations. 3. No standard application of the performance appraisal system is in place across the Library. No centralized control of, or standards for, the performance appraisal system are in place; appraisal of performance depends on the activities of the individual service units. According to HRS staff, oversight of the performance appraisal system is assigned to the Directorate of Personnel. However, we could not identify anyone in the Directorate with this responsibility. A lack of certainty exists among Human Resources staff members about where the function resides. Multiple sources said that the person with the responsibility left the Library and no one new has been assigned the responsibility. Performance appraisal regulations cite an office that no longer exists as providing administrative oversight to the system. Additionally, no tracking system within HRS is available to determine how many people received ratings in any given year. Focus group participants noted that: Many do not receive regular appraisals Ratings are often meaningless Those who have topped off in their grade feel that the performance appraisal provides little incentive Much subjectivity exists in the system Some managers are not willing to give outstanding ratings because of paperwork involved Managers are not held accountable for doing performance appraisals. Managers specifically noted that it is difficult and time consuming to administer the performance appraisal system. Managers are given little guidance on how to perform appraisals and the Library has not provided systematic training on the performance appraisal system to supervisors. The need for appraisal system improvement is a recurring theme in previous Library studies and task forces. The issues surrounding performance appraisals have been studied in both the Management and Planning Committee in 1988 and in the Arthur Young study in 1988. These reports cited numerous problems with the system, including lack of clear performance standards and the absence of career development and advancement discussions during performance reviews. 4. Library Position Classification and Management Office performs a number of essential activities but timeliness and control over outcomes are concerns. Position classification across the Federal Government has received decreasing emphasis over the last 10 years. The Library's position classification activities reflect this trend; the number of classifiers in the Position Classification and Management Office has decreased from 14 to 6 since 1982. Office personnel do provide a number of essential services including: Certifying positions as part of the competitive selection system Reviewing position descriptions and conducting desk audits to determine a position's classification or to ascertain if it should be reclassified Counseling managers and supervisors on classification procedures. The Office does not perform the maintenance reviews and surveys specified in position classification regulations necessary to ensure that all Library position descriptions are accurate. According to HR personnel staff, a general belief is held that position descriptions need increased maintenance to keep them up to date. Library employees can request position reclassifications and can, if necessary, appeal the results. Participants in focus groups who have had positions reclassified are satisfied with the results, but they complain about the time required. Employees seeking reclassification cite that it has taken from 6 months to 1 year to reclassify a position. In the classification process the Chief of Classification assigns expected completion dates that are on average 2 weeks from assignment. Staff within the Classification Office indicated that the delays are predominantly explained by workload, staffing, and scheduling problems. Additionally, if the classification decision is appealed, the process can be delayed. Staff of the Office express dissatisfaction because they cannot control the position classification system to the extent they believe professional classification requirements dictate. Staff members frequently feel forced to accept classification decisions made by consultants hired by the service units. Library regulations state that reorganization packages, which are reviewed by the classification specialists for their impact on job descriptions and job classifications, should be developed with the Office's involvement, but instead the Office receives the packages after they are developed when the office staff cannot adequately assess the impact on job descriptions and classifications. Staff believe a decision is needed about whether certain classification and position management activities belong in Human Resources or within the service units. 5. The use of fitness for duty examinations at the Library has led to criticism and mistrust. The use of fitness-for-duty examinations18 (initially outlined in LCR 2018-2) by the Library has been widely criticized. Despite the fact that Congress curtailed the use of fitness-for-duty examinations in the Executive Branch agencies in the 1980s, the Librarys policy and use of the examinations continued until 1995. Unions and employees made allegations about misuse of the examinations to handle problem employees. However, after examining the numbers of referrals made and the results of the referrals, there is little indication of any skewed distribution of referrals. Exhibit 4-10 shows the distribution of referrals for examinations that occurred from FY 1991 to FY 1995. EXHIBIT 4-10 Fitness for Duty Examinations, FY 1991-1995 Examinations Requested - 57 Examinations Conducted/Not Conducted Conducted 28 Not conducted based on assessment of medical records 16 Not conducted based on other actions 13 Refused 5 No action taken 5 Enforced leave 1 Removed 1 Request withdrawn 1 Types of Examinations Psychological/Substance Abuse 7 Medical/Substance Abuse 3 Psychological 24 Medical/Psychological 6 Medical 17 Service Units Collections Services 24 Constituent Services 22 Copyright Office 1 Congressional Research Service 6 Cultural Affairs 1 Law Library 1 Office of the Librarian 2 Managers Requesting Examination 8 managers requested 2 examinations 41 managers requested 1 examination Grade Wage Grade and Other Pay Plans 8 GS 1-4 3 GS-5-8 28 GS 9-12 10 GS 13-15 8 Race American Indian 1 Asian 1 Black 28 White 27 Gender Female 25 Male 32 Union CREA 5 AFSCME 2910 10 AFSCME 2477 36 Non-bargaining 6 Determinations of Exams Done Fit 8 Unfit/Conditional or Ft/Conditional 15 Unfit 3 No Determination (Medical Records Not Released) 2 Of the 57 examinations requested, only 28 were conducted, with the remaining 29 requests either not conducted because existing medical records could be used to make a fitness determination (16) or because of other employee or Library actions (5 employees refused the examinations, 5 employees had no action taken, 1 employee was placed on enforced leave, 1 employee was removed, and 1 supervisor withdrew the request). Based on our discussions with the Medical Officer and our review of the data provided, there do not appear to be any trends indicating potential misuse or bias in the use of the referral process. Allegations that certain supervisors abused the use of the FFDs are not substantiated. Only eight managers in the Library requested more than one examination over the four fiscal years, and there is no indication that any one service unit is responsible for the bulk of the referrals. In fact, while both Collections Services and Constituent Services had the most referrals (24 and 22 respectively), they also have the most employees in the Library. In addition, in FY 1995, 9 white employees were referred and 4 African-American employees were referred, which represent only .004 percent and .002 percent of the Library populations of white and African- American employees in FY 1995, respectively. The 8 males and 6 females referred in FY 1995 represent .004 and .002 percent of the males and females at the Library respectively. Given that not even 1 percent of any of the groups was referred for exams, there is no indication of bias toward any group. Exhibit 4-11 summarizes the actions taken by the Library as a result of, or in conjunction with, the examinations or referrals. In 18 cases where either examinations were done or medical records were used to make a conditional determination, accommodations were made for the employees to be able to maintain their jobs. In only three cases were employees found to be unfit without conditions, and in all three cases the Library worked to have them leave on disability or retirement. Fourteen of the 57 referrals resulted in adverse actions. EXHIBIT 4-11 Library of Congress Actions on Referrals19, FY 1991-1995 Action Taken Number Job modifications made 5 Resolution agreements 3 Employee detailed to another job 320 Employee placed on forced leave/LWOP 8 Employee refused examination --Removed (3) --Downgraded (1) --Voluntary retirement/reassignment (1) 5 None 32 On November 3, 1995, the policy for nonbargaining unit staff was changed to reflect the general executive branch policy, including: Much more limited basis for directed examinations If a manager needs medical evidence in order to make a personnel decision, the Library may offer an examination to an employee Unless the Library offers an examination, it will be the employee's responsibility to provide medical evidence demonstrating a medical or psychological impairment to explain any noted performance deficiencies or misconduct There is no provision for a representative for the employee during the process Under circumstances where the Library may direct a medical examination (which does not disclose any medical reason to explain the behavior), then a psychiatric examination may be directed The procedure eliminates the opportunity for an employee to provide an alternative list of doctors. A similar policy change is being negotiated with the bargaining units. Until an agreement is reached with the unions on the new policy, there is a moratorium on the use of mandatory fitness-for-duty examinations. This change in policy reflects what is typical of other government and private sector agencies. However, despite the policy change, potential exists for continued mistrust of the fitness-for-duty examination process because of its link to managers at the Library. While the policy change will probably reduce the criticism, the level of mistrust in the process is likely to remain unless the Library disconnects the employee assistance program from the Library management and supervisory structure. 6. Focus group participants view the Library as a professionally rewarding place to work but have mixed views concerning human resources services. Focus group participants noted several positive aspects of their jobs. Specific examples of why the Library is a professionally rewarding place to work include: Dream job for librarians Unique jobs that would not be found at any other place of employment Use of language backgrounds Family atmosphere due to the tenure of the staff Prestige of providing services to scholars, congresspersons, and authors Several opportunities to learn. However, focus group participants also discussed several issues/negative perceptions with HR services. Their perceptions are promulgated by several factors. Human Resources has been reorganized several times in the recent past, including organizing into a team approach in 1990 and back to a functional organization in 1995. In addition, the management of the HRS service unit has changed hands and structure several times. Turnover of HRS staff has been quite low. For example, of the 97 total employees within HRS, five employees left HRS, and three people were hired in the past year. This turnover mirrors the traditional attrition rates of 3 to 3.5 percent in the Library. Low turnover and lack of training within HRS suggests that little new expertise has been infused into the HRS workforce. The reorganizations and changes in management have likely been an influence on the fragmented service that has been provided to the service units. A final factor which has influenced the perception of the service provided to the Library staff is that HRS has historically been perceived as a low priority of the Librarian and management as a whole. The perceptions and themes expressed by multiple participants in multiple employee satisfaction focus groups are described in Exhibit 4-12 below. The Employee Satisfaction survey that BoozaAllen & Hamilton is distributing and analyzing should help quantify these perceptions and provide further evidence of the attitudes of Library employees. EXHIBIT 4-12 Employee Perceptions of HRS Offices Office Perception Employment Office % Selection procedures are lengthy and cumbersome % Information is not provided about the status of applications within the process Classification % Often pleased with results of reclassifications % Process for reclassifications is lengthy (from 6 months to 1 year) Training and Development % Not sure of the purpose and services of the office. Training is mainly provided at the service unit level % Have issue with training in general at the Library (see the Training section of this report for more detail) Pay and Personnel Information (PPI) % In general, pleased with payroll services. % Have had isolated problems with delays in processing changes in personnel status (e.g., name or address change and pay increases) % Some of the forms used with PPI are not user friendly Equal Employment Opportunity and Dispute Resolutions (EEO/DR) % The office provides useful services % Processes can take a long time % Concerned about confidentiality % Unsure of where the office's allegiance is-with management or the employees Affirmative Action and Special Programs Office % The special intern and tuition assistance programs have been viewed as a positive approach to promoting employees in dead-end on professional jobs % Implementation of the programs within the office has been sporadic and inconsistent Employee Relations Office (ERO) % People have had both good and bad experiences with the office % Concern about confidentiality % Several highly respected ERO staff have left - concerned that quality will not be as good % Some participants were unsure of what services ERO provides Labor Relations % Have received inconsistent guidance from different staff members % Many had no interactions with the office Focus group participants also highlighted issues related to overall HR services including: Untimely services Inability to access HRS staff Lack of responsiveness Poor staff qualifications Little information about HRS services, processes, time frames, and points of contact No comprehensive employee handbook. These perceptions as well as those noted surrounding the specific offices indicate that Library employees perceive HRS as providing poor customer service. These perceptions impact the level of satisfaction and trust that employees have with HRS. 4.3.2 Personnel Management Recommendations The following recommendations offer improvement options and ideas for the Library to follow in addressing the findings noted above. Recommendations are made to address specific problem areas as well as global changes that could be made to offer the personnel services differently. 1. The Library needs to be more proactive in planning for, and developing, its future workforce. As the Library experiences a decreasing amount of resources and an increasing set of technologies to accomplish its mission, ingenuity, planning and strategy must come together. As budgets decrease and organizations lose expertise to retirement and downsizing initiatives, the Library should implement key initiatives such as succession planning to alleviate the threat that a loss in expertise may create. Some planning efforts that the Library should undertake include the following: Establish a mentoring system that encourages senior employees to share their expertise and to create a legacy of knowledge that will outlast their service. Establish future mission requirements and determine the skills gap between current and future skill requirements. This analysis should be used to plan the types of hires required to keep the Library expertise up to date with mission requirements. Ensure linkage of the training and career development programs to foster development of the correct skills for meeting anticipated career deficiencies as attrition occurs. Ensure that process and procedures are fully documented so that new employees can get up to speed quickly. CRS is currently conducting planning to sustain its intellectual capital. By thorough planning of this nature, the Library can alleviate the potential pitfalls and costs of any extreme change in its workforce in the future. 2. The Library needs to update and simplify its policy and regulation system. Having so many different sources of guiding documentation is confusing to employees, particularly when some of the content no longer reflects policy and/or practice. The Library needs to implement one system to handle all policy and regulations. Existing documents should be modified and simplified. The task force report provides a start, since they provided a detailed review of many LCRs and types of policy documentation. 3. The Library should ensure standard applications of the performance appraisal across the Library. The Library has a clear idea of the problems and issues related to the performance appraisal system. The system has received much study, but there has been little follow-through of the recommendations. Performance appraisal systems need consolidation and standardization as much as possible. Supervisors need training in how to assess performance, set performance standards, give feedback, and provide career development guidance. 4. The Library should redefine the role of position classification and management. It is unlikely that classification staffing will increase in the current environment. Therefore, the Position Classification and Management Office must redefine its role given existing staffing levels. The Office should continue providing position classification/reclassification review upon request, as well as certifying the accuracy of position descriptions that are part of the competitive selection system. These services need the consistent standards and objectivity only a centralized office can provide. These roles are particularly important given the Cook case. Other responsibilities such as oversight and maintenance of the system should reside in the service units. The Office should actively take on a training and consultative role to assist the service units. The Library should update regulations to reflect these changing roles and clearly communicate the changes to staff. A change also is needed in position classification policy. Whenever it is determined that an accurate position description does not exist during a classification appeal, the Library should conduct a desk audit and base position classification decisions on current job duties. 5. The Library should ensure that the HR staff are qualified to perform their work. The HRS staff has been criticized by other Library employees for unresponsiveness and seemingly poor qualifications. This has contributed to a poor reputation of HRS among the Library service units, which lessens its authority. HRS should conduct a full skills analysis of its HR staff against the requirements of the positions. The skills gap (i.e., the difference between staff skills and required job skills) will provide information about the types of skills HR should acquire through training, new hires, or outsourcing. 6. Federal Government demonstration projects may offer innovative ideas for some personnel processes. Three demonstration projects sponsored by OPM may be applicable to the Library's personnel service issues. Two demonstration projects are targeted toward decreasing the amount of time required to hire new employees and one project is focused in part on improving labor- management relations: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Examining/Selection Process-The USDA project uses job-related criteria to develop a "quality group" of eligible candidates rather than numerical rating and ranking of candidates. This project has led to improved satisfaction of site managers and decreased hiring times (from 136 and 96 days on average, to 88 and 78 days respectively) for both professional and administrative positions at one USDA site. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Hiring Methods- NIST instituted the expansion of direct hire authority for professional and support occupations and the use of agency-based hiring for administrative and technical positions. Under the direct hiring procedure the average hiring time was 10 weeks compared to 18 weeks (based on 1991 results) under agency-based hiring procedures. The Pacer-Share Project, based at U.S. Air Force Sacramento Air Logistics Center and Defense Logistics Agency, Sacramento Specialized Distribution Site, McClellan Air Force Base, California, experimented with new methods of labor-management cooperation based in part on the participative management philosophy and total quality management principles of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Although first year results were unimpressive, indications are that after the first year, labor and management had improved cooperation. This was the first personnel management demonstration project with major union involvement. Given the relevance of these topics, and the piloting of these projects within Federal agencies, these projects may be helpful to the Library in providing options to consider in the future. As is the case with all piloted projects, care must be taken by the Library to fully assess whether these projects carry any potential side effects that may be detrimental to the Library (e.g., one outcome of broadening direct-hire authority may be lack of control over diversity in the workplace). Although the warnings must be heeded, the Library can benefit from reviewing these projects since they are developed, supported, and tested with OPM approval. However, as stated earlier in this report, the Library must be continuously aware of how any changes to its selection process impact on its compliance to the Cook Settlement Agreement. Once the Library is outside of the 4-year period of the Settlement, these options may be more attractive and may also be further tested in other Federal agencies. 4.4 HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES DEPLOYMENT The Human Resources function has been reorganized several times in the recent past. In early 1990, HRS established a team structure, with HR teams providing services to a single service unit. Recently, in September 1995, HRS reorganized to be more functionally oriented. Additionally, the management of the HRS service unit has changed incumbents and structure several times. For example, in June 1989 the Associate Librarian for Management was named the head of Library Management Services where Human Resources resided. In 1992, the Associate Librarian for Management was reassigned as Associate Librarian for Special Projects and an Acting Associate Librarian for Human Resources was assigned as part of the Library's management team. The incumbent was officially appointed Associate Librarian for Human Resources in August 1993 and currently remains in that position. However, the position was recently reassigned to report to the Associate Librarian for Support Services. Because the organization of the HR function directly impacts the way that HR services are offered/provided and as part of our study of human resources, BoozaAllen evaluated the human resources organization for: Duplication of effort and inefficiencies Service delivery/deployment issues Centralization and decentralization of functions. Our analysis of the Library's HR function in relation to these objectives is provided below. 4.4.1 Human Resource Services Deployment Findings BoozaAllen has noted several findings in relation to the deployment of HR services at the Library. These findings focus on areas where improvements are needed. 1. The Library lacks an integrated approach to diversity. The Library has three offices focused on diversity issues: Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints Office and Dispute Resolution Center (EEOCO/DRC) Affirmative Action and Special Programs Office (AASPO) Senior Advisor for Diversity within the Librarian's Office. Three offices mean three diversity approaches: The EEOCO/DRC Office (specifically EEOCO) resolves disputes related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including complaints and charges of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or physical or mental disability. Dispute Resolution is an alternative process to resolve both discrimination complaints and other worksite problems through a more informal resolution process than EEO. The EEOCO/DRC Office counsels and trains Library staff on the laws and issues related to EEO. The Librarian established the AASPO in September 1992 "...to help carry out high-priority initiatives to ensure equal employment opportunity and promote understanding of the rich diversity of backgrounds represented in the Library work force." The AASPO develops policies, plans, and programs aimed at increasing the participation of underserved populations and conducts evaluations of the effectiveness of the Library's programs in meeting Affirmative Action goals. The Librarian created the Senior Advisor for Diversity position in October 1994 to be devoted to supporting his efforts in dealing with diversity issues at the Library. The position has recently been combined with the Chief of Staff position within the Office of the Librarian. As a result, the Chief of Staff will be devoted to both the day-to-day functions of the Library and to diversity issues. In FY 1995, at the request of Congress, the Library analyzed the organizational and functional relationships between the Office of Affirmative Action and Special Programs, the Dispute Resolution Center, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints Office with the purpose of eliminating possible overlap, duplication of effort, and conflict among these units. The Library reported that "AASPO's mission and functions are distinct from either EEOCO or DRC." AASPO sponsors intern and other education programs, conducts targeted recruitment, and reviews competitive selection actions. On the other hand, they found that "EEOCO and DRC are charged with resolving worksite problems." The Office of the Senior Advisor for Diversity was not included in the analysis. Both in interviews and in focus groups, Library staff commented on a lack of integration among the efforts of the three offices. Employees believe that the EEOCO/DRC and AASPO should be moved outside the HRS and linked to the Senior Advisor for Diversity. A similar alignment was also suggested by the Management and Planning Committee in November 1988 as well as in the 1988 Arthur Young study of the Library. The studies suggested establishing an EEO office (AASPO did not exist then) that would function independently of all personnel and human resources functions. Employees at the Library noted that moving EEOCO/DR and AASPO would promote a more objective approach to the EEO and Affirmative Action issues for the Library. Additional perceptions about diversity at the Library were provided in the employee satisfaction focus groups. These perceptions include: A positive change in hiring has provided a more diverse profile in some areas Management's commitment is not strong enough Minorities in management positions are seen as tokens and are not given the respect and credit they deserve The move of the Senior Advisor for Diversity to the Chief of Staff position seems to indicate that diversity is on the "back burner" The Multi-year Affirmative Action Plan has not been communicated to Library staff.21 The Library has made efforts at the top-management level to increase the focus of diversity. Senior level managers are accountable for efforts in EEO and Diversity on their performance appraisals. Additionally, the Senior Advisor for Diversity has developed a diversity plan that outlines specific actions to promote a commitment to diversity (e.g., communication to all levels about the Librarian's commitment to diversity, focus groups to address Cook Settlement issues). However, the division of diversity-related functions across three offices seems to have diluted the Library's approach to diversity and created a perception that diversity is not a major focus of the Library. 2. The offices of Human Resources are stove-piped, focusing on their individual office activities with little integration of functions. Organizational divisions within the human resources service unit limit integration of functions and communication and create some duplications of effort. There is little cross communication or cross training with other offices. Although each office must serve specific functions, it is necessary for the offices to understand the entire HRS process in order to help serve the customer and provide seamless service. For the most part, each office conducts unique functions. However, there is a lack of coordination of services. For example, counseling is provided by separate HRS offices (e.g., benefits counseling at Pay and Personnel Information (PPI), counseling on personal issues at the Employee Relations Office, workplace-issue counseling at DRC). Employees are able to choose the avenues they would like to resolve problems. Unfortunately, depending upon the office chosen, the employee may receive inconsistent information. Both PPI and the Technical Services Group (TSG) of the Employment Office noted duplication of effort in processing personnel actions. The personnel action process has several hand-offs. One hand-off is between TSG and PPI. These two groups are required to record specific information to process the personnel actions. Both offices indicated that there is a duplication of effort in the processing and that quality problems occur because of this duplication. For example, the TSG ensures that regulations are sufficiently adhered to in personnel actions and sets pay while PPI processes the information provided by TSG. The two offices noted that each must follow up on the work done by the other, often having to do the work of the other. Because of concern about work quality, several checks and balances for processing personnel actions are required. The offices indicated that this function should be coordinated through one office, and that office should be held responsible for quality. AASPO, the Employment Office, and the service units all participate in some recruitment activities (e.g., participation in conferences, recruitment fairs, and outreach). Focus group participants noted that none of the offices or service units coordinates their recruiting activities. 3. Failure to have standardized and coordinated approaches to HR services, either centralized or decentralized, can create additional cost and inconsistency in their application. Although HRS is a centralized office, some human resources issues are dealt with in a decentralized manner at the service unit level. Some functions have been strategically decentralized because those activities may be best performed at the service unit level (e.g., recruitment plans developed at the service unit level, time and attendance reporting). Even though these activities are housed at the service unit level, it is the responsibility of HRS to provide guidance and oversight of HR activities that are decentralized. Focus groups with the HR offices identified some areas where guidance and training are given (e.g., time and attendance) and other areas where little guidance is given (e.g., development of recruitment plans). In a group interview, several administrative officers who deal with human resources issues said that little guidance is given. Some decentralization of functions has simply evolved over time. Three specific areas that HR staff noted with concern were training, outsourcing of HR functions (e.g., classification, staffing), and labor management relations. In interviews and in focus groups, Library staff indicated that most technical training is provided at the service unit level. The current Staff Training and Development Office noted that it has little control over training performed at the service unit levels. The Training and Development Office noted with concern that much of the training conducted by contractors could be offered in-house for less money. Additionally, some training provided could be useful across the service units but is only provided in isolated areas. These concerns are described in more detail in the Training section of this report. Besides contracting for training services, the service units have used contractors for other HR-related activities. For example, the Classification Office noted that service units will sometimes use outside assistance to classify positions. The service unit will then forward the report with the classification request to ensure that the position is classified the same way. The Classification Office feels that the service units are influencing the way they do business and believes that it impacts their credibility. Service units also obtain their own contractors to do job analyses for the hiring process. HRS focus group participants noted concern that when the service units contract out functions without consulting HRS, they have no control over the processes and lose credibility with the service units. Finally, in the focus group with the Labor Relations Office, participants noted that managers at the service unit level often do not consider labor relations in their decision making. Managers at all levels have been known to participate in bargaining that can conflict with decisions or contracts at the Library. These attempts at bargaining may also lead to further implications and set new precedents that could have a negative impact on the Library or other organizations. The Dispute Resolutions Office also participates in these types of bargaining agreements without the Labor Relations Office's involvement. If Labor Relations were kept informed, it could proactively stop or alter decisions that are likely to lead to labor relations disputes. This involvement could save the Library time and money and eliminate fallout from ill-advised decisions. 4.4.2 Human Resources Services Deployment Recommendations Our findings highlighted several areas where coordination is necessary both within HRS and with the service units. Our recommendations focus on possible initiatives that could enhance the services deployed by HRS. 1. The Library should integrate and strengthen its diversity function. The Library's history of racial tensions (as evidenced by the Cook Case) requires a strong diversity program that is integrated throughout the Library and that enlists HR processes in achieving its goals. The Library should consider several efforts to improve integration of the diversity program, including: Ensure the diversity plan and Affirmative Action plans are linked and are provided to managers for use in developing recruitment plans Integrate the functions into one office to organizationally tie them together and provide a united plan Continue extensive diversity training throughout the Library Develop plan for addressing any fallout from implementation of the Cook Case Settlement requirements (e.g., promotions and cash awards). Each of these changes can help the Library to demonstrate its commitment to diversity and plan for ways to address issues if they should arise. 2. The Library should investigate alternative methods for providing HR services. Historically, the human resources function at the Library has not worked well. As the Library moves into the future, it faces even more demands for efficiency and innovative solutions to personnel. Thus, it seems appropriate for the Library to consider some approaches to providing human resources support that have not been tried there before. Several options are being tried and tested in the marketplace today, including shared services,22 outsourcing, and interagency agreements. These options are being used by both private and public sector organizations as methods to improve operations and decrease costs. The Library should conduct best practices studies to investigate the options presented below for their applicability to the Library, their success rates, and key issues related to implementation of such options. a. A shared services environment may reduce costs and provide an organizationally standardized approach to HR services. Shared services requires that both the customer and the provider are jointly responsible for the results attained. Customers (i.e., the service units) and provider (i.e., HRS) must agree (formally through contract or informally through internal agreements) on the types of services needed and on the cost of those services. The focus of shared services is the pooling of like activities to reduce costs and enhance service. While the human resources functions are already organizationally centralized at the Library and service all the service units, doubt exists whether the functions are truly implemented in a centralized manner. A shared service environment would allow the service units and human resources to work together through a service commitment. Shared services would thus enhance customer satisfaction and provide cost effectiveness by offering economies of scale. Best practices information shows that moving to a shared services environment results in a 15-30 percent improvement in overall service costs.23 Although this savings may be less for the Librarys HRS since it is already organizationally centralized, savings could be realized in decreasing duplication of functions in the service units. b. The Library should use outsourcing as an alternative to its present method of providing some human resources services. Outsourcing is an alternative way to offer personnel and human resources services. A benchmarking study of outsourcing HR functions that are outsourced most frequently identified training and development, administrative services, benefits administration, outplacement, employee opinion survey, and relocation services. Common reasons for outsourcing include reduction of costs, reduction of staff, buying external expertise, narrowing down core functions, and improving quality. To date, the Library has outsourced some training, its pay and personnel data function, and portions of its selection process (i.e., job analysis, affirmative action reviews, calculation of disparate impact, minimum qualifications reviews, and job postings). Interagency agreements provide a method through which outsourcing can occur. The Library's agreement with the Department of Agriculture is the basis for the pay and personnel information system function. Agreements with OPM have been used to conduct job analyses, training, and oversight reviews. These agreements provide potentially less expensive options by the sharing of services across Federal agencies (similar to shared services above). Many employee relations firms offer cost-per-employee services in a confidential setting. Because this function is used sporadically, and because of the need for confidentiality, it is an excellent candidate for outsourcing and cost reduction. The Library could also outsource the majority of the personnel functions and reduce HRS to a policy and selection shop, maintaining functions that must be controlled internally within government agencies. This would allow the Library to invest its resources in overall management of the HR function rather than the day-to-day processing of human resources and personnel services. If the Library decides to investigate outsourcing, it must be cautious about staying in compliance with the Cook Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement provided promotions and specific positions to some employees, although only a few within Human Resources. If any of those employees occupy outsourced functions, they must be assigned to jobs of the same grade elsewhere in the Library. It may be difficult to match employee skills to other Library positions. The Library could be charged with retaliation if RIFs resulting from outsourcing appeared to target Cook plaintiffs. In addition, the Library should conduct a full cost- benefit analysis prior to outsourcing any function, to ensure cost- effectiveness. 4.5 TRAINING The Library's mission and supporting goals depend on its human resources. Whether the mission is to serve the Congress, the nation, or the world, its ultimate achievement rests with the quality of the people who work toward that achievement. The Library traditionally has depended on a highly qualified staff who have come to the Library with the requisite knowledge, skills, and ability to do their jobs. But the staff of the Library is changing. The potentially large number of staff retirements at the Library over the next decade means that much of its intellectual capital could disappear. Further, because of the changing nature of technology and the new ways that work will be performed, new staff will need specialized training that they may not possess when they are hired. These conditions make it imperative that the Library's training function is able to meet these demands. The focus of our review centered around the following four objectives: Evaluate the strategic role of training Evaluate the training policies/procedures to determine availability of structured career paths, accountability of managers for employee development, and mandatory training policies Review the training budget with specific focus on how training is funded and the method for allocating and tracking training expenditures Evaluate the course planning and implementation process, including needs assessment methods, relationship of course content to training needs, frequency of course offerings, course administration and tracking, training delivery methods, and evaluation methods. BoozaAllen's training management assessment revealed the following significant findings and conclusions. 4.5.1 Training Findings We began our study of the training and development system within the Library by examining key reports of previous studies that have addressed the effectiveness of training provided by the Staff Training and Development Office and by the service units. One basic theme emerged from the studies: for at least the last 8 years, the centralized training function has not played a key role in providing direction for staff development within the Library. Further, as the report of our findings will show, little has been done to implement the many recommendations from previous studies. The Library's training function today looks very much as it is described in the previous studies. Little has been done to improve the training processes and procedures in the Library. 1. The Library has not integrated the training and development of its staff into its strategy for fulfilling its missions or supporting goals. What is valued in an organization is highly visible and clearly tied to the strategic plans for achieving the organization's mission and supporting goals. This is true of staff development in organizations that are models of "best practices" in their training and development systems. In such organizations, training is seen as important as a business strategy, and the training function has high visibility. We found this is not the case with the centralized training function in the Library, nor is it true of the training offered in the three service units we studied. Several findings support this conclusion. One is the location of the Staff Training and Development Office in the organizational structure of the Library. As the organizational chart shows (see Exhibit 4-1 at the beginning of this section), the Office is buried deeply within the Directorate of Personnel, under the Associate Librarian for Human Resources Services. With the exception of technical training being conducted within Library Services (described later in this section), training likewise is not a highly visible function in the service units that we studied. The position of the Staff Training and Development Office has made it vulnerable to various reorganizations and shifts in staff numbers and capabilities over the last 7 years. The Office had no staff from 1989 to 1993, during which time all training functions were decentralized to the service unit level and the staff members were dispersed throughout the Human Resources Directorate. In March 1993, the Library reinstituted the Staff Training and Development Office. An acting chief served for 18 months from October 1993 to April 1995. Since that time the position of Chief of the Staff Training and Development Office has been vacant. A Chief Training Officer has recently been named. Another indication of the importance of training and development to the achievement of organizational goals is the presence of a strategic plan for training. Best practices organizations are as likely to have strategic plans for the training organization as they are to have overall strategic plans. In contrast, we were unable to locate a strategic plan for Library-wide training and development or for the training being offered by the service units. Without a strategic plan for staff development, the Library is unable to: Describe how staff development is integrated into the achievement of the mission of the Library Ensure top management oversight of training and development Integrate training and development managers into strategic planning Ensure consistent quality and effectiveness of training needs assessment, design, development, delivery, evaluation, and tracking methods. 2. The Staff Training and Development Office and the three service units we investigated lack the resources-monetary and human-to play a major role in the development of employees' skills to meet the Library's current and future needs. One good way to measure an organization's commitment to staff development is to look at the dollars allocated for training and development. Best practices industries report average total annual training expenditures of $800-$1,000 per employee. In 1992, OPM reported an average expenditure of $760 per employee in midsize agencies (1,500 to 10,000 employees).24 Using these figures as benchmarks, the funding for training within the Staff Training and Development Office and within the service units is inadequate to meet the staff development requirements of the Library. The Staff Training and Development Office receives no funding beyond staff salaries. Training budgets are at the service unit levels. The following exhibit shows the appropriated dollar amounts obligated for training in the service units under study. The figures reveal a much lower - $153.00 - per employee expenditure for training than industry or mid-size government agency av erages. Even the highest figure calculated for dollars spent per employee for training in these service units - the $292.00 per Constituent Services employee - falls short of the industry and government averages. A 1991 request to establish a training base of $552.00 per Library employee was not funded. EXHIBIT 4-13 Training Dollars Spent Per Library Employee, FY 1995 Office Amount Obligated Number of Employees Calculated Average Expenditure Collections Services Appropriated Non-appropriated Total $125,575 6,600 132,175 1437 $92 Constituent Services Appropriated Non-appropriated Total $284,276 79,859 364,135 1248 $292 Copyright Office Appropriated Non-appropriated Total $36,693 ---- 36,693 512 $72 Congressional Research Service Appropriated Non-appropriated Total $72,271 ---- 72,271 751 $96 Total $605,274 3948 $153 Poor Library-wide training records maintenance and the lack of systematic methods for assessing training needs (see discussions of the training tracking system and the needs assessment process later in this section) make it impossible to determine whether the training dollars were spent on the training that employees most need to do their jobs. Interviews with Library managers and supervisors and focus group data indicate that most training dollars were spent on technical skills training within the service units. In addition to our findings that funding for staff development is below industry and government averages, line managers, focus group participants and even staff members in the Staff Training and Development Office question the expertise of those who oversee training (both within the Staff Training and Development Office and within the service units). Comments indicate that training staff lack the necessary background in design, development, and delivery of instruction to provide the leadership necessary to integrate staff development into the overall achievement of the missions of the Library. 3. The Staff Training and Development Office provides limited training opportunities for Library-wide staff development and limited support to the training activities of the service units. The centralized training function should support Library-wide staff development and the offerings of the service units by fulfilling mandated training activities, providing cross-cutting and mandatory training, and tracking and reporting training activities Library-wide and within the service units. Information gathered from line managers, focus group participants, and the Staff Training and Development Office staff indicate that such support from the Office is weak. The Library's implementing regulations are contained in LCR 2017-1.1, Training Responsibilities and Procedures, dated February 6, 1974 and LCR 2017-1.2, Supervisory Training Program, dated April 20, 1984. These regulations divide training responsibilities within the Library among the Training Officer and the service units. The regulations detail the Staff Training and Development Office's duties and responsibilities for providing a variety of training and administrative functions. Exhibit 4-14 outlines the responsibilities of the Office and the degree to which line managers and focus group participants estimate that the Office fulfills these responsibilities. EXHIBIT 4-14 Staff Training & Development Office Tasks Tasks from LCR 2017-1, Staff Training and Employee Development Policies in the Library of Congress: Estimated Level of Fulfillment from Staff Training & Development Office 2017-1.1, Training Responsibilities and Procedures Assemble, analyze, and merge service units training requirements (Section 2) Propose training courses to meet the Library's needs (Section 2) Prepare and recommend annual training budget to respond to the employees' developmental needs and mandatory needs (Section 2) Review and approve proposed training courses (Section 2) Approve proposed training facilities (Section 2) Notify supervisors of training approvals (Section 2) Provide advice, counsel, and assistance to employees and supervisors about the Library's training programs (Section 2) Provide advice to employees about external educational and external training opportunities (Section 2) Review training nomination for accuracy and conformance with law and Library policy (Section 4) Provide for the continuing evaluation of the results and effectiveness of training to ensure effective use of resources and competency of training sources (Section 7) Prepare annual reports for OPM on the Library's training programs and plans for training for each fiscal year (Section 7) 2017-1.2, Supervisory Training Program Responsibilities Plan, recommend, develop, conduct and evaluate supervisory training courses that meet the requirements of LCR 2017 (Section 4) Schedule supervisory training courses on a regular basis (Section 4) Advise and counsel managers and supervisors concerning various aspects of supervisory training needs and opportunities (Section 4) Maintain records which reflect the amount and kind of supervisory training individuals have completed in the Library Level of Fulfillment: -High -Medium -Low As the exhibit shows, the Staff Training and Development Office functions primarily for the reviewing and processing of management- approved training request forms, and for coordinating and providing logistical support for courses available through the Office. Each staff member is also responsible for coordinating, scheduling, and tracking a certain number of the courses listed as offerings in the course catalog. Line managers and focus group participants indicated that the Staff Training and Development Office offers and/or sponsors a very small number of courses. Information from the staff of the office confirms that the office provides little training. Exhibit 4-15 lists the courses offered in the 1995 Staff Training and Development Office FY 95 Course Catalog. The catalog listed 49 classes in the four broad categories of Supervisory Institute, LC Specific, Career Development, and Personal Computer. These courses are almost all 1/2 to 1 day duration and classroom-based. The exhibit shows the listed frequency of course offerings and the number of times each course actually took place, according to information supplied by the Office staff. The total number of course hours offered through the office in FY 1995, as advertised in the catalog, was 348 (313 hours were actually run). For an organization of the Library's size, this is a small number of hours of training. EXHIBIT 4-15 Staff Training and Development Office Fiscal Year 1995 Course Offerings Course Name Frequency of Course Offerings Actual Times Course Ran SUPERVISORY INSTITUTE Dealing with Employee Problems 2 1 EEO for Supervisors/Managers 5 2 How to Make Training Pay Off 1 0 Introduction to Employee Assistance & Incentive Awards Program 4 0 Labor-Management Relations in the Federal Government 7 6 Managing Organizational Change 1 0 Managing Time & Attendance 7 7 Personnel Regulations & Relevant Contract Articles 6 6 Principles of Supervision 4 2 Sexual Harassment: A Federal Women's Program Briefing 7 3 Supervisor's Guide to Worker's Compensation 3 2 Time Management and Getting Things Done 4 2 Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 7 7 LC SPECIFIC Dispute Resolution Training 6 6 Introduction to PC-TARE 9 8 Property and Supply Management 4 3 Reference Collections in LC 3 3 Workshop on Travel 5 5 CAREER DEVELOPMENT Application for Employment 5 4 Communication Skills for Office Support Staff 2 0 Effective Briefing Techniques 2 1 English Grammar Review 3 3 Ergonomic Strategies for Computer Users 17 18 Fundamentals of Writing 4 2 Management Skill for Office Support Staff 2 0 Managing Stress Effectively 2 1 Mentoring in the Workplace 2 0 Personal Ergonomics Seminar 21 26 Retirement Seminars 3 5 Seminar Series 10 10 Time Management 1 1 Writing Techniques for Effective Letters and Memos 8 0 PERSONAL COMPUTER Advanced WordPerfect 12 12 Advanced LOTUS 1-2-3 and Other Spreadsheets 12 12 Advanced MS-DOS Commands 12 12 Banyan Vines Basics 12 12 Basic LOTUS 1-2-3 and Other Spreadsheets 12 12 Basic MS-DOS Commands 12 12 Beginning WordPerfect 12 12 Mainframe Connectivity-PROCOMM PLUS 12 12 Macintosh Basics 12 12 Overview of the Internet 4 7 Paradox 12 12 PC Backup, Recovery and Virus 12 12 PC Literacy 9 4 Scanner Techniques 12 12 TCP Connectivity-LC Mainframes 12 12 WP Fonts and HP LaserJet Printer Clinic 12 12 4. Library employees have negative perceptions of training within the Library. Despite the pockets of good training practice that exist in some service units (e.g., automation training provided to employees in the Congressional Research Service and the Technical Processing and Automation Instruction Office (TPAIO)25 in the Library Services Unit), the picture that emerges about training across the Library is that it is uneven in quality and availability. Focus group participants and line managers expressed strong dissatisfaction with the training offerings, services, and practices of the Staff Training and Development Office and with Library training practices in general. Their generally negative comments about training opportunities reveal a training function in trouble. Some of the problems with the training provided through the Office include: Non-responsiveness to training suggestions; the Staff Training and Development Office neither asks for nor responds to training needs Frequent cancellation of course offerings, often without adequate warning Infrequent and uneven offering of mandatory training such as supervisory training, diversity awareness training, and sexual harassment training Ineffectiveness of training methods; for example, using lecture only in the sexual harassment course, without offering a chance for feedback and discussion from participants. Another example cited by a focus group participant was that the "Performance Appraisal for Supervisors" was the same for division chiefs and for supervisors who only supervise one or two people. The participant felt that the training should be tailored to meet their differing needs Inappropriate timing: For example, Internet training was given when participants were not using the Internet; Employee Orientation is offered after an employee has years on the job Inadequate guidance from management on training and development needs/activities Unavailability of structured career paths Inadequate advertisements of course offerings. According to line managers and focus group participants, the primary method for announcing courses is through The Gazette, the weekly Library newsletter Crucial training falls through the cracks. For example, in an interview the Inspector General reported that police officers felt their training was "minuscule." There is little evidence of any written standards or guidelines for the systematic design and development of instruction, either within the Staff Training and Development Office or the service units we studied. 5. There is no evidence that training content in the courses offered by the Staff Training and Development Office meets employees' on-the-job skill needs. No course catalog has been prepared for 1996. As Exhibit 4-15 shows, the courses that most frequently ran during 1995 were computer courses, Ergonomics, Retirement Seminar, and Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The course catalog also provides information about a series of seminars on career development (10 2-hour seminars in the series) and video training resources (8 tapes on various subjects and 15 tapes on American Sign Language). There are no indications as to how these particular courses came to be the core curriculum of the Library, representing the body of training that is available to Library employees. No evidence exists of any written consistent, systematic methods/practices for determining training needs, either in the centralized training function or in the training provided by the service units. Interviews with the Staff Training and Development Office employees and line managers and data from focus groups confirm that no systematic, Library-wide needs assessments have been conducted to ensure that the courses offered by the Staff Training and Development Office and the service units are in fact the courses Library employees need to do their jobs. Further, we found no evidence of written policies or procedures that indicate methods are in place to hold managers/supervisors and training participants themselves accountable for transfer of learning to the job. Participants in focus groups indicated that managers and supervisors generally do not counsel staff on training needs or opportunities or discuss what has been learned in training. Participants generally felt that they are responsible for finding their own opportunities for training; in fact, they indicated that they often form informal training groups among themselves when the need for learning a new process or procedure arises. Nor did we find any policies and procedures to measure the impact of training on improved job performance. We were unable to locate any written policies or procedures for tracking behavioral changes in employee performance after training or on tracking the value of training toward achieving the Library's mission and goals. 6. Mandatory training is offered sporadically and poorly tracked. One important function of a centralized training office is the tracking of training organization-wide and within the individual units. The Library's performance in tracking training has been poor for years. Studies since 1990 have reported poor collection, monitoring, and reporting of training activities. Despite recommendations by these studies for improving the tracking of training, we found only minimal training records. Currently, the Staff Training and Development Office uses the National Finance Center database to record training data; the service units all use different systems. According to one member of the office staff, the database generates individual training records as well as summary training reports. However, the staff member cautioned that the records were probably not reliable because of the way entries had been made in the database. The office provides very limited training reports to the service units about courses they do offer. During the course of this study, the only training report made available to us was the OPM-required Annual Report. We were unable to obtain any other reports of training activities from the office. The lack of centralized training records makes it extremely difficult to track whether mandatory training for all employees, such as supervisory training, Diversity Awareness Training, or Sexual Harassment Training, has been conducted. Focus group participants and line managers expressed frustration with the lack of universal participation in mandatory training. Library of Congress Regulations 2017-1.2 mandate that each new supervisor be required to take no fewer than 80 hours of formal supervisory training courses within 18 months of appointment to a supervisory position. Interviews with line managers and comments from focus group participants, as well as findings from previous studies indicate that this training has been offered sporadically over the last few years. According to the 1993 Report of the Human Resources Working Group, a survey of all Library service units revealed that only two service units had ongoing supervisory training programs. The Report emphasized the seriousness of the lack of a Library-wide supervisory training and development program: [it] "...contributes to an atmosphere of divisiveness. " When supervisors are unskilled in the fundamentals of supervision, personnel policies and practices are applied inconsistently and inequitably. Inconsistency among supervisory practices leads to a risk both of inequitable treatment of staff and of the perception of inequity, both of which contribute to an atmosphere of mistrust, hostility, divisiveness, and dysfunction. Management effectiveness and efficiency are dependent on the ability of supervisors to perform their duties skillfully and consistently. Supervisors need appropriate initial preparation in practical processes and theoretical issues to be able to handle their jobs adequately. In addition, management is a dynamic process where new techniques are introduced regularly and where increased responsibility requires increased knowledge and more sophisticated skills." 4.5.2 Training Recommendations To ensure that Library personnel are adequately prepared to meet current and future challenges, the Library must integrate staff development into the strategic planning process and ensure that processes are in place to make the training of its staff a strategic component for change. Following are our recommendations for making this happen. 1. Strengthen the Staff Training and Development Office, making it more central and visible, thereby ensuring that staff development is of strategic importance in achieving the Library's missions and goals. This study and others that have preceded it reveal that the Staff Training and Development Office as it is currently configured cannot play a key role in helping the Library develop staff capability to meet current and future challenges. The effect of a largely decentralized training function such as now exists in the Library is that training opportunities are being duplicated or lost. A centralized training function would provide the direction and coordination necessary to ensure consistently high quality training and equitable opportunities for training. While it makes sense for other human resource functions to be outsourced, the same is not true for training and development; a centralized function is a necessity within the Library to meet the training needs of its highly specialized staff. The recent "university initiative" headed by the Senior Advisor for Staff Development and Staff Transition has the potential to be the kind of centralized and visible training function that is needed within the Library. Initiated in the Fall of 1995, the stated goals of this initiative are to elevate training to a highly visible position in the Library and to put processes in place for achieving an excellent center for the development of Library staff. 2. Designate resources and staff to the Staff Training and Development Office so that it can play a major role in developing needed skills in the Library's current workforce and be positioned to meet the challenges of developing future capabilities. Financial investment in training is the most unambiguous measure of its importance among an organization's competing priorities. Without adequate designation of funds and other resources, staff development will not be viewed as a priority. In order to function effectively, the centralized training function should be staffed by training and instructional design experts who play a highly visible role in integrating staff development with the strategic goals of the Library. 3. Improve the quality and expand the scope of methods for gathering information on employee training needs. The centralized training function should assume a major role in gathering information on Library-wide employee training needs and in assisting service units to gather information on unit-specific training needs. Needs assessment information should be gathered from multiple sources, both internal and external, to provide valid data to drive training design, development, and delivery. Information should be gathered internally from top management, users, and succession plans. Information should be gathered externally by benchmarking best practices and studying trends that could impact the Library's achievement of its missions. 4. Develop methods to enhance and sustain the transfer of learning to on -the-job performance. Transfer refers to the extent that learning from training activities is used on the job. Without formal mechanisms in place for ensuring transfer, the training function is rightly viewed as an expendable resource. Some ways to ensure transfer include: Hold managers and trainees themselves accountable for performance improvement as a result of training Integrate management into the planning and delivery of training Provide opportunities in training activities for realistic practice Build training into the job itself Integrate training with other elements of the human resource management system, such as selection and promotion. 5. Develop methods for evaluating the impact of training on job performance and organizational results. The Library's centralized training function should establish a process for annual assessment of its own and the service units' effectiveness in achieving training goals in terms of access, impact, and cost- effectiveness. The evaluations should track the performance of the training function in such areas as: Amount of training delivered and supported on and off the job Results of training delivered Cost of training per program and employee Types of training methodologies/training providers. 1 Booz7Allen planned several focus group meetings with union officials and union members from each union. CREA accepted our invitation to participate in both the union official and union members meetings. However, AFSCME Local 2910 only participated in the union officials meeting. 2 Union officials from CREA and AFSCME Local 2910 participated in a focus group. However, AFSCME Local 2477 declined participation in the union officials focus group. 3 Agency refers to Library employees who are not represented by a union. 4 Joint grievances refers to two or more unions filing grievances together. 5 CREA and AFSCME Local 2910 Union Officials Focus Group Summary, February 1996. 6 AFSCME 2477 union officials declined to participate in the focus group. 7 AFSCME Local 2910 and management are presently conducting master bargaining negotiations. Managers reported that the groundrules phase of the bargaining process with AFSCME Local 2910 lasted almost a year before actual bargaining began (June 1993 to February 1994). Actual bargaining commenced on June 1994. A major reason cited for the delay was the lengthy time intervals (as long as one month) between meetings. Currently, management and AFSCME Local 2910 have been in contract bargaining for 2 years and are at an impasse. 8 The "Improve Competitive Selection Now!" task force surveyed three other agencies to determine their estimates of time it takes to hire new staff. 9 Job analyses provide the primary basis for defining the contents of a job. 10 The cut-off methods used for the rating panels (natural break or mid- point between highly qualified and qualified) have been criticized by OPM. It has suggested a more standardized approach to cut-offs (e.g., percentile, standard deviations from average, or quartiles). However, the cut-offs have been negotiated with the Library's unions and changing the current methods would be difficult. 11 The Cook Settlement Agreement requires that the Library adhere to the CSP as is described in Appendix B of the Settlement Agreement. Any of the task force recommendations or other changes must be evaluated and approved by the Office of General Counsel to ensure they do not violate the requirements of the Cook Settlement Appendix B. 12 Final Court Approval is defined within the Settlement Agreement as "the date following the conduct of a Fairness Hearing and approval of this Agreement by the Court (signed by Judge Johnson September 22, 1995), on which any and all appeals from any objections to the Agreement have been dismissed, a final appellate decision upholding approval has been rendered, or the time for taking an appeal has expired without an appeal having been taken. 13 Preliminary Court Approval is defined in the Settlement Agreement as the date, following submission of the Agreement to the Court by the parties but prior to the conduct of a Fairness Hearing, on which the Court grants initial approval of the Agreement. 14 The 4/5ths rule is used as an indicator of the disparate treatment/impact of a selection test. If the selection ratio of any group is less than 80% (4/5ths) of the selection ratio of the highest selected group, that selection procedure is considered to have disparate treatment/impact. For example, if the selection ratio for whites is 75% and the selection ratio for African-Americans is 50% -- 50%/75%=67% which is less than 80%. Therefore, the test is considered to have disparate treatment/impact. 15 The Multiple Pools Statistical Analysis is critical in drawing conclusions about adverse impact. A multiple pools statistical analysis is one which considers a sample of selections as a series of successive groups that may have a changing composition over time. 16 "LC Employees Eligible for Optional or Early Out as of December 31, 1995," provided by the Human Resources Service Unit. BoozaAllen calculated approximately 32 percent eligibility based on optional and voluntary early retirement and workforce of approximately 4,700, statement of James H. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, before the Subcommittee of Legislative Appropriations, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Fiscal 1997 Budget Request, March 5, 1996 states that 27 percent of the workforce will be eligible for retirement in 2000. 17 Statement of Daniel Mulhollan, Director, Congressional Research Service, before the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, Fiscal 1997 Budget Request, March 5, 1996. 18 Fitness-for-duty examinations include both medical and psychological examinations to determine cause for performance and/or behavioral problems on the job. Determinations from the examinations include fit, not fit, fit/conditional or unfit/conditional. In both the fit/conditional and unfit/conditional determinations, the Library decides whether accommodations can be made on the job to allow the employee to continue to work. 19 Total number of actions is 56 because one referral was withdrawn by the manager. 20 Only two of the persons detailed to other jobs also had accommodations made. 21 In the AASPO focus group, staff noted the Multi-Year Affirmative Action Plan was under review by a committee set up by the Librarian's Office and has not been finalized. 22 Shared services is defined as the leveraging of delivery of needed services so as to enhance both internal customer satisfaction and provider cost effectiveness by providing only needed and agreed upon services at the "right" levels to internal customers and achieving pe