[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 47 (Friday, March 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9507-9510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5477]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Agriculture Department; Alternative Personnel Management System;
Demonstration Project
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Notice of amendment of the Department of Agriculture
demonstration project plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action provides for changes in the final project plan
published March 9, 1990, to modify the list of experimental and
comparison sites under the project. The project was originally
conceived to test an alternative to the traditional recruiting and
hiring system in an anticipated tight labor market as described in
Workforce 2000 and Civil Service 2000. This change provides the
opportunity to test these flexibilities in a downsizing environment
with a more than adequate high-quality labor market even though there
are occasional shortages of qualified candidates.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Jenkins, (202) 720-0515, at
the Department of Agriculture; Joan Jorgenson, (202) 606-1315, at the
Office of Personnel Management.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 9, 1990, the Office of Personnel
Management published in the Federal Register (55 FR 9062) the final
plan to demonstrate an alternative personnel management system at the
Department of Agriculture under chapter 47 of title 5, U.S.C. The
purpose of this demonstration project is to develop and evaluate a
recruitment and selection program for new hires that is flexible and
responsive to local recruitment needs and which will facilitate the
attainment of a quality workforce reflective of society.
In support of this goal, the following project objectives have been
identified:
(1) Increase the flexibility and responsiveness of the recruitment
and hiring system.
(2) Increase the reliability of the decision to grant career tenure
for employees in scientific positions. These objectives will be
realized through the following interventions:
(a) Decentralize the decision to authorize direct hire in shortage
categories.
(b) Implement an alternative candidate assessment method which uses
categorical grouping instead of numeric score.
(c) Provide the option of awarding monetary incentives for
recruitment purposes.
(d) Provide the option of reimbursing relocation travel and
transportation expenses beyond those currently authorized for travel to
first post of duty.
(e) Increase automation of examining process.
(f) Extend the 1-year probationary period to 3 years for employees
in scientific positions. The demonstration covers up to 5,000 newly
hired employees, at any given time, at over 140 locations within the
Forest Service and Agricultural Research Service of the Department of
Agriculture. Covered employees represent all occupational groups and
grade levels (excluding the Senior Executive Service) at the project
sites.
The list of approximately 210 experimental and comparison sites of
the Agricultural Research Service and Forest Service are identified in
the March 9, 1990, Federal Register (55 FR 9062). The comparison sites
for both agencies will be included as experimental sites. With the
addition of the sites, project participation will still not exceed the
statutory limit of 5,000 employees at any given time. Anyone wishing
more information may telephone the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Office of Personnel Management.
James B. King,
Director.
Project Plan Modification
The project plan which appeared in the Federal Register on March 9,
1990 (55 FR 9062) is hereby modified to include the comparison sites as
experimental sites for the Agricultural Research Service and Forest
Service.
Appendix B is changed to include all sites as experimental.
Agricultural Research Service
Experimental Sites
Aberdeen, ID
Akron, CO
Albany, CA
All Hawaiian Islands
Ames/Ankeny, IA
Athens, GA
Auburn, AL
Baton Rouge, LA
Beaumont, TX
Beckley, WV
Beltsville, MD
Boise, ID
Booneville, AR
Boston, MA
Bozeman, MT
Brawley, CA
Brookings, SD
Brooksville, FL
Brownwood, TX
Burns, OR
Bushland, TX
Byron, GA
Canal Point, FL
Charleston, SC
Cheyenne, WY
Clay Center, NE
Clemson, SC
College Station, TX
Columbia, MO
Columbus, OH
Corvallis, OR
Coshocton, OH
[[Page 9508]]
Davis, CA
Dawson, GA
Dubois, ID
Durant, OK
East Grand Forks, MN
East Lansing, MI
El Reno, OK
Fargo, ND
Fayettville, AR
Florence, SC
Frederick, MD
Fresno, CA
Fort Collins, CO
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Gainesville, FL
Geneva, NY
Grand Forks, ND
Greenbelt, MD
Griffin, GA
Houma, LA
Houston, TX
Ithaca, NY
Jackson, TN
Kearneysville, WV
Kerrville, TX
Kimberly, ID
Lane, OK
Laramie, WY
Las Cruces, NM
Lincoln, NE
Logan, UT
Lubbock, TX
Madison, WI
Mandan, ND
Manhattan, KS
Mayaquez, PR
Miami, FL
Miles City, MT
Mississippi State, MS
Morris, MN
Newark, DE
New Orlenas, LA
Orient Point, NY
Orlando, FL
Orono, ME
Oxford, MS
Pendleton, OR
Peoria, IL
Phoenix, AZ
Pine Bluff, AR
Poplarville, MS
Pincess Anne, MD
Prosser, WA
Pullman, WA
Raleigh, NC
Reno, NV
Riverside, CA
Salinas, CA
San Francisco, CA
Shafter, CA
Sidney, MT
St. Paul, MN
St. Croix, VI
Stillwater, OK
Stoneville, MS
Stuttgart, AR
Temple, TX
Tifton, GA
Tucson, AZ
Tuxtla, MX
University Park, PA
Urbana, IL
Washington, DC
Watkinsville, GA
Wenatchee, WA
Weslaco, TX
West Lafayette, IN
Winter Haven, FL
Woodward, OK
Wooster, OH
Wyndmoor, PA
Yakima, WA
Forest Service
Experimental Sites
Region 1:
Bitterroot NF
Clearwater NF
Custer NF
Flathead NF
Gallatin NF (serves Beaverhead, Deerlodge, Lewis & Clark)
Helena NF
Idaho Panhandle NF
Kootenai NF
Lolo NF
Nez Perce NF
Regional Office (includes MTDC)
Region 2:
Arapho-Roosevelt NF
Bighorn NF
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison NF
Nebraska NF
Rio Grande NF (includes San Juan NF)
Routt NF (includes Medicine Bow NF)
Pike-San Isabel NF
Shoshone NF
White River NF
Regional Office
Region 3:
Apache/Sitgreave NF
Carson NF
Cibola NF
Coconino NF
Coronado NF
Gila NF
Kaibab NF
Lincoln NF
Prescott NF
Santa Fe NF
Tonto NF
Regional Office
Region 4:
Ashley NF (includes Manti-La Sal NF)
Boise NF
Dixie NF
Fishlake NF
Payette NF
Sawtooth NF
Targhee NF (includes Salmon NF which shares administrative services
with Bridger-Teton, Caribou, Challis)
Toiyabe NF (includes Humboldt NF)
Uinta NF
Washatch Cache NF (includes the Geometronics Service Center)
Regional Office and Intermountain Research Station
Region 5:
Angeles NF
Cleveland NF
Eldorado NF
Inyo NF
Klamath NF
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
Lassen NF
Los Padres NF
Mendocino NF
Modoc NF
Plumas NF
San Bernardino NF
Sequoia NF
Shata-Trinity NF
Sierra NF
Six Rivers NF
Stanislaus NF
Tahoe NF
Regional Office, San Francisco, CA
Region 6:
Colville NF
Deschutes NF (includes Ochoco NF, Malheur NF, PNW Bend Lab)
Fremont NF
Gifford-Pinchot NF
Mt Baker-Snoqualmie NF (includes PNW Seattle Lab)
Mt. Hood NF (includes CRGNSA)
Okanogan NF
Olympic NF(includes PNW Olympia Lab)
Rogue River NF
Siuslaw NF (includes Corvallis Lab)
Umatilla NF
Umpqua NF
Wallowa-Whitman NF (includes LaGrande Lab)
Wenatchee NF (includes Wenatchee Lab)
Willamette NF
Winema NF
Regional Office (includes PNW headquarters and Portland Lab)
Region 8:
National forests in Alabama
Caribbean NF (includes International Institute of Tropical
Forestry)
Chattahoochee & Oconee NF
Cherokee NF
Daniel Boone NF
National Forest in Florida
Francis Marion & Sumter NF's
George Washington and Jefferson NF's
Kisatchie NF
National Forests in Mississippi
Ouachita NF
Ozark-St. Francis NF
National Forest in Texas
Regional Office
Region 9:
Alleghany NF
Chequamegon NF
Chippewa NF
Green Mountain and Finger Lakes NF
[[Page 9509]]
Hiawatha NF
Hoosier NF
Huron-Manistee NF
Mark Twain NF
Monogahela NF
Nicolet NF
Ottawa NF
Shawnee NF
Superior NF
Wayne NF
White Mountain NF
Regional Office
Region 10:
Chugach NF
Tongass NF: Chatham Area, Ketchikan Area, and Stikine Area
Regional Office
Washington Office
Research Units:
Forest Products Lab
Intermountain Station/R-4 Regional Office
North Central Station
Northeast Station/Area
Pacific Northwest Station Headquarters/R-6 Regional Office
Pacific Southwest Station
Rocky Mountain Station (includes Arapahoe and Roosevelt NF)
Southern Research Station (includes National Forests in North
Carolina)
Evaluation Plan
Purpose
The purpose of the evaluation is to comply with the requirement
that the demonstration project be evaluated in terms of the impact of
project results against stated objectives as well as to determine
whether or not permanent changes in law and/or regulation should be
considered or proposed. The original evaluation plan was published in
the Federal Register notice dated March 9, 1990 (55 FR 9062). This
evaluation plan has been modified to evaluate the demonstration project
during the extension period. Since the original plan was rigorous in
nature over the 5-year period of the demonstration project, the
Department of Agriculture and the Office of Personnel Management agreed
that the evaluation plan under the extension period take a more focused
and streamlined approach. Table 1 shows the model which will be used to
complete the analysis.
Methodology
The evaluation will be conducted by the National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS). NASS will evaluate the measures from the
data sources cited in Table 1. Longitudinal comparisons of measures
within the Agricultural Research Service and Forest Service will be
made as well as comparisons to other Department of Agriculture agencies
and Governmentwide measures where applicable. One of the key
interventions to be evaluated is the application of automation to the
examining process. This application is currently in the developmental
phase and may include both internal and external automated systems.
TABLE 1.--EXPECTED EFFECTS, MEASURES, AND DATA SOURCES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constraint Measures Data sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair representation of protected Hiring rates of veterans by type vs. Central Personnel Data File (CPDF).
groups will not be adversely nonveterans.
affected.
Hiring rates by gender, race, and CPDF.
national origin and disability.
Relative frequency of requests to ARS/FS Headquarters.
pass over veterans. Personnel Office.
# veterans through this process CPDF.
compared to hiring through VRA and
other noncompetitive processes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objective 1: Increase the flexibility and responsiveness of the recruitment and hiring system.
Interventions:
(a) Decentralize the decision to authorize direct hiring in shortage categories.
(b) Implement an alternative candidate assessment method using categorical grouping instead of numeric score.
(c) Provide the option of awarding monetary incentives for recruiting purposes.
(d) Provide the option of reimbursing relocation travel and transportation expenses, beyond those currently
authorized for travel to first post of duty.
(e) Increase automation of examining process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypotheses Measures Data sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Managers will perceive the new Managers' perceptions............... Survey/Focus Groups.
system as more responsive to local
recruitment needs.
B. Managers will be more satisfied Managers' attitudes................. Survey/Focus Groups.
with the new recruitment and hiring
system than with traditional system.
C. Under the experimental employee Elapsed time from closing of Built into automation system.
intake process, managers will announcement to issuance of
receive certificates more quickly certificate.
than under the traditional system.
D. Increased automation improves Managers' attitudes................. Survey/Focus Groups.
managers' (and applicants')
satisfaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objective 2: Increase the reliability of the decision to grant career tenure for employees in scientific
positions.
Interventions:
(f) Extend the 1-year probationary period to 3 years for employees in scientific positions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothesis Measures Data sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Managers will have more Managers' attitudes................. Survey/Focus Groups.
confidence in career tenure
decisions with an extended
probationary period.
[[Page 9510]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Project Expectations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothesis Measures Data sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Supervisory responsibility and Managers' perceptions............... Survey/Focus Groups.
accountability for the integrity as
well as the success of the
recruitment and hiring program will
increase.
B. Total operating costs for Administrative costs for recruitment Budget Data.
recruitment and hiring will not and hiring.
increase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-5477 Filed 3-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
