Bill Overview
Title: Hiring Proven Performers to the Civil Service Act
Description: This bill authorizes a federal agency to noncompetitively appoint certain high-performing federal employees. Specifically, an agency may noncompetitively appoint, for other than temporary employment, to a position in the competitive service any individual who is certified by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as having been a high-performing employee in a former position in the competitive service; has been separated from the former position for less than six years; and is qualified for the new position in the competitive service, as determined by the head of the agency making the appointment. An individual may not be appointed to such a position more than once. OPM must set forth the criteria for certifying an individual as a high-performing employee in a former position based on (1) the individual's final performance appraisal in that former position, and (2) a recommendation by the individual's immediate or other supervisor in that position.
Sponsors: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals seeking federal employment through noncompetitive appointments as high-performing former federal employees
Estimated Size: 5600
- The bill affects federal employees and potential federal employees who could be considered high performers.
- It targets those individuals who have been recently separated (less than six years) from positions in the competitive service.
- The targeted group is limited to individuals who have been certified by the OPM as high performers.
- It affects all federal agencies that may choose to implement this hiring option.
- The criteria for certification is set by the OPM and includes performance appraisals and recommendations.
Reasoning
- The population impacted by this policy is a small subset of former federal employees, specifically those deemed high-performing by the OPM who were separated within the past six years and are eligible for re-appointment.
- The policy's budget indicates that although its scope is limited concerning the number of people it may serve, it provides significant resources for noncompetitive appointments, potentially improving opportunities for eligible individuals.
- Considering the estimated 5,600 individuals potentially impacted, this policy could moderately increase their employment opportunities, thus enhancing their overall wellbeing compared to the general population.
- Not all eligible former employees might seek re-employment within the federal system; thus, variations will exist concerning how this policy could impact individuals.
- Some individuals may experience significant increases in career satisfaction and opportunities, while others—outside the eligibility criteria—will see no impact. The emphasis on noncompetitive appointment is aimed at reducing barriers for recognized high performers, thus acknowledging previous achievements and performance reviews.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm very supportive of this policy. It offers a fair chance for those of us who left the federal workforce to return based on our past performances.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Project Manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives people like me a second chance, which is really refreshing.
- Hopefully, the hiring process won't be as lengthy as before.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It seems like a decent policy for those who qualify, but it doesn't impact me.
- It would be nice to see more initiatives that open up federal roles to fresh talent from outside the system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Civil Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am interested in returning to government work, and this policy might help open doors for me.
- Hopefully, the certified high-performance criteria are not too restrictive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Human Resources Specialist (Dallas, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm already doing well in my current role, so this policy might be beneficial for others seeking re-entry to federal careers.
- My concern is ensuring there's transparency in the noncompetitive hiring process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The timing is perfect as I am considering returning to federal service.
- This acknowledges top performers and could offer a more seamless transition back.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Public Affairs Specialist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't help those moving from the private to public sector, which is where I am.
- I'd like to see broader initiatives that welcome new talent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Denver, CO)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is good for mid to early-career workers.
- As a retiree, I'm unaffected but support initiatives helping younger professionals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Data Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Returning to a federal role seems more feasible with this policy if OPM certification is manageable.
- Long-term stability is important, and this helps.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Security Specialist (Miami, FL)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy offers a pathway back without reapplying through the regular channels, which is reassuring.
- Ensuring fair assessment by the OPM is critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- Noncompetitive hiring streamlines appointment processes, possibly enhancing operational efficiency.
- Certification and criteria development at OPM will require an administrative push.
- Ensuring fairness and transparency in noncompetitive appointments is critical to avoid potential abuse of the process.