oversight

Pay and Benefits: Data on Energy Employees Who Retired or Resigned in Fiscal Year 1989

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-10-25.

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

       L                                                        -,
                                                                     *fw
              United   States   General   Accounting   Office
              Briefing Report to the Ranking
GAO           Minority Member, Subcommittee on
              Federal Services, Post Office, and Civil
              Service, Committee on Governmental
              Affairs, U.S. Senate
04$oberl990
              PAY AND BENEFITS
              Data on Energy
              EknployeesWho
              Retired or Resigned in
              Fiscal Ye= 1989
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548

General   Government   IXvision

B-241560

October 25, 1990

The Honorable Ted Stevens
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Federal Services,
  Post Office, and Civil Service
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

Dear Senator Stevens:

At your request, we obtained information on former Department of
Energy (LKIE) employees at grade 13 and above who retired or resigned
during fiscal year 1989. Specifically, you wanted to know if employees
were leaving DOE to take jobs with government contractors or grantees
and earning salaries higher than their government pay. We briefed your
office on the responses to a questionnaire we developed for the purpose
of responding to your request and agreed to summarize the briefing in a
report.


Questions are continually being raised about the federal government’s
ability to hire and retain a high-quality workforce. Numerous GAO and
other studies have concluded that noncompetitive federal salaries con-
tribute to federal recruitment and retention problems. For example,
reports by the White 1Iouse Science Council (1983), the President’s Blue
Ribbon Commission on Defense Management (1986), and the President’s
Commissions on Compensation of Career Federal Executives and on Fed-
eral Pay (1988) all concludtd that the inadequacy of federal compensa-
tion seriously affects the government’s ability to attract and retain a
high-quality workforce In a June 1988 report, Civil Service 2000, the
Hudson Institute conchided that this problem was expected to worsen
over the next decadt,.

Similarly, in 1989 we reported that (1) to recruit and retain a quality
workforce, the federal government must pay competitive salaries and
benefits and (2) thfl cxompetition from the private sector was hurting the
federal government’s ability to maintain the quality it needs to be effec-
tive. In addition, t hc 1989 report by the President’s pay advisors cau-
tioned that the fedora1 government’s continued ability to recruit and
retain qualified employees is dependent upon pay comparability adjust-
ments. In August 1H9(I, the pay advisors reported a comparability gap
ranging from aboul 2:! pthrccnt at GS-1 to over 39 percent at GS-15.



 Page 1                                       GAO/GGDSl-l4BE   Pay and Benefits
              E241569




              number, 186 responded to the questionnaire for a response rate of 76
              percent.

              To test the validity of some of the salary data provided by respondents,
              we randomly selected 5 (about 10 percent) of the 43 respondents who
              reported higher salaries and judgmentally selected 3 additional respon-
              dents who reported salary increases of $45,000 or more. We sent verifi-
              cation letters to the personnel offices in those cases where the
              respondent gave us the name of his or her employer and to the indi-
              vidual respondent when the name of the employer was not available. We
              also asked the personnel offices to send us information on employee
              benefits. In analyzing the information on benefits, we focused on costs to
              the employer/employee and generally did not make a value or level of
              benefits analysis.

              Finally, we were able to interview the supervisors of I4 of the DOE
              employees who reported receiving higher pay to determine what kind of
              performers they were and what effect their leaving had on the
              organization.

              We did our work from April 1990 to September 1990 in accordance with
              generally accepted government auditing standards. As agreed with your
              office, we did not obtain written comments from DOE.We did, however,
              discuss the contents of the report with a DOEpersonnel office official
              who agreed with the facts presented.


               The responses to our questionnaire by 186 of the 246 grade 13 and
Results        above former employees who left DOEin fiscal year 1989 showed that:

          . 98 employees retired and 88 resigned (see p. 8);
          l 91 of the 127 who were employed after leaving federal service were
            employed by government contractors or grantees (see p. 11);
          l 78 of the 91 said that either their work was funded by contracts or
            grants or they were uncertain if this was the case (see p. 11);
          . 58 of 77 (1 of the 78 did not answer) said they were doing the same type
            of work as they had done at DOE(see p. 16);
          l 43 of the 78 said their pay was higher than their government pay (see
            PP. 12);
          l 28 of the 43 were in scientific/technical positions at DOEand 15 were in
            administrative/managerial     positions (see p. 12);
          0 31 of the 39 who reported the amount of the increase, received up to
            $15,000 more, with an average of $8,258 (see p. 13); and


               Page 3                                       GAO/GGDSl-14BE   Pay and Benefits
B241569




The major contributors to this briefing report are listed in appendix II. If
you or your staff have any questions about the report, please call me on
275-5074.

Sincerely yours,




Bernard L. Ungar
Director, Federal Human Resource
  Management Issues




Page 5                                         GAO/GGDol-14BR   Pay and Beneflts
contents




Figure 1.7: Former DOE Employees: Number of Hours an                       14
     Which Weekly Pay Is Based
Figure 1.8: Comparison of Former Employees’ New Duties                     15
     and Responsibilities With Their Last Position at DOE
Figure 1.9: Comparison of Former Employees’ New Type                       16
     of Work With Their Work at DOE
Figure I. 10: Factors Having a Major Impact on Decision to                 17
     Leave
Figure I. 11: Extent That Benefits Were Cited as Being                      19
     Better Than Those Provided by DOE




Abbreviations

 DOE       Department of Energy
 MSPB      Merit Systems Protection Board


 page 7                                      GAO/GGDSl-14BR   Pa, and Benefits
                                        Appemlix    I
                                        Analyses   of DOE Employees Who Retired      and
                                        Re&md      During Ned   Year 1989




                                        Of the 186 former DOE employees who responded to our questionnaire,
Is DOE Losing                           106 left during their first 20 years of federal service. Most of these 106
Experienced                             employees resigned, and they did so during their first 10 years of fed-
Employees?                              eraJ service. Of the 61 employees who retired or resigned during their
                                        first 10 years, 85 percent had at least 2 years of experience when they
                                        left DOE. Resignees accounted for 93 percent of those who left DOE during
                                        the first 10 years of service and 62 percent of the 45 employees who left
                                        during the second 10 years of service. After 20 years of service, retirees
                                        accounted for almost all separations.


Figure 1.2: DOE Employees Who Retired
and Resigned-Years of Service           65   Numbor of Employees
                                        60
                                        55
                                        50
                                        45
                                             r
                                        40
                                        35
                                        30
                                        25
                                        20
                                        15
                                        10




                                              low       11-20      21.30   over 30
                                              LOSS
                                              vnm of Smvice

                                                       Resigned
                                                       Redred




                                         page 9                                            GAO/GGDSI-14RR   Pay and Benefits
                                    Appendix    I
                                    Analyses   of DOE Employees Who Retired   and
                                    Resi@d     During Fiscal Year 1989




                                    Of the 127 respondents who said they were employed after leaving DOE,
Did Employers of Most               91 (72 percent) said their employers received funding in the form of fed-
Former DOE                          eral contracts or grants. Of these 91,71 said their work was federally
Employees Receive                   funded at least in part and 7 said they were not sure. For the purposes
                                    of further analysis, we included all 78 of these former employees as
Federal Contracts or                having their private employment federally funded. We did this because
Grants?                             the possibility existed that since they were employed by federal contrac-
                                    tors, their work also was federally funded.


Figure 1.4:Former DOE Employees
Employed by a Federal Contractor/   Number of Employees
Grantee                             130
                                    120
                                    110
                                    100




                                     10
                                      0
                                                   B.




                                    Page II                                         GAO/GGDSl-14BR   Pay and Benefits
                                         Appendix I
                                         Analyses of DOE Employees Who Retired        and
                                         Resigned muiug Piscal Year 1999




                                         Of the 43 former DOE employees who reported an increase in pay, 39 told
How Much of a Pay                        us the amount of the increase. Almost 80 percent (31) received an
Increase Did Former                      increase of $15,000 or less, an average of $8,258 per employee. Of those
DOE Employees                            reporting a pay increase, 27 (60 percent) said that had a very major
                                         effect in their deciding to leave DOE.
Receive?
                                         In verifying the amount of the salary increases for eight employees, we
                                         were able to verify two but found that one understated the increase by
                                         $4,500, and two overstated it by $1,500 and $10,500. We did not
                                         attempt to resolve these discrepancies because the verified amounts still
                                         represented increases over the former employees’ DOE salaries. In the
                                         remaining three cases, the employee’s personnel office or the employee
                                         did not respond to our request for verification of salary increases of
                                         $5,000, $45,000, and $130.000.


Figure 1.6:Pay Increases of Former DOE
Employees                                30        Percentage of Employees
                                              --




                                         Note. Computailons are based on 39 responses Although 43 respondents reported higher pay, 4 did
                                         not provide an amount The above amounts do not reflect the results of ourverif~cat~on of respondents’
                                         salary InformatIon




                                         PaE!e 13                                                        GAO/GGDSl-14BR       Pay and Benefits
                                            Appendix I
                                            Analyses of DOE Employees Who Retired       and
                                            R‘sdgned During FiBcal Year 1989




                                            Most former employees had less responsibility in their new jobs than
How Do Former                               they had at M3E. While this applied primarily to the employees who
Employees’ Duties and                       received the same or less pay, 33 percent of the employees who received
                                            higher pay also reported they had less responsibility.
Responsibilities
Compare With Those                          Of the 42 employees receiving higher pay who responded to this ques-
of Their Last Position                      tion, 17 (41 percent) had greater responsibilities and 11 (26 percent) had
                                            the same responsibilities as they had at DOE.
at DOE?

Figure 1.8:Comparison of Former
Employees’ New Duties and                   80   Percanfage of Employees
Responsibilities With Their Last Position
at DOE                                      70

                                            50

                                            50

                                            40

                                            30

                                            20

                                            10

                                             0




                                                       0       Employees Receiving Higher Pay
                                                               Employees Receiving Same or Less Pay

                                            Note. Computations for employees rece~wng (1) higher pay and (2) same or less pay are based on 42
                                            and 35 responses. respectively




                                            Page 15                                                      GAO/GGDSl-14BR       Pay and Benefits
                                      Appendix I
                                      Analyses of DOE Employees Who Retired        and
                                      Resigned Durhg Fiscal Year 1989




                                      The reason former DOE employees cited most frequently as having a
Why Did DOE                           major impact on their decision to retire or resign was to increase their
Employees Retire or                   opportunity for advancement. Overall, of the 78 employees who left and
Resign During Fiscal                  whose work was then funded by a federal contract or grant, 30 (38 per-
                                      cent) said this reason had a major impact on their decision. It was also
Year 1989?                            the more prevalent reason among resignees as slightly more than 58 per-
                                      cent of the resignees compared with 7 percent of the retirees said the
                                      opportunity for advancement had a major impact on their decision to
                                      leave DOE. The next two most frequently cited reasons having a major
                                      impact were the desires to increase salaries and change personal career
                                      plans. Overall, 37 percent said these two reasons had a major impact on
                                      their decisions to leave DOE. In addition to the reasons shown in figure
                                      1.10, several employees also offered other reasons that affected their
                                      decisions to leave DOE. The reasons cited most frequently involved
                                      problems they had with agency management and policies and with their
                                      role in the agency.


Figure 1.10: Factors Having a Major
Impact on Decision to Leave




                                      Note. The percentages were computed based on how many of the 78 former employees clted each
                                      factor as having a major effect on their decnon to leave DOE, not on the 69 to 72 employees who cited
                                      ridlwdual factors as having at least some effect.




                                      Page 17                                                        GAO/GGD-91.14BR      Pay and Benefits
                                         Appendix I
                                         Analyses of DOE Employees who Retired       and
                                         Resigned During Fiscal Year 1989




Figure 1.11: Extent That Benefits Were
Cited as Being Better Than Those         60   Percentage of Employosr
Provided by DOE

                                         50


                                         40


                                         30


                                         20


                                         10


                                          0




                                              El       40 Hours or More
                                                       Less Than 40 Hours

                                         Note The percentages were computed based on the 52 and 17 employees working 40 hours or more or
                                         less than 40 hours respectively who cited each benefit as being better than the same benefit provided
                                         by the federal government




                                         Page 19                                                       GAO/GGD-91.14BR      Pay and Benefits
    Ordering   Information

    The first five copies of each GAO report are free. Addil
    copies are $2 each. Orders
    address,
    the Superintendent      of
    100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
    discounted    25 percent.

    U.S. General Accounting Office
    P. 0. Box 6015
    Gaithersburg,  MD 20877

i
Appendix II

Major Contributors to This Report


                        Larry H. Endy, Assistant Director, Federal Human Resource
General Government        Management Issues
Division, Washington,   James J. Grace, Evaluator-in-Charge
D.C.                    Stuart M. Kaufman, Social Science Analyst




(966431)                Page 20                                   GAO/GGDL)l-14BE   Pay and Benefits
                          Appendix I
                          Analyses of DOE Employees Who R&red   and
                          Resigned During Fiscal Year 1999




                          More than half of the 52 former DOE employees who worked 40 hours a
Are Benefits in           week or more said that health benefits were better in private industry
Private Industry          than they were at DOE. Following that, the benefits cited most frequently
Better Than the           by these employees included company bonus programs, life insurance,
                          and thrift savings plans. Not many of the 17 employees who worked less
Benefits in the Federal   than 40 hours a week cited any of the benefits as being better than they
Government?               were at DOE. However, the benefits cited most frequently closely paral-
                          leled benefits cited by those working 40 or more hours a week. None of
                          these employees said annual and sick leave or thrift savings plans were
                          better than at LIOE.

                          In reviewing some of the employers’ benefit programs, we noted that
                          one company paid 100 percent of employees’ health insurance premiums
                          and 72 percent of dependents’ premiums. Another employer paid the
                          entire premium for two pre-paid health care plans and for a dental and
                          optical plan. In another instance, where life insurance was cited as a
                          better benefit, the company paid the entire premium. In the case of
                          retirement plans, advantages included lower employee contributions; the
                          ability to deduct contributions from gross pay, thereby deferring tax-
                          able income; the ability to retire at age 50 with 5 years of service; and
                          the formula used for computing retirement benefits. For one of the
                          employees who cited a thrift savings plan as better, we noted that
                          employees could contribute up to 20 percent of their income versus 10
                          percent under the Federal Employees Retirement System and 5 percent
                          under the Civil Service Retirement System. Annual leave was cited as
                          being better in one instance where all employees received 5 weeks of
                          vacation regardless of length of service.




                          Page 18                                      GAO/GGDSl-14BR   Pay and Benefits
                                         Appendiy I
                                         Andysee of DOE Employees Who Retired       and
                                         Resigned Dlwhg Fiscal Year 1999




                                         Most employees were doing the same type of work in their new jobs as
Are Employees Doing                      they had done at WE. Almost 66 percent of the retirees and 81 percent
the SameType of                          of the resignees reported that they were doing the same general type of
Work in Their New                        work that they did at DOE.

Jobs as They Did at
DOE?

Figure 1.9:Comparison of Former
Employees’ New Type of Work With Their   90 PNmn,age0, Emp,ws
Work at DOE
                                         80

                                         70

                                         60

                                         60

                                         40

                                         30

                                         20

                                         10

                                          0




                                              El      Same Type Work
                                                      Different Type Work

                                         Note Computations   for employees who retred and resigned are based an 29 and 48 responses,
                                         respectively




                                         Page 16                                                      GAO/GGDSl-14BR       Pay and Benefit8
                                      Appendix    I
                                      Analyses   of DOE Employees Who Retired     end
                                      Res*ed     During Ffscal Year 1999




                     Most former DOE employees whose work was federally funded were paid
Are Former DOE       baaed on a 40-hour work week. Of the 69 employees who reported their
Employees Paid Based hours, 48 (70 percent) said their pay was based on a 40-hour work week.
on a 40-Hour Work    This was more applicable to resignees than it was to retirees. Slightly
                     more than 85 percent of the resignees and 46 percent of the retirees
Week?                reported their pay was based on a 40-hour work week.


Figure 1.7:Former DOE Employees:
Number of Hours on Which Weekly Pay   Nmber of Employees
Is Based
                                      70


                                      60


                                      50


                                      40




                                                     Less Than 40 Hours
                                                     More Than 40 Hours
                                                     40 Hours


                                       Note Computatms     are based on 69 responses




                                       Page 14                                          GAO/GGBSl-14RR   Pay and Benefits
                               Appendix I
                               Andysee of DOE Bmployeee Who Retired   and
                               Resigned Durbg Fiscal Year 1989




                               Of the 78 former DOE employees whose work was funded or may have
How Did the Former             been funded under a government contract or grant, 43 said they
DOE Employees’                 received higher pay after leaving DOE. Higher pay was more prevalent
Nonfederal Pay                 among employees who had resigned as compared to retired former
                               employees. Of the 43 employees reporting higher pay, 37 were resignees
Compare With Their             and 6 were retirees. Also, 28 of the 43 were in scientific/technical posi-
DOE Pay?                       tions at DOE and 15 were in administrative/managerial positions.

                               To get an indication of whether the employees who left DOE and who
                               were receiving higher pay were good performers and thus a loss to their
                               DOE units, we contacted the DOE supervisors for 14 of them. Their per-
                               formance was cited as “very good” by 12 supervisors and “good” by 2
                               of the supervisors. Twelve of the 14 supervisors also considered the loss
                               of these employees as detrimental to WE. For the remaining 2
                               employees, one supervisor said the employee was not in the newly cre-
                               ated position long enough for the loss to have an impact on DOE, and the
                               other supervisor said the employee’s work was picked up by another
                               employee.


Figure 1.5:Pay of Former DOE
Employees
                               50   Numberof Employees

                               45

                               40

                               35

                               30

                               25

                               20




                                                         Resigned       Both Relirees
                                                                        And Reslgnees



                                    u       Higher Than DOE
                                            Lower Than DOE
                                            About The Same As DOE



                               Page 12                                                  GAO/GGDSl-14BR   Pay and Benefits
                                      AppemUx I
                                      Analyses of DOE Employees Who Retired   and
                                      Res&md Lhw& Fknl Year 1989




Were Most Former                      employed after separating from DOE. As one would expect, this was most
DOE Employees                         prevalent among the 88 resignees, of whom 96 percent were employed.
                                      Interestingly, however, almost one-half (44 percent) of the 98 retirees
Employed After                        were employed.
Leaving Federal
Service?

Figure 1.3: Subsequent Employment
Status of DOE Employees Who Retired   Percenfago of Employees
and Resigned                          100

                                       so
                                       so
                                       70
                                       50

                                       50

                                       40

                                       30

                                       20

                                       10

                                        0




                                            u        Employed
                                                     Ufl.Wlpl~d




                                       Page 10                                      GAO/GGDSl-14BR   Pay and Benefits
Analyses of DOE Employees Who Ret&&dand
ResignedDuring F’iscalYear 1989

                                        During fiscal year 1989,246 DOE employees either retired or resigned.
How Many DOE                            The breakout between retirees and resignees was almost the same, with
Employees Retired                       120 employees retiring and 126 resigning. A similar proportion existed
and ResignedDuring                      among those retirees and resignees who responded to our questionnaire.
                                        Of the 186 respondents, 98 retired and 88 resigned.
Fiscal Year 1989?
Figure 1.1: DOE Employees Who Retired
and Resigned During FY 1999
                                        140   Number of Employees


                                        120


                                        100


                                         80


                                         00


                                         40


                                         20


                                          0




                                        Page 8                                      GAO/GGDSl-14BR   Pay and Benefits
Contents


                 411

Letter                                                                                               1

Appendix I                                                                                           8
Analyses of DOE         How Many DOE Employees Retired and Resigned During                           8
                            Fiscal Year 1989?
Employees Who           Is DOE Losing Experienced Employees?                                        9
Retired and Resigned    Were Most Former DOE Employees Employed After                              10
                            Leaving Federal Service?
During Fiscal Year      Did Employers of Most Former DOE Employees Receive                          11
1989                        Federal Contracts or Grants?
                        How Did the Former DOE Employees’ Nonfederal Pay                            12
                            Compare With Their DOE Pay?
                        How Much of a Pay Increase Did Former DOE Employees                         13
                            Receive?
                        Are Former DOE Employees Paid Based on a 40-Hour                            14
                            Work Week?
                        How Do Former Employees’ Duties and Responsibilities                        15
                             Compare With Those of Their Last Position at DOE?
                        Are Employees Doing the Same Type of Work in Their                          16
                             New Jobs as They Did at DOE?
                        Why Did DOE Employees Retire or Resign During Fiscal                        17
                             Year 1989?
                        Are Benefits in Private Industry Better Than the Benefits                   18
                             in the Federal Government?

Appendix II                                                                                         20
Major Contributors to
This Report
Figures                 Figure I. 1: DOE Employees Who Retired and Resigned                              8
                             During FY 1989
                        Figure 1.2: DOE Employees Who Retired and Resigned-                              9
                             Years of Service
                        Figure 1.3: Subsequent Employment Status of DOE                             10
                             Employees Who Retired and Resigned
                        Figure 1.4: Former DOE Employees Employed by a                              11
                             Federal Contractor/Grantee
                        Figure 1.5: Pay of Former DOE Employees                                     12
                        Figure 1.6: Pay Increases of Former DOE Employees                           13



                        Page 6                                       GAO/GGDSl-14BR   Pay and Benefits
    FM41660




l   17 of the 43 who received higher pay said their duties and responsibili-
    ties were greater than they were at DOE, 25 said they were the same or
    less, and 1 did not answer the question (see p. 15).

    Respondents also indicated that many of their benefits were better in
    the private sector and most frequently cited health and life insurance,
    bonus programs, and thrift savings plans (see pp. 18-19).

    Respondents gave many reasons for leaving DOE. Of the 70 who said
    they left to increase their opportunities for advancement, 30 said this
    had a major effect on their decision. This was the reason most fre-
    quently cited as having a major effect; the next two most frequent rea-
    sons, cited by 29 employees, were to increase salaries and to change
    personal career plans (see p. 17).

    Responding employees who retired and resigned during fiscal year 1989
    were experienced and, according to those supervisors we contacted,
    were good performers. Approximately 67 percent of the 186 employees
    left with over 10 years of experience. Of the 61 employees who left
    during the first 10 years, 85 percent had at least 2 years of experience
    (see p. 9). As far as performance was concerned, the 14 DOE supervisors
    we contacted said that 12 of the former employees were “very good”
    performers, and 2 were “good” performers (see p. 12).

    In discussing the responses to our questionnaire, a DOE personnel office
    official expressed the opinion that more than 43 of the 78 former
    employees would have reported higher salaries had they been working
    full rather than part time after leaving WE. We have no basis for
    agreeing or disagreeing with this assertion. We note, however, that 19 of
    the 35 former employees, who reported receiving the same or less pay,
    worked 40 hours or more a week.

    Appendix I contains more detailed information on the responses by the
    former DOE employees.


    As arranged with your office, we plan no further distribution of this
    document until 30 days after the date of issuance unless you publicly
    announce its contents earlier. At that time, we will send copies to the
    Secretary of Energy and other interested parties and make copies avail-
    able to others upon request.




     Page 4                                       GAO/GGDSl-14BR   Pay and Benefits
                       B-241666




                       The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) recently issued three
                       reports that continue to demonstrate the extent of this problem. In the
                       first report, MSPB found that 9 percent of the employees-6 percent at
                       uoE-left the federal workforce during calendar year 1987.’ Of those
                       who left, 25 percent retired, 58 percent resigned, and 17 percent sepa-
                       rated for other reasons. The turnover rate was 25 percent among
                       employees during their first year of service. This rate decreased to 4
                       percent for employees with 16 to 20 years of service. After 20 years of
                       service, the rate increased again, reaching 22 percent for employees
                       with 30 or more years of service, a time when most employees become
                       eligible for retirement.

                       In its next two reports, MSPB found that compensation is an important
                       factor in employees’ decisions to leave the federal workforce. For
                       Senior Executive Service members, the single most often cited reason for
                       leaving was the ceiling on salaries. For white-collar employees who
                       resigned, 28 percent cited compensation and advancement as the most
                       important reasons for leaving the federal workforce. In contrast, for
                       white-collar employees who retired, 20 percent said concern about
                       changes in the retirement system was the single most important reason
                       for retiring. The next most important reason, cited by 18 percent, was a
                       desire to pursue nonwork interests. Only 11 percent said compensation
                       and advancement were factors in retiring.

                       As of September 30, 1989, DOE’s estimated employment was almost
                       17,000 employees. In addition, DOE had about 132,000 contractor
                       employees at its laboratories and plants throughout the country.


                       Our objective was to determine if employees at grade 13 and above were
Objective, Scope,and   leaving DOE to take jobs with government contractors or grantees and
Methodology            earning salaries higher than their government pay. To accomplish this
                       objective, we obtained from LIOEa listing of the 246 employees at these
                       grades who retired or resigned during fiscal year 1989. Because DOE did
                       not have any post-employment information on these employees, we
                       developed and sent a questionnaire to all 246 employees. Of this


                       ‘Who Is LeavingThe FederalGovernment?An Analysis of EmployeeTurnover, the US. Merit Sys-
                       tem FTotectionBoard(Aug. 1989).
                       ‘The SeniorExecutive Service:Viewsof FormerFederalExecutives,the U.S.Merit SystemsProtec-
                       ti0n Ikmd (ht 1989);and Why Are EmployeesLeavingthe FederalGovernment?Resultsof an Exit
                       Survey,the U.S.Merit SystemsProtectionBoard(May 1990).



                       Page 2                                                 GAO/GGDsl-14BR Pay and Benefits