GovernmentExecutive.com

The Defense Department is reviewing pay data for employees under its new performance-based pay system to determine whether decisions were fair and credible.

Defense is examining 2007 data from the National Security Personnel System to see if there were significant pay disparities based on an employee's age, race or gender, said Brad Bunn, NSPS program executive officer, in a recent interview.

"Certain elements of the raw data are out there now," Bunn said. "Like any system, you have to look and see what the results were and how it operated and analyze those outcomes."

Government Executive obtained data on employees' performance ratings, pay increases, bonuses and total payouts in July through a Freedom of Information Act request. Defense identified employees by their age range, gender, race, ethnicity, location and component agency.

Bunn said it's still too early in the review process to draw any specific conclusions about disparities in the pay system, but noted that some inconsistencies have generated concern. As a result, he said, the program office has launched its own analysis of the information and asked individual Defense components to examine their internal evaluation and pay pool processes to identify any discrepancies.

"We've given each organization some guidance along the way on what they ought to be focused on, including looking at the rating results across different demographic categories," Bunn said. "They will make adjustments, address any issues and put more focus on training their managers. They also will look at how their pay pools are constructed and how they diversify the pay pool panel."

Defense has added more than 181,500 nonbargaining unit employees to NSPS since 2006 and conducted two performance cycles for workers in the system. The first of those cycles affected only the original 11,000 employees to convert to the system. The second cycle marked the first large-scale run of NSPS, affecting 102,000 employees.

Bunn said some disparities could be a result of the fact that NSPS is still in the implementation phase, meaning pay data does not always reflect that some components enter the system at different times during the year.

For example, he said, lower payouts identified at the Navy largely stem from a midyear transfer of more than 7,000 employees from the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command into NSPS. Those employees received a portion of their payout midyear under their previous personnel system and the other portion of the payout under NSPS in January, he said, making NSPS increases account for only about half of their total payout.

Richard Brown, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, said Thursday that while the union might reserve judgment for a couple of years until trends are clearer, it might be a high price to pay to "wait and see if the system is unfair to different people."

"The agency is going to try to make light of these figures, saying one year of data does not indicate a trend," Brown said. "We should not let them off the hook that easily. This is a big problem, and the agency should recognize that."

Brown and Matt Biggs, legislative director for the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, said the data already confirms what many labor unions have said about pay for performance. "All you have to do is look at a couple of these pages, and if you're white and male, you're doing well," Biggs said. "It's not surprising; we've seen these pay-for-performance systems in the federal government, and they are discriminatory against people of color and women."

Meanwhile, Bunn said the program office and the Government Accountability Office also are examining the effectiveness of current safeguards built into NSPS to ensure they provide appropriate recourse for employees.

One of the most important safeguards, Bunn said, is a reconsideration process in which employees can challenge their ratings after the pay pool process. For the 2007 payout, about 2,000 employees challenged their ratings; of those, one-third had their ratings overturned, he said.

"This should say to employees that the process is effective," Bunn said. "That indicates the credibility of the process."

But Biggs said many employees expressed concern that while their ratings might be increased through the reconsideration process, they might not be entitled to a higher pay raise as a result. Since the pay pools already have divvied up the amounts available for pay raises, he said, there's no funding left for employees who are entitled to a higher payout after they've appealed and had their rating increased.

But Bunn said a rating change does guarantee an employee a higher payout. "If there are changes to ratings in the reconsideration process, organizations will pay out the higher amount regardless of the fact that the pay pool money has been spent," he said.

Biggs urged a return to the General Schedule, saying the system is fair and credible and gives agencies an opportunity to reward employees. "We don't need pay for performance," he said. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Bunn pledged to examine the data further and communicate to managers and employees that standards and benchmarks for rating employees should remain objective. Still, he acknowledged, no pay system that involves human judgment could ever be purely objective.

"What we've attempted to do with NSPS is essentially make the proportion of objectivity greater than the subjectivity by emphasizing good, solid job objectives that are measurable and observable so employees can decide what it takes to get a 3, 4 or 5 [rating]," Bunn said. "But obviously, someone has to apply professional judgment."

COMMENTS

• If a pay pool of people judge those that I supervise based solely on the written input, it is a writing test. My input as a supervisor was changed. It was lowered on all of my employees. I was told to re-write my rating official comments to coincide with the score the pay pool had determined. Then I was told, that according to the CPOs interpretation of NSPS issuance in 1490.25, that I must now be part of the management system and fully support the scores of the pay pool "as though they were my own" - NSPS training is happen-chance - computer based and yet we know, numbers of our employees do not have good access to computers its not required in their jobs on the flight line of in the CDC- it is nebulous at best - the criteria, writh with subjective criteria -- giving even more opportunity for favoritism. BUT, I'm a quick learner - you bet my folks will fare VERY WEll next year in this writing test. Evans Posted November 24, 2008 10:29 AM
• The Obama administration and the Democratic majority in congress offer hope to those on the wrong side of the normal curve for NSPS compensation that this wildly unpopular, grotesquely unwieldy, and highly inequitable "pay for performance" system -- this monument to Republican orthodoxy -- will soon go the way of the old GM system. It's even possible that common sense will prevail and DoD will be forced to abandon its elaborate, costly, and largely ineffective attempts at centralized civilian personnel management -- its Rube Goldberg personnel machines -- and return to the simple but effective personnel practices it abandoned in the 1970's. Edward Vierheller Posted November 9, 2008 4:19 AM
• I was on GS as a GS-12 with one month to go until I would be GS-12 step 3. I put in for a position that was NSPS (GS-13 equivalent) I was told I am considered a GS-13 hpwever since I was already in the range of the pay band YA Band 02 all I could get was 5%. I was also denied my buy in and told I could not delay my start until after my step increase. Then they took money away that I was told and agtreed to work for without telling me on my first pay check. I tried to appeal but with NSPS you can't appeal money, ratings, or payout distributions or shares as we are told. They also state that all payouts must be 55/45 55% salary increase 45% Bonus. At that rate i will never be the equivalent of a GS-13. I am looking for work outside of DoD. I love my job and i have a 5 rating but it doesn't matter if it is not a salary increase. I have always had the cost of living increase, exceptional performance payouts, and step increases under the GS System. So how is it that they say no one was ever paid for exceptional service? With NSPS we are not paid for exceptional service and people are leaving the organization at a time when over 40% are eligible to retire. Smart thinking on DoD's part! NOT. Peter P. Gilreath Posted November 7, 2008 7:58 AM