Federal Pay--Special Rates: Effect on Recruitment and Retention for Selected Clerical Occupations

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-09-24.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                                                                                          .        .                                '                                                                                                                                                                                         .:
k; . .- . . .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            . ..- .
                                                                                                            >.                                  q       9

                                                                                                                                                                                                            . ..

                                                                                                                            .                                                               .        .                         ..
                                                                                                   .'.?...,'                                #               .
                                                                                                                                                                                    .            +..: ...>. .,                                '. ,

  :  A
          .                        .

                                                                                                           - ,\     .                                                   u

                                                                                                                                                                                            -   .. &.     ,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               - .
                                                                                               ...                                                  b
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .   -
                                        ~                        *                                              D .
                                                                                                                                -       \
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                *.                                                                                       *
          ..                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      .
                               - .                                                                                                                                                                                     .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              .           .
                               .                         .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ...         .                     ./-..
                                            .    .   '                                                 .                                                    0   .   I           .       I

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ..           4-

..       ,.                                          >
                                                      . .                     : .                           ,
                                                                                                                                                                        .5 .,    .          .
                                                                                                                                                    United State's G.e*ml Accou.?l.tingOffice
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .                        ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ,     ,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               . ,,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               '        . .             .

         .     G-0                                                   ..
                                                                              p   ,
                                                                                              ..                                            -       Repdrt to Designated Congqessional
                                                                                                                                                    Committees -               .
                                                                                                                                                                                      ..                                                                                                      .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    4   *.

                                            *        .                                                          ,       .                                                                                                                                                                                                               '

                                                                                                                                                                                                         .-                                          .   .                ,

                                   . . ..                                                                                   '                                                                            ..            .
                                                                                                                            ..      ,
                                                                                                                                                .                                                        . .               .         *' .

                           .                    . . ).
                                                .-                            :
                                                                                                                                                                            8               .
                                                                                                                                                                                                     - .                                                     .,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            .   .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           . C

                                                                                                                                                Effect onkecruitment                                                                                                                                           A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ".I.   , , .     .

                                                                                                                                                and Retention fop..                                                                                                                                                      ,:'

                                                                                                                                                :@lectedClerical                                                                                                      ,       .                   4,       ,           . . *I .:.
GAO                United States
                   General Actollnting Omce
                   Was-m,      D.C. 20548

                   September 24,1990

                   The Honorable John Glenn
                   Chairman, Committee on Govemnental Affairs
                   United States S i ~ a t e

                   The Honorable William D. Ford
                   Chairman, Committee on Post Office
                     and Civil Seruicv
                   House of Representatives

                   Congress is considering proposals to refcrrm the General Schedule(s),
                   the largest white-collar employee pay system in the federal government.
                   The propmils have the objective of increasing federal salaries to make
                   them more competitive with the nonfederal sector and include insti-
                   tuting a "locality pay" approach in which salary rates would vary by
                   geographic area.

                   Cub~ently, the only systematic way GS pay rates for particular jobs can
                   vary ty locality is if the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approves
                   agency requests for "special rates." Agencies may then pay higher rates
                   for particular occupations in particular locations to counteract recruit-
                   ment or retention problems caused by higher private sector pay or for
                   other reasons. The agencies must certify that they have funds to pay the
                   higher rates within their existing budgets. We therefore ~xaminedthe
                   effectiveness of special rates in recruiting and ~ i a i n h gemployees in
                   selected localities and fur selected clerical occupations.

                   Higher darks paid under the special rates program appear to have
Results in Brief   helped to retain employees in the four clerical occupations we reviewed,
                   at least in the short term. For example, in 18 of the 20 specific special
                   rate casa we examined, quit rates declined in the year after the imposi-
                   tion of special rates.' Ry compariso~,quit rates declined in - h u t one-
                   half of the 118 cases we examined where the same wcupaticns in other
                   localities did not receive special rates. However, as an indication hat
                   the special rates may not have beefi high enough to compete effectively
                   witi. other e~-.loyers,in 13o.: the 18special rate cases where quit rates
                   declired in ti ,first year, quit rates rost! mmwhat iq the second year
                   zber special rates were granted.
                      Agency officials respding to our survey said special rates were gener-
                      ally effective in reducing turnover and improving recruitment However,
                      they more often said special rate" were "stmewhat"effective rather
                      than "very" effective, and respondents in are= with high costs of living
                      and high private uxtor pay rates were less likely to perceive special
                      ratesas ''very" effective than thase in areas where pay and csosts of
                      living were lower.

                      In additim, agency off~icialsated problems in the administration of spe-
                      cial rates--problems that limited their effectivenes in attracting and
                      keeping employees. The officials ndedexamples where special rates
                      were too low tcj effectively alleviate reauitment and retention difficul-
                      ties and where special rates actually mtnbuted to morale and retention
                      pn&lems because the ratesvaried within and across occupations :.nd
                      grade levels in individual lacalities.

                      Our findings indicate that special nates may be a partial solution to
                      recruitment and retention problems but are not a substitute for compre
                      hensive reform of the federal pay system that would increase basic sala-
                      ries to more competitive Levels.*

                      B e c a t of the concern that federal pay rates are too low, particularlyin
objectivest Scow9
                and   h i g h ,high-paying locali-,     and the fact that the special ratespro-
Methodology           gram is the only systematic means by wtiici. nigher s h i e s can be paid,
                      we examined the effectiveness of special rates in recruiting and
                      retaining employees in sekcted!lodities and occupations where hey
                      are paid. Our overall objective was to determine if higher pay rates did,
                      ir, fxt,enhance retention and recruitment of federal employees in spe-
                      cific r..ases.

                      To accomplish our objective, wc obtained data from om on t.he number
                      of employees in the spwhl rates program at various points hi time to
                      show the changes in program participation over the past decade in gen-
                      eral and by occupational group and geographic area. We also obtairai
                      OPM special rate authorizatic,ns for 1990 and previous years to determine
                      the extent to which special rates varied by occupation witlin areas and
To test the effect of specid rates on retention, we obtained data from
mu on empbyee quit rales in six metropolitan statistical areas (=)3
for four clerical occupations that received special rates in 1987.' The
occupations were clerk stenographer (cs312), secretary (@18), cie :k
typist (c;s322),and data transcriber (~-356).The localities uvre
Eastern Masachmetts; Holtsville, N.Y.; San Francisco Ray Area; Dallas-
Fort Worth: Northern New Jersey; and the Wachington, D.C .w.We
examined the quit rates in these occupations for the 3 years before and
the 2 years after receipt of special rates. Using these data we attempted
to determine whether the authorization of speck! rates had improved
employee retentton in these occupationsand locations. To contmi for the
effects of special rates, we also compared quit rate data for the same
occupations during the same t h e periods in other areas that did not
receive special rates.

Because we were unable to control for all possible factors associated
with changes in federal quit rat- (e.g., private sector wage rates, costs
of living, availability of other jobs in the m a , working conditions), our
analysis cannot be considered a definitive test of the effect of special
rates in these areas.Also, we focused on only 4 of the more than 160
ocripations and 6 of the more than 150 mus where federal employees
are cumntly receiving specla1 pay rates. Therefore, no generalizations
tn other occupationsor areas can be made.

As p a t of a separate review of recruitment and retentio~experiences
for selected occupations in 8 federal agencies and 16 MSAS, we also
obtained agency officials' views of the special rates program through
questionnaires and follow-up interviews. Tl?erespondents provided
their perception., of how effectively and equitably the special rates pr*
gram has addreslssd recruitment and retention problems in the seiected
occupations and facilities.

A more complete description of our objee'tives, scope, and methodology
is in appendix I.

                                               urieus. MSAsareawnposedni
whok~,do?ptinNewhghndwherethqrpredefinedbycityili 'town.
                  The GS is the largest white-mllar pay system in the federal government,
Background and    covering about 1.5 million full-time engloyees as of March 31,1990. The
Changes the S@d   GS system applies governmentwide; employees at the same salary grades
Raks b@a?!?!      receive +h   same amounts regardless of t h r agency, job, or location.
                  Similarly, the salary wustment mechanism required by law specifies
                  that c;s pay rates are to be comparable with national average salaries
                  paid by private companies for the same levels of work.

                  A s administered, the system has not mamtained competitive pay rates
                  in many localities. Every year since 1977,the president and r3ngres
                  have decided to m u s t GS rates at lesser amounts than xwcesay to
                  maintain national average comparability vrith the private sector. More
                  over. the monolithic GS system does not recognize variations in private
                  sector pay rates from one geographic area to another.

                  In establishing a national salary schedule for federal whitecollar
                  employees, Congress recognized that national average wdaries could be
                  insufficient to recruit and retain employees in all occupations and gee
                  graphic locations. Accordirtgly, in 1954 Congress authorized the use of
                  special rates u,allow agencies to pay higher amounts to employees in
                  particular occupations or locations when agencies could show the higher
                  amounts were necesuy to courlteract recruitment or retention
                  prob!enls caused by higher private sector pay or other reasons.

                  Under the law,OPM may approve a minimum special salary rate for a
                  positim that is not more tkan 30 percent of the minimum rate payable
                  for that position under the GS5 OPM requires the heads of departments or
                  agencies to certify in special rate requests that higher salaries are neces-
                  sary to ensure adequate staffing to accomplish their rriions and that
                  funds are available within existing budgets to pay che added costs.

                  For a number of years after %e program was emcted in 1954, relatively
                  _Fewernployecs were covered by special rates. However, as an indication
                  of the severity of unmntpetitive salary rates paid under the GS system,
                  the w of special rates grew as average federal sector salaries fell fur-
                  ther behind average private sector salaries from 1977 to 1990. In fwd
                  v c s ~1977. for example, about 8,Wi~nployeeswere rwiiing special
                  & tes. By S86,ever 36,000 employees received special ram. 2,1987,
                  the number of special rate employees increased dramatically to over
                         127,000,primarily from the addition of thousandsof clerical woricers.
                         By December 31,1989, over 179,000 federal employees (13.8 percent of
                         full-time, permanent GS personnel) were receiving special rates.@In 27
                         MSAS, special rates cover over 20 percent of the full-time G$ workforce.
                         The annual cost of the program is now estimated to be about $484 mil-
                         lion. (For a more detailed discussion of changes in the size and scope of
                         the special rates program, see app. II.)


                         To assess whether higher pay had thc desired effect of reducing quit
EEect of Special Rates   rates in specific cases, we identified the ampations and locations for
07 Retention in           which special rates were first approved in 1987. In order to obtain suffi-
$PeCifi~cases            cient data for meaningful analysis, we selected only those occupations
                         that received special rates in more than one location in 1987 and those
                          localities with over 100 authorized special rate positiolis in the selected
                         job series. Selecting dl cases that met these criteria, we examined quit
                          rate data for four occupations across six geographic areas. Ehausespe-
                         cial rates were not paid to em:!cycss in three of the occupations in all
                          areas,and one area had no employees ir one of the occupations, a total
                         of 20 special rate cases were included in our review. (See app. I for a
                          more complete description of the methoclology we used in selecting the
                          occupations and areas to be reviewed.)

                          -.-.     -
QuitRates k h e d in     We compared quit rates in the selected occupations and areas for the 1-
Almost All Cases After   year periods immediately before and after the authorization of special
                         rates. Quit rates in the year fo'llowingthe establishment of special rates
Special Rates VJere      declined from the prior year in 18of the 20 cases; this was statistically
Authorized               signifi~ant.~We made the same comparisons using average quit rates for
                         the aggregate 3-year period preceding and the 2-year periud following
                         special rates. In this longer-term comparison, average quit rates declined
                         in 14 of the 20 cases. However, this was not statistically significant.
                         These restilts suggest that the availability of higher pay through sp&l
                         rates increased retention only in the short term.

                         Also noteworthy was the fact tbat quit rates startd going uy again in
                         the second year of special rates in 13 af the 184c-   when?rates
                         declined after the f m t year. One possible explanation is that the special
                         rate increases were not large enough to have a 10n~~-term   influence on
                         quit rates. In a Holtmille case, for example, the data transcribe3 cov-
                         ered by specjai rates were all at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
                         Brookhaven Service Center. In a telephone survey t' reached 294 of
                         the 366 data transcribers who quit during 1988,46 w n t of these
                         former employees told the Service Center they q u . ~ , se of inade
                         quate pay.

                         We also assessed the effect of special rates by analyzing trends
                                                                                     ---     in quit
                         rates before artd after the pay increases were provided . ., [or instance,
                         quit rates had prev'ously been mc~vingtiown for a partral~occupation
                         in a particular area, a drop in the quit rate aftzr the special rates would
                         not be especially meaningful. In 8 of the 20 cases reviewed, qrit rates
                         k d increased in each of the 3 years preceding the pawent of special
                         rates.We found that quit rates declined in the following year in seven
                         of the eight cases, indicating tbat the special rates had a positive effect.
                         Again, this reversa! of the treud was short term; quit rates in five of
                         those seven cases went "uk up in the second year of speci~lrates.
                         (App. VI shows the annual changes in quit rates for all of the special
                         rate cases we examined.)

Quit Rates for Control   As a further test of the effects of special salary rates on employee retcn-
Cases Did Not Show       tion, we selected a control group of 118cases in the r m e occupations in
                         42 ?&AS that did not receive special rates during the 1387 to 1989
Similar Changes          period. Because wewere unable to control for all p s i b l e factors assmi-
                         hted with changes in federal quit rates (e.g., the availability of other
                         jobs in the areas), these cases cannot serve as perfect controls. There
                         fore, our amlysu of quit rates in the nonspeciai rate cases provided onlj
                         a general baseline for comparisons rather than a definitive test of h e
                         effect sf special rates.

                         In general, while quit rates fell in almost all of the special rate cases 10
                         the year after special rates were first authorized, quit rates im the 118
                         nonspecial rate cases were almost equally divided between those that
                         rose and those that fell during that succeeding year (fiscal year 19i)8).g
                         (See fig. 1.)

                         --- -                                                      -   - -

                         'ln the other I? cases, quit rates e k dgdined w had no amdstent trend during the %year perbd.
Note The post-epeualrate year ISroughly equvaknt to FY 1%.   Results dqcted are for 20 cases wth
special rates ancl118 cases wMout special rates.

In 21 of the control cases, quit rates consistent!y increased each of t -.e 3
years before higher pay was authorized in our special rate cases. We
compared subsequent quit rate trends for these nonspecial rate cases
with the eight s p e d rate cases that also had upward trending quit
rates going into 1987.1┬░Of the 2 1 nonspecial rate cases, 13showed a
continued increase in quit rates during the subsequent year compared to
only one of the eight special rate cases. In general, these data also sug-
gest that special rates improve retention, at least in the short term.
                    As another test of the special rates program, wt s k e d agency officials
Agency Officials'   to provide their pemptions on the effectiveness of special rates in
views on            addressing recruitment and ~;eterltiondifficulties k 11occupations with
Effectiveness of    high national quit rates. Thequestionnaire respondents, primarily
                    agency personnel officers and Line managers, represented 8 different
Special Rates       agencies in 16 MW. A total of 271 questionnaires were distributed and
                    completed. (SLY app. I for a nlo-2 complete description of the survey

                    Slightly more than half the ieswndents iadicated that the occupations
                    for which they were responding reeived specid rates in their i m t d a -
                    t3kp-s. ID those cases where special b - a t e s wew being re@-ived,
                                                                                      the offi-
                    ciais had a genera;: j 5zvorable perception of special ra~es'effectweness
                    in atidressing recruitment and retention problems. About 85 percent said
                    the special rates had been "somewhat effective" or "very effective" in
                    reducing turnover and improving recruitment. However, the respon-
                    dents more often said special rates were "somewhat" effective rather
                    than "very" effective. (See fig. 2.) This view of special rdm as heirs
                    only "somewhat" effective was particularly prevalent in MSAS with the
                    highest costs of living and private jectcr pay rates.
In follow-up interviews, respo, ,dents cited examples of how special rates
had improved recruitment and/or retention of fedrral workers,
including the following:

According to an 1fzsAtlanta special rate analysis, the presence of special
rates for data transcribers contributed to (1) an improvement in the
rerurn rate for seasonal emyloyees from 53 percent to 82 percent, (2) a
22 percent increase in tatal productivity due lower turnover rates,
and (3) a reduction in the error rate from 10.3 percent to 8.3percer
because employers took more pride in their work.
At Ft. Devens in the Boston area, an agency official said fewer clerks
resigned to take jobs in the privzte sector and fewer employeL3were
actively looking for new jobs after they received special rates. She also
                                         -            -     - -   - --                                --
                             said their recruitment problems subsided silgrific8ntt.j after their
                             October 1987 special .ate increase.
                             A Departrrrent of the Treasury official at the US.Mint in Philti2elphia
                                   : special pay rate has drastically changed the Mint's ability to get
                             ~ 5I the
                             more applicants for police positions. She noted that before the specid
                             rate, at the end of 1988, an announcement drew only 1C applimcs, E of
                             whom decilned hecause the pay was too low. By contrast, in 1989,with
                             the new rate, the same announcement produced over 50 applicants.

                             In addition b the quit rate analysis.we found evidence during this
Problems in the                                                    ..
                             review of several problems in the admuustration of the special rats
Adminhtration of             program. We also identifled several factors that we believe contribute to
Special Rates That           these problems.
Can Limit

Federal Salaries Are Often   In a May 1990 comparison of f~deriand private sector pay by job and
Uncompetitive Even With      locality, we showed that special rates often failed to match private
                             sector salaries for particular jobs ir, particular areasi1We noted that
Special Rates                average federal pay in 1988 fell short of the average pay in the private
                             sector in all of the applic-ableKSAS and job levels studied where specla1
                             rates we<h effect. For example, average private sector pay for entry
                             level typists in the San Francisco MSA in 1988was 61.3 percent higher
                                   ~ average federal rate for that job in that MSA -
                             t h a the                                               after a special rate
                             wustment of about 22 percent.

                             The inability of special rates to compete with private s e m r salaries was
                             7% noted by agency officials during our survey follow-up interviews.
                             1 .espondents who said sycial rates were ody "somewhat" effective
                             also often said their special rate salaries were still not competitive with
                             the 9rivat.e sector. For example

                             An &c ~lpationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA) management
                             officer m New York did not believe the special rate for industrial
                             5: gienists would improve retention and recnrrtment to a great extent
                             because the 17-percel.+ increase was not sufficient to eliminate the fed-
                             eral-private sector pay gap. The ~ffrcersaid some OSHA industriai
                              hygienists are going to the private sector where they can get salaries 25
                              permit higha .
                              An official at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC)
                              said that, even afcer receiving the special rate, medical clerks at the
                              center v r e paid about $2.00 less than their pi-ivate sector crmter-
                              parts in San T.kancisc0. At the same facility, another official said the
                              starting S d d j for pharmacists (with a special rate) was $38,713, and
                              the top rate (after 15 years) was $47,819 while at two nearby private
                              hospitals the starting salary for pharmacists was $51,730.
                              At the Army Health Senices Command in Baltimore. agency officials
                              said that even with the special rates, federal pay for environmental
                              enginem was uncompetitive. As a result, they said they target their
                              recruiting efforts at the bottom half of the graduating classes from less
                              prestigious schools.

Variations in Special Rates   Also during follow-up interviews. survey respondents noted equity
Raise Equi.tyComerns          problems that they felt limited the effectiveness of special rates. Agency
                              officials cited examples where differences in pay rates for those
                              employws with special rates and those without or receiving lesser spe-
                              cial rate increases contributed to morale, recruiting, and retention diffi-
                              culties. These updesirable effects of the program appear to be a
                              reflection of the great variatio~tin the special rate increases authorized
                              to different grade levels within individual occupations, to different
                              occupations within the same geographic area, or to different agencies
                              for the same occupation. (See app. VII for examples of such variations.)

                              Among the examples provided by the agency officials of difficulties
                              caused by special rates were the following:

                              An Environments! Protection Agency (EPA) official in Chicago believed
                              special rates cause morale problems when one occupdticn receives them
                              while another does not. The official also noted that, because special
                              rates at that location applied only through cs-11, a cs12 supervisor
                              could be paid less than the person being supervised.
                              -4t the Bedford (Mass.)VA hospital, an agency official told us that when
                              Hanscom Air Force Base was allowed higher special rates than the VA
                              hospitals, many of the hospital's cierical employees transferred to
                              The chief of the IRS h'ew York regional personnel section said some &rk
                              typists were accepting reductions in their grades in order to qualify for
                              a special rate pay increase that was applicable only at the lower grades.

                              Page 11
                                Officials at v.4 medical centers in Dallas; XorfoIk, Va; and St. buis
                                reported that special rates had limited success in retaining nurses
                                because the s m i a l rate applied only to entry level employees, not expe
                                rienced staff. The Bronx viwc director documented that some nurses
                                who were promoted actually received lower salaries.
                                At the Kational Guard in Boston, an agency official said it was much
                                harder to recruit on Cape Cod,where there were no special rates, than
                                in the rest of Eastern Massachusetts covered by special m,even
                                thougl'1Cape Cod had about the same cost of living and private sector
                                salary rates as the rest of Eastern Massachusetts.
                                In the New York MSA, a VA chief of pharmacy said s        w salary rates
                                cause severe morale problems by allowing some VA staff pharmacists to
                                earn more than their supervisors (including the chief of pharmacy who
                                has taken a second job with a nation& drugstore chain). The official also
                                said that, because of this diminished salary differential, the special rates
                                have made it almost impossible to recruit anyone at the supervisory and
                                administrative levels.
                                -9representative of U.S. Park Police and US. h r e t Service Uniformed
                                Division testified that under the variations in special rates authorized at
                                different levels

                                "[tjhe incentive for entry level officers Co seek promotion within their respective
                                agency k greatly reduced. In effect the entry level officers cannot afford to be pro-
                                moted. Some officers promoted to Sergeant immediately after the pay rate took
                                effect are actually making less than entry level officers witn tbc same number of
                                years seniority."

Sever& Factors Contribute We found that a number of factors contribute to the problems with the
  special     ~ i f f i ~ ~ administration
                            lti~           of special rates,including the following:

                                Different special rates statutes apply to specific employee groups. Some
                                                             H governed by title 38 of the US. Code,
                                specid rates in VA and ~ I are
                                which allows those agencies greater flexibility in setting pay for certain
                                medical occupations. For these occupations, VA and mi are not subject to
                                the title 5 limitation applicable to other agewies that sets the maximum
                                allowable special rate increase at 30 percent for any salary grade.
                                According to an oar official, special rates may not always be competi-
                                tive with local nonfederal rates because the agency that has the greatest
                                number of positions in an occupation usually prepares the Ypecial rates
                                app!ication on behalf of all agencies in the locality. In doing so, the lead
                                agency can exert significant influence in deciding what special rates to
              request even if other agencies want to pay higher amounts in order to be
              OPM officials told us that, although they attempt to reduce drastic differ-
              ences in ram paid at succeeding grade levels in approving special rate
              authorizations, they target the special rate increases at the grade levels
              and in the amounts they feel are most appropriate to address docu-
              mented retention and recmting problems.
              OPM officiafs also noted that the salary compression pmbIems-mpervi-
              sors being paid less than those supervised or employees making less by
              being promoted-are often caused by overtime policies rather than the
              special rates program itself. Supervisors and 3ther higher graded
              employees may be eligible for overtime pay at reduced ratesor not at
              all, so the higher spcial rates and overtime payments, in combination,
              cause lower graded employees to receive higher total pay.

              An underlying problem in the special rdks program is that all agewies
              do not have the financial resources to pay the additional costs of s p a
              rates, and agencies must agree to absorb the costs for the special ratt's to
              be approved. An ow official said that while the number of positions
              eligible for special rates might otherwise be expected to continue tc
              grow, agencies are likely to find it increasingly difficult to f i i suffi-
              cient funds within their appropriations to pay for the program.


              The special rates program was originally ir~tendedto be an "'escape
Conclusions   valve" from national GS rates for all occupations to deal with isolated
              pay problems. However, the program has become much more than a
              remedy for local recruitment and retention difficulties for parcicuiar
              occupations. It is now the only systematic mechanism by which agencies
              can attempt to deal with the widening gap bztwcen federal and
              nonfederal salaries. We believe many of the undesirable effects of the
              program are attributable to the progrm*being stretched beyond its orig-
              inal purpose or beczuse agencies have varying abilities to pay for the
              Our findings indicate that special rates are not a substitute for compre
              hemive pay reform. Although the evidence suggests that special rates
              helped agencies in recruiting and retaining employees, the positive
              effect of the higher rates appeared to be limited or short term. Even
              with special rates, federal pay was still not competitive in many cases
              we examined.
                  While the program has helped agencies to be more competitive with
                  other employers, it is not as effective as it could be if basic salarieswere
                  more reasonable. By adopting a more qstmmtic annual -t                   p m
                  cess and making basic salary nates more competitive by W t y vas the
                  pay reform proposals (H.R. 3979 and Amendment No. 2616 to
                  H.R. 5241) being considered by Congress w d d accomplish, the special
                  rates program can return to its original purpose. Otherwise, we believe
                  the program will become less effective over time and createeven gmater
                  inequities among employee gm~ps      than now exist.

                  We met with officials from om and other agencies to review our objec-
Agency Comments   tives, mpe,methodology, and f~ndings.     The officials generally agreed
                  witn the andysis and our mndzsions. Their informal com~ents        have
                  kea iitiurpurai xi in the text of this report.

.-   -.                           -                                             --
                                     ,t are being sent to parties utterested in federal pay
                  Copies of this r e ~
                  matters and will ae available to othem request.

                  The mqjor cmtributorsa this report are listed in appendix MS. Please
                  con-   me on 275-6204 if you have an: questions concerhg the report.

                  Hosslyn S. Kleeinan
                  Director, Federal Workforce
                   Future Issues

Page 16

    Letter                                      1
    Appendix I                                 20
    Objectives,Scope, and
    Appendix I1                                26
    E5aCkgmund and scope
    of the Special h i s i e s
    Appendix III                               34
    Distribution of Special
    Rates Personnel by
    MSA (As of Ikcember
    31,1585,1987, and
    Appendix N                                 43
    Distribution of Special
    Rates Personnel by
    Federal Agency (As of
    March 31,1990)
J                                -   --
    Appendix V                                 46
    Special Rate
    Occupations and
    Covered Populations
    by Geographic Area
    (As of January 1,
-   ~pkdixVI
    Quit Rsltes Before and
    After the
    Authorization of
    Special Rates in
    A s e l e c t e d Cases
    Appendix W                                                                              63
    Variations in Special
    F&te Amounts within
    Geographic Areas
                                                           -- --

    Appendix VIII                                                                           67
    Mqjor Contributors to
    This Report
                              Table I. 1: Special Rate Occupations Reviewed in Each
                              Table 1.2: MSAs, Agencies, and Occupations in tLe Survey
                              Table 11. I :Number and Percentage of Fu!i-Time
                                  Permanent White-Collar Br~llploy~s    Receiving Special
                                  Rates (Asof December 31,1985, !'387, and 1989)
                              Tabie II.2: Special Rate Employment by Occupational
                                  Category (As of March 31,1987,1988,and 1989)
                              Table 11.3: MSAs With the Largest Numben of Special
                                  Rate Ezployees (Asof December 1985,1987,and
                              Table 11.4: MSAs With the Highest Percentage of Syecial
                                  Rate Employees (As of December 1985,1987,and
                              Table 11.5: Federal Agencies With the liighest Numbers of
                                  Special Rate Employees (As of March 31,l%M)
                              Table 11.6: Federal          With Highest Perc mtage of
                                  Special Rate Employees (As of March 3 1, l90)
                              Table M.1: Special l2zt.e Differsum Within Six MSAs
                                            -                  ---..   -
F%w'=   k~gureI - Changes in Quit Rates in the Year After h xcial
            Rates Were Granted in Four ClericaI ~Jcccpations
        Figure 2: Reported Effectivenessof Special Rab (HI
            Retrntion and Recruitnwnt
        Figure 11.1: Growth in th? Number oi Employees
            Receiving Special Rates ( 1985-1989)
        Figure II.2: Growth in Special Rate Employment by
            Occupational Category (As of March 31,1987,1988,
            and 198s)
        Fwre V?.1:Quit Rates - Eastern Massachusetts
        W r - VI.2: Quit bt;?s  - Holtsville, N.Y.
        Figure VI.3:Quit Rates - San k'rancisco Bay Area
        Figure VI.4: @it Rates - M a s F o r t W0rt.h
        Figure VI.5: Qult Rates - Northern New Jersey
        Figwe V1.e Quit Rates - Washington, D.C. 1%

                 consolidated metropolitan statistical area
                 C e ~ ~ t rPersonnel
                            al        Data File
                 Environmental Protection Agency
                 General Schedule
                 f33wral Services Administration
                 Internal Revenue Service
                 metropolitan statistical area
                 National Institutes of Health
                 Office of Personnel Management
                 Occupational Safety and Health Administration
                 primary metropolitan statistical area
                 Department of Veterans Affzkrs
                 Veterans Affairs Medical Cenkr
PBge 1s
Objectives, Scope, and Methdology

                           The objectives of this review were (1) to review the development of the
                           s p a W ratesprogram, (2) to assess whether granting higher pay rates
                           improved retention, and (3) to identify any problems evident in the
                           admir.'!itration of the special rates         Each of these objectives
                           were m :t using a different methodology.

       -   --   --   ---

                           To review the development of the special ratesprogram, we examined
Review of the Growth       the program's legkkive history and other relevant literaaye and col-
of the Special Rates       lected information on program growth. Data on the number of special
F'WPm                      rate employees, the occupations,locations and agencies where special
                           rates are paid, and how sDecial ratescaverage h q changed over tine
                           were derived primarrly from the fdlowing five iwtmes:

                           "Current Title 5 S l d Rate Authorizations for General Schedule
                           Employezs," Federal Personnel Manual Supplement 990-2,     - OPM (January
                           "Report of CZvrent Special Rates Program Custs Sorted by Generic Job
                           Classification for Title 5 or Title 38 Cases," OPM, Speual Rates Branch
                           (Februafy 23,1990);
                            Pay Structcre af the Federal Civil Service, OPM, Office of Workforce
                           Informtion, (prepared annually);
                           "Distribution of special Rate ~ersonnr?l
                                                                 by MSA as of December 1989,
                           December 1987, and December 19C5," a report prepared by OPM at our
                           request from its CPM: and
                           &ports ?repared by o m from the CPDF showing the number of ~a
                           enqloyees and special rate emplo-i~~
                                                              by federal agency as of Bkch 31,

                           The special ratesoverage data obtained from om for calendar years
                           1989,1987, and 19% represented the most recent year available (1980),
                           the year when specid rates expanded xnost rapidiy (1987), and the year
                           2 years before the rapid expansion of special rates( 1 s ) . In addition to
                           obtahng governmentwide data for each year, we aLso obtained m-spe
                           cific data for any of the 162 MW with at least 1,000 full-time, perma-
                           nent federal GS employees that also had any employees receiving special
                           rates as of December 31,1989. We calculated the pemSage of
                           employees that was covered by special rates in each of the MSM.(See
                           app. III.) We also ranked the MWSin the order of those percentages for
                           each of the 3 years. (Seetable 11.4.)
    Analysis of OPM      Another objective was to assess whether granting higher pay rates
                         improved retention. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether quit
    b k Data hSelected   rates had gone down in those Localities and orrupations that received
    Cases                special raks,as compared to those localities and occupations that did
                         not receive special rates.

                         We selected localities and occupations where special rates were first
                         authorized in 1987 because we wanted to focus on the growth in special
                         rates which occurred in that j-ear. In order to obtain sufficient data for
                         meaningful analysis, we selected only those occupations that received
                         special rates in more than one location in 1987 and those localities with
                         ovtr 100 authorized special rate positiors in the selected jdb series.' The
                         four occupations that met these criteria were clerk stenographer (GS
                         312), secretary (&IS), cierk typist (w322),and data transcriber (GS-
                         356). The six localities that met the criteria were Eastern Massarhusetts;
                         Moltsville, N.Y.; San Francisco Bay Area; Dallas-Fort Worth; Sorthem
                         New Jersey; and the Washington, 3.C. MSA. Since all 4 occupations did
                         not receive special r a t e in each of the localities, there were a total of 20
                         cases in our "special rate" case group.2(See table I. 1.)

                         Washnuton. D C MSA                                 e         c              c               c
                         a=No employees m thls mupatton in th~sIcca~~ty
                         b=No specla1 rate for thls occupatm ~nthls l w l ~ t y
                         c=r)u~trates trended upward before specla1 rates
                         d=Qutt rates : r W Jodnward before speaal rates
                         e=Qut rates had no clear trend beforespecal rates

                         We obtained, but did not verify, data from ow on annual quit rates for 5
                         ccmsecutive years for each of the locality~occupationspecial rate cases
                         selected. In each case, we compared quit rates for the 3 years preceding

                         'Each of the l u r m ultimately wleded actually had a Malof 500 or mure full-CLme,pmMllent OS
                         employees in the s e w occupations.

the establishment of special nta,with the quit rates in the 2 yew fol-
lowing the authorization of s-.Jecialrates. The dates d for each
localiQ varied 8ccording to the date in 19137when special rates were
first authorized. We compared changes in quit rates in o ways (1)a
straightforward exambWbn of whether quit rates declined in the year
following the authorization of spzial ratesand (2) a comparison of the
average quit rates for the 3 years before and 2 years after the establish-
ment of special rates. We then tested the statistical significance of the
resultsof these comparisons.
We aIso essessed the effect of special rateson employee retention by
analyzing trendsin quit rates before a d after the special rates were
approved.If, instance, quit rates had been declining for a particular
occupation in a locality, a further reduction in the quit rate could not be
attributed with any certainty to the special m e . To assess these
dynamics, we classified the 20 special rate cases into the following three
quit rates trending upward before special rates,
quit rates trending downward before special rates, and
quit rateswith no clear trend before special rates.

Trends were identified on the basis of an analysis of the change in quit
rates in each of the 3 years before the payment of special rates. Thus,
for example, a case characterized by a 10-percen, quit rate in year 1,a
12-percentrate in year 2, and a lbpercent rate in year 3 was placed in
the first category; a case with a reverse pattern--i.e., 16 to 12 to 10
percent-was placed in the scortd; and a case that went from 12 to 15
to 10 percent was placed in the third. (Seetable 1.1.)

We then focused on cases falling in the F i d q u r y , since clear evi-
dence of a special rate effect in the other two categories would be m-
cult to identify. If special rates had a positive effect on retention in the
upward t~anding cases, one would expect to see a slowing in the quit
rate trend or even a reversal in quit rates in the post-special Mte years.
In a separate test of the effc3Ct of s p e d rates on employee retention,we
did not have special rates for thoseseries. We identified 42 such mus
tbt., like the special rate localities, each had a total of 500 or more full-
 ti^, permanent (39 employeesin thaw series.In 50 of the 168possible
cases, the MSAS had 26 or fewer employees in 1or more of the job series
in at least 1of the years examined, and we ehinated the 50 cases from
further review. In this way, we avoided dramatic quit rate variations
that could be caused by low numbers of in~numbentemployees.

For a general control, we f h t compared changesin the quit rates of the
118 mnspecial rate cases to the changes in the quit rates of special rate
cases from the year before the authorizationsto the year after special
rates were granted (roughly fiscalyear 1987 to f i year 11388).
For a more specific test, we con1pbl'ed s p a W rate and nonspecial rate
cases that had increasing qult rates during the %year period before spe
cial rateswere initiated. To match all quit rate data to the same time
periods, quit rates were calculated for the nonspecial rate areas using
the dates of the special rate authorizations. For example, we compared
quit ratesfor SeclOtafies in the nonspecial rate area of Oxnard-Ventura,
California, to quit rates for secretaries in the Eastern Massachusetts
special rate area using the Eastern Massachusetts authorization date of
March 9,1987. Using these criteria, we identified 21 control cases with
upward trending quit rates. In all of ow analysch crf changes in quit
rates for special rate and nonspecial rate caws, we were assisted by a
Because we were unable to con301 for all possible factors associated
with changes in federal quit rates (e.g., the availability of otherpbs in
the area, costs of living, nonf&l.x! pay rates), these analyses cannot be
considered defitive tests of the effect of special rates on employee
retention. We also recognize that pay is not the only factor irifluencing
retention; therefore, the specid rate is not the mk factor influencing
changes in quit rates. However, the cases studied do allow us to
examiw, in general, whether there were differences in quit rates before
and alter special rates were authorized. As a contra!, we also looked at
quit rate        in locations that did not receive special rates for partic-
ular job series.

Other limitations on the applicability of our work included the fact that
(1) it covered only 4 of the more than 160 occupations that receive spe
cia1 rates and (2) it examined those occupations in only 6 of the more
than 160        where federal employees are receiving special rates.
Therefore, no generalizations of our-f        to other occupations or
localities can be made.
                    .n a rer;iew of the perceived causes and effects of federal recruitment
Asency              and retention difficulties, we surveyc.d and later met with personnel
QU~S%OM~~PS         officials :md line managers in 8 agencies and 16 MSAS. In that rwiew, the

Recdtment and       results or'which arp included in a September 1990 report? v,-e concen-
                    trated on 11 high quit rate occupations. The MSAS,agencies, and occcpa-
Retention Factors   tions in the snrvey are listed in table 1.2.

                    Atlanta               Department of the Air Force
                                                                               Clerk typist
                    Baltimore             Department of the Army               Data transcriber
                    Boston                De~artrnentot the Navv               Environmental engineer
                    Chlcago               ~nv~ro,imental~rotect16n Agency      General attorney
                    Dallas                Department of Health and             Industrial hygienist
                    Denver                  Human Servlces                     w i cierk
                    Detro~t               Department of Labor                  Regsterednurse
                    Kansas City           Department of the Treasury           Pharmaclct
                    Los Angeles           Department of Veterans Affalrs       Police
                    New York                                                   Practical rime
                    Norfolk                                                    Tax examiner
                    S: LOUIS
                    San Antonio
                    San Dego
                    San Franc~sco

                    As part of this review, we administered a total of 271 q u e s t i ~ n d r e (1
                    questionnaire for each occupation for each agency component in each
                    MSA). All 27 1 questionnaires were comp.eted. In each targeted location,
                    management offic~alswere contacted by our regional staff and asked to
                    designate a focal poult who would be responsible for completing each
                    questionnaire. in many instances, that focal point provided responses
                    for more tnan one occupation at the facility. Therefore, the number of
                    focal points G: respondents (175) was less than the number of question-
                    nares (271). However, the focal points were encouraged to obtain input
                    from line marugers responsible for the occupations being surveyed;
                    thus, the number of individuals involved in completing the question-
                    naires was larger than the number of respondents.

                    A series of questions in the survey asked respondents to tell us whether
                    employees in the occupations in question were receiving special rates
                    and, if so, the extent to which the program was effective in helping to
                    recruit and retain needed employees. We then he'd follow-up interviews
with dl respondentsto (1) verify their respo~lseson the written ques-
tionnaire,(2) obtain,but not verify, docmestation to s uw the
reqmws whenever possible, and (3) probe for addhional information.

The n e t W o g y we used in seleding the occupations, agencies, and
rims for thz revjew is djSCUSSed in the          1990 report. Like the
quit rate analyses, the f     i from the review cannot Le projected to
Eiadgmund and Wpe of the Special

              Congress initially established the special rates progra-r to provide agen-
              cies pay flexibility when federal whitecollar rates were insufficient to
              attract and hold employees in hard-to-fill positions in pa,+icular g-
              graphic areas.' The president was iiuthwized to W ~ b l i s hspecial salary
              rates when (1) the government was handicapped significantly in the
              recruitment or retation of well qualified individuals in one or mom
              occupations in one or more areas or locations and (2) this staffmg
              problem was caused by private salary rates that are substantially
              higher than statutory rates of pay for comparable occupations.

              In 1887, Pubfic Law 1W-202expanded the cimunstances under which
              the special rate setting authority could be exerci~ed.~
                                                                   The statute now
              provides that special rates may be authorized to counter recruitment or
              retention problems caused by

              pay rates for the positions involved being generally less than the rater,
              payable for similar positions held by individuals outside the government,
              or by other individuals within the exemtive branch of the q o v e m n t ;
              remoteness of the area or location involved;
              the undesirability of the working conditions or the nature of the work
              involved, including exposure to toxic substances or other occupational
              hazards; or
              any other circumstances that :hc president (or an agency duly author-
              ized or designated by the president) may identify.

              Special sal- rates may be authorized for positions classified under the
              cis, the Veterans Health Services and Research Administration Pay
              System in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Foreign Service Act
              System, and any other pay system estab!ished by or under federal
              statute for positions in the executive branch.3The maximum increase

              'in 1 9 F j 4 . ~ f m a u t h o r i z e d t h e u s e o f t e m p o r a r y ~ o f m i n i m u m p a y r a t e s t o r r c n t i t
              and retain w&ed personnel.The FederalSalary Reform Act of 1962esraMished the saciplrates
              program in its p&mt gmed form (see 5 L'S.C.53032

              % b g m s has enended thew pmvisiom for 1 year each year sine 1987.

              3 ~ hSecr~t,zry
                     e         of the Departmentof V e t . e m ~Affairs may also establish and pay npeci?lrates f a (1)
              Veterans Health Senices and Research Administntion (23 ; S e m doYeeswnvidinndirect oefienf care or
              .4ervioes incident to direct patient care under 38 L'SC.4107(gj. (5)eipbyees     who ~ V poh?  A
              officers providing senkes under 8 USC. 218. and (3) m u ~ eand    s certainother empbyees of the
              Veterans Iiealth Srvices and Research A d m i n k m t h appohtd under 38 U3.C. chapter 73. S p u M
              rate hmases for nurse mesthetars and li.mwd physical fhenpirdncan eumed the limits imposed
              pad to the same category d p e m m e l at nmfederal facilitia in the same labor mark&. Under aes-
              tlon 214 of Public Law 100436, SM can pay nurses and lllied health pmfessbds using the fame
              oprions provided for VA nu-           under 38 28S.C. chapter 73. Abo. a new law (FJMic Low 101-366)
              rslNerures the pay system for n u m at VA to allow bdxty pay and other 7                 immthvs.
                        allowed by 5 US.C. 5303 is approximately 30 percent at each grade
                        level. Under OPM regulations, agencies are responsible for paying the
                        increased rates from their existing appropriations.

                        opyr is resporiible for administew the special rates program under
                        authority dekgated by section 3@ 1 of Executive Order 11721. m's
                        responsibilities include developing and issuing basic policies, -a-
                        ;ions, procedures, and instructions for the ;p-      estabiishi~g,
                        austing, artd cancehg special rates; specifying the occupational and
                        geographic' coverage of special rates and completing an atmual review
                        of each authorized special salary rate schedule.

                        Government depcutmentsand agencies are responsible for initiating
                        requests to OPM for special salary rates and for responding to OPM
                        requests for staffing and salary data in connection with its annual
                        review of special salary rates. Before requesting special salary rates
                        from OPM, agencies are to consider using other mmedies to relieve or
                        overcome the recruitment or retention difficulty, such asjob redesign,
                        improvement of working conditions, or use of direct hire authority.4
                        Each request must include a certification by the head of the department
                        or agency that special rates are necessary to ensure adequate staffing to
                        accomplish the agency's mission and that funds are available to cover
                        increased expenditures for salaries and benefits resulting from approvai
                        of the mquest. Unless otherwise indicated, all agencies in the geographic
                        area covered by an approved special salary rate authorization must pay
                        the specified rates to their employees. However, an agency may also
                        request to be exempted from the coverage of proposed or existing spe-
                        cial rite authorizations.

                        For most of the time since special rates were first authorized in 1954,
Size and Scope of the   the percentage of the federal white-collar workforce covered by special
specid Rates hogram     ram has been relatively small, and the program has grown slowly.
Have Changed Over       From fwal year 1977 through fiscal year 1983, special rate coverage
                        increased from 0.6 percent to 2.1 percent of the total white-collar
The                     workforce. From 191% through March 1986, the percentage of white-
                        collar employees being paid special rates remained between 2 and 8 per-
                        ax:. However, the nwnber of employees covered by special rat& has
                        increased dramatically since 1986, increasing to 13.8 percent of the GS
                        workforce by Member 31, 1989. (See fig. 11.1 and table 11.1.)

                        'Ilnder direct hire iuithonty. O W prmirs agienries to make offem to qualifii candidates in shwtage
                        oecupachs without using OFl's cmtral regismsof eligible cmdidates.
Specel rate empbyment as of December 31 of each year

The occupational mix of special rate employees has also changed over
time. Earlier in the program, professional occupations, particularly engi-
neers, accounted for most special rates. For example, 23,039 of the
 29,744 special rate employees in fiscal year 1983 were in professional
jobs. By March 1988, professionals represented less than one-half of all
 special rate employees. In 1990, almost !W percent of all authorized q e -
 cial rate positions are in clerical occupations. Other occupational c a t q p
 ries experiencing large increases in special rates since 1987 include
 "Technical" (primarily hoep:tal technicians)and "Other*'(primarily
 protective services). Figure 11.2 and tabb 11.2 show the number of spe
 cial rate employees by occupational category for the years 1987 through
                                         1989, as of March 31 of ea& year (the latest dates for which c m pub-
                                         lished such occupational breakdowns). (Also see app. V for a listing b f
                                         all special rate authorizations in effect as of January 1,1990,by

(As of March 31. 1987. 1988. and 1989)
                                         a    a      t      -

                                         '"Other pnmanlj refers to protect~veservces

                                                             category ISnot shown Waute of tCe s ? d l numbers of employees ~nvohred.
                                         Note The Adm~n~strat~ve
                                         (Seetable 11 2 )
Administrative   -
                  --4               0.0                       146          0.1    1.140    0.7
Te~hnd               2.111        -2.8                    1 1,746   ---    8.6   21.709   12.8
Ckical               9.476         12.7                   55.914          40.9   8.349    40.8
Other                  376          0.5                     1.502          11     5.841    3.4

                 %es not total to 100 0 due to rounding

                 The number and proportion of em2lopees receiving special rates vary
                 considerably by locatior.. Appendix 1~ shows, by MSA, the total number
                 of full-time, permanent cs employees and the number and percentage of
                 those employees receiving special rates as of December 31, 1985,1987,
                 and 1989. In Albany, Ga,for example, 1.3 percent of the GS employees
                 receivtd special rates in 1989, compared to Boston where 42 percent of
                 all cs employees were on s p i a l rates.

                 These data also show the growth in special rate employment within par-
                 ticular M~AS. In Los Angeles-Long Beach, for insstance, the number of
                 full-time permanent GS employees on special rates increased from 1,648
                 in 1985 (7.1 percent of all GS employees) to 2,372 in 1987 (10.3 percent)
                 and 7,138 in 1989 (31.6 percent). Table 11.3 shows the 10 MSAS in 1985,
                 1987, and 1989 with the largest numbers of special rate employees.
                 Table 11.4 lists the 10 m4s in each of :hose years with the highest per-
                 centage of special rate coverage.

                 As table 11.4 snows. special rates in 1989 covered a much larger per-
                 centage of the workforce in particular MSAS than in earlier years. In
                 1985, only 5 MSAShad more than 10 percefit of GS personnel on special
                 rates. P a m City, Fla., was the highest at 13.3percent. By Decemkr
                 1987, Vallejo, Calif. had the highest percentage of special rate
                 emplcyees, at 41.8 percent, and 13MSAS exceeded 20 percent. By
                 December 1989, the highest percentage was in the Lawrence-Haverhill
                 MSA (Mijssachu9tt;tS-NewHampshire) with 82.2 percent of the workforce
                 getting special rates. A total of 27 MSAS had over 20 percent of the
                 workforce on special rates in 1980, and 8 MSAS had 40 perwnt or more.
                 New England had 5 of the 10 MSAS with the highest percentages of spe
                 cial rate employees in 1989. \:I general, MSAS in California, New J e w ,
and New York locations orten had high percentages of special rate
employees during the 1985-1989period. (Seeapp. I l l )

1            Wash~ngton,CC-MD-VA                                     53.764
2            New York. NY                                             7.m
3            Los Anaeles-Lona Beach, CA                               7.138
4            Boston. MA                                               6,525
5            San Franasco. CA                                         4.117
6            Chicago, k                                     --
             I.>wark. NJ                                              3.509

             Oakland. CA                                              3,071
-            Norfolk-VABch-Newport
                         --        News, VA                           2.850
1    'Pashington, DC-MPVA                                            46,130
2    New York. NY                                               .-
3    San F r m i x o . CA                                             3,656
4    ~ o-s t 0 n-. K                                  -               3.400
5    Ph~ladel~h~a.  PA-NJ                                             2.668
6    Oakland. CA                                                      2.534
7    Los hgelestcng Beach. CA                                         2.372
8    Newark. NJ                                                       2.224
5    Norfolk-VABch-NewoortNews. VA                                    2.108

1            Washmgton. DC-MD-V                                       3,384
2      --- Los Angeles-LongBeach. CA
                                   ---                                1.648
3      ~hrladel~hz. PA-NJ                                             1,158
4      Norfolk-VABch-New~ort
                          New7 VA                                     1.116
5-     Boston.
6      Monmouth-Ocean.NJ                                               844
7--- Bremerton. WA                                                     756
8   .-
       Oxnard-Ventura. CA                                              700
9      Honolulu. HI                                                    689
~ o f ~ - 3 n p k Y @ -               n#/iknk
                                      --    -. --
                                                                                    MSA - -. .-
                                                                                   --                         --                   -             ---.-                     -Fmwnt
(As of December 1985.1987.and 1969)        .-                                                             +

                                      1989                                                    . . ~ -.
                                      1- -.-- - ---- -Lawrence-Haverhdl.
                                                         --- -- -- --
                                                                                 MA-NH                                                               - -.                     82.2
                                      2. -. . . . . Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester.
                                                                 -         .....  -    VH-ME                           -                                      -               59.2
                                      3                Ne~vHaven-Meriaen. CT

                                                  --                                                                                             ~
                                      4-- -     -
                                                     - -
                                                             - -- -- .-- - - - ---- . - - --                                                         --               --
                                      5                Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon.NJ                                                                                        48.1
                                      6                New London-Nmch, ST-RI                                                                                                 47.5
                                      7                Boston. MA                                                                                                             42.0
                                                                          -                   --          ---                  ~

                                      8                                             Newark. NJ                                                                                40.0

                                                                     .-   ~-                                           ~               --            -.-..
                                                                                                                                                         .-       -   -.
                                      ~~        ~   ~    -
                                                                      ~ a l l e ~ o - ~ a l r f e l dCA
                                                                          . .-
                                                                                    - - .-. .- ..- -.-
                                                                                                                                                                               - - ..
                                      2                      . .
                                                                      San .
                                                                                   -  ..          ~
                                                                                                                                                                              8 2
                                      3                               San Franc~sco.      CA                                                                                  26.4
                                      4                               Washington DC-MD-VA
                                                              -- .- -- -- -.- . . --- -   -   -           -                                                       -           25 7
                                      4                          -
                                                                      Neaark NJ

                                                                                                          ~~-                                                                 24.6
                                      7                               Oakland. CA                                                                                             23.4
                                      8                               Oxnard-Ventura CA                                                                                       23.1
                                      11)                                              Panama Qtv. FL                                                                         22.3

                                      T         - .- .
                                                     -. . .- .
                                                                                              Cltv. FL - .. .-
                                                                                              -                    -                                              -          13.3
                                      2                                                Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester.NH-ME                                                       12.5

                                      6                                            New London-Norwch.CT-RI                                                                      99
                                      7                                            Texarkana. TX-AR   ~                    ~
                                      8                                            San Jose. CA
                                                                                  ~ - .
                                      --    -       .-  - -- -
                                                                                    -.--. . . ..- ---- .-... NJ -. - -
                                                                                                                                       --   .-
                                      10                                           Tulsa. OK                                                                                    8.1

                                      The number and proportion of employees receiving special rates also
                                      vary considerably by federal agency. Appendix IV shows, by agency.
                                      the total number of GS employees and the number and percentage of
                                      those employees receiving special rates as of March 3 1,SfIgO (the most
                                      recent figures available from OPM). Tables 11.5 and 11.6 show the federal
                                  %e t.cieswith the largest numbers and percentages of special rate




                                            Department of the Navy
                                            Department of the Army
                                            Departmentof -Veterarls Atfairs

                                  4         Department of the AH Force                                         14.107
                                   5        Department of the Treasuq -            .
                                                                                                               11 ,m
                                   --       DepaPrnent
                                           --      --  of Health &-to Human Semws                                9.853
                                  7         Department of Just=                                                  9.058
                                  -         Department of----
                                                          Agriculture         -                                  5.65:
                                  -         Department of the Intenor - -                                        4,653
                                  10        Defense Log~stics Agency                                             4.166
                                  11        Natmal Aeronaut~csand 3&e Adm~n~stration                            --4.132
                                  12        De~artmentof ~ r a n s G t m                                        4.012
                                  13        Other defense a c t ~ v i t i i                                     3.985
                                  14        Department of Commerce                                              3.395
                                  15        Env~ronmentalProtectton Aaencv                                      2.402

          (As of March 31,1990)
                                  PA----                                                --
                                  2      Sm~th!.on~an  Institution                                                31.3
                                  3      U S.
                                              -         and Amen's Home                                           29.9
                                  4      Selectwe Service ~ ~ s t e m -                                           28.7
                                  5      Internat!onal Development Coop. A       ~  Y                             27.1
                                  6      Nat~onal Foundation on Arts and Humanities                               26.7
                                  --     Unted  States  Tax Court                                                 23.9
                                  8      Jotnt Chefs of Staff                                                     22.0
                                  9      Arms Control and Disarmament Aaencv                                      20.9
                                   10    Deoartment of State                                                      19.7
                                  t-1.5 -Department of Veterans Affars
                                         -                                                                        19.5
                                   11.5  DepartmentoftheNavy
                                           --                           --              -                         19.5
                                   13    Pens~onBenefit Guarantv C o r x K a t ~                                  19.3
                                   14    hatiolialAeronaut~csand Space Adm~n~stratm                               18.7
                                   15    Securities and Exchange Comm~ssion                                       18.6
Distribution of Special Rates Pemnnei by MSA
(As of December 31,1985,1987,and 1989)

               Alexandfia. LA                            1,113   19         1.7
               Anaheim-Santa AM.CA                       3.718   61         1.6

               Ann Arbor, MI                                     63         5.7
                                     ----                              --
               Ashevllle. NCp-       -                  1.207     9      0.7
               Atlanta. GA                             18.594    209     1.1
               Atlantic City, FU                        1.438     38     2.6
               Augusta, GA-SC                           4.789     24     0.5
               Austin. TX                               6,956     22     0.3
               &ersf'eld. CA                            3.482    158     4.5
               Baltirr:ore, MD                         32,176    653   --2.0
               Battle Creek,- MI                        2,618      4     0.2
               Biloxi-Gulfpurt, MS                      4.326     70     1.6
               -             AL         -                4.448     2     0.0
               Boise City, !D                            1,746    22     1.3
               Boston. MA                               15.778   931     5.9

                                                     -                      -
               Buffalo, NY                            -2,977      28     0.3
                         "    -- IL                      1.340    64     4.8
               Charleston. SC                            6.789   511     7.5
               Charlotte-Gastonia-RcckHill. NC-SC        1.533     3     0.2
               Cheyenne, W                               1,144    16     1.4
               Chicago, IL                              19.261   243     1.3
               Cincmnati. OH-KY-IN                       5.828    24     0.4

               Cleveland,OH                         --8,223      307        3.7
               Colorado Spnnes.
                         -  - CO                         3.666    50        1.4
               Columbia. SC                    -         3,426    40        1.2
               Cdurnbus. GA-At--                         3.2s     38        1.2
Denver. CO
-                                        17.226    498       2.9
                                          1 657     12       0.7

                 -                   -
Fresro. CA                                5?918     5%       0.9
Gacnsville. FL                            1.109      3       0.3
Greensboro-WinstonSalem. NC               1.283      ?   -   0.1
H a n i s b u r o m - C a r l . PA       10.108    105       1 .O
Hartford. CT                             2,033      33       1.6
Honolulu, HI                             11,956    689       5.8
Houston, TX                               8,551    332       3.9
Hunbngton-Ashhnd. WV-KY-OH                1,255     43       3.4
Huntsvr(le. AL                           1 1.951   562       46

Johnson CltyXingspoR,
           - - - TN-VA-                   1,016      9       0.9
Kansas City, MO-iiS                      16,137    175       1.1
Killeen-Temde. TX
             T   .
                                          4.129     78   -- -1.9
Knoxville. TN                             1 A38     13       0.9
Lake h t v . H                            3.808     26       0.7

Little Rock-N Lime Rock, AR               3,846     78       2.0
tosAneeles-LongBeach,CA                  23,l51    1,W       7.1
hhilk.KY-H                                4.204    234       5.6
MelboumTitusville-PalmBey, FL --
Memphis, Th-ARMS
                                                                          -  -

MiddlesexSomersetHunterdan,MI                       1,5C3           26       1.7
Milwaukee. WI                                       3.286
                                                     . - -          20       0.6
MinneeoolisStPaul. MN-WI                            6.418           188      2.9
Mobile. AL                                          1,375           107      7.8

w s s a u - S U M , ''Y
--                                                  7, *67           83      1.2
New Haven-Meriden.CT                                1,028             6      0.6
h'wLondon-Norwich,CT-RI                             2,399           237      9.9
          -. LA
New Orleans.     -                                  7.560
                                                     . -            227      3.0
New Yo&. NY                                        23.149           482      2.1

ryorfolk-VA Bch-Newp't News. VA                 -26,143         1,118        4.3
Oakland, CA
--                                                 1 1,043          609      55
Oklahoma Citv. OK                                  14.000           370      2.6
Omaha. NE-IA                                        3.743           210      5.6

Parlama Citv. FL                                    1,499           199     13.3
Parkersbura-Marietta.WV-OH                          1.170             4      0.3

Philadelphia, PP-NJ
                ----                               32,578       1,159       --3.6
Phoenix. A2                                         5.998         242        4.0

Portland. OR                                        6.110           292      4.8
P~rtsmouth-DoverRoches~~,          NH-ME            3,356           419   --12.5
Providence. R4                                      1.633             6     -0.4
Reno. NV
             -   NC                                 3.01
Richmond-Petersbura,VA                              7,957            44      0.6
Riverside-San E e r n a r d i , CA                  7,110           258      3.6
  --   -   -.                  -                      .-
Rochester. NY                                       1,227             3      0.2

P e r 90
--   7.430       515   -   69           G339    1,233         16.1
-    1.w ---1-
             7 --
                           1.2   ----   1365       36          2.6
     1.247  11---          0.9          1,194      52          4.4
Salinas-Sa&HAmm, CA                     3,n]9      49    1.3
Sdt Lake CitvUaden. UT                 15.15Q            1.I

-                                      14.009     551'   3.9
SanJose.CA                              4.788    433
                                                 -       9.0
SanJuan,PR                              3.225     36     1.1
Santa Barbera-SantaMaria. CA            1.790     49     2.7
--                                                -
Scranton-Wies-Bane, PA                  3.539    -124    3.5
Seattle. WA                             8.549     199    2.3

Tacoma. WA                              4.234      58    1.4

       -.   -
                               -     --            --
Trenton. K1                    --       1.105      74    67
Tucson. AZ                              2.578      65    2.5
Tulsa, OK

Wmhington. DC-ME-VA                   173,865    3.384   1.9
Wichita. US                             1.675      21    -
Wichita Falls, TX                       1,145     7-
                                                ---      0.6
Wihington. DEW-MD                       1.523       3    0.2
     Subtaw                         lmw87       am6      29
Other iocations/MSAs                     .a
                                       221       6,190   2.8
OmdW                                1,241,817   S,1@6    29
Distribution of Special Rates Pemnnel by
Federal Agency (As of March 31,1990)

-- Counc~lon HistOnc Preservation
Advtsori                                         -       -.
                                                                   6      1    16.67
Afncan Development Foundatton                                 -   30      5    16.67
Amencan Battle Monuments Comm~sscon                               48      2     4.17
Archdectural and Transportat~onBarrers Compl~anceBoard            25 -    --- 2000
Arms "mtrol and D~sarrnamentAgency                                139    29    B.86
Boar0 for lnternat~onalBroadcastmg
                                                                   8      1    12.50
             of Fine Arts                                          6      3    50.06
Comm~ss~on   on Cml R~ahts                                        re     14    24.56
a m m d i t y Futures Trading Commffsion
--                                                                                                482           87          18.05
                                                                                                  472           71          15.04

                                    . .
Equal Employment C)mcrtun* c o m s s m                                                            2.644        235           8.89
Expwt-hnw Bsnk of the Un~tedStates                                                                  318         51          16.04
-~ederalcorn-tions       ~ommissim                                                                1.591        250          15.71
                      . .
~ederarElectirm-                                                                                    224         35          15.63
~ederal~memmw       ~anarrement~crency                                                            2.211        ni           1226
-      -Labor Relations Authority                                                                   215         20          9.30
F&ed Maritime Comm~ssion                                                                            198         36        18.18
- Mediation and Condliation Service
Feded                                                                                               313         34        10.86
Federal Mine Safety and Wth Review Commission
Gderal Rebrement Thrift lavestment Boanl
                                                                 -                                   41
                                                                                                                       -- 21.95
h d e d Trade Commiss~xl                                                                            827 -       108       f 3.W
General .SeMces Administration
rn                                      --                             ---                       13.991       2.364       16 So
Harry S. Tn?man ScMarship Foundation                                                                  3           2       66.67
I n t m Couml on the Homeless                                                                         8           1       t2.53

InterrAitra Dev&pent Cooperation Agency                                                  -     1,443 --        391       Z.10
+testate Commmc r ~ m i s -
                                    s-  m-                            - -- ---               ---613            103          16.80
Japarr4.S. Friend-        CMmlsion                              -                                   4            1          2500
Nhcne M ~~mrnlsslcn
-                      ;J
                                                -.-  --- -.------.                 -- ----   -        9           I    ---- 11.11
MI!   SysAms
--- - . ---.-o-t-~--t -m
                   P  r       3--
                                0 ~ -d- -- -.- -      --         -- ----   - - .- ---               &2
                                                                                                     -.-----.--- 40   ----- 15.27
National Pdmaltics
              --..---     wee.
                         rnd         Arfnmistration --------------                               22.0s        4.132         19.71
           Archiv.~a N Records Admmrstratim                                                       1.936         114
                                                                                                                 -           5.89
National Caprtal Plann~ng     Commission
N a t d Commission for Emdoment P d i v
National Commission on Librariesand Information S c i i                                               7 ---       1         14.29
NationalCouncll for the Handicapped                                                                   5           1         20.00
Natiorlal Credit Union Administration                                                               709          55          7.76
National Foundationon the Arts and the Humanities                                                   505         :35         26.73
N a t ' d Labor Relations Bcard                -.
                                                                                                  2.095         270         12.09
~        i Mediationl   Board                                                                        46           7         15.22
National Science Foundation                                                                       828          304          36.71
NationalTransportation Safety Roard                                         --                    296           39          13.18
fduclear Waste Technical Review Bard                                                                5            4          80.00
OccwationalSafetv b Wth Review Commission                                                          70            7          10.00
Officeof Government Ethics                                                                        -36            6          16.67
- of fWonal Drug Control P d i
Office                                                                                             79            1           i.n
CMke of PersonnelManagement                               5,241        47?                  9.10
- f l i of Saeaal Cound
O                                    -           --          74          9                 12.16
                                                                                            - -

Panama Canal Comm~ssion                                      16          1                  6.25
PeMl~AmueDevakpmentCaporation                                25            2                8.00
Pemm Benefit Guaranty  --Corporation        --              518        100                 19.31
F b h a d R e l i m t Boad                                1.596        230                 14.34
                              . .
Securities and ExchangeCommrssKwr                         1.977        360                -

Sekche SeMce System                                         251          72                28.a
SmeH&smess AdrmntsbgM
                  --                   --                 5.426         338                 6.23
Srmthsonlan Institution                                   3.61t       1.131                3132
U.S. Infamation Aoerm                                     3.156   -
                                                                       -       -   --
                                                                                        -- - --
U.S.Hokcaust b k m o d C ~ U ~ C J ~                         16          5                 31.25
U.S.Institute of Peace                                -     3            3                 10.00
--   lntematlcml Trade Commission                          461          68                 14.75
US. Sokhs' and ~irmen~l-knne                               469         140                 29.85
Special Rate Authorizatio~IS---OCGU~onsand
Covered Populations by Geographic Arw (As of
January 1,1990)

                                                 Dental Assistant                     16
               Anchorage                         Medical Machine Technabgist           3

               Juneau                            Clericals                            93

               Nav@/Phoenix                      Medical Technobgst                  110
               Phoenix                           Clinical Psychologist                 4
                 SuMOtd                                                              114
               -.                -         ---   Clinical Psychologist                 1
               Callfomia                         Dental Hvaienist                     18
               Camp Pendleton                    Nurse                                50
               Ch~naLake                         P d i Officer                        18
               Fort Irwin                        Engineers                            13
               Fort Irwin                        Electrical/Nuclear/Computer/
                                                 ElectronicsEwineerin~                 1
               Fort Irwin                        Pdysenes                            6W
               Fort Ord                          Nurse                                29
               Fort Ord                          Phannaclst                           10
               Fort Ord                          Diaanostic RC
                                                             I-        Technohist     10
               Fort Ord                          ~iMedicalSonogr~                      1
               Fort Ord/Presidio                 P d i                                BB
               Greater San Francisco Bay         Clericals                          6.365
               Letterman AMC. SF                 Dietetic Technician                  27

               Long eeach                        P d i Officer                        46
l-os &@=     County1 oranse county   Conbact Specialist               1207

Los Angales/SanBe-                     --
                                      Pharmacist               ---      7
LosAn@es/r8munBIlsland                LegaiCkkflTechnicien             177
Mare kland                            PhysicalSciencaTechncisn
                                     -.                                187
MareLsland                            Guard                             11

%olego                               Conectitmalcfficer                 74
*Francisco                           Police                             71
G~ranciscoBav Area                   ~ ~ t l A u d i t 0 1             300

San Francisco District               Consumer Safety Officu              5

San FranciscoiOakbndPMSA             Nurse                              76
San Francisco/OaklandPMSA            Vocational Nurse                   57
Sen F r w - / W, W
                     PMSA            fkmiratarv
                                            r   -
                                                    -   .   - - r -
San FranciscolOaWandPMSA             Math Polvseries                   132

South Qan Francisco Bsy              Clericals                        1.632
Pavis AFR             Nurse                                       23
l w s AFB
---                   Thempetrtic Raddogic Technologist   ---      1

                      Ractrcal Nurse                              73
Aurora                Nurse                                       54
Awora                 Pharmacist                                  22

Ccwvrecticut          Clericals                                2,564
Connecticut           Accountant/Auditor                         124
DanbUr~               Clinical Psychdogist                         4
Dgnburv               ComctionalOfficer                           90
Faimeld County        Qwlity Assurance Specialist                144
Groton                mysccal Theraprst                            2
Groton                PracticalNurse                               6
Groton                Cvtoloav Technician                          2
Groton                P o l i Officer                             23
Groton                Guard                                       55

          ~   ~

~acksonvi~e           ~harn-&st                                    1
Mian6                 Q?ricals               .------           1.012
Mtamc                 Deputy US Marsha'                           42
Mii                   Correctional Officer                       112
Pensacda              Pharmacist                                -  1
  lakkl                                                        1.m

Atlanta               Data Transcribers                        1,255
Atlanta               !&gal Clerkflechnician                     187
Atlanta               OccuoatKwral~saltG                           1

                      Consumer Safety Officer                      15
Honolulu               Pharmacist           11



chlcago                Clericals          3.600
Chicago                c0mPuter-t          16B
chicago                Fdice Officer        15
ct-w                   Guard                34
chlcago                Atxoun4~t/Audit~     80

Lake County            Pharmacist            1
Scott Air Force Base                         3


Fort Riley             Pharmaast             6
Leavenworth                                  3

Fort Campbell          Pharmacist           11
Fort Knox              NwseSeries           83
Fort Knox                                 -11
  sllbbul                                 1m
Portsmouth Shipyard--

                  -     -

                                                             .     21

Fort Meede                      ckicais                           700
     subw                                                         m

iikton                          Park Ranaer                       153
Boston Area                     F!refiahter

Eastern Massachusetts                                            9,900
Eastern Massachusetts           Accountnnt/Auditor                 139
Fort  evens                     LicensedVocational Nurse             5
Fort Devens                     Nurse                              15
Fort k e n s                    Pharmacist                          5
Fort Devens                     Nursing Assistant/LPN
                                                   ---              6
WateftownlNatick                Guard                              17
Wstove: AFB                     Guard                              83

Milan                           Correctional Officer              107
Mount Clemens                   Pdice Officer              --      74
  submtd                                                          181
Minneapdis/St. Paul         -   Clericals     -                  1.121
Rochester                          -
                                Nurse                              49
     &&ww                                                        l,l%
Bibxi                           Heartlung Technician             -2
BiloxiIGulfDort                 Pharmacist                          1
     st&md                                                          3
Fort Leonard m
             -         -



Portsmouth                 E~neenng/Ektronicspndustrial
                           Engineering Technician                  621
Portsmouth                 Phystcai Science Technman                71
  !hbmd                                                            locr
Atlantic City              Comwter Soeaallst                        48

Fort Dix                   Dtagn<wtic Radmloglc Technologist         8
Fort DixJMcGui~e
        ,      AFB
           - - -   -   -
                            - -.                                    42

-    D~x/McGuire
               AFB         Fhamracist                                6
Fort Monmouth              Vocational/Practical Nurse                7
Fort Monmouth              Pharmacist:.                              4
Fort Monmouth
                           Pdice Officer                       -- 28
Mercer Countv              clericals                                ;21

Monmouth                   Nurse                                     16
Momnouth County            ckmcals                                1.220
;.lewark District          Consumer Safety Officer                  25
North/Central New Jersey   Quality Asscrance Specialist            288
Northera New Jersev        Clericals                              1.720
New York Qty               -----            cmcals                                       4.714
New York Cit-j!                             Legal aerk/Technician                          '235

New york City                               IRS G&t                                         510

New York City                      .        Immigration InspectorfExaminer                -
N e w W City                                Dewty US Marshal                               56
                                       --                  ---
Naw York City                                .,
                                            A c & u h d Commoditv Gradw      .--..--.-

          CIty                              C o n e c t i i Officer                       104
 New York City-- -              Quality Assurance Speaalist                               f 58
 New York CityJLong
                   Island      --     -----
                                Accountant/Aulitor                                        201
 New York District              Corwmer Satety OK-                                          14
 New york MSA -                 Mice                                    --                102
 New York MSA                  -Realty Specahst-------A
 ----     Plains                Ehortmd
                                     -      Reporter
                                              -. .                                           6
Otlsvik                 -                   Chnical Psychdagbst                              3
atisvilla?               -                  Correctid Officer                              100
Plum Island                                 Clericals                                       12

Cleveland                                   P o l i officer                                  7
-  Reno
    -----         ----
                                            ci&alP*t          .
                                                                        -                  2
                        "             ---
FhkWphia Metro   Accountant/Aud~tor     209
Illsrm~nster     Computer Sclentlst       71
                              Depuv US Marshal                         7
Arhngm                        Patent Examiner (Woglcal)               60
Fort Lee                      Nurse Anesthetst                         1
Portsmouth                    Thea
                                 ipwtcC-             Tachndogrst       5
Portsmouth                    Cytokgy Technlaan                        1
PrtsmouthFkrfolk              Phannacfft                              11
PortsmouthflA Bch/ Norfolk/   Nuse
Yorktown                                                             247
  amdal                                                              334
VlkrhhgM                                                       -
Fairdw AFB                    Uit*lsoundT e c h m s t                  1
Fort Lewis                    Phamradst                               17
Seattk                        Clerk T ~ r s t                          3
Tac~ma                        Nurse                                  147
Tacoma                        Practical Nurse                        117
Tamva                         Respiratory Therapistflraining
                              Instructor                              19
  ammw                                                               m4


                              Deoutv US Marshal                        45
Wingtal. DC                   Patent Exam~ner(Eqneenng)               411
ilkshmngton.DC                Clericals                            44.125
Washingtm, DC                 Sales Stwe Clerk                        331
Washln<lton.DC                F~eldReoresentatwe                      102

Washington. DC                Nurse Anesthet~st                        7
Washmgton, DC                 Practical Nwse                         196
b.3shiiton DC                 Nurses                                 e32
Wsh~ngton.DC                  Nuclear hktiamT e c h n m                1
Washmgton. DC                                                         54
DaMgren. VApatwent. -MD          --Poke                                  67
Mid Atlantic   -                   Sod Conservation/SaenceSeries      -- I
--   England                       Field Representatwe                        44
Newport,RI/New London, CT
           -. - -- ---
                                   Computer Scientist                        199
NYMJICT                            Food InspectionFd Techndoqv               189

Nationwide                         IndustrialHygwist                       1.553
Nat~omide                          lndii Health Service Nurse              2.m
------                             Physlclan'sAssistant                      487
Nationwldc                         Petroieum En~neers                        213

Natwnwwre                          Secret Servfce Unilxmed Chison/
--                                 US Park P o l ~                    -    1.761
Nationw&                           k r Force/kr Ne:ional Guard/ Air
                                   Force Reserve Pilots. Etc.                975
Nationwide                         P o v m P k ~ t s l l ~                    8
-                           -

&ua Rates Befo~e  aAfter the Authorization
                                      -   -

of special Rates in Selected cases
Appendix tZI

Va&tions in Special Rate Amounts Within
Geographic Areas

                                                           Special rate authorizations exhibit considerable variation within and
                                                           across the occupations and agencies in a given geographic area Table
                                                           VII. 1 illustrates the variations fmm GS salary amounts for special rates
                                                           paid in six partic~rlarlocations.

                                                           In the Lm Angeles has^, for example, police officers at both the Navy
                                                           Department and the General Services Administration (GSA) receive spe-
                                                           cial rates but in different amounts. GSA office= rec~ivehigher sp.&l
                                                           rates at GSr4 and 5, but Navy officers receive higher special rates at cs-6
                                                           and 7. ALGSS,tl- (;SA special rate is again higher, uld ~ s l pays
                                                                                                                         s    a spe-
                                                           cial rate at cs-9 while Navy does nd. Special pay rates for clerical
                                                           workers vary from 24.2 percmt at t s - 3 to 3.3percent at ~ 7IIowever,
                                                           dental hygienists at cs-4 through cs-7 all receive a 27.5 percent special
                                                           rate under a Cdiiolnia-wide special rate authorization.
                                                           Other examples are evident in special rate authorizations for Aurora,
                                                           Ck~IoraJo.AU of the specid rates at this location are within the Depart-
                                                           ment of the A m y . However, therapeutic ndiologic technoiogists at 658
                                                           receive a 13.3 percent speciai rate whik diagnostic radiologic technolo.
                                                           gists at GS-8receive 1.5 percent. GS-5 practical nurses receive a 16.7 per-
                                                           cent specid rate, bbt other G s ~nu-     receive 30 percent.

T a h b V I I . 1 : J I . u r w R a b ~ w i o l i -n
                                                      ~xh?SAs                                                                 7-

-%!EEL                   -                                            -                                        --
                                                                 -.               OsQndrlbp.ciJnt.arr(h0riz.d.
-w=P-l                               2                   3              4        5 -  6
                                                                                      -      7 --- -8----.-  9                             10           11    12       13
N m ~ Y S A                                     -                - -- --              -.   - --  - -- --                                                     -
Food inspector fld.                                                          200               -- 133 --!33- --10.0                       6 7---
F i Rep.
--                                                13.3
                                                                   167      23.4 20.0     13J  100 ---         ----
Park Ranger                       25.9            300              300 ..- -33.0 267      233          10.0
                                                                             --.-.- - - - -- - -- ----- --                                          3.3      --
Liqeguard    -                    22.6            20.0          -- 13.3 100       67       3.3 --        -
CkiCab                            23.4            242              17.7- - 111----4 -6 --         -----     .-                                                   --
wM                                       ----                     0         - 16.7         13 --
                                                                                           -- 3        !0 0       100 -      6.7--
                                                                                                                                 3.3---- --
iiGjmt                                                                       200- -                    167-. ..------------
                                                                                                                            10.0     3.3
Security Compl. Exam.                                                        20.0                    - 16 7                 10.0
Inmugration Inspec.                                               .
                                                                             13 3-                  --
                                                                                                       :O 0       --- - -- 6.7       3.3
&uty U.S. M z ~ ~ h a l                                               -- -- 16.7.-                     10.0    v--     -- 6.7
kgnc. b m u & y Grader                                          -----        17 6                      14.4           ----    11.1     -----
~mectKxralOfficer                                                      -     -             23.3        167            10.0
                                                                                           .. .. .- - - - - ---------.-----                                      --
wmaf=!%=                                                              --.    300            - --- .300              -- -       -----
                                                                                                                              23.3       200       16.7      13.3
~(xalmmt/~uditor                                                             200               --   - 16 7    --.------       10 o                 .-
                .-- .
Consumer Safety Officer                           20.0          10.0
Pdlce                                      13.3   10.0    6.7    3.3
Realty m        t                                 20.0          20.0          16.7                 16.7   10.0   -
Clinical Psychologist                                                                              30.0   20.0   -

-- Mficer                                  13.3   10.0    6.7   3.3                                               -
Guard                                      13.3   10.0    6.7   3.3
Aaxwntantl Auditor                                16.7          13.3          10.0

  ,   -                                                                                    -
i5kals                       23.4   24.2   17.7   11.1    6.7    3.3             ---
ConecbonalOfficw                                         23.3   16.7   10.0                -
Account?nt/ Auditor                               20.0          16.7          10.0                               -
Secur. C o m p l i i Exam.    -                   20.0          16.7          10.0             -
P d i O f f i (GSA)
              . ,                          23.3   16.7   13.3   10.0   10.0    6.7
Forestry Technician          19.4   23.3   23.3   23.4   20.0   16.7   13.3    6.7     3.3          3.3    3.3
Contract Srjecralist                              14.9          15.0          15.0                  6.7    3.3
Realtor                                           20.0          20.0          16.7                 16.7   10.0
Consumer Safetv Soec.                             23.4          13.3          10.0                  6.7

Misc Clerk 8 Assstant               23.3   16.7   10.0   6.7 3.3       -
Dental Hygrenlst                           n.5    27s,- ---
Pharmacist                                                                    16.8                 4.2
=clerk                                            22.7   17.7   11.1

Resp~ratoryTherapist                          -   20.9   14.4    7.8    1.3
Dietetic Technician                        24.q   21.7   18.5
                                                  20.0          16.7          10.0
Police CIfficer                                   16.7   13.3   10.0   6.7
                 -                                                                                 -
MedicalTechnicran                          13.3   13.3   13.3   10.0   10.0
M a t h / r Science
               ~                                  23.4
                                                                23.3          23.3                 13.3    33
Reeltor                                           20.0          20.0          16.7                 16.7   10.0
                                                    20.0            10.0
park Ranger                       13.3   13.3       10.0    10.0    10.0     6.7         3.3
Dental Hvaienist                         27.5       27.5    27.5    27.5
Bag.            Tech.                    27.5       27.5    27.5    20.9     144
Vocabjonal Nurse
                                  27.4   27.5
                                                    27.5    P.9
Pharmadst                                                                                30.0          30.0   23.3

Dag. FWobgtc Tech.                                  17.4    14.2     7.9     1.5
Pharmacist                                                                               27.5          4 .    4.6
Therop. Racbdogic Tech.                  30.0       26.7    20.0    13.3     13.3        10.0
Nurse Anesthetist                                                                        30.0          30.0   30.0
Practii Nurse                                       16.7    16.7
Nurse                                               m.0             233                   6.7

Finger Print Examiner                               10.0    10.0     10.0
Rc?sakatorvTheraolst                                                   7.8
            Statistidan                             23.8             14.2                142            7.9
W  t us MaR3M
   Y                                                16.7            -10.0
                                                                     .                    6.7
Patent Examiner (Engin.)                            30.0             30.0                16.7           6.7
Clericals                  22.6   20.0  13.3        10.0     6.7       3.3
sdes Store C&&             16.2   20.~1 13.3        10.0     6.7
Field Representative              16.7 13.3         10.0     6.7     3.3
PhysrcalTherapst                                    30.0            30.0                 26.7   20.0   13.3    6.7
Cytotechndo(yst                                     30.0            30.0                 26.7          23.3
Nurse Anesthetist                               -                  ----                                       30.0
Practical Nwse                           13.3       '23.4   20.0    16.7
Nudezu Medicine Tech.                    23.3
                                            -       23.4    16.7    16.7     10.0         3.3
!,ltrasound Tech.                                           30.0    30.0     30.G
                                                                             -           26.7
Dlaa. " Rad. Tech.                       24.9       24.9    24.9    24.9     21.7        15.3   15.3
MedicalT-t                                          30.0            30.0     304         26.7          233    13.3
Ther. Radid. Tech.                       19.5       19.5    19.6    13.4     10.5
Cartagrapher                                        30.0            30.0                 16.7          10.0
mmputef SCmtiSt                                     30.0            30.0                 14.4                        -
PaliceOmcer                              23.3       16.7    13.3    10.0     10.0         6.7    3.3
    Patent Examinef (other)
                                             16.7            13.3   --10.'             6.7
I   Ocrwoptionel-~t                                                     13.3   10.0   10.0

                              (General Schadule Pay Rate).
Major Contributors to This Report

                              -                                                       .
                      Robert E.Shelton, Assistant Director, Federal Workforre Future Issues
        Overnment     Curtis W.Copeland, Roifft manage^
Division, Washington, Cm A. Bright, Staff Evaluator
D.C.                  Timothy A. Rober, Staff Evaluator