oversight

Report of the National Advisory Commission on Law Enforcement

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-04-25.

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

              a
\
    lllllllIll
     141329




    REPRRTRF
    THENATlR
    AllIVlSllRY
    COMMlSS
    RN 1AW
    ENMCEME

    APRlll!!R
Report of the
National Advisory
Commission on
Law Enforcement




April1990
OCG90-2
Comptroller   General
of the United States

Washington,   DC. 20648




April 25,199O

The President of the United States
The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House of Representatives

This report presents the findings and recommendations of the     National Advisory Commission
on Law Enforcement (NACLE).The Commission was established         by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1988. It was charged with studying pay, benefits, and other   issues related to the
recruitment, retention, and morale of federal law enforcement    officers.

The Commission’s data and analysis show that there are many critical issues that need to be
addressed to assure that federal law enforcement agencies are able to attract and retain
high-quality staff. What follows in this report is a series of recommendations to cover the
range of critical issues that the Commission believes must be addressed over time to provide
that assurance. These include the need to increase starting salaries for most federal law
enforcement occupations and the need to establish some type of locality pay differentials for
federal law enforcement personnel working in certain high-cost cities. Other important issues
involve the need to provide a housing relocation allowance for law enforcement personnel
transferred to high-cost areas, and the need to have more consistency and equity among
federal agencies in their pay of overtime.

The Commission would like all of its recommendations to be implemented promptly, On the
other hand, it recognizes the reality of the fiscal situation facing the federal government
today. It also recognizes the possible impact of its recommendations in light of actions that
may need to be taken for the entire federal workforce. The Commission is concerned that
sufficient funds be available to adequately implement its recommendations.

If the realities of the federal budget situation dictate that the Administration and Congress
make choices on what part of the Commission’s recommendations could be funded in the
near future as opposed to over time, the recommendations to increase starting salaries and
deal with locality pay in high-cost cities should be funded first. Next, it is very important to
adopt housing relocation allowances and to bring about more consistency and equity in the
way that federal law enforcement agencies pay overtime. The Commission strongly believes
that law enforcement personnel should be paid for extra hours they must work to effectively
carry out their jobs. However, the data the Commission analyzed did not show that the
problems of overtime pay or relocation housing allowances were as critical to the immediate
well-being of our law enforcement agencies as the need to increase starting salaries and deal
with locality pay increases for personnel in certain high-cost cities.

Some Commissioners had differing views on some aspects of the report. However, they all
agreed with its general thrust and with its most critical finding that federal pay is generally
too low for law enforcement occupations and needs to be increased at the entry level and for
other levels as well in certain high-cost areas where state and local law enforcement salaries
exceed those of their federal counterparts. Additional views of some Commissioners are
contained in Appendix VIII.
A public hearing was held on February 20, 1990, to elicit the views of interested
organizations and individuals involved in federal law enforcement on a draft of this report.
These views were considered and, as appropriate, reflected in the final report. A transcript
of this hearing is available upon request from the General Accounting Office.

Drew Valentine served as the Commission’s staff director. Other staff members are listed in
Appendix VII.




Charles A. Rowsher
Chairman
National Advisory Commission on
Law Enforcement




                     Page 2
Page 3
commissionersof the National Advisory                                            ’
Commissionon Law Enforcement


               441 G St., NW
               Washington, DC 20548


               Ernest J. Alexander
Members        National President
               Federal Criminal Investigators Assoc.
               P.O. Box 691145
               San Antonio, TX 78269-l 145

               The Honorable Rudy Boschwitz
               506 Senate Hart Office Building
               Washington, DC 20510-2301

               The Honorable Nicholas F. Brady
               The Secretary of the Treasury
               Department of the Treasury
               1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
               Washington, DC 20220

               The Honorable Daniel R. Coats
               411 Senate Russell Office Building
               Washington, DC 205 10

               The Honorable Dennis DeConcini
               328 Senate Hart Office Building
               Washington, DC 20510-0301

               Murray Dickman
               Assistant to the Attorney General
               1J.S.Department of Justice
               10th and Constitution Ave., NW
               Washington, DC 20530

               The Honorable Don Edwards
               2307 Rayburn House Office Building
               Washington, DC 20515-0510

               The Honorable George Gekas
               15 19 Longworth House Office Building
               Washington, DC 20515-3817


               Page 4                                  OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
Commissioners of the National Advisory
Commission on Law Enforcement




The Honorable William Hughes
341 Canon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3002

The Honorable Richard Kusserow
Inspector General
Department of Health and Human Services
Cohen Bldg, Room 5243
330 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20201

John C. Lawn, Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration
I Street Building
1405 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20537

The Honorable John C. Martin
Inspector General
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., SW, Room 301 NE
Washington, DC 20460

The Honorable Salvatore Martoche
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Law Enforcement
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20220

The Honorable Constance Newman
Director, Office of Personnel Management
1900 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20415

The Honorable David Nummy
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Departmental Finance
and Management
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Room 2204
Washington, DC 20220




Page 6                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
--
     Commissioners of the National Advisory
     Commission on Law Enforcement




     The Honorable Michael G. Oxley
     1131 Longworth House Office Building
     Washington, DC 20515-3504

     The Honorable James R. Richards
     Inspector General
     Department of the Interior
     Room 5359
     18th and C Streets, NW
     Washington, DC 20240

     William S. Sessions
     Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
     J. Edgar Hoover Building
     9th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW
     Washington, DC 20535

     The Honorable Larkin Smith
     U. S. House of Representatives
     Deceased

     John Sturdivant
     National President, American Federation of Government Employees
     80 F Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20001

     The Honorable Dick Thornburgh
     The Attorney General
     U.S. Department of Justice
     10th and Constitution Ave., NW
     Washington, DC 20530

     Robert Van Etten
     President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
     106 Cedarhurst Ave.
     Selden, NY 11784




     Page 6                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Page 7   OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
---

Executive Summ~


             Federal law enforcement today faces multiple challenges. Federal
Purpose      officers must confront (1) leading criminals in the drug war, (2) notori-
             ous figures in organized crime, (3) increasingly sophisticated white col-
             lar criminals, and (4) prisoners incarcerated in an overcrowded and
             overburdened federal prison system.

             The quality and commitment of the people involved in federal law
             enforcement will largely determine success or failure. The federal gov-
             ernment has an obligation to support these individuals by compensating
             them at the appropriate levels.

             Recognizing this obligation, Congress created the National Advisory
             Commission on Law Enforcement to study the adequacy of compensa-
             tion and benefits for federal law enforcement personnel. The Commis-
             sion studied compensation levels and issues involving recruitment,
             retention, and morale in federal law enforcement. It compared rates of
             compensation between and among federal agencies and also with state
             and local governments. Other areas of study included (1) overtime prac-
             tices and policies, (2) retirement and benefits policies, and (3) the extent
             to which administrative procedures and legislation are needed to rem-
             edy inconsistencies and pay inequities. This study presents these com-
             parisons, describes the effects, and makes recommendations to address
             the major problems.


             The law establishing this Commission defines federal law enforcement
Background   officer widely, encompassing both traditional positions within the field
             and less traditional positions not generally considered part of the law
             enforcement community. The universe included more than 50,000 indi-
             viduals in 34 federal agencies.

             Of the approximately 250 occupations meeting the definition (as defined
             in Title 5, IJ.S. Code), the Commission selected 19 law enforcement occu-
             pations for special focus. These major occupations include criminal
             investigators, customs patrol officers, certain uniformed federal police,
             deputy marshals, correctional officers, and border patrol agents among
             others. Most of the other positions covered in the study were in the
             Bureau of Prisons (1301’).These were such jobs as paralegals, teachers,
             factory foremen, and nurses who had significant law enforcement
             aspects to their jobs.

             Some significant changes have taken place over the past two decades
             that affect these occupations and the nature of their work. These


             Page 8                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                   Executive   Summary




---
                   changes include (1) the increasing danger, violence, and complexity of
                   work that faces federal law enforcement personnel, (2) the greater
                   diversity of the federal law enforcement workforce and (3) the increas-
                   ingly competitive compensation packages being offered their state and
                   local counterparts.

                   A highly motivated and competent workforce in federal law enforce-
                   ment is needed more today than ever before. Adequately compensating
                   these personnel will help maintain a quality workforce. Balanced
                   against this need, however, is the problem of the federal deficit and sim-
                   ilar problems that affect the rest of the federal workforce.

                   There is a growing recognition that compensation levels for federal law
                   enforcement personnel are inadequate. Several law enforcement agen-
                   cies have attempted to address this problem. Their initiatives have
                   included securing special salary rates, accelerated promotions, and a
                   demonstration project involving locality pay. But a comprehensive
                   approach to this problem has not to date been undertaken.

                   To study this problem and develop solutions, the Commission conducted
                   detailed surveys of federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel.
                   In addition, pay and benefits data were collected for a wide variety of
                   law enforcement positions and comparisons drawn. Relevant practices,
                   policies, and procedures were also reviewed. Pay information from 1989
                   is used throughout this report to ensure uniformity with the 1989 state
                   and local pay data gathered in the course of the study.


                   The Commission’s study showed that federal pay is too low at the entry
Results in Brief   level when compared with what state and local law enforcement person-
                   nel are paid. Pay is also too low for many federal law enforcement per-
                   sonnel in certain high-cost cities. According to federal law enforcement
                   personnel, lack of competitive pay deters qualified people from apply-
                   ing. More than half of all managers and employees surveyed feel this to
                   be true and many law enforcement officials believe it is the main reason
                   law enforcement personnel leave federal service.

                   The Commission also found differences in the premium pay and benefits
                   offered federal law enforcement personnel versus state and local per-
                   sonnel. For example, state and local law enforcement organizations paid
                   time and a half for overtime with few limitations. Only scheduled over-
                   time for employees at ~~-10 and below is paid on this basis by the fed-
                   eral government. State and local governments generally offered


                   Page 9                                           OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                                                                                        ,
                             Executive   Summary




                             comparable or somewhat more generous benefits or paid a higher per-
                             centage of the benefit, except for retirement, than does the federal
                             government.

                             Federal officials believe that, on balance, the federal government is
                             attracting high-quality people but emphasize that it may be more diffi-
                             cult to do this in the future if these compensation problems are not
                             addressed.

                             Many of the compensation problems surfaced in this study apply to all
                             federal employees. Nowever, there are factors that differentiate many
                             law enforcement occupations from other federal positions. These include
                             (1) the hazards and working conditions and (2) the occupations outside
                             the federal government to which they are comparable.

                             The Commission’s recommendations, including the need to increase fed-
                             eral law enforcement starting salaries and introduce locality pay, are
                             designed to remedy the inequalities the Commission’s analysis showed
                             to exist between federal and state and local law enforcement personnel.



Commission Analysis

Significant Pay Gaps Exist   The most serious problem the Commission identified is the significant
                             pay gap between federal and state and local law enforcement, especially
                             at the entry level.

                             Federal law enforcement entry levels for most occupations are GS-5or
                             GS-7, with 1989 salaries of $15,738 or $19,493. Even new Federal
                             Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, who were hired at $26,261 (GS-IO),
                             were lower paid than their state and local counterparts in some cities.

                             The average starting salary for comparable positions in state and local
                             law enforcement is $22,333 in the 100 largest state and local law
                             enforcement organizations responding to our survey. In some large
                             urban areas, starting salaries can exceed $35,000. Over 50 percent of
                             federal law enforcement officers are located in cities where starting pay
                             for local uniformed officers is more than $9,000 above the GS-5 entry
                             pay and $5,000 above the GS-7entry pay. In New York City, meter maids
                             and toll booth collectors earn more than many junior federal officers.



                             Page 10                                          OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
    . -._.-___...
              -~
                           Executive     Summary




                           Compounding these pay disparities is the fact that for the state and
                           local law enforcement positions, usually a college degree is not required
                           to start. For federal law enforcement positions, a college degree is gener-
                           ally required at entry level. Moreover, most state and local law enforce-
                           ment agencies do not require their employees to move for the good of
                           the agency, as do many federal agencies.

                           For all occupational groups, state and local salaries varied by region,
                           and thus so did disparities. The lowest salaries reported were in the
                           South, Southwest, and rural areas in the Midwest. The highest reported
                           salaries were in California, New York, Washington State, New Jersey,
                           and Massachusetts. Shown in table 1 is a comparison of starting pay for
                           state and local law enforcement officers versus a GS-7 federal officer.

Table 1: Entry-Level Pay   0
                                                                                                State/Local
                           City                                              Federal GS-7         minimum         Difference
                           Los Anaeles        CMSA                                    $19.493       $31.627           $12,134
                           Boston      CMSA                                            19,493         31,413
                                                                                                .________.~~_            11,920
                                                                                                                    ~-~-...~~~-
                           Washington,        DC MSA                                   19,493         25,996               6,503
                           New York CMSA                                               19.493        26.660               7.167

                           Note: CMSA = Consolidated          metropolitan   statistical area
                           MSA = Metropolitan        statistical area.


                           Figure 1 compares entry salaries by functional work area. The group-
                           ings shown are (1) uniformed officers, police for the most part, (2) non-
                           uniformed officers, criminal investigators being the largest category, (3)
                           correction officers, employed in federal and state prison systems, and
                           (4) probation officers. The state and local law enforcement salaries are
                           average salaries for each specific area.




                           Page 11                                                              OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement     Pay
                                         Executive     Summary




Figure 1: Entry-Level Salaries-Federal
vs.State and Local by Law Enforcement
                                         35     Dollars in Thousands
Occupational Grouping




                                         Entry Salarlee by Work Area

                                                1       1 Federal
                                                          state 6 Local

                                         Sources: Federal Pay and Benefits Survey and State and Local Survey performed by National
                                         Advisory Commission on Law Enforcement.


                                         Table 2 shows that some federal entry-level salaries are below the state
                                         and local weighted average.

Table 2: Federal Entry-Level Salaries
Below State and Local Weighted                                                                                            Percent that salary is
Average, 1989                                                                                                             below state and local
                                                                                 1988 new hires                              combined average
                                         Grade                                        (Dercentl             Salary                    ($22,333)
                                         GS-3                                                 .2          $12,531                             44
                                                                                                                    -..
                                         GS-5                                                36    --       15,738
                                                                                                        ~__I__._---.-._                     .-~-29
                                         GS-6                                                15             17.542                              21
                                         GS-7                                                19             19,493                                13
                                                                     -~-~ ---.      --
                                         Dipiom.     Security                                 .8            19,693                                12




                                         Page 12                                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
                           Executive   Summary




                           Pay disparity diminishes somewhat as experience increases, but is still
                           significant at full performance levels in certain geographic areas. In the
                           uniformed officer and correctional officer categories, the full perform-
                           ance salaries of federal officers are lower, on average, than comparable
                           positions in state and local organizations. In the non-uniformed officer
                           category, federal full performance salaries slightly exceed state and
                           local salaries. The probation officer category showed a higher federal
                           full performance salary when contrasted with comparable state and
                           local positions.

                           Significant pay gaps were found in certain high-wage areas, with state
                           and local salaries being 10 to 15 percent greater for all types of federal
                           law enforcement.

                           Federal law enforcement personnel are concerned about these pay dis-
                           parities and the resultant problems. In the Commission’s survey of 4,600
                           employees, 70 percent cited low pay combined with the cost of living in
                           their assigned area as a major problem. Fifty-two percent of these
                           employees said that state and local law enforcement agencies paid more
                           and 68 percent said that private sector employees were paid more for
                           similar jobs. In most of the 29 focus groups held as part of this study,
                           pay disparity was described as a major limitation and disadvantage of
                           federal law enforcement work. According to many of those surveyed,
                           pay disparity seriously detracts from the desirability of a federal law
                           enforcement career.


Recruiting and Retention   Officials from the majority of federal law enforcement agencies involved
Concerns Exist             in this study said they had recruiting and retention problems.

                           In recruiting, the problem was seen primarily at the regional and local
                           level as opposed to a problem of national scope. Agency officials partic-
                           ularly cited the high-cost areas as difficult for recruitment. When asked
                           to identify the factors most responsible for this problem, the agencies
                           overwhelmingly cited pay as the most important. Specifically, the inabil-
                           ity of federal salaries to offset the cost of living and pay disparities with
                           the state and local law enforcement employees was felt to be the most
                           problematic. It should be noted that many of the agencies surveyed do
                           not have sufficient data related to the number, quality, and back-
                           grounds of applicants for law enforcement positions, or difficulty expe-
                           rienced in filling vacancies, such as refusal rates and quality of
                           applicants.



                           Page 13                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
      Executive   Summary




---
      The Commission interviewed 102 federal agency law enforcement offi-
      cials (each of these represented a different agency or geographic loca-
      tion), and 69 of them said they had recruitment problems. Problems
      were reported to be more severe in the cities of Los Angeles; New York;
      Washington, DC; Boston; San Francisco; and Miami.

      All agencies citing recruiting problems noted them at the entry level and
      some reported them at full performance levels, with the entry level situ-
      ation being the most critical. Many agencies reported that they actively
      recruit only at the entry level.

      Agencies from all of the regions studied reported problems recruiting
      employees in various minority groups. Officials had the most difficulty
      in recruiting Hispanics, Afro-Americans, and Asians.

      Many agencies indicated that they needed individuals with language,
      computer, accounting, and legal skills, but that these individuals were
      difficult to recruit because they typically could earn better salaries in
      the private sector.

      In addition to the these current problems, a potential problem was cited.
      There was a recognition that given the drug war, expansion of the
      prison population, and increased retirements, demands for new law
      enforcement employees will increase.

      Seventy of 102 officials said they had retention problems. While the
      overall 5-percent turnover rate for federal law enforcement is not high,
      certain locations, occupations, and groups of employees are affected
      more than others. Many officials reporting retention problems indicated
      that most individuals leaving the agency were not leaving law enforce-
      ment but were accepting positions in other federal, state, and local law
      enforcement agencies for better pay and benefits or to relocate to a
      lower cost of living area.

      Certain agencies have particularly serious retention problems. These
      include the Border Patrol, which loses approximately 40 percent of its
      entry level employees in the first year (primarily because new agents
      are not able to master Spanish), and the Bureau of Prisons, which loses
      approximately 30 percent of its correctional officers in the first year.
      Factors other than pay alone may play a role in these problems.

      A potential recruiting and retention problem exists because a significant
      number of law enforcement officers will be eligible to retire in the next 4


      Page 14                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                           Executive   Summary




                           to 6 years: over 30 percent of Bureau of Prisons managers and 40 per-
                           cent of FBI agents will be eligible by 1995, and by 1993,35 percent of
                           Secret Service agents will be eligible for retirement. The Commission’s
                           employee survey indicates that almost 52 percent of federal law
                           enforcement personnel plan to retire as soon as they become eligible.


Differences Exist in the   Significant differences exist in the use of overtime among federal agen-
lJse of Overtime           ties surveyed. These differences exist between and among federal agen-
                           cies, and in comparison with state and local law enforcement agencies.

                           Currently, some federal law enforcement officers receive only Adminis-
                           tratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO), while others receive AUO or
                           Scheduled Overtime pay depending upon the circumstances. Another
                           group receives Scheduled Overtime pay but does not receive AUO, and a
                           few law enforcement officers do not receive any type of overtime com-
                           pensation. The same type of activity may receive one treatment in a cer-
                           tain agency and different treatment in another.

                           AIJOpayments to federal officers cannot exceed 25 percent of their
                           actual grade starting in October 1990. But scheduled overtime is limited
                           to the grade 10 step 1 time-and-a-half calculation. Either type of over-
                           time may be paid only to the extent that it does not cause the employee’s
                           pay for any pay period to exceed the maximum rate for ~~-15. Most
                           state and local organizations pay their personnel l-1/2 times their actual
                           hourly rate with no specific caps on the total. Even when federal and
                           local officers are working on joint task forces or cooperative projects,
                           they are compensated differently for many overtime activities. Specifi-
                           cally, 89 percent of our state and local respondents provide overtime
                           pay. Of those providing overtime pay, 94 percent pay time and a half
                           for all overtime hours worked. Ninety-three percent indicated there is
                           no limit on the amount of overtime pay an employee can receive.

      -.
Housing Costs Place a      Many federal law enforcement employees, as contrasted with their state
Severe Hurden              and local counterparts, are subject to directed transfers and are conse-
                           quently feeling the burden of increased housing costs. Fifty-nine percent
                           of the employees surveyed in this study have had at least one transfer.

                           The single greatest component in cost of living increases was housing.
                           Whereas composite cost of living differences between high-cost areas




                           Page 16                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                          Executive   Summary




                                          and a national average did not exceed 40 percent, housing cost differ-
                                          ences between an average city and a high-cost area exceeded 100 per-
                                          cent in several cases.

                                          The areas where housing costs are the highest and have had the greatest
                                          impact are New York; San Francisco; Boston; Los Angeles; San Diego;
                                          Washington, DC; and Chicago. The number of federal law enforcement
                                          personnel employed in these areas exceeds 15,000; ranging from about
                                          800 in the Boston area to over 5,200 in Washington, DC. Figure 2 gives
                                          an overview of housing costs in high-cost areas.


Figure 2: Relocation Payments-Cost   of
Housing in Certain High-Cost Areas
                                          300   Percent of National Average Price of Houses




                                          200


                                          150


                                          100


                                           50


                                            0




                                          Certain Citlea Above National Average by 100%

                                          Data represent actual prices paid for the third quarter, 1989. The average price was $95,000.

                                          Sources: National Association of Realtors, California Association of Realtors.


                                          In the Commission’s agency interviews, employee and organization
                                          surveys, and numerous focus groups, the majority of participants cited
                                          the many adverse effects of these high cost of living areas on federal
                                          employment. These include (1) an inability to afford adequate housing,



                                          Page 18                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement    Pay
                                  Executive   Summary




                              (2) reluctance of employees to transfer to these areas, (3) increasing
                              commutes for federal law enforcement personnel due to an inability to
                              afford housing, (4) the difficulty in recruiting in high-cost areas, and (5)
                              the reluctance of employees to stay in these areas.


Significant Differences       Other potential problems, differences, or inequities found by the
Exist in Other Areas          surveys include the following:

                          . In almost all categories, federal employee benefits for law enforcement
                            are comparable to or slightly lower than those benefits provided to their
                            counterparts in state and local law enforcement agencies. In addition,
                            state and local personnel receive these benefits at a lower cost to them.
                            For example:

                              . A majority of the state and local respondents pay the full cost of
                                health insurance for individuals and pay more than 75 percent of the
                                cost of health insurance for family coverage.
                              l Approximately 80 percent of localities pay all of the premiums for life
                                insurance, compared with the 67 percent paid by the federal
                                government.
                              l Commission surveys also found that federal law enforcement person-
                                nel view this disparity as a major problem.

                          . Currently, comparability of pay for federal law enforcement is based on
                            a governmentwide comparison of salaries with the private sector
                            instead of comparisons with state and local law enforcement. This does
                            not present an accurate picture of law enforcement salary needs because
                            most comparable jobs are in state and local organizations, not the pri-
                            vate sector.
                          . Foreign language bonuses are provided in some federal agencies but not
                            in others. Currently, only the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration
                            (DEA), and the State Department are authorized to pay foreign language
                            bonuses for personnel who are required to have proficiency in a foreign
                            language. Interestingly, this requirement in the Border Patrol is a major
                            cause of retention problems. The difficulty of mastering another lan-
                            guage causes many entry-level employees to leave.
                          l Some law enforcement agencies view their lack of full statutory law
                            enforcement authority to make arrests and carry firearms as a major
                            inequity. In the Commission’s surveys of Offices of Inspector General
                            (OIG) and their employees and in focus groups with OIGcriminal investi-
                            gators, this was raised as a major issue affecting recruitment, retention,
                            and morale.


                              Page 17                                            OCG90.2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                           Executive     Summary




                                           The Commission recommends to the President and Congress the follow-
Recommendations                            ing actions, designed to address the federal law enforcement problem.
                                           For those recommendations for which costs could be estimated, direct
                                           costs would be in the range of $141 million to $180 million annually,
                                           exclusive of any benefit costs, such as retirement-related costs.

                                           The Commission’s immediate, or short-term, recommendations are the
                                           following:

                                       . IJpgrade entry-level salaries for federal law enforcement personnel. This
                                         could be accomplished by establishing a special salary scale and using
                                         advanced in-hire rates at the entry-level. The latter allows setting entry
                                         pay at a step higher than step 1 for candidates with superior qualifica-
                                         tions. The proposed entry-level salaries are shown in Table 3. Estimated
                                         annual cost-$60 million to $65 million, based on 1989 federal salary
                                         levels.
            _--
Table 3: Current and Proposed Entry-
Level Salaries                             Current (1989)                               Proposed (1989 Basis)
                                           &-3/l       $12,531          GS-3/l            $16,293   (current   GS-3/10)
                                           GS-4/l      $14,067          GS-4/l            $18,288   (current   GS-4/10)
                                           GS-5/i    $15,738            GS-5/l            $20,463   (current   GS-5/10)
                                           GS-6/l    $17,542            GS-6/l            $21,637   (current   GS-6/8)
                                           GS-7/l    $19,493            GS-7/l            $22,743   (current   GS-7/6)
                                           GS-8/l    521,590            GS-8/i            $24,470   (current   GS-8/5)
                                           GS-9/l    $23,846            GS-9/l            526,231   (current   GS-9/4)
                                           GS-10/l      526,261        GS-IO/l            $28,011   (current   GS-10/3)



                                       l   Introduce locality pay differentials (from 5 to 25 percent depending on
                                           the city) to alleviate the pay disparities facing federal officers in high-
                                           wage areas. Locality pay should be based on salary comparisons with
                                           state and local officers as well as cost of living and implemented using
                                           flat-rate differentials. Under a model to illustrate the Commission’s pro-
                                           posal, law enforcement personnel in the following cities, at a minimum,
                                           would receive locality pay: Boston, Chicago, Denver, Fresno, Los Ange-
                                           les, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, Portland, San Diego, San Fran-
                                           cisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. See Table 7.2 for more information
                                           on this recommendation. Estimated annual cost-$50 million to $75
                                           million.




                                           Page 18                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement     Pay
    Executive   Summary




l Provide relocation payments using market-sensitive housing bonuses in
  high-cost areas. The bonus would be taxable and would apply to trans-
  fers for the benefit of the government, including transfers for promo-
  tions. Whereas locality pay would be paid to everyone working in a
  certain locality, the relocation payment would be given to only directed
  transfers into a city or area. Estimated annual cost-$26 million to $34
  million.
l Develop a consistent policy for all federal law enforcement agencies
  regarding overtime pay. One alternative would be to tie the rate to the
  individual’s base salary. Law enforcement personnel should be paid for
  extra hours they must work to effectively carry out their jobs. Esti-
  mated annual cost-$6 million.
l Ensure that foreign language bonuses be made available for all federal
  law enforcement officers who are required to speak a foreign language.
  Such bonuses could provide an incentive for employees to learn foreign
  languages needed for their jobs and to reduce turnover. Estimated
  cost-not available.
- IIave OPM and law enforcement agencies collect better and more compre-
  hensive recruitment and retention data. This will allow these agencies
  and other interested parties to better assess performance in this regard.
  Estimated cost-not available.

    Over the long term, the Commission recommends that a new pay system
    for federal law enforcement be studied. This system could use the cur-
    rent General Schedule classification system or a new job evaluation sys-
    tem. In either case, the system could incorporate the other
    recommendations previously discussed. A new pay system would allow
    for direct comparison of federal law enforcement pay levels with those
    of their state and local counterparts.

    The Commission is not recommending any major changes in the benefits
    area. Although state and local law enforcement agencies offer enhanced
    benefits in some areas, in others they are comparable with federal bene-
    fits. Given the seriousness of the government’s fiscal situation and the
    equity principle that federal benefits should be generally consistent for
    all employees, the Commission decided to make no major recommenda-
    tions in the benefits area.

    If the Commission’s recommendations are to be successfully imple-
    mented, Congress and the agencies need to ensure that sufficient funds
    arc available.




    Page 19                                          OCGW-2   Law Enforcement   Pay
    Executive   Summary




    A complete discussion of the Commission’s 16 recommendations is in
    Chapter 7.




Y




    Page 20                                       OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Y




    Page 21   OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                                                                         I




~--




Contents


Commissioners of the                                                                               4
National Advisory       Commission Chairman                                                        4
                        Members
Commission on Law
Enforcement
Executive Summary                                                                                  8
Chapter 1                                                                                        30
Introduction            Overview of Federal Law Enforcement                                      30
                        Brief History of Federal Law Enforcement                                 34
                        Changing Nature of the Work                                              35
                        Objectives, Scope, and Methodology                                       38

Chapter 2                                                                                        40
Compensation            Bistory of Federal Compensation Practices                                40
                        Classification Problems Specific to Law Enforcement                      42
Practices Affecting     Studies of Law Enforcement Pay and Classification                        43
Federal Law
Enforcement Officers
Chapter 3                                                                                        45
Comparison of Duties,   Introduction                                                             45
                        Job Comparability Study                                                  45
Responsibilities, and   Nature of Law Enforcement Work                                           46
Qualifications          Comparability of Duties                                                  48
                        Qualifications Requirements                                              49
                        Conclusion                                                               50

Chapter 4                                                                                        53
Comparison of Pay       Federal Pay System                                                       54
                        State and Local Pay Systems                                              57
                        Wage Progression and Longevity Pay                                       57
                        Entry-Level Pay                                                          59
                        Full Performance Level Pay                                               63
                        Geographic Differences in Pay                                            65
                        Overtime Compensation                                                    67
               Y
                        Other Premium Pay                                                        69
                        Conclusion                                                               70



                        Page 22                                        OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
  ,
                        Contents




Chapter 5                                                                                       72
Benefits                Health Benefits                                                         73
                        Retirement Benefits                                                     74
                        Other Retirement Benefits                                               76
                        Leave and Paid Holidays                                                 77
                        Allowances                                                              77
                        Other Benefits                                                          78
                        Conclusion                                                              82

Chapter 6                                                                                        86
Recruitment,            Recruitment                                                              87
                                                                                                 95
Retention, and Morale   E$falzon                                                                104
                        Conclusions                                                             108

Chapter ‘7                                                                                      111
Recommendations         Improve Entry-Level Salaries                                            111
                        Establish a Locality Pay Differential                                   114
                        Provide Relocation Payments                                             118
                        Explore Feasibility of a New Compensation System for                    119
                             Law Enforcement
                        Change Premium Pay Compensation                                         121
                        Provide a Foreign Language Bonus                                        121
                        Improve Selected Retirement Issues                                      122
                        Collect New Statistics                                                  123
                        Differences in Law Enforcement Authority Could Be                       123
                             Studied
                        Improve Uniform Policies                                                124
                        Examine Working Conditions and Collect Statistics                       124
                        Provide New Appropriations                                              125
                        Implementing Recommendations                                            125

Appendixes              Appendix I: Detailed Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
                        Appendix II: Brief History of Federal Law Enforcement
                        Appendix III: Federal Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits
                            Survey
                        Appendix IV: State and Local Law Enforcement Pay and                    190
                            Benefits Survey
                        Appendix V: Compensation of Law Enforcement Positions                   204
                            in the Federal Bureau of Prisions



                        Page 23                                       OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
         Contents




         Appendix VI: Additional Data for Comparison of Federal                    218
             and State and Local Law Enforcement Retirement
             Benefits
         Appendix VII: Staff of the National Advisory Commission                   222
             on Law Enforcement
         Appendix VIII: Additional Views of Commissioners                          223

Tables   Table 1: Entry-Level Pay                                                   11
         Table 2: Federal Entry-Level Salaries Below State and                      12
             Local Weighted Average, 1989
         Table 3: Current and Proposed Entry-Level Salaries                         18
         Table 1.1: Number of Law Enforcement Employees by                          32
             Occupation and Agency
         Table 4.1: Comparison of Wage Progression and                              58
             Longevity Increases
         Table 4.2: Federal Entry-Level Salaries Below State and                    61
             Local Weighted Average
         Table 4.3: Comparison of Entry-Level Salaries                              62
         Table 4.4: Comparison of Federal With Average State and                    63
             Local Entry-Level Salaries in 98 Cities Where Federal
             Law Enforcement Officers Are Assigned
         Table 4.5: Full Performance Level Salary Comparisons                       64
         Table 4.6: Salary Comparisons                                              66
         Table 5.1: How the Federal Employer Ranks When Level                       72
             and Cost to Employees of Benefits Are Compared
             With State and Local Plans
         Table 5.2: Comparison of Retirement Benefits as a                          75
             Percentage of Final Salary
         Table 5.3: Comparison of Total Number of Paid Holidays                     77
             and Annual Leave
         Table 5.4: Life Insurance Benefits                                         80
         Table 5.5: Value of Increased Benefits to a Correctional                   81
             Officer at GS-7, Step 1
         Table 5.6 Value of Increased Benefits to a Special Agent                   82
             at GS-13, Step 1
         Table 6.1: Factors of Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction of                     105
             Federal Law Enforcement Officers
         Table 7.1: Current and Proposed Entry-Level Salaries                      113
         Table 7.2: Locality Pay for Federal Law Enforcement                       116
             Officers to Pay the Index Amount Rounded Down to
             the Nearest 5 Percent




         Page 24                                         OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Content5




Table 7.3: Cost Estimates for Major NACLE                               125
     Recommendations
Table 7.4: Illustrative Compensation Increase Per                       126
    Commission Recommendation and H.R. 215
Table I. 1: Focus Group Composition                                     133
Table 1.2: Employee Survey                                              135
Table 1.3: Federal Agency Management Interviews                         140
Table 111.1:Number of Law Enforcement Employees by                      154
    Occupation and Agency
Table 111.2:Special Salary Rates                                        157
Table 111.3:Entry-Level Grades and Salaries-General                     160
    Schedule
Table 111.4:Entry-Level Grade and Salaries-Other                        164
Table 111.5:Entry-Level Rates Outside of the General                    165
    Schedule
Table 111.6:Calendar Year 1988 Federal Law Enforcement                  166
    Hires by Grade Level
Table 111.7:Federal Law Enforcement Hires by                            166
    Organization
Table 111.8:Entry And Full Performance Level Salaries                   168
    and Overtime
Table III.9 : Full Performance Grade Levels                             174
Table III. 10: Distribution of Federal Law Enforcement                  176
    Full Performance Levels
Table III. 11: Pay Differentials                                        177
Table III. 12: Number and Average Age of Law                            181
    Enforcement Retirees by Fiscal Year
Table III. 13: Other Benefits                                           182
Table IV. 1: Number of State and Local Responses and                    191
    Employees in Each Job Category
Table IV.2: State and Local Law Enforcement Pay                         191
    Systems
Table IV.3: Qualifications Required for New Hires                       191
Table IV.4: State and Local Responses                                   192
Table IV.5: Weighted Mean Minimum, Maximum, and                         194
    Midpoint Entry-Level Salaries for MSASWith 40 or
    More Federal Employees
Table IV.6 : Weighted Mean Minimum, Maximum, and                        197
    Midpoint Full Performance Level Salaries for MSAs
    With 40 or More Federal Employees
Table IV.7: Overtime Pay                                                200
Table IV.8: State and Local Pay and Benefits Survey-                    201
    Pay Differentials


Page 25                                       OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
          Table IV.9: State and Local Pay and Benefits Survey-                       201
              Those Respondents Not Providing Longevity Pay
          Table V. 1: Comparison of Bureau of Prisons’ Salaries                      215
              With State Departments of Corrections Salaries, 1989
          Table V.2: Comparison of Bureau of Prisons’ Salaries                       216
              With Private Industry Salaries, 1989
          Table V.3: Comparison of Entry-Level Salaries                              217
          Table VI. 1: Comparison of Contribution Rates Including                    218
              Social Security
          Table VI.2: Comparison of FERS Benefits With Additional                    219
              Thrift Fund Contributions
          Table VI.3: Estimated Effect of Inflation on Retirement                    220
              Benefits

Figures   Figure 1: Entry-Level Salaries-Federal vs. State and                        12
               Local by Law Enforcement Occupational Grouping
          Figure 2: Relocation Payments-Cost of Housing in                            16
               Certain High-Cost Areas
          Figure 1.1: Federal Prison System-Offense Profiles                          37
          Figure 3.1: Breakdown of Federal Law Enforcement                            46
               Universe as of January 1989 by Occupational
               Grouping
          Figure 4.1: Entry-Level Salary Comparison-Federal,                          53
               State, and Local and College Graduates
          Figure 6.1: Federal Field Management Interviews-                            88
               Recruitment
          Figure 6.2: Federal Field Management Interviews-                            89
               Recruitment of Minority Groups and Females
          Figure 6.3: Federal Field Management Interviews-                            90
               Recruitment of Specialty Positions
          Figure 6.4: Headquarters Officials’ Perception of Factors                   91
               Adversely Affecting Federal Law Enforcement
               Internal Staffing
          Figure 6.5: Headquarters Officials’ Perception of Staffing                  92
               Problem Effects on Agency Operations
          Figure 6.6: Headquarters Officials’ Perception of Factors                   93
               Adversely Affecting Federal Law Enforcement
               Recruitment
          Figure 6.7: Federal Field Management Interviews-                            96
               Retention
          Figure 6.8: Federal Field Management Interviews-                            97
               Retention of Minority Groups and Female


          Page 26                                           OCG-W2 Law Enforcement   Pay
--~.-..-~_
       .                                                                                      /
             Content8




             Figure 6.9: Federal Field Management Interviews-                            98
                  Retention of Specialty Positions
             Figure 6.10: Age Ranges of Federal Law Enforcement                          99
                  Officers
             Figure 6.11: Federal Law Enforcement Officers-Plans to                     100
                  Leave Federal Law Enforcement
             Figure 6.12: Headquarters Officials’ Perceptions of                        101
                  Primary Agency Objectives of Directed Transfer
                  Policy
             Figure 6.13: Headquarters Officials’ Perception of Factors                 103
                  Adversely Affecting Federal Law Enforcement
                  Retention
             Figure 6.14: Headquarters Officials’ Perception of                         109
                  Significance of Recruitment and Retention Problems
             Figure V.l: I3reakdown of Bureau of Prisons Staff Size as                  204
                  of 1 l/27/89 by Occupation
             Figure V.2: Federal Bureau of Prisons Cumulative                           207
                  Turnover Rates From 1980-87 by Years of Service
             Figure V.3: Housing Costs and Turnover Rates                               209




             Page 27                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Chntents




Abbreviations

AFA        Alternate Form of Annuity
AIDS       acquired immune deficiency syndrome
ATF        Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
AU0        administratively uncontrollable overtime
HOI’       Bureau of Prisons
COLA       cost of living adjustment
CMSA       consolidated metropolitan statistical area
WI         Consumer Price Index
CSRS       Civil Service Retirement System
DEA        Drug Enforcement Agency
FBI        Federal Bureau of Investigation
FECA       Federal Employees Compensation Act
FEGLI      Federal Employees Group Life Insurance
FIILU      Federal Home Loan Bank Board
FERS       Federal Employee Retirement System
FIB        Factor Evaluation System
GS         General Schedule
ICMA       International City Managers Association
INS        Immigration and Naturalization Service
IRS        Internal Revenue Service
MSA        metropolitan statistical area
NACLE      National Advisory Commission on Law Enforcement
OIG        Office of the Inspector General
OPM        Office of Personnel Management
&ES        Quantitative Evaluation System
IJSMS      U.S. Marshals Service


Page 28                                       OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Y




    Page 29   OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Chapter 1

Introduction              -


                      The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690, Sec. 6160) cre-
                      ated the National Advisory Commission on Law Enforcement (NACLE) to
                      study

                      “...the methods and rates of compensation, including salary, overtime pay, retire-
                      ment policies, and other benefits of law enforcement officers in all federal agencies,
                      as well as the methods and rates of compensation of state and local law enforcement
                      officers in a representative number of areas where federal law enforcement officers
                      are assigned...”


                      The statute limited the scope of the Commission’s study to include those
Overview of Federal   employees covered by the special retirement provisions for law enforce-
Law Enforcement       ment officers. Using this definition, this study covers approximately
                      56,700 civilian employees in 34 federal departments and agencies and
                      245 occupational categories as of March 1989. The number of law
                      enforcement employees is rapidly increasing, primarily because of the
                      war on drugs and the resulting expansion of the prison system.

                      Table 1.1 shows the number of law enforcement employees by occupa-
                      tional category and agency. The Departments of Justice and the Trea-
                      sury together account for almost 85 percent of the total federal law
                      enforcement workforce. As of March 1989, Justice employed 35,014 law
                      enforcement personnel doing such varied work as (1) foreign counter-
                      intelligence (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]), (2) undercover
                      assignments to investigate major drug dealers (Drug Enforcement
                      Administration [DEA]), (3) detection and apprehension of illegal aliens
                      crossing the U.S. borders from Mexico and Canada (Border Patrol, Immi-
                      gration and Naturalization Service [INS]), (4) the detention, control, and
                      rehabilitation of inmates in 60 correctional institutions nationwide
                      (Bureau of Prisons [sorl), and (5) protection of the courts and court per-
                      sonnel and fugitive investigations (U.S. Marshals Service).




                      Page 30                                                   OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Chapter 1
Introduction




Page 31        OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                                                                                                                          .
                                         Chapter 1
                                         Introduction




Table
-~..--. 1.1: Number of Law Enforcement Employees by Occupation and Agency
                                                                                                                                    Treasury
                                                             4:           0:;     165:                                Postal       uniformed
                                                                                                Probation         inspector          division
JUSTICE                                                     15,581       5,653    4,209
TREASURY                                                    10,494                                                                        1,010
U S. COURTS                                                                                         2,390
POSTAL SERVICE                                                                                                             1,902
                                                                                                                       -.--~~      -...       -.~~~~
INTERIOR                                                       176 -- -~~-
NAVY                                                         1,077
STATE                                                             35
AGRICULTURE                                                    389
DOD                                                            309
HHS                                                            273
COMMERCE                                                       103
LABOR                                                          179
GSA                                                            105
EPA                                                               97
HUD                                                               80
AIR FORCE                                                         70
VETERANS     AFFAIRS                                              66
TRANSPORTATION                                                    62
DEPT     OF EDUCATION                                             57
NRC                                                               45
NASA                                                              38                                        ---~___.
SMALL     BUSINESS   ADMIN.                                       37
ENERGY                                                            26
GAO                                                               25
INTER     DEV. COOP. AGY                                          25
RAILROAD
FEMA         RETIREMENT       BD.                            ~~. ,.15 . -~_~~~~           ~~~

GPO                                                                8
USIA                                                                 6
SMITHSONIAN     INST.                                                4
EEOC                                                                 3
SECURITIES    8 EXCH. COMM.                                          3
FHLBB                                                                1
ARMY
Total:                                                     29,399        5,653    4,209             2,390                1,902            1,010




                                          Page 32                                                           OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement            Pay
                                      Chapter 1
                                      Introduction




      State
diplomatic          Interior park        GS
   security   0::           police     1802      18::             OGSX 2%                 6:        18::         18:;           Other Total
              676                        572    . 331
                                ~. _~.. _~ ...._~~                467    66           -                                         7,459a
                                                                                                                                    35,014
                                                  147                   297                   104                                   12,052
                                                                                                                                    -__.
                                         ..~ .- -_..                                                               ___-              2,390
                                                                                                                                  ____.
                                                                                                                                      1,902
                              638                                                   298                                               1,112
                                                                                                                                      1,077
                                                                                                                                     --.-
       805                                                                                                                  -__-. 840     -_
                                                                                                            ________.__                 389
                                                     1
                                     _ .~~~ _~...~~~~-                                 .-________---                                    310
                                                                                                                                        273
                                                                                                         90                 ----~       193  -
                                                                                                                                        179
                                                                                                                                        105
                                                                                                                                            98
                                                     1                 ..__-                                                 ._____~ 80-.
                                                                                     15                                                    85
                                                                                                                                           66
                                                                 -~-~ .__.i_                                                               62
                                                                                                                                          --57
                                                              ..- .~__---       ~__.                                          --.          45
                                                                  --~~ ..--                                                -__.__- 38
                                                                    __.     .~ _____-                          -__         ____..__ 37
                                                                  --~ ____                                                                 26
                                                                                     .______                            ~--___         -- 25
                                                                                                                                           25
                                                                                                                       _..____~~            15
                                                                                                           ___--.                           10
                                                                         __.--                               -.___--.-                        8
                                                            -...-. -___                                          ~~            ___..----- 6
                                                                          .____-                     ________                                 4
                                                                                                  _________-                    ..-- __ 3
                                                  ...~~ .~__ . -.___-         ___^-                           _____.           __._~ 3
                                                           .-__--                                        _____-.-                             1
                                                              ~___
                                                                                      .---                    __
                                                                                                                       191T--191
       805    676             638      572       480         467          363       313       104        90         7,650           56,721
                                      “Less-traditional   law enforcement   positions in BOP.
                                      “Less-traditional   law enforcement   positions at Ft. Leavenworth   Disciplinary Barracks.




                                      Page 33                                                                    OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                   Chapter 1
                   Introduction




                   Treasury employs over 12,000 law enforcement officers, primarily crim-
                   inal investigators involved in the investigation and apprehension of indi-
                   viduals suspected of criminal activities such as (1) counterfeiting and
                   credit card fraud (Secret Service), (2) criminal tax fraud and money
                   laundering (Internal Revenue Service [IRS]), (3) smuggling of all kinds of
                   contraband including drugs (Customs Service), and (4) violations of fed-
                   eral firearms, liquor, and tobacco laws (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
                   Firearms [ATF]). Secret Service special agents and officers of the Uni-
                   formed Division of the Secret Service also protect the President and Vice
                   President and their families, visiting heads of foreign governments and
                   their spouses, the White House complex, and foreign diplomatic
                   missions.

                   Other organizations with significant numbers of law enforcement
                   employees include the U.S. Courts with 2,390 probation and pretrial ser-
                   vices officers; the U.S. Postal Service with 1,902 postal inspectors (crim-
                   inal investigators); the Department of the Interior with 638 employees
                   in the Park Police, 298 members of the Bureau of Indian Affairs police
                   force, and 176 criminal investigators; and the Naval Investigative Ser-
                   vice with 1,077 criminal investigators. Offices of the Inspectors General
                   in 24 agencies account for an additional 1,900 criminal investigators.


                   Federal law enforcement began in 1789 with the creation of the Mar-
Brief History of   shals Service, the Customs Service, and the Treasury Police. Concern for
Federal Law        the safety of the mail and currency, the need to collect import duties to
Enforcement        finance the government, and the effort to thwart smuggling activities
                   were “national” problems that crossed state and local boundaries.
                   Throughout the 19th century, the Marshals and a small number of “fed-
                   eral agents” in the Treasury Department and Post Office dealt with a
                   variety of crimes and subversive activities. Pay for the Marshals con-
                   sisted of fees and bounty; they did not receive a salary until 1896. The
                   Secret Service, created in 1865, paid its agents $4 to $6 a day.

                   The growth of federal law enforcement was evolutionary. New agencies
                   appeared in response to new laws and expanding jurisdictions for fed-
                   eral officers. For example, the FBI was created in 1908 to be the investi-
                   gative force of the Department of Justice. The IRS criminal investigators
                   were created in 1919 in the Bureau of Internal Revenue. In 1924, the
                   I7.S. Border Patrol was officially formed from a small force of mounted
                   guards who patrolled the Mexican border. In 1930, HOPwas established.




                   Page 34                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
    .
                     Chapter 1
                     Introduction




-
                     More recently, in the 1970s ATF, DEA, and the criminal investigators of
                     the Offices of the Inspectors General were added.1


                     That fledgling group          has evolved in 200 years into a highly trained and
Changing Nature of   professional force of         more than 50,000 career federal law enforcement
the Work             officers in more than         34 federal agencies, some with worldwide opera-
                     tions. They comprise          approximately 5 percent of the entire federal
                     workforce today.

                     Early federal law enforcement concerned itself with such matters as
                     fugitives, counterfeiting, bankruptcy fraud, and general police and cor-
                     rections activity. During the “gangster” era of the 1920s and 1930s a
                     series of federal anticrime laws broadened the jurisdiction of federal law
                     enforcement into such areas as kidnapping, telephone extortion, and
                     bank robbery. The war years of the 1940s involved federal agents in
                     investigations of espionage, sabotage, neutrality laws violations, and
                     military procurement frauds. The 1950s and 1960s brought an enor-
                     mous increase in serious crime as federal law enforcement confronted
                     organized crime and civil unrest.

                     The 1970s marked the beginning of a new era for federal law enforce-
                     ment with the emergence of the computer age, international terrorism,
                     and drug cartels. The “white collar” criminal evolved, a criminal who
                     dressed in a business suit, carried a briefcase, and was intelligent
                     enough to strain the limits of federal law enforcement. The use of terror-
                     ism to advance political and religious causes throughout the world
                     placed new demands and dangers on federal law enforcement. The rapid
                     growth of worldwide illegal drug use gave rise to huge and powerful
                     drug cartels that had influence and strength to rival some countries’
                     governments themselves and presented a formidable challenge to fed-
                     eral law enforcement.

                     As the 1980s come to an end, federal law enforcement officers face a
                     mission far more demanding and far more dangerous than ever before.
                     For the period of 1984 to 1988 alone, 3,533 federal officers were
                     assaulted in some way, including 16 federal officers who were killed.

                     One of the major dangers confronting federal law enforcement today is
                     the proliferation of criminal organizations. These range from organized

                     ’ Appendix II contains a more detailed history of representative organizations in the federal law
                     cnforccmcnt community.



                     Page 36                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement        Pay
Chapter 1
Introduction




crime to common street gangs. Organized crime has operated in the
United States for the past 50 years, La Cosa Nostra is no longer the only
organized crime group; instead, there is a collage of groups organized for
long-term criminal purposes, and sometimes linking together in powerful
criminal alliances. At other times, the groups compete for the same eco-
nomic turf-particularly    in the drug trade.

Over the past 10 years, U. S. law enforcement agencies have encoun-
tered gangs that traffic drugs, commit violent crimes, and travel freely
from one jurisdiction to another. Changing demographics and an expan-
sive drug market have increased gang recruitment and extended the
reach of the gangs outside of their traditional neighborhoods. The quest
for lucrative drug profits has also pushed these groups to expand into
more sophisticated criminal activities such as money laundering, infil-
tration of legitimate businesses, and political corruption.

These developments are causing huge challenges for the Bureau of Pris-
ons. The prison population is growing at the fastest rate in history (from
 1980 to 1989, the federal prison population doubled), and demographics
of the prisoners is changing. Like the crimes they commit, the prisoners
have become increasingly sophisticated and dangerous. The dangerous
environment in the prisons involves such problems as rising substance
abuse and AIDS. Language barriers due to the growing illegal alien popu-
lation have made day-to-day interaction with prisoners more difficult.
The growing impact of the war on drugs is evident in the composition of
the federal prison population. As shown in Figure 1.1, drug-related
offenses accounted for 26.3 percent of the prison population in 1981 but
increased to 47.5 percent in 1989.




Page 36                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                     Chapter 1
                                     Introduction




Figure 1.l: Federal Prison System-
Offense Profiles
                                     Percent of Violators
                                     60

                                     45

                                     40

                                     35

                                     30

                                     25

                                     20

                                     15

                                     10

                                      5




                                                     1989

                                     Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons


                                     Statutory changes since 1981 and the increase in drug-related criminal
                                     prosecutions have broadened the scope and increased the duties of the
                                     Probation Division of the Administrative Office of the United States
                                     Courts. Federal pretrial and probation officers face technical changes
                                     and workload increases as the result of sentencing guidelines that went
                                     into effect November 1, 1987. Criminal case filings have risen by 56 per-
                                     cent during the 1980s. Drug-related criminal cases, typically involving
                                     multiple defendants, multiple transactions, and complicated factual
                                     issues, require more judicial time and support staff.

                                     The Criminal Fine Enforcement Act of 1984 has made the financial
                                     investigation of offenders more demanding and complex. Probation
                                     officers must also prepare victim impact statements and may also be
                                     required to provide victims with crisis intervention counseling. Today,


                                     Page 37                                          OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                           Chapter 1
                           introduction




                           17,846 offenders receive substance abuse treatment services. Federal
                           probation and pretrial services officers have been delegated authority
                           for first-level contract negotiation and review, which has added to the
                           complexity of their tasks.


                           The objectives of the study were set forth in the law that established
Objectives, Scope, and     NACIE In satisfying requirements of the legislation, the Commission
Methodology                identified those occupations that were included in the scope of the study
                           and developed methodologies to gather both quantitative and qualita-
                           tive data relating to pay and benefits.”

                           The Commission’s work had two main objectives:

                           to study methods and rates of compensation for law enforcement
                           officers in federal, state, and local agencies and
                           to develop recommendations to ensure competitive compensation,
                           enhance ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel, and ensure uni-
                           form compensation practices among federal law enforcement agencies.

                           The scope of the study was limited to those occupations meeting the def-
                           inition of law enforcement officer in Title 5, U. S. Code, Sections
                           8401(17) and 8331(20).

                           Seven major data-gathering activities were undertaken:

                           a federal pay and benefits survey (55 organizations surveyed and 54
                           responses);
                           federal agency recruitment, retention, and morale survey (37 organiza-
                           tions surveyed and all responded);
                           a federal employee questionnaire sent to a random sample of approxi-
                           mately 4,600 employees representing the federal law enforcement uni-
                           verse (85-percent response rate);
                         . federal employee focus groups (29 conducted with 269 personnel from
                           27 organizations);
                            102 federal agency visits in 14 cities around the country;
                           state and local mail survey on pay and benefits sent to 700 organizations
                           (82-percent response rate); and
                           a job comparability study comparing selected federal law enforcement
                           positions to selected state and local law enforcement positions.

                           2Appendix I contains a detailed discussion of the overall objectives, scope, and methodology of the
                           study.



                           Page 38                                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
-.--“---_-_(_--~
        .
                   Chapter 1
                   Introduction




                   We used 1989 pay information throughout this report to ensure uni-
                   formity with the 1989 state and local pay data gathered during the
                   course of the Commission’s study.

                   Approximately 7,300 of the nearly 14,000 covered law enforcement
                   employees in the Bureau of Prisons have as their primary qualifications
                   knowledge and skills other than law enforcement, such as psychologists,
                   physician’s assistants, teachers, secretaries. These employees are cov-
                   ered under the special retirement provisions for law enforcement
                   officers because they have direct and active custody and supervisory
                   responsibilities over inmates. Time constraints made it impractical to
                   study all the various law enforcement positions in BOP. Five BOP occupa-
                   tions-correctional     officer, correctional institution administrator, psy-
                   chologist, accountant, and physician’s assistant-were       included in some
                   of the Commission’s information-gathering activities. The Commission
                   staff requested that BOP study and provide salary information on its
                   most populous positions not included in the Commission’s more inten-
                   sive data gathering.:’

                   In addition, the Commission collected information on INS inspectors and
                   Customs Service inspectors because legislation is pending to include
                   these occupations under the special retirement provisions that define
                   the study universe.l However, these data are not included in our final
                   report because the legislation has not been enacted and these employees
                   are not within the law enforcement definition used in this study.

                   Some information was gathered on occupations with duties closely
                   related to those in the study but not specifically covered under the defi-
                   nition: Capitol police, Library of Congress police, Smithsonian police,
                   Supreme Court police, and Zoo police.




                   ~~1~01”s
                         data are presented in Appendix V.
                   4II.lL 1083 and S. 513., 1Olst Cong., 1st Sess.(1989).



                   Page 39                                                  OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                                                                        *
Chapter 2                ---
CompensationPracticesAffecting Federal Lag
Enforcement Officers

                     Examining the history and development of the government’s pay and
History of Federal   classification policies provides a basis for understanding the current
Compensation         problems with, and potential improvements to, the compensation of fed-
Practices            era1 law enforcement officers,

                     The federal government’s classification and pay policies have tradition-
                     ally emphasized the need for internal alignment (the relationship of jobs
                     within the federal government), with little consideration given to exter-
                     nal alignment (the relationship of federal jobs to similar kinds and levels
                     of work in the non-federal sector). More recently, external alignment has
                     been more important, but internal alignment still predominantly deter-
                     mines the salaries for federal employees.

                     Until 1923, pay for government employees was set first at the discretion
                     of the agency heads, and then by several systems of simple job titles,
                     neither method showing much relationship between pay and the type
                     and level of work. The Classification Act of 1923 first established a for-
                     mal policy supporting systematic internal alignment, which was
                     expressed in the law as “equal pay for equal work” and was based on
                     the grouping of occupations having common characteristics, e.g., educa-
                     tion, job values, and recruiting sources. This act provided for five broad,
                     occupationally based services divided into grades on the basis of the
                     importance, difficulty, responsibility, and value of the work. Occupa-
                     tions were further divided into classes of similar positions. Each service
                     had its own pay plan; however, the appearance of five distinct services
                     concealed the fact that their pay levels were drawn off the same inte-
                     grated pay table, rather than being based on outside pay practices for
                     occupations in those services, Thus, for example, the level 1 junior pro-
                     fessional, the level 5 senior clerical, and the level 6 senior subprofes-
                     sional all had the same salary.

                     The basic classification and salary structure remained static until World
                     War II. From 1945 to 1961, there were nine general pay adjustments,
                     none of which produced a sound salary schedule; instead those adjust-
                     ments provided unequal percentages, with the larger increases going to
                     the lower grades. The combined effect was to create a distorted pay
                     structure with severe compression of intergrade pay differentials.

                     The Classification Act of 1949 comprehensively revised the 1923 act. It
                     abolished the services, establishing the current General Schedule with a
                     single l&grade structure. However, rather than revising the grade
                     structure to reflect nonfederal practices, the new structure force-fit the
                     grades of the old services into a single structure based on existing pay


                     Page 40                                           OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Chapter 2
Compensation    Practices Affecting   Federal
Law Enforcement     Officers




relationships. Thus, the three levels described above, the junior profes-
sional, the senior clerk, and the senior subprofessional, all were con-
verted to GS-5of the new unified schedule.

The 1949 act and subsequent legislation recognized that certain groups
of employees, for a variety of reasons, were not appropriately compen-
sated by the General Schedule and were excluded from its coverage.
More than 30 groups were excluded, including the Postal Field Service;
National Security Agency; Central Intelligence Agency; Foreign Service;
Tennessee Valley Authority; doctors, dentists, and nurses of the Veter-
ans Administrations’s Department of Medicine and Surgery; and the
Public Health Service.

The Salary Reform Act of 1962, the Federal Salary Act of 1967, and the
Pay Comparability Act of 1970 established the comparability principle
as the basis for fixing and adjusting federal salary schedules, provided
salary increases designed to achieve “full comparability” at that point in
time, and established a methodology for maintaining pay comparability
with the private sector. Although these acts emphasized external align-
ment more, they still required a very broad comparison of a monolithic
GSstructure compressed into 15 (usable) grades to an overall pattern of
rates, all occupations considered, on a nationwide basis. However, in
most years since the Pay Comparability Act of 1970, presidents have
used the “alternative plan” feature of the act to delay, reduce, or totally
eliminate the increases required to achieve comparability. Many would
claim that falling further and further behind comparability has exacer-
bated the compression problem, not only in pay but also in grade levels,
by using the classification system, through grade escalation, as an alter-
native means to increase pay in an attempt to compete in the job market.
The data in this report clearly indicate that the pay for federal law
enforcement positions in most cases has not kept pace with pay for state
and local law enforcement pay.

In 1977, the Civil Service Commission began implementing the Factor
Evaluation System (FES),a factor-point classification methodology
designed to make the classification process easier to use and under-
stand. Although the FESintroduced a different set of factors and added
the use of points for each factor and conversion of total points to grades,
the system was designed to replicate precisely the same grade levels
that would be assigned under narrative-type standards. It has taken
many years to develop new standards in the FESformat, and there are
still numerous occupations for which FESstandards have not been pre-
pared, including several of the law enforcement occupations.


Page 41                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                                                                                     .
                          Chapter 2
                          Compensation    Practices Affecting   Federal
                          Law Enforcement     Officers




General Pay Problems      The issue of pay for federal white-collar employees has been studied
Have Been Long-Standing   extensively following the enactment of the General Schedule. A variety
                          of major studies and legislative reviews have been published, including
                          several 1989 studies by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), GAO,
                          and congressionally established task forces and commissions.

                          The various reports and studies have focused on a number of key issues
                          in the pay setting process. These reports confirmed the principle of com-
                          parability as an effective policy to provide a level of pay at which the
                          federal government can compete fairly in the labor market for well qual-
                          ified employees without unnecessary expenditure of the taxpayers’
                          money. Several of the reports also suggested that the government’s pay-
                          setting process should consider the value of benefits as well as basic pay
                          (i.e., total compensation comparability).

                          Various studies recommended breaking up the General Schedule into
                          two or more schedules, e.g., one for professional and administrative
                          occupations and the other for clerical and technical occupations. The
                          pay-setting process would have nationally based rates for the profes-
                          sional/administrative schedule and locality-based rates for clerical and
                          technical employees. Most of the studies further suggested that certain
                          occupations or groups of occupations should not be included in the
                          major schedules, but rather should have specialized pay systems devel-
                          oped for their unique needs.

                          Despite the many reports that have been issued, no action has been
                          taken to resolve the major issues raised. However, at the time this report
                          was prepared, OPMwas looking at the possible implementation of a local-
                          ity pay system and the effect such a change would have on pay compa-
                          rability for federal white collar employees. The results of that study
                          were not yet available.


                          It has often been suggested that the classification and pay system for
Classification            the mainstream federal white-collar occupations may not be appropriate
Problems Specific to      for evaluating and paying certain unique groups of employees. The pro-
Law Enforcement           tective occupations (law enforcement officers and firefighters) have
                          often been cited for separate treatment.

                          There have been various reasons offered as to why the General Sched-
            Y             ule classification system does not adequately evaluate law enforcement
                          work, particularly:



                          Page 42                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
-..~ . .-.. -..-._--._-..
                                Chapter 2
                                Compensation    Practices Affecting   Federal
                                Law Enforcement     Officers




                            l The factors used to evaluate typical white-collar work either do not
                              apply to law enforcement or should be described differently to evaluate
                              law enforcement work properly. For example, the factors that measure
                              responsibility for white-collar work, such as the “Guidelines” and
                              “Supervisory Controls” factors in the FES,do not take into consideration
                              the responsibilities unique to law enforcement, i.e., determining when it
                              is appropriate to use deadly force, considering the rights of the suspect
                              as well as potential injury to innocent bystanders. Law enforcement
                              officers often have guidelines that purport to cover every situation, but
                              in an emergency, the officer must make a split-second decision, without
                              a supervisor’s guidance, as to which, if any, of the guidelines apply. Sim-
                              ilarly, the “Hazard” factor does not consider that law enforcement
                              officers are virtually the only federal employees who must approach or
                              remain in dangerous situations rather than retreat from them. Further,
                              the existing factors do not measure the unusual demands of many law
                              enforcement positions, such as extended and non-standard work hours,
                              directed transfers, frequent temporary duty assignments, and long peri-
                              ods of undercover work in which the employee may have to assume a
                              new identity and lead a totally different lifestyle.
                            . Not only are some of the factors inappropriate to law enforcement work,
                              the weights (used to determine the numerical value of each factor)
                              applied to some if not all of the factors (in the FIB) are also not appropri-
                              ate for the proper evaluation of law enforcement work. For example, the
                              IXS provides a maximum of 50 points each for the Hazards and Working
                              Conditions factors (less than 1 percent of the total points available),
                              which is not enough to increase the grade of a position. Yet law enforce-
                              ment occupations are probably among the most dangerous in the federal
                              service.


                                The following section describes some of the studies on the classification
Studies of Law                  and pay of federal law enforcement:
Enforcement Pay and
Classification -            . Classification and Pay of Federal Protective and Law Enforcement Posi-
                               tions, May 197 1, and Evaluation System for Positions in the Protective
                               Occupations, September 1971 -The Job Evaluation and Pay Review
                               Task Force recommended that protective service occupations should be
                               included in a separate job evaluation and pay plan rather than in a gen-
                              eral plan covering clerical, technical, administrative, and professional
                              workers. The proposed evaluation plan was specifically geared to the
                              job requirements of the protective occupations and the pay was to be set
                              on a locality basis. The FE3was developed based on the work of the job



                                Page 43                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
    Chapter 2
    Compensation    Practices Affecting   Federal
    Law Enforcement    Officers




    evaluation and pay review task force and was implemented for all occu-
    pations covered by the General Schedule.
.   Report to the President of the President’s Panel on Federal Compensa-
    tion, December 1975-The President’s Panel on Federal Compensation
    found that traditional methods and practices of the General Schedule
    pay system had not always proven to be an effective tool for managing
    certain specialized occupations. It recommended authorizing the Execu-
    tive Branch to establish special occupational schedules and personnel
    systems when the regular systems hamper management’s ability to
    recruit and retain a well-qualified workforce.
.   A Federal Position Classification Plan for the 1980s April 1981-The
    Classification Task Force recommended legislation to authorize OPM,
    with the concurrence of OMB, to create special occupational services for
    occupations that cannot be effectively handled within the General
    Schedule system and structure. The Task Force noted that police
    officers and firefighters have often been cited as examples of such
    occupations.
.   Study of Federal Employee Locality Pay, July 1989-The Wyatt Com-
    pany, contracted by OPM,recommended that the General Schedule (1) be
    changed to establish local salary schedules for the clerical, technical,
    and “other” categories (primarily protective), (2) establish a national
    schedule for professional and administrative occupations, and (3) estab-
    lish separate salary programs for law enforcement and other “non-
    white-collar” occupations.
.   Office of Personnel Management-Federal       White-Collar Pay System -
    Report on a Market-Sensitive Study, July 1989-included       an option to
    separate certain occupations from the General Pay System. However,
    the treatment of the occupations included in the “Other” category (pri-
    marily protective services) was deferred to the recommendations com-
    ing from the NACLEstudy.

    Bolstering the contention that at least some kinds of law enforcement
    work are significantly different from white-collar work, the NACLEstate
    and local survey showed that 53 percent of nonfederal uniformed and
    non-uniformed law enforcement organizations (police and criminal
    investigative agencies) had compensation systems separate from those
    for their non-law enforcement workers. On the other hand, a large per-
    centage of correctional and probation employees are covered by the
    standard pay system covering non-law enforcement employees.




    Page 44                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Chapter 3

cdmparison of Duties, Responsibilities,and
Qualifications

                    The Commission contracted a private firm to study the extent to which
Introduction        the work of federal law enforcement officers is comparable to the work
                    of state and local law enforcement officers. In addition, federal agencies
                    and state and local law enforcement organizations completed pay and
                    benefits surveys to compare law enforcement pay, qualifications, and
                    benefits. The contractor found that federal and state and local law
                    enforcement positions are generally comparable, although some duties
                    were found to be more complex than others. In uniformed officer, proba-
                    tion officer, and correctional officer positions, the jobs were essentially
                    equivalent. Duties and responsibilities of federal non-uniformed officer
                    positions generally exceeded state and local non-uniformed officer
                    positions.

                    Analysis of the Commission survey responses revealed that federal posi-
                    tions have generally more stringent qualification requirements than
                    state and local positions, Even in the occupational categories where
                    there is comparability between federal and state and local positions, fed-
                    eral jobs require more education or experience.


                     The contractor used a point factor system of job evaluation to measure
Job Comparability   position comparability. The system measured the following job factors:
Study               job knowledge, job complexity, scope of work, work controls, contacts
                     with others, hazards, physical efforts, unusual demands, supervisory
                     authority, and units supervised. The contractor applied the system to
                     196 federal positions and 83 state and local positions. The positions
                     studied are listed at the end of this chapter. The sample was limited to
                    journey level (full performance level) positions and some senior posi-
                    tions and first line supervisors of journey level work.

                    For the purposes of the study, four categories defined the positions that
                    were reviewed: uniformed officers, non-uniformed officers, probation
                    officers, and correctional officers, Some positions were not easily
                    grouped in their assigned categories. They might have shared some
                    characteristics of the work in the category but also did some unique or
                    unrelated work. Border Patrol, for example, was grouped with uni-
                    formed officers but is actually unique. Foreign counterintelligence inves-
                    tigation in WI involves criminal matters but also involves intelligence
                    objectives that transcend criminal investigation. However, for the pur-
                    poses of a job comparability study between federal and state and local
                    law enforcement positions, the four categories provided a convenient
                    basis for grouping and summarizing the results of the study. Figure 3.1



                    Page 46                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                       Chapter 3
                                       Comparison of Duties, Responsibilities,   and
                                       Qualifications




---.-.._..
                                       illustrates the breakdown of the federal law enforcement workforce
                                       included in these categories.

                                       The 279 positions studied were selected to provide a sample of employ-
                                       ees assigned a broad range of activities within their fields. Nevertheless,
                                       many other positions exist at both the federal and state and local levels
                                       that were not included in the study. Additionally, the study was neces-
                                       sarily restricted in its field survey to the more populous law enforce-
                                       ment series. The study limitations are outlined in Appendix I.


Figure 3.1: Breakdown of Federal Law
Enforcement Universe as of January
1999 by Occupational Grouping                                                              Other law enforcement       occupations:
                                            )                                              9,935*
                                                                                           Uniformed officers: 6,170




                                       Pi       18%


                                                                                           Non-uniformed     officers: 32,573




                                                                                           4%
                                                                                           Probation officers: 2.390

                                                      N                                    Correctional   officers. - 5 ,653
                                       Includes Pilots, Game Law Enforcement, Custom Officers, nearly 200 Bureau of Prisions
                                       occupations with oorreotional responsibilities, end general investigators.
                                       Source: Survey of 34 federal departments and agencies performed by National Advisory
                                       Commission on Law Enforcement.




                                       The contractor made the following observations on the duties and
Nature of Law                          responsibilities of law enforcement in the federal, state, and local
Enforcement Work                       sectors.


                                       Page 46                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement     Pay
I


    Chapter 3
    Comparison     of Duties, Responsibilities,   and
    Qudiflcatiom




    Uniformed officers have duties and working conditions that are essen-
    tially the same, whatever the jurisdiction. They patrol, arrest, cite viola-
    tions, respond to complaints and reports of illegal or disruptive
    activities, control traffic, and attend to emergencies. They typically
    work rotating shifts and are armed and highly trained. There are, how-
    ever, significant differences between police forces as well as differences
    in assignments within police forces. For example, U.S. Park Police see
    less of the violence and dangers of Washington, DC, than the Metropoli-
    tan Police, though the scope of their patrol and arrests involves similar
    issues. Police work in areas with low crime rates involves a different
    range of enforcement than in areas where gang wars rage. The Border
    Patrol, included in the uniformed officer category, apprehend illegal
    aliens. The apprehensions are similar to arrests involving patrol, chase-
    downs, high-speed chases, and grappling. On the other hand, the agent
    also processes such arrests and works rotating shifts. Thus, the jobs
    may be comparable but the working conditions and scope of enforce-
    ment differ.

    Non-uniformed officers include the detectives of state and local police,
    state investigative agencies, and the range of federal criminal investiga-
    tor positions grouped under the current GS 1811 classification series.
    Also included are postal inspectors, diplomatic security agents, and
    detectives in the U.S. Park Police. The contractor found distinctions
    between the nature of the work in state, local, and federal investigations
    but indicated that the work has similarities. Non-uniformed officer work
    usually involves investigating suspected violations of law with the
    objective of criminal prosecution. It involves electronic surveillance, col-
    lection of evidence through interviews, warrants for searches of physi-
    cal evidence or documents, analysis of data and information, judgments
    of probative value, and development of case theories that make prosecu-
    tion or further investigation possible. It further involves arrests of sus-
    pects, and sometimes violent confrontations, including forcible entries.
    The agent ultimately presents the case to the federal, state, or local
    prosecutors, may be required to redevelop the case, and assists the pros-
    ecution in many ways to bring the case to trial and obtain a conviction,
    The investigator may testify to grand juries to seek authority for war-
    rants and indictments, and may testify in court to give evidence. While
    non-uniformed officers in federal as well as state and local law enforce-
    ment have similar duties and responsibilities, the complexity of these
    duties and responsibilities can vary greatly.

    Probation officers include pretrial service officers and probation
    officers. Pretrial service officers work in district courts of the federal


    Page 47                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
--
                     Chapter 3
                     Comparison of Duties, Responsibilities,   and
                     QuslUkations




                      system, investigating accused felons with respect to bonding so that
                     judicial supervision decisions may be made. Investigations are similar in
                      scope to certain background investigations done by federal criminal
                     investigators, including field investigations of neighbors, friends, family,
                      and employers. The depth of the investigation varies with the nature of
                     the case. The officer works closely with the accused, assisting with med-
                      ical treatment, employment, social services, and monitoring behavior of
                     the accused before and during the trial.

                     Probation officers work in federal, state, and county district courts and
                     conduct presentence investigations of convicted felons, making recom-
                     mendations in accordance with guidelines for judicial decisions. If the
                     felon is placed on probation, the officer is responsible for supervision of
                     the case, including curfews where the offender is incarcerated nightly,
                     house arrests where the offender is to return home nightly, and other
                     probation. The officer makes unannounced visits to offenders’ homes to
                     confirm compliance with terms of probation and to detect illegal posses-
                     sion of firearms or drugs. The officer is responsible for urinalysis for
                     appropriate offenders and must verify employment as well as drug and
                     psychiatric treatment. Casework requires intensive records on each pro-
                     bationer and may comprise the critical record for violations of probation
                     that may result in the imprisonment of the offender.

                     Correctional officers work in penal systems overwhelmed by the high
                     rates of incarceration of an incorrigible and violent federal and state
                     inmate population. The correctional officers have the conflicting respon-
                     sibilities of rehabilitation and control. They detain, supervise, and coun-
                     sel convicted felons. Overcrowded prisons, the threat of assault, and
                     inmates hostile toward both each other and society result in a dangerous
                     and stressful occupation. The emphasis of the correctional officers’
                     work is maintaining custody of the inmates and using interpersonal com-
                     munication to divert violence and ease tension. The contractor found
                     that the corrections workforce, once noted for its physical strength and
                     stamina, is now changing to a more college-educated group stressing
                     intelligence and training.


                     The contractor provided evaluation results for the four occupational
Comparability   of   groupings and found that, except for the Border Patrol, comparability
Duties               between federal and state and local uniformed officers was essentially
            Y        the same. The majority of the Border Patrol’s duties is equivalent to
                     state and local uniformed officers’ duties. However, senior Border Patrol
                     agents have investigation and prosecution duties that are more similar


                     Page 48                                            OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                     Chapter 3
                     Comparison of Duties, Responsibilities,   and
                     Qualifications




                     to non-uniformed officer responsibilities. These responsibilities resulted
                     in the Border Patrol positions being rated at a level higher than state
                     and local uniformed officers, although these extra responsibilities were
                     not performed often enough to justify the inclusion of these jobs in the
                     non-uniformed officer category.

                     Non-uniformed officer work in the federal and state and local law
                     enforcement organizations was generally comparable. However, the con-
                     tractor evaluated 53 percent of the federal positions to be at a level
                     above the state and local positions. A requirement for federal criminal
                     investigators generally not required for state and local investigators was
                     specialized knowledge or training in investigations. The sheer signifi-
                     cance of federal cases, in contrast to those of state and local levels, was
                     also a factor. Federal investigators are also often subject to unusual
                     demands, including employment or working conditions that profoundly
                     affect their personal lives. Many federal agencies require investigators
                     to relocate, and the agent may be subject to long assignments in tempo-
                     rary duty stations.

                     Probation officers in federal and state and local agencies are virtually
                     indistinguishable.

                     Correctional officers and first-line supervisors are nearly the same at
                     the federal and state and local levels. However, a major distinction
                     noted was the inmate-to-staff ratio. The federal system has the highest
                     ratio of inmates to officers of any prison system in the country-two      to
                     three times higher than most state systems. Further, the federal correc-
                     tional supervisors ranked somewhat higher when compared with the
                     state and local positions because of the larger scope of responsibilities
                     assigned to them. The contractor noted that some aspects of correctional
                     officer work are very similar to police patrol work-walking     a beat,
                     preventing and resolving incidents, and gathering evidence at a crime
                     scene.


                     Qualifications requirements for federal law enforcement new hires are
Qualifications        more stringent than those for state and local new employees. Federal
Requirements         jobs require more education or experience and report maximum age
                      requirements that are not typical in state and local jobs. The only com-
                     mon requirements were background investigations for security clear-
                 Y    antes and physical standards.




                     Page 49                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                 Chapter 3
                 Comparison       of Duties, Responsibilities,   and
                 Qualifications




                 Most federal agencies reported that they follow standard OPMqualifica-
                 tions requirements in filling law enforcement positions. These require-
                 ments for the most common entry-level grades are the following:

             l   GS-5-a   college degree or 3 years of general experience, or a combination
                 of education and experience totaling 3 years.
             l   GS-7-a   college degree plus 1 year of specialized experience or I year of
                 graduate study, a college degree and membership in a national honorary
                 society or a high grade point average, 3 years of general experience plus
                 1 year of specialized experience, or a combination of education and
                 experience totaling 4 years.

                 Hires above the GS-7 level require additional education or experience
                 beyond that required for GS-7.

                 Even in the occupational categories where the contractor found compa-
                 rability between federal and state and local positions, qualifications
                 requirements for new hires in state and local law enforcement organiza-
                 tions are less than that for federal hires. On the Commission’s State and
                 Local Pay and Benefits Survey, 95 percent of the respondents indicated
                 that only a high school diploma or equivalent is required for new hires,
                 6 percent reported that a bachelor’s degree is required, and 4 percent
                 require a bachelor’s degree or equivalent experience.

                 Most federal agencies also have minimum and maximum age require-
                 ments for new hires: 21 is the average minimum age required and 34 is
                 the maximum age.

                 Ninety-two percent of the state and local respondents reported that they
                 have a minimum age requirement, with the average mininum age
                 reported to be 20. However, only 37 percent reported a maximum age
                 requirement.


                 Overall, federal and state and local law enforcement positions are gener-
Conclusion       ally comparable. In uniformed officer, probation officer, and correc-
                 tional officer positions, except for the differences noted, the jobs were
                 found to be essentially equivalent. However, federal investigative
                 officers’ duties generally exceeded their state and local counterparts’
                 duties. For all federal occupations, the qualification requirements were
                 more stringent. These results would indicate that federal positions
                 should be paid at levels at least comparable to those paid by state and
                 local organizations for jobs in comparable and competitive categories.


                 Page 60                                               OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay




                                                                  ‘,
                                 Chapter 3
                                 Comparison of Duties, Responsibilities,     and
                                 Qualifications




                                 Our recommendations on pay comparability are discussed in Chapter 4
                                 and outlined in Chapter 7.


Scope of the Comparability The federal group consisted                     of positions in the following categories:
Study-Positions  Studied . Uniformedofficers:
                                 Park Police Patrol Officer (not GS)(Supervisory and non-supervisory
                                 personnel)
                                 Border Patrol Agent (GS-9)
                                 Senior Border Patrol Agent (GS-11)
                                 Uniformed Division of the Secret Service (not GS)(Nonsupervisory per-
                                 sonnel only)
                             l   Non-uniformed officers:
                                 Park Police Detective (not GS) (Supervisory and non-supervisory person-
                                 nel)
                                 Deputy Marshal (GS-11) (Criminal Investigator)
                                 FI31Special Agent (GS-13)
                                 WI Supervisory Special Agent (Gs-14)
                                 Secret Service Special Agent (GS-12)
                                 Secret Service Senior Special Agent (GS-13)
                                 Secret Service Assistant to the Special Agent-in-Charge (GS-14)
                                 Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Special Agent (~~-12)
                                 DEA Senior Special Agent (~~-13)
                                 DEA Supervisor (Resident-Agent-In-Charge) (GS-14)
                                 Immigration and Naturalization Service Special Agent (GS-12)
                                 INS Senior Special Agent (GS-13)
                                 Customs Special Agent (GS-12)
                                 Customs Senior Special Agent (GS-13)
                                 Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Special Agent (GS-12)
                                 ATF Senior Special Agent (GS-13)
                                 AW Resident-Agent-in-Charge (supervisor) (GS-14)
                                 Internal Revenue Service Special Agent (GS-12)
                                 Internal Revenue Service Senior Special Agent (GS-13)
                                 Naval Investigative Service Special Agent (GS-12)
                                 Postal Inspector (not GS) (Non-supervisory personnel only)
                                 Diplomatic Security Special Agent (not GS) (Non-supervisory personnel
                                 only)
                                 Inspectors General Special Agents (Gs-12) and Senior Special Agents (GS-
                                 13) in -
                                    Department of Agriculture
                                    Department of Defense



                                 Page 51                                                        OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
    Chapter 3
    Comparison of Duties, Responsibilities,   and
    Qualifications




  Department of Labor
  Department of Health and Human Services
. Probation Officers:
  Pretrial Services Officer (JSP-12) (non-supervisory personnel only)
  Probation Officer (JSP-12) (non-supervisory personnel only)
. Correctional officers:
  Bureau of Prisons Correctional Officer (GS-7)
  Bureau of Prisons Senior Correctional Officer (GsS)
  Bureau of Prisons Correctional Supervisor (GS-9/l 1)

    The state and local group consisted of the following positions:

. Local uniformed officers:
  Patrol Officer
  Patrol Supervisor
. Local non-uniformed officers:
  Detective
  Detective Supervisor
. State non-uniformed officers:
  Criminal Investigator
  Criminal Investigator Supervisor
. State probation officers:
  Probation Officer
  Probation Officer Supervisor
l State correctional officers:
  Correctional Officer
  Corrections Supervisor




    Page 62                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Chapter 4

comparison of Pay


                                           Our analysis of pay compares federal salaries with state and local law
                                           enforcement salaries as of January 1, 1989. While federal pay, as well as
                                           state and local pay levels, has increased since then, our analysis com-
                                           pares the salary levels in place as of this date. Despite higher qualifica-
                                           tions and generally comparable jobs, federal pay for law enforcement
                                           personnel often lags behind pay offered by state and local law enforce-
                                           ment organizations. This pay gap was found to be most extensive at the
                                           entry level but was also significant at full performance levels in certain
                                           geographic areas. Figure 4.1 displays differences between federal and
                                           state and local law enforcement pay and recent college graduate entry-
                                           level salaries.


Figure 4.1: Entry-Level Salary
Comparison-Federal,     State, and Local
and College Graduates                      24     Dollars in Thousands


                                           22


                                           20


                                           18




                                                Federal and State I Local Law EnforcementOfficers Versus College Graduates

                                           The mean starting salary for college graduates is based on 1966 data from the College Placement
                                           Council, Inc.

                                           Source: The state and local mean entry-level salary is based on responses from a survey of 576
                                           state and local law enforcement agencies.




                                           Page 63                                                             OCG90.2 Law Enforcement      Pay
                            Chapter 4
                            Comparison    of Pay




                            The majority of federal organizations in our survey’ reported that posi-
Federal Pay System          tions are included in the competitive civil service system and are paid
                            under the nationwide General Schedule. Under the General Schedule,
                            each of the 18 levels has 10 steps, and employees receive periodic step
                            increases after established waiting periods.2

                            Sixty percent of the federal respondents (38 out of 63 responses)
                            reported that they hired new law enforcement officers in 1988 at the GS-
                            5 and/or GS-7 level or equivalent. Almost half of the federal respondents
                            (31 out of 63 responses) offer promotion potential to GS-12." New hires
                            in these agencies, who generally are recent college graduates, are
                            offered salaries of $15,738 (GS-5 step 1) or $19,493 (GS-7 step 1). Promo-
                            tions are received according to the normal career progression: promotion
                            through grades GS-5, GS-7, GS-9, GS-11, and GS-12 after a minimum of 1
                            year at each grade level. However, there are numerous exceptions,
                            which are discussed as follows.


Exceptions to Typical       Four federal agencies in our survey included under the General Schedule
Entry-Level Grades          reported hiring entry-level law enforcement personnel at grades other
                            than the typical GS-5 and/or GS-7.

                        l   ~131 has authority to hire special agents at ~~-10 ($26,261). FBI is in the
                            excepted service and, accordingly, hires its own employees. Special
                            agents enter at the ~~-10 level because of the difficulty of the duties and
                            responsibilities assigned to the position. Special agents are required to
                            work at the ~~-10 level immediately upon assignment to a field office
                            following completion of extensive training. Because of its status in the
                            excepted service, FBI is exempt from following the qualifications stan-
                            dards established by the Office of Personnel Management that appear in
                            the X-l 18 Handbook. FBI does, however, use the X-l 18 qualifications
                            standards as guidelines in determining the requirements established for
                            its positions.
                        l   The Bureau of Prisons hires correctional officers primarily at the GS-6
                            ($17,542) and occasionally at the GS-5 level ($15,738). At the GS-6level,
                            the qualification requirements are: (1) a college degree, plus either 6

                            ‘Federal Pay and Benefits survey results are based on 63 responses from 54 federal departments and
                            agencies employing law enforcement personnel. More information on this survey is provided in
                            Appendix III.
                            ‘Waiting periods consist of 1 year between steps 1 to 4, 2 years between steps 5 to 7, and 3 years
                            between steps 8 to 10.
                            “For 1989, the range of salaries at the GS-12 level was $34,580 to $44,957.



                            Page 54                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
                                Chapter 4
                                Comparison   of Pay




                              months of experience or a semester of graduate study, or (2) 3-l/2 years
                              of experience, or (3) a combination of education and experience totaling
                              3-l/2 years.
                            9 Detention Enforcement Officers at INS have an entry level of GS-4
                              ($14,067).
                            l Police in the Bureau of Indian Affairs have an entry level of GS-3
                              ($12,531).


Exceptions to the General       Six federal organizations in our survey pay law enforcement officers
Schedule                        under pay systems outside the General Schedule. These occupations and
                                organizations are: Park Police of the National Park Service, Uniformed
                                Division of the Secret Service, probation and pretrial services officers of
                                the U.S. Courts, diplomatic security officers of the State Department,
                                criminal investigators of the Government Printing Office, and postal
                                inspectors of the U.S. Postal Service.4

                                Of these six organizations with pay systems outside of the General
                                Schedule, the U.S. Courts and the Government Printing Office reported
                                entry-level grades and salaries equivalent to the General Schedule GS-5,
                                step 1, ($15,738) and/or GS-7, step 1, ($19,493). The other four organiza-
                                tions have entry-level rates as follows:

                            . postal inspector-$31,006;
                            . Park Police-$24,450;
                            l Uniformed Division of the Secret Service-$24,450;
                            . diplomatic security-$19,693.


Variance Among Agencies         Almost half of the federal respondents in our survey reported a full per-
in Full Performance Level       formance level of GS-12 ($34,580 to $44,957). However, occupations
                                such as police, Border Patrol agent, and correctional officer reported full
                                performance levels ranging from GS-5 ($15,738 to $20,463) through GS-9
                                ($23,846 to $31,001). Criminal investigators were reported to have full
                                performance levels of ~~-11 ($28,852 to $37,510) through GS-13 ($41,121
                                to $53,460).




                                ‘The lJ.S. Courts and the Government Printing Office have established pay systems and levels identi-
                                cal to the General Schedule.



                                Page 66                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
                            Chapter 4
                            Comparison    of Pay




Exceptions Due to Special   Because of recruitment and retention problems resulting from federal
Efforts to Address Pay      law enforcement pay disparity with state and local law enforcement,
                            federal agencies have taken the following steps.
Problems
                            Special Salary Rates: Eight occupations in our survey were reported to
                            have special salary rates currently in effect. These special salary rates,
                            covering specific grades (usually entry level) and geographic locations,
                            were authorized by OPM in response to requests from each agency that
                            demonstrated recruitment and retention problems. Special salary rates
                            have been approved for the following occupations: deputy marshal, U.S.
                            Marshals Service; correctional officer, Bureau of Prisons; Border Patrol
                            agent and detention officer, INS; police, Air Force; park police, National
                            Park Service; and the IJniformed Division of the Secret Service. Some
                            accountants in the Bureau of Prisons also have special salary rates.
                            However, these positions are included in a broader special salary rate
                            program for accountants that is not unique to law enforcement agencies.
                            Approximately 4,160 law enforcement employees in these occupations
                            are covered by special salary rates.”

                            Accelerated Promotions: Four occupations in our survey (Border Patrol
                            agent, deputy marshal, correctional officer, and physician’s assistant)
                            reported that they have OPM-approved training agreements that author-
                            ize accelerated promotions at certain grade levels. For example, deputy
                            marshals can be promoted to GS-7 after 6 months at the GS-5 level, rather
                            than the normal l-year requirement. In addition, other agencies (includ-
                            ing FBI, Navy, Labor, and the Small Business Administration) also
                            reported that they provide accelerated promotions either through a
                            waiver of time-in-grade requirements on an individual case-by-case basis
                            or by a change in internal promotion policy. At FBI, for example, the
                            internal standard of a 2-year waiting period for promotion from ~~-10 to
                            GS-11 has been changed to a l-year waiting period in certain locations.

                            Demonstration Project: FBI currently has an approved demonstration
                            project in effect in New York City. Under this project, all employees
                            transferred to the New York office receive a one-time $20,000 relocation
                            allowance if they live within a designated area. All employees assigned
                            to the New York office also receive a retention allowance of 25 percent
                            of base pay.


                            “Special salary rates also apply to some law enforcement occupations in our universe not included in
                            our Pay and Iienefits Survey. Among these positions are medical officers, secretaries, and legal tech-
                            nicians in the Bureau of Prisons.



                            Page 56                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
                       Chapter 4
                       Comparbon   of Pay




                       We requested data from state and local organizations in four categories:
State and Local Pay    uniformed officer, non-uniformed officer, correctional officer, and pro-
Systems                bation officer. In some instances, the state and local organizations
                       reported that they do not make distinctions between uniformed and non-
                       uniformed officers, Therefore, survey responses for these organizations
                       were included in a “joint” category. We received a total of 1,188
                       responses from 585 state and local law enforcement organizations
                       nationwide. A more detailed discussion of our state and local survey is
                       in Appendix IV.

                       Unlike the federal pay system, more than half of the state and local
                       respondents (642 out of 1,161 responses) reported that their salaries for
                       law enforcement occupations are at least partially negotiated through
                       collective bargaining. Also, over 50 percent indicated that law enforce-
                       ment personnel are covered by a separate pay system from non-law
                       enforcement employees.

                       Typically, state and local organizations have entry-level salaries and full
                       performance level salaries without intervening levels (unlike the federal
                       system, where there are several pay levels between entry and full per-
                       formance). In fact, some organizations reported that they make no dis-
                       tinction between entry and full performance levels and pay all
                       individuals at the same rate. The average number of steps reported
                       within a pay range was five for entry level and six for full performance
                       level.


                       Longevity pay programs, when taken in combination with the pay sys-
Wage Progression and   terns of the state and local employers, represent a substantial benefit
Longevity Pay          that federal employees do not enjoy. The use of longevity pay varies
                       widely among state and local organizations. About 66 percent of the uni-
                       formed and non-uniformed officer respondents (633 out of 957
                       responses) have longevity pay programs as compared with 48 percent of
                       correctional respondents (63 out of 131 responses) and 50 percent of
                       probation respondents (27 out of 54 respondents). Payouts can be as
                       high as 20 percent of base salary, or $10,500 per year, but on average
                       they fall in the range of 5 to 7 percent of base salary or, when computed
                       on a flat rate, about $750 to $1,250 per year. On average, maximum
                       payout is achieved at 20 years of service, but some pay out early in
                       careers. There is no typical system; some adjust pay annually, others at
                       intervals of 4, 5,6, or 10 years. Some have integrated the succession of
                       longevity adjustments into their wage progression. Most have indepen-
                       dent step increases to base pay and add longevity pay on top of those.


                       Page 67                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                                 Chapter 4
                                                 Comparison    of Pay




                                                 Although there is an incremental step system under the General Sched-
                                                 ule, the federal government does not have a longevity pay program. To
                                                 compare federal pay with those state and local organizations that have
                                                 longevity pay programs in addition to step-incremental pay plans, the
                                                 longevity pay program as well as the step-incremental pay plan must be
                                                 combined.

                                                 Table 4.1 compares the wage progression of federal law enforcement
                                                 officers with the wage progression of state and local law enforcement
                                                 officers in our survey.


Table 4.1: Comparison of Wage Progression and Longevity Increases
                                                  Wage progression
                                                  shown as average                                                             Wage progression
                               Average number       percentage over                   Average number                                with average
                               of years to attain    base pay at the                  of years to attain           Percentage           maximum
                                  maximum step           end of step                           maximum               providing     longevity pay
                                       increases           increases                   --. longevity pay         longevity pay           included
Federal       corrections                             18                        30                   n/a                     n/a                      n/a
Stale/local       corrections                          7                        30                    20                      48                       40
                                                                                                                              ~.-~
Federal       investigator                            18                        30                   n/a                     n/a                      n/a
State/local       policeman                            7                        20                    21                      66                       32
Detective                                              7                         19                  21                       66                       31
                                            .-   ~~           ~~-   ..-..-   ~~~~~
Federal       probation      officer                  18                         30                  n/a                     n/a                      n/a
                                                                                                           ~-.     -.-__      ~~~
State/local       orobatlon       officer              9                        38                    21                      50                       45

                                                 Source. The state and local information is based on survey response from 1,188 state and local law
                                                 enforcement organizations.


                                                 In instances where the state and local organizations provide both a lon-
                                                 gevity pay program and an incremental step system, these are true add-
                                                 ons to pay. Particularly for correctional and probation personnel, lon-
                                                 gevity pay coupled with an incremental step system provides significant
                                                 pay increases and to that extent represents a benefit that federal law
                                                 enforcement employees do not have. Table 4.1 also underscores the rela-
                                                 tively prolonged period for step increases in the federal pay system. As
                                                 indicated from our survey, most state and local law enforcement step
                                                 increases allow personnel to obtain maximum pay in half the time it
                                                 takes a federal employee to reach maximum. In some instances, it cre-
                                                 ates significant pay gaps between comparable federal, state, and local
                                                 positions. Consequently, state and local employees will receive their




                                                 Page 68                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
                  Chapter 4
                  Comparison   of Pay




                  maximum pay” for a much longer period in their careers than their fed-
                  eral counterparts, making the career pay-out proportionately greater.
                  To that extent, wage progression practices of state and local employers
                  have a more generous effect, where pay rates are otherwise comparable,
                  and longevity pay programs compound that generosity.


                  A significant pay gap was found in comparing federal entry-level sala-
Entry-Level Pay   ries with state and local salaries for comparable jobs. In most locations
                  employing federal law enforcement officers, state and local organiza-
                  tions in our survey reported entry-level salaries higher than federal
                  entry-level salaries. As indicated in Table 4.2, entry-level pay rates
                  under the General Schedule have not kept pace with entry-level salaries
                  offered by state and local law enforcement organizations. In 1978, the
                  GS-5 level salary was approximately 10 percent below state and local
                  entry-level salaries reported by the International City Managers Associ-
                  ation (ICMA). By 1989, this gap had grown to 25 percent. Even more dra-
                  matic, in 1978, GS-7 level pay was approximately 15 percent above state
                  and local law enforcement entry-level pay reported by ICMA. But, in
                  1989, the GS-7 level pay was 8 percent below state and local pay.

                  State and local law enforcement organizations responding to the Com-
                  mission’s pay and benefits survey reported offering minimum base
                  entry-level salaries of $10,434 to $45,349. Lower salaries were reported
                  by organizations with small police forces or from organizations in the
                  South, Southwest, or rural areas. Highest salaries were reported from
                  organizations in populated, urban areas (e.g., California, New Jersey,
                  and New York).

                  The federal government is the largest employer of law enforcement
                  officers. For comparative purposes, we analyzed the largest 100 of the
                  state and local respondents in terms of workforce size in each of the
                  four occupational categories (uniformed officer, non-uniformed officer,
                  probation officer, and correctional officer). This group included 66 per-
                  cent of the state and local law enforcement employees in our survey
                  (248,042 out of 374,277 employees). Organizations included in this
                  group are located in a wide variety of locations ranging from large met-
                  ropolitan areas to smaller rural locations. Weighting entry-level salaries



                  “Not including longevity pay, state and local police have only a 20-percent wage progression as com-
                  pared with federal law enforcement officers, who have a 30.percent wage progression.



                  Page 59                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
    Chapter 4
    Comparison    of Pay




    by size of the workforce using the 100 largest employers shows the fol-
    lowing average state and local entry-level salaries by job category:7

. uniformed officer-$24,752       (98 respondents),
. non-uniformed officer-$27,401        (57 respondents),
l joint officers-$22,848    (39 respondents),
l probation officer-$20,007      (44 respondents),
. correctional officer-$18,662      (28 respondents), and
. combined weighted average-$22,333 (266 respondents).

    While federal agencies reported a range of entry-level hiring from GS-3
    through GS-13, organizations indicated that they typically hire new
    employees at the GS-5 and/or GS-7 level. Comparison of weighted average
    entry-level salaries for state and local organizations in our survey with
    federal salaries reveals that federal salaries at the GS-7 ($19,493) level
    and below and for diplomatic security officers ($19,693) at the State
    Department are all lower than the combined weighted average for state
    and local organizations ($22,333). (See Table 4.2.) Federal hires at these
    salary levels accounted for over 71 percent of the entry-level hires
    reported by agencies in 1988.

    Weighting entry-level salaries by size of the work force using those loca-
    tions where 40 or more federal law enforcement officers are employed
    shows the following average state and local entry-level salaries by job
    category:

. Uniformed officer-$24,796     (235 respondents),
l Non-uniformed officer-$28,375      (111 respondents),
. Probation officer-$25,320    (8 respondents),
l Correctional officer-$24,477    (48 respondents), and
. Combined weighted average-$24,846 (426 respondents).




    7Thcrc are less than 100 respondents for each occupational category since some of the largest organi-
    zations did not provide complete salary data on our survey. In addition, since federal uniformed
    officers and correctional officers are not located in all 50 states, we limited our analysis to only those
    locations employing federal officers in these categories.



    Page 60                                                                OCB90-2 Law Enforcement        Pay
                                          Chapter 4
                                          Comparison    of Pay




Table 4.2: Federal Entry-Level Salaries
Below State and Local Weighted                                                                                        Percentage that salary
Average                                                           1988 hires                                         is below state and local
                                                                                        Percent                       combined mean salary
                                          Grade ~--.__ ._-.------__
                                          ___._~.._                                   (of 6,034)     1989 salary           --      ($22,333)a
                                          GS-3                                                 .2         $12.531                                 43
                                          GS-5                                                 36          15,738                                 29
                                          GS-6                                                 15          17,542                                 20
                                          GS-7                                                 19          19,493                          __-
                                                                                                                                                  12
                                          Diplomatic   security                                .8          19,693                                 11

                                          Note: Although federal salaries at the GS-9 ($23,846) and GS-10 ($26,261) levels under the General
                                          Schedule are above the combined weighted average for state and local entry-level salaries ($22,333), it
                                          should be noted that they are lower than the state and local weighted mean salary for non-uniformed
                                          officers ($27,401).
                                          aThe mean salary is based on survey responses from 585 state and local law enforcement organizations
                                          and is weighted by the size of the workforce. The state and local salary information is based on survey
                                          responses from 585 state and local law enforcement organizations,


                                          Comparing entry-level salaries for non-General Schedule occupations
                                          with the state and local organizations in our survey reveals that, in the
                                          non-uniformed officer category, postal inspector salaries ($3 1,006)
                                          exceeded the state and local average ($27,431). Park Police and the Uni-
                                          formed Division of the Secret Service salaries ($24,450) were almost
                                          identical to the weighted national average for state and local uniformed
                                          officers ($24,752). However, these positions are primarily located in
                                          high-wage areas- Washington, DC; New York; and San Francisco, where
                                          local salaries are higher than the national average.

                                          Even federal occupations offering special salary rates do not offer
                                          entry-level salaries competitive with comparable state and local occupa-
                                          tions in our survey. On average, federal occupations with special salary
                                          rates at the entry level offer $1,200 to $4,000 more than those occupa-
                                          tions without special salary rates. However, this additional compensa-
                                          tion does not equate to state and local salaries reported in our survey
                                          for comparable positions in the localities where special salary rates are
                                          paid. Table 4.3 compares current special salary rates for positions in our
                                          universe with state and local law enforcement average salaries weighted
                                          by the size of the workforce in the areas covered.




                                          Page 61                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement           Pay
                                       Chapter 4
                                       Comparison        of Pay




Table 4.3: Comparison of Entry-Level
Salaries                                                                                                                                                Mean
                                                                                                                                                    weighted
                                                                      Entry-level rates (1989                                                       state and
                                       Occupation
                                       ..--    -.                     special rates)                            Location                         local salarya
                                       Detention      officer         GS-4                        $16,092       MA                                       $30,441
                                                                      GS-5                             16.972
                                                                      GS-6                             18,712
                                                                      GS-4                             15,172   CT                                        28,075
                                                                     GS-5                              16,972
                                                                      GS-6                             18.919
                                       Border    Patrol agent         GS-5                             18,363   CA,AZ,FL,LA                              -22,736”
                                                                                                                NM,TX,AL,MS
                                       Deputy      marshal            GS-5                             17,638   Wash., DC MSA                             25,996
                                                                     Gs-7-                             20,598   New York, NY CMSA                         26,660
                                                                                                                Los Angeles,    CA                        31,627
                                                                                                                CMSA
                                                                                                                Miami. FL CMSA                            25.023
                                                                                                                Alex., VA (Wash. DC                       25,996
                                                                .~________                                      MSA)
                                       Correctional      officer       GS-6       ____-                21.637   Otisville. NY (New                        26.660
                                                                                                                York CM’SA) ’
                                                                                                                New York, NY                              26,660
                                                                       ~.
                                                                                                                Danbury, CT (New                          26,660
                                                                                                                York CMSA)
                                                                                                                Lompoc, CA (Santa                         26,498
                                                                                                                Barbara MSA)
                                                                     _...-.-___           --
                                                                                                                Los Angeles,    CA                        31,627
                                                                                                                                             .____~~
                                                                                                                Terminal Is, CA (Los                      31,627
                                                                                                                Angeles CMSA)
                                                                                               .____
                                       Police                         GS-5                             18,407   Nevada          _
                                                                                                                                                ----~..-~~ 23,918
                                       Park Police                                                     24,450   Wash.. DChnSA                              25.996
                                                                                                                New York, NY CMSA                         26,338
                                                                     ___.
                                                                                                                San Francisco       CMSr--               ~~-
                                                                                                                                                          31,580
                                                          ..~~~~~    .___..                                                                      .-~__        ~~
                                       Uniformed      Division                                         24.450   Wash.. DC MSA                             25.996

                                       Note: Twenty accountants in the Bureau of Prisons are covered by a special salary rate in seven loca-
                                       tions. Accountant salaries are compared wrth state departments of corrections and private industry in
                                       Appendix V. Therefore, these positions are not included in this table.
                                       “State and local average salaries were computed on the basis of responses to the Commission’s state
                                       and local pay and benefits survey and not from data used by the federal agencies to support their
                                       requests for specral salary rates.

                                       “The state and local average salary was computed as an average of the entry-level salaries reported by
                                       organizations in the states where Border Patrol special salary rates have been established.


                                       Comparing average entry-level salaries by geographic location shows
                  Y

                                       that federal salaries are lower than comparable state and local law



                                       Page 62                                                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement             Pay
                   -
                                          Chapter 4
                                          Comparison    of Pay




                                          enforcement salaries from our survey in most locations. Table 4.4 com-
                                          pares average state and local law enforcement entry-level salaries in the
                                          geographic locations where 40 or more federal law enforcement officers
                                          are employed. This covers 98 locations, including such cities as New
                                          York, Los Angeles, San Antonio, and Charlotte.

                                          As indicated on table 4.4,95 percent of the locations pay salaries higher
                                          than the federal GS-5 ($15,738); at the GS-7 level ($19,493), 63 percent of
                                          the locations have higher entry-level salaries. The salary differences are
                                          not slight. For example, at the GS-5 level, 82 percent of the locations
                                          exceed the federal entry-level salary by at least 10 percent. Clearly, fed-
                                          eral entry-level salary pay disparity is a nationwide problem, since most
                                          locations where federal law enforcement officers work have higher
                                          entry-level salaries than the federal GS-5 and GS-7.

Table 4.4: Comparison of Federal With
Average State and Local Entry-Level                                                Number of         Percent of
Salaries in 98 Cities Where Federal Law                                             locations         locations Percent of federal
Enforcement Officers Are Assigned         FtI;;rj;level grade and          exceeding federal exceeding federal   officers in these
                                                                                       salarv            salary          locationsa
                                          GS-5
                                          $15,738                                                93                    95            ___--.    98
                                                                     .-   __..-_        -____.
                                          GS-7
                                          $19,493                                                62                    63                      90

                                          Note. The state and local salary Information is based on survey responses from 585 state and local law
                                          enforcement organizations
                                          “The percent of federal officers in these locations was calculated using 56,721 as the base number of
                                          total federal law enforcement officers.



                                          Assessing differences between full performance level pay in federal
Full Performance                          agencies and state and local organizations requires comparing generally
Level Pay                                 comparable jobs. As indicated in appendixes III and IV, federal agencies
                                          vary considerably in the level of their full performance work, and levels
                                          vary even more when federal jobs are compared with state and local
                                          positions. For example, although the job comparability study revealed
                                          that federal uniformed officers are comparable to state and local uni-
                                          formed officers at the full performance level, the General Schedule
                                          grades assigned to federal uniformed officers at the full performance
                                          level range from GS-5 through GS-9.

                                          Some of the non-uniformed officer work in the federal and state and
                                          local law enforcement organizations was comparable, but the job factors
                                          for 53 percent of the federal investigative positions studied were rated
                                          higher than state and local positions by a significant margin for more


                                          Page 63                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement        Pay
                                           Chapter 4
                                           cOmparhon       of Pay




                                           complex assignments. Therefore, it is difficult to compare federal full
                                           performance level salaries with state and local full performance level
                                           salaries for non-uniformed officers.

                                           However, the contractor has recommended that, on the basis of the job
                                           comparability study, full performance levels be compared. (See Table
                                           4.5.) With the exception of non-uniformed officer work, the contractor
                                           determined that federal, state, and local full performance level work in
                                           the occupational categories could be readily matched for salary compari-
                                           son purposes. The contractor determined that full performance level
                                           work of state and local uniformed officers is equivalent to GS-9 level fed-
                                           eral uniformed officer work; full performance level work of state and
                                           local probation officers is equivalent to Gs-12 level federal probation
                                           officer work; and full performance level work of state and local correc-
                                           tional officers is equivalent to GS-7 level federal correctional officer
                                           work. The contractor evaluated the state and local non-uniformed
                                           officer work as equivalent to federal work between the GS-11 and GS-12
                                           levels. Therefore, the midpoint between ~~-11 and GS-12 is used for sal-
                                           ary comparison purposes. Weighting state and local full performance
                                           salaries by size of the workforce using the 100 largest employers by
                                           occupational category, where applicable, is summarized in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Full Performance Level Salary
Comparisons                                                                                                                 Mean minimum
                                                                       Federal FPL               Minimum federal       weighted state/local
                                           Category                    grade                           FPL salary
                                                                                                               -                FPL Salarya
                                                                                                                                       $28,241
                                           Uniformed                   GS-9                                 $23,846             (95 responses)
                                                                                                                                         __-
                                                                                                                                        31,178
                                           Non-uniformed               GS-1 i/12                             31,716             (92 responses)




                                           Note: FPL = full performance level.
                                           “The mean weighted minimum full performance level salary is based on responses to our survey of 585
                                           state and local organizations. The salaries are weighted by the size of the workforce.


                                           In the uniformed officer and correctional officer categories, the full per-
                                           formance salaries of federal law enforcement officers are lower than the
                                           weighted salaries of comparable positions in the state and local organi-
                                           zations. In the non-uniformed officer category, the federal full perform-
                                           ance salary slightly exceeded the state and local weighted salaries, but
                                           the work was found to be of a higher level in 53 percent of the federal
                                           positions studied by the contractor. The probation officer category


                                           Page 64                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
                     Chapter 4
                     Comparison    of Pay




                     showed a higher federal full performance salary when contrasted to
                     comparable state and local positions. However, significant geographical
                     distinctions in full performance level pay were found in all occupational
                     categories.

                     Comparing average full performance level salaries by geographic loca-
                     tions reveals that as federal full performance salaries increase, fewer
                     state and local locations offer higher average salaries. Generally, the dif-
                     ference between federal and state and local full performance level sala-
                     ries is not as sizeable as at the entry-level for state and local
                     organizations in our survey. As with our comparison of entry-level sala-
                     ries, we compared minimum full performance level salaries in the geo-
                     graphic locations employing 40 or more federal law enforcement
                     officers. Full performance level salary data was provided through our
                     survey for 100 locations employing 40 or more federal law enforcement
                     officers. In these 100 locations, 83 percent have average minimum full
                     performance level salaries above the federal GS-i’ ($19,493). However,
                     only 12 percent have minimum full performance level salaries while 76
                     percent have maximum full performance level salaries above the salary
                     represented by the midpoint between the federal GS-11 and GS-12
                     ($31,716).

                     As indicated in Chapter 3, the contractor evaluated federal law enforce-
                     ment officer jobs at the full performance level as comparable to or
                     exceeding state and local law enforcement officer jobs at the full per-
                     formance level. Therefore, federal law enforcement pay at the full per-
                     formance level should at least be comparable to state and local law
                     enforcement pay.


                     The previous discussion demonstrated that average state and local
Geographic           entry-level salaries from our survey are higher than federal salaries in
Differences in Pay   many areas while state and local full performance salaries are higher
                     only in certain areas. However, there are locations where the disparity
                     between state and local salaries for entry and/or full performance levels
                     and their federal counterparts is notably greater than that demon-
                     strated only by a comparison of average rates. Table 4.6 shows organi-
                     zations, listed by occupational category, that are examples of such
                     locations.” These organizations also represent salaries that exceeded the


                     ‘The occupational categories include some positions and locations with special salary rates. In no
                     instance, however, does the special rate meet the state and local entry or full performance salary.



                     Page 66                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement          Pay
--
                                Chapter 4
                                Comparison          of Pay




                                average salaries for state and local law enforcement organizations on a
                                national basis.

Table 4.6: Salary Comparisons
                                                                                                                              Full performance
                                                                                                     Entry level                           level
                                Uniformed officer
                                Federal”                                                                $15,738                                $23,846 .-
                                                             ~-~---                                                               .-~-     _-~ __
                                Lowell, MA, police                                                        31,000                                 39,700
                                           - .-___               _.~__                                  __-.-.--_-~-.-~...                      ---
                                San Francisco police                                                      31,570                                 37,715
                                                                                 ---
                                NJ State Police                                                           25,182                                 41,437
                                                                                 _____-
                                Non-uniformed officer
                                Federal                                                                   15.738                                 31.716
                                Boston     police                                                         34,456                                38,087
                                                                      __...               ~~27,07g                    -~~      ..-----..       37,434
                                Des Plaines,        IL Police (Chicago)
                                Dade County,          FL police (Miami)                                   25,134                                 26,324
                                NY State Police                                                           39,589                                 39,589
                                Probation officer
                                Federal                                                   .___-.          19,493__.          ~~~~___~__ 34,580
                                                                                                                                         ~-_
                                                                      --   .____-__
                                CA Dept. of Corrections                                                   34.560                                 34.560
                                Dallas Adult Probations                                                   21.168                                 27,936
                                Correctional officer
                                Federal                                                                   17,542                                 19,493
                                NYC Dept. of Corrections                                                  25.977                                32.673
                                LA Countv      Sheriff                                                    34,452                                 36,162

                                “The most typical federal entry level in this category is GS-5, and the full performance level is GS-9.
                                However, the entry level, including approved special salary rates, ranges from $12,531 (GS-3) to $24,450
                                (Park Police and Uniformed Division of the Secret Service), and the full performance level ranges from
                                $15,738 (GS-5) to 524,450 (Park Police and Uniformed Division of the Secret Service).


                                The nature of federal law enforcement work requires presence in all
                                areas of the nation, perhaps most extensively in metropolitan areas.
                                Comparable federal law enforcement work across the country does not
                                effectively result in comparable salaries because of regional pay differ-
                                ences. Geographical differences, at one or both salary levels, disadvan-
                                tage federal employees in those locations and would tend to discourage
                                recruitment and encourage retention problems. As indicated above, state
                                and local law enforcement officer salaries in some locations greatly
                                exceed federal salaries as well as the national average of state and local
                                law enforcement officer salaries.

                                Even more striking, the analysis of average state and local law enforce-
                                ment salaries from our survey combining all occupational categories by



                                Page 66                                                                    OCG90-2 Law Enforcement                  Pay
                   Chapter 4
                   Comparison   of Pay




                   metropolitan statistical area (M&A) and consolidated metropolitan statis-
                   tical area (CMSA)reveals significant pay differences. In analyzing com-
                   bined average state and local law enforcement salaries, we compared
                   “average weighted salary.” This figure is computed as an average entry
                   and full performance salary weighted by the number of officers in the
                   occupational category, where the entry-level salary ;S credited 15 per-
                   cent and the full performance level salary is credited 85 percent in cal-
                   culating the local average salary. (These percentages were derived as
                   the average mix of entry and full performance level employees in the
                   workplace.) The highest average weighted salaries for state and local
                   law enforcement organizations were reported for Atlantic City, NJ; Los
                   Angeles, CA; Boston, MA; San Francisco, CA; Spokane, WA; Stockton, CA;
                   Denver, CO; Rochester, NY; Seattle, WA; and New York, NY. The range
                   of average weighted salaries for these locations was $42,417 to $32,915.
                   Locations with the lowest average weighted salaries were generally
                   small, rural areas or other locations employing few law enforcement
                   officers.


                   We found significant differences in the overtime compensation practices
Overtime           within the federal agencies, as well as between the federal and state and
Compensation       local law enforcement organizations in our survey. The differences in
                   the federal work force were primarily in the type of overtime, if any,
                   paid to the law enforcement employees. The main differences between
                   the federal and state and local organizations were (1) the methods used
                   to calculate the overtime compensation and (2) the limitations on over-
                   time earnings.

                   Currently, federal law enforcement personnel are paid overtime com-
                   pensation under the following systems:

               l   Administratively uncontrollable overtime (AUO) is paid to employees in
                   positions for which the hours of duty are not supposed to be controlled
                   administratively and that require substantial amounts of irregular or
                   occasional overtime duty. Under AUO, the employee generally is respon-
                   sible for recognizing, without supervision, circumstances that require
                   remaining on or returning to duty outside of regular duty hours.

                   Examples of qualifying duty include surveillance duty, shadowing sus-
                   pects, undercover duty, meeting informers, and courtroom duty. Cur-
                   rently, AU0 is paid at 10 to 25 percent of the portion of an employee’s
                   pay that does not exceed the ~~-10, step 1, level. Legislation has recently
                   been enacted changing the AU0 payment to a percentage of the


                   Page A7                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                                                           I
  Chapter 4
  Comparleon   of Pay




  employee’s basic pay. This change will become effective in October
  1990. The percentage is determined quarterly on the basis of the aver-
  age number of hours of overtime worked in a week (e.g., employees
  working at least 3 hours but no more than 5 hours receive lo-percent
  A~JOpay; employees working 9 or more hours of overtime in a week
  receive 25-percent Au0 pay).

. Scheduled and unscheduled overtime pay is provided under the Fair
  Labor Standards Act, or 5 USC 5542. Employees entitled to this type of
  overtime pay receive time and a half for all overtime hours worked. The
  maximum rate for Title 5 overtime is that earned at the ~~-10, step 1,
  level. This form of overtime is for work that can be predicted or sched-
  uled and requires the approval by the employee’s supervisor.

  The Commission’s Federal Pay and Benefits Survey revealed significant
  variations in the application of overtime compensation reported by
  organizations. Currently, some federal law enforcement officers receive
  only AUO while others receive AU0 or scheduled overtime pay, depending
  on the circumstances. Other federal law enforcement officers receive
  scheduled overtime pay but do not receive AUO, and a few federal law
  enforcement officers do not receive any type of overtime compensation.
  For example, postal inspectors and probation and pretrial services
  officers are exempt from the governmentwide provisions and do not
  receive any form of overtime pay, regardless of the number of hours
  worked.

  We have insufficient information to determine which, if any, of the
  overtime practices were proper for any particular agency or situation.
  Further, our information does not distinguish between an employee’s
  legal eligibility for overtime and the actual practice of earning overtime.
  Besides recognizing that there is significant diversity in the federal
  agencies regarding the application of governmentwide overtime provi-
  sions to law enforcement officers, we can draw no other conclusions-
  with one exception. Organizations using only AU0 may be compensating
  employees for work that is actually controllable or predictable and
  should be paid as scheduled overtime, rather than AUO. Appendix III
  summarizes the types of overtime compensation available in various
  federal agencies.

  The Commission’s State and Local Salary and Benefits Survey demon-
  strated differences between federal and state and local overtime prac-
  tices. The responses to the survey revealed that 89 percent of the state
  and local respondents (1,027 out of 1,150 responses) pay overtime to


  Page 88                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                    Chapter 4
                    Comparison    of Pay




                    law enforcement personnel. Of those respondents providing overtime
                    pay, 94 percent pay time and a half for all overtime hours worked. In
                    contrast, federal law enforcement employees are paid only a percentage
                    of the GS-10, step 1, for AUO” and time and a half of the ~~-10, step 1, for
                    scheduled and unscheduled overtime. Ninety-three percent of the state
                    and local law enforcement respondents (1,045 out of 1,122 responses)
                    indicated no limit on the amount of overtime pay an employee can
                    receive. Under the federal compensation laws, however, overtime may
                    be paid only to the extent that it does not cause an employee’s biweekly
                    pay to exceed that of the GS-15, step 10, level.

                    Both the federal and the state and local organizations provided little sta-
                    tistically reliable data on the actual number of overtime hours paid.
                    Commission analysis was limited to agency policies rather than actual
                    practices. However, our survey of approximately 4,600 federal law
                    enforcement officer@ showed that 62 percent of federal employees
                    expressed concern about overtime pay.


                    The Commission’s Federal Pay and Benefits Survey requested informa-
Other Premium Pay   tion on other types of premium pay differentials that may be available
                    to law enforcement personnel. This category includes holiday pay, Sun-
                    day pay, hazardous duty pay, shift differential, and foreign language
                    differential, The survey responses revealed that holiday pay, hazardous
                    duty pay, Sunday pay, and shift/night differentials are available to
                    most federal agencies in accordance with governmentwide regulations.
                    However, some agencies schedule work so that employees do not rou-
                    tinely earn these differentials.

                    The only premium pay other than overtime that the Park Police and the
                    Uniformed Division of the Secret Service receive is holiday pay. They
                    are ineligible for Sunday and night differential pay, although a consider-
                    able amount of shift work is performed. Postal inspectors and probation
                    and pretrial services officers do not receive any type of premium pay,
                    regardless of irregular shift schedules. Cost of living allowances (annual
                    add-ons to basic pay) for employment in the continental United States is
                    paid only by the Postal Service. By statute, only the State Department,


                    !‘While the basis for paying AU0 will change in fiscal year 1990 from a percentage of the GS-IO, step
                    1, to a percentage of actual salary, the calculation basis will still not be as generous as the state and
                    local basis.

                    “‘See Appendix I for more information on the employee survey.



                    Page 69                                                               OCG90-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
                                                                                         ,
             Chapter 4
             Comparison   of Pay




             FBI, and DEA are authorized to provide foreign language differentials.
             Table III. 10 in Appendix III summarizes the responses by organization.

             The state and local law enforcement organizations in our survey gener-
             ally do not provide shift differentials and Sunday pay, but holiday pay
             is provided by 60 percent of the respondents (684 out of 1,146
             responses).

             As mentioned above, foreign language bonuses are provided in some fed-
             eral agencies but not in others. Currently, only the State Department,
             FRI,and DEA are authorized to pay foreign language bonuses for person-
             nel who are required to have proficiency in a foreign language. The
             increases in the numbers of international drug traffickers and criminal
             aliens in the United States justify the use of similar bonuses for all law
             enforcement officers who are required to have proficiency in a foreign
             language. For example, INS requires all newly hired Border Patrol agents
             to develop proficiency in Spanish. According to INS, the requirement for
             Border Patrol agents to speak Spanish is a major cause of retention
             problems. The Bureau of Prisons houses inmates from over 140 coun-
             tries. Many other federal agencies require employees to maintain a pro-
             ficiency in a foreign language, but none are authorized to pay bonuses
             for this skill.

             Premium pay entitlements in the state and local organizations are sum-
             marized in Appendix IV.


             The most significant conclusion we can draw is that despite the general
Conclusion   comparability of jobs and higher qualifications at the federal level, state
             and local law enforcement positions offer higher average salaries than
             federal positions based on our survey results. This pay gap was found to
             be most extensive at the entry level but was also significant at full per-
             formance levels in certain geographic areas.

             Pay comparisons between federal and state and local personnel/posi-
             tions show that most state and local personnel obtain maximum pay in
             half the time it takes a federal employee to reach the maximum step in
             the salary range. This accelerated progress through the rate range fur-
             ther disadvantages affected federal officers. While not recommending
             specific action on longevity pay, we feel it should be considered when
             any new pay system for federal law enforcement officers is designed.




             Page 70                                           OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
Chapter 4
Comparison   of Pay




Overtime rates are also more generous at the state and local level. State
and local agencies pay overtime at a generally higher rate and without
the earnings limitations imposed on federal law enforcement officers.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 established the foreign language
bonus and also charged the Commission with examining differences in
compensation programs among federal agencies. We have found a need
for foreign language skills among federal law enforcement agencies and
have not found any reasonable basis to limit the use of the language
bonus to FBI, DEA, and the State Department.

When we made salary comparisons, our methodology was intentionally
conservative. In some instances, a direct match of federal and state and
local salaries cannot be made. For example, federal salaries at GS-7
through ~~-10 include a combination of employees at entry through
supervisory levels, which makes it difficult to determine the appropri-
ate state and local salary level at which to compare specific federal sala-
ries. At the entry level, state and local organizations reported a range of
possible salaries. Unless otherwise indicated, we used the minimum sal-
ary reported by an organization, although in practice state and local
organizations have the full range of entry-level salaries to use. While the
federal law enforcement employers have special salary rates, demon-
stration projects, and accelerated promotion programs in limited circum-
stances, by regulation, the federal entry-level rate is only step 1 at each
grade level; no flexibility is permitted in hiring above the step 1 level at
the entry-level grades. In addition, longevity pay has not been included
in our calculations of state and local full performance level salaries,
although this can add a significant amount to the actual salary earned
for certain groups.

Given the major differences found in this study, we propose an immedi-
ate two-phase adjustment to federal law enforcement officer basic pay.
(See Chapter 7.) Entry-level salaries should be increased for federal law
enforcement occupations and all positions should benefit from a locality
pay differential when law enforcement salaries in the area dictate. The
two-part package of enhanced entry-level pay and locality pay differen-
tials should reduce the gap between federal and state and local basic
pay. Overtime enhancements are also recommended to make compensa-
tion practices similar between federal and state and local law enforce-
ment officers. Federal agencies also need to assess differences in their
overtime policies and practices.




Page 71                                            CKX%O-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Chapter 5

Benefits

          -
                                      Data on benefits provided to state and local law enforcement personnel
                                      were collected as part of NACLE'SState and Local Pay and Benefits Sur-
                                      vey. The survey data show that there are variations between federal
                                      employee benefits for law enforcement personnel and those provided to
                                      their state and local counterparts, depending on the benefit and the
                                      employee group. Federal benefits are more likely to be less generous
                                      when compared with state and local police and corrections employees
                                      and even less when compared with state and local probation officers.
                                      The federal government more often provides fewer benefits in the areas
                                      of life insurance, paid holidays, cash allowances, employee cost and
                                      some aspects of coverage of health insurance, and disability benefits.
                                      Federal benefits are likely to be more generous or comparable in the
                                      areas of hospitalization coverage and sick, vacation, and personal leave.

                                      A comparison of retirement benefits reveals mixed results. The cost-of-
                                      living adjustments for federal retirees are markedly better than those
                                      provided to almost all state and local employees. But the new Federal
                                      Employees Retirement System (FERS)annuity received before Social
                                      Security retirement takes effect-usually    at age 62-may be less than
                                      what most state and local law enforcement employees will receive,
                                      although the amount contributed to, and the performance of, the thrift
                                      plan influence this comparison. Table 5.1 shows that, generally, the fed-
                                      eral benefits themselves compare favorably to those provided by state
                                      and local employers, but the cost to the federal employee is higher than
                                      that of the state and local employee.

Table 5.1: How the Federal Employer
Ranks When Level and Cost to                                                                                      Level           Cost to employees
Employees of Benefits Are Compared                                                                            of benefit                   of benefit
With State and Local Plans            Benefit                                                               (percentile)                 (percentile)
                                      Health    insurance   (employee   only)                                          72nd”                      14th
                                                                                                           .---___.
                                      Health    insurance   family coverage)                                           72nd”           ____~      47th
                                                                                                                                                 _.-
                                      Life insurance                                                                   54thb                        9th
                                                                                             _----.__~~.
                                      Rettihref~ent (FERS with no contribution          to                             21st                      60th
                                                                                                                          -~-~~
                                      Retirement     (FERS with 5 percent                                              61st                       17th
                                        contribution    to thrift)                           ___-..    _
                                                                     ~          ~.__-
                                      H&days                                                                           37th                       N/A
                                      Sick leave (maximum)                                                             51st                       N/A
                                      Annual    leave (maximum)                                                        78th                       N/A
                                      Note: N/A = Not applicable
                                      ‘Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Option was applied as the benchmark for federal health insurance
                                      compared with state and local plans.

                                      t’When compared with similarly designed life insurance plans.




                                      Page 72                                                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement     Pay
                  Chapter    6
                  Benefits




                  The following analysis of health benefits is based primarily on the data
Health Benefits   collected in the NACLEState and Local Pay and Benefits Survey. Some
                  significant data that were not available could influence the final com-
                  parison of health plans. Most importantly, we could not obtain data on
                  total out-of-pocket expenses that an employee would incur for such
                  items as deductibles, copayments, and catastrophic coverage.

                  Almost all state and local employers provide health insurance, and most
                  pay a greater share of the premium costs than does the federal
                  employer. A majority pay all of the cost of individual coverage and also
                  pay more than 75 percent of the cost of family coverage. The federal
                  employer by law cannot pay more than 75 percent of the cost of either
                  individual or family coverage. Currently, federal employees pay
                  between 25 percent and 64 percent of the cost of premiums, depending
                  on the plan they elect.

                  Two-thirds of all state and local respondents provide dental care, with
                  an average coverage of 80 percent of allowable costs incurred. Two-
                  fifths provide vision care, with an average coverage of 88 percent of
                  allowable costs incurred. None of the federal plans provide vision care
                  (examination, lenses, and frames), and dental care, if provided, is gener-
                  ally limited to a schedule of relatively low, flat reimbursements for a
                  limited number of procedures. Most federal plans do not offer dental
                  care.

                  According to OI'M, the most popular plans among law enforcement per-
                  sonnel in this study were Blue Cross-Blue Shield Standard Option,
                  SAMBA, and Mailhandlers High Option. Generally, state and local plans
                  were comparable in coverage to these plans, although Mailhandlers has
                  less comprehensive coverage than most state and local plans. However,
                  28 percent of all state and local respondents reported that their plans
                  are more generous, providing more comprehensive major medical covcr-
                  age as well as dental and vision care.

                  The federal employer is more likely than the state and local employer to
                  provide annual medical examinations at no cost to the employee. Only
                  27 percent of the police departments and 10 percent of the state prisons
                  provide annual medical examinations, This benefit is available to virtu-
                  ally all federal uniformed, non-uniformed, and correctional personnel.


                  Since 1984, all new federal employees have been covered by Social
                  Security and the new federal employee retirement system, FEW. Since


                  Page 73                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                             Chapter    5
                             Benefits




_..^.   .._   .__-- i_--^_
                             the future law enforcement work force will be covered by FERS,this com-
                             parison of retirement benefits will focus on FERSbenefits.

                             FEKSbenefits are derived from three components: a defined benefit plan
                             or annuity, a thrift plan, and Social Security. Because Social Security
                             retirement benefits do not begin until age 62 and the law enforcement
                             retirement plans that we compared typically permit retirement at age 50
                             with full benefits (this is promoted as a major benefit of employment),
                             Social Security benefits are not included in the comparison. Moreover,
                             even if comparisons were to include Social Security benefits, they would
                             not make any difference between plans of the same design. Those with
                             Social Security coverage will receive the same benefits, all other things
                             being equal. In addition, to support the retirement of personnel before
                             Social Security eligibility, FERSprovides a special supplemental annuity
                             in addition to the basic pension and any proceeds from the thrift plan.

                             The basic annuity provided under FERSis computed on the basis of years
                             of service and the 3 years of service with the highest annual salaries.
                             The basic annuity, by itself, is considerably less than the annuity gener-
                             ally provided in state and local plans. However, Congress intended that
                             the second component of FERS,the Thrift Fund, provide a considerable
                             part of retirement income. As a thrift plan, it is better than the typical
                             “deferred compensation” and thrift plans offered by state employers
                             because it provides a generous employer contribution, including an auto-
                             matic contribution of 1 percent of salary and will match employee con-
                             tributions up to 5 percent of salary.

                             The generosity of a retirement plan may be measured by the combina-
                             tion of benefits and the contribution rate required of the employee that
                             will receive the benefits. When compared with state and local law
                             enforcement plans of the Social Security coverage type, FERSmay be
                             viewed as generally comparable over the long term because of the
                             advantages of an automatic cost-of-living adjustment. But during the
                             early years of retirement, before eligibility for Social Security, the com-
                             parability of these benefits can be significantly affected by the earned
                             income offset provision of FERS.This offset, which is applicable between
                             the ages of 55 and 62, may result in benefit reductions that make FERS
                             benefits substantially less generous-less than that provided by 80 per-
                             cent of all state and local employers.




                             Page 74                                           OCG90.2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                           Chapter    5
                                           Benefits




Table 5.2: Comparison of Retirement
Benefits as a Percentage of Final Salary                                State/Local
                                                                         w/o Social      State/Local8 WI            FERSb w/o       FERSb w/
                                           Years of service                Security      Social Security           supplement ~~- supplement
                                                                                                          42                   36               44-48"
                                           20                            ..--   ___ 46
                                           25                                       58                    52-                  41               51-56

                                           Note. ‘Final salary,” as used in this context, is the salary used in the computation of retirement benefits;
                                           typically this is the average of the highest 3 or 5 years, usually the last 3 or 5 years of service. Adminis-
                                           tratrvely uncontrollable overtime (AUO), as much as 25 percent of the federal employee’s annual salary,
                                           is included as part of the final salary for retirement computation purposes.
                                           “‘hrrty-seven percent of state/local police agencies, 79 percent of probation agencies, and 84 percent of
                                           state prisons surveyed are covered by Social Security in addition to their retirement benefits.

                                           ‘FEW shown here is the annuity computed at 34 percent with 20 years of service or 39 percent with 25
                                           years plus 2 percent of additional annuity purchased from the proceeds of the thrift plan, assuming the
                                           employee has made no contribution to the thrift plan. The effects of contributrons to the thrift plan are
                                           drsplayed in other tabi&

                                           “he FERS benefit varies wrth the supplemental annuity because it is computed as though It were the
                                           equivalent of the Social Security benefit one would get at age 62, which is a higher amount for the lower
                                           pard employee.


                                           With the supplemental annuity (but no earnings offset), the FEKSbene-
                                           fits are comparable to the average state and local benefits covered by
                                           Social Security. Without the supplement, the FERSbenefits are not com-
                                           parable to the average state and local retirement benefits. The supple-
                                           ment is paid to all law enforcement personnel who retire before age 62.
                                           It stops at age 62 on the presumption that the individual will then
                                           become entitled to Social Security benefits. It also is offset by earned
                                           income after the individual reaches a statutory age, currently age 55.
                                           That offset, or “earnings test,” as it is sometimes called, may have the
                                           effect of substantially reducing retirement benefits for retirees before
                                           age 62.

                                           Two other factors need to be considered in the evaluation of these
                                           retirement benefits. First, contributions to the thrift plan give the
                                           employee an opportunity to enhance retirement benefits greatly. With
                                           no employee contribution, there is an annuity (equal to about 2 percent
                                           of salary) generated by the government’s automatic contribution. With a
                                           contribution of 2 percent to the thrift plan, the FERSemployee is making
                                           a total contribution to retirement equal to about 9.5 percent of salary,
                                           which is roughly the same contribution as the average state and local
                                           employee with Social Security coverage, but a higher contribution than
                                           one of the average employee who does not have Social Security
                                           coverage.




                                           Page 75                                                                 OCG90-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
                   Chapter    5
                   Benefits




                   Second, cost of living adjustments provided by FERSprotect those bene-
                   fits against inflation to a much greater extent than the typical state and
                   local retirement benefit. Over time, the FEHSretirement benefit that
                   started out less generous will actually catch up and may even pass that
                   of the average state and local retirement benefit.

                   With the supplemental annuity and a thrift plan contribution of 2 per-
                   cent of salary, the FERSbenefits may be at least comparable to the aver-
                   age state and local retirement benefit. But if the FERSretiree works full
                   time after retirement, the benefits will be offset and likely inferior
                   unless the employee increases his or her contribution to the thrift plan
                   to at least 4 or 5 percent.

                   A more detailed analysis of law enforcement retirement benefits is
                   found in Appendix VI.


                   Overtime compensation is used to compute retirement benefits in about
Other Retirement   half of the state police agencies and three-fifths of the state prisons.
Benefits           Although A~JOis used to compute FERSretirement benefits, regular over-
                   time compensation is not. This creates some inequity between those who
                   receive AIJO and those who do not. Even among those who receive AIJO,
                   there is a disadvantage for those who work substantial amounts of
                   scheduled or unscheduled overtime.

                   Most retirees in state and local law enforcement organizations receive
                   health insurance and life insurance benefits. More than two-thirds of
                   these have their entire premiums paid for by the employer or the retire-
                   ment system. In contrast, the federal retiree, while permitted to retain
                   eligibility for the federal term life insurance program, pays the entire
                   premium. The federal retiree must also pay 25 to 64 percent of the cost
                   of his or her health insurance premium.

                   Finally, a majority of corrections and police agencies provides some
                   form of compensation or credit for unused sick leave upon retirement.
                   Among corrections agencies, the pattern of practice is to credit leave
                   toward retirement as years of service. Among police agencies, the pat-
                   tern is to pay a cash allowance equal to a percentage of salary, typically
                   50 percent. The federal government does not pay compensation for
                   unused sick leave for employees covered by FERS.




                   Page 76                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                        Chapter      6
                                        Benefits




                                        The federal employer previously gave more holidays and leave than
Leave and Paid                          most state and local employers. However, since federal leave was estab-
Holidays                                lished in statute 30 years ago, the federal government has lost its edge.

                                        Generally, state and local law enforcement agencies provide 11 holidays
                                        compared with 10 for the federal government. Overall, about half give
                                        more sick leave-a few (approximately 6 percent) give virtually unlim-
                                        ited leave for illness or disability. Many also provide additional leave
                                        allowances in categories that the federal employer does not permit. The
                                        NACLE survey did not request these data, but other sources identified by
                                        our contractor show that 66 percent of police agencies provide bereave-
                                        ment leave; 57 percent of corrections agencies provide “expectant or
                                        new father” leave, and another 85 percent provide “family illness”
                                        leave, which is described as permission to use personal sick leave to care
                                        for a sick child or spouse or parent.

                                        The federal employer continues to lead with slightly better maximum
                                        allowances of vacation and personal leave. Overall, however, the federal
                                        employer provides one or two fewer total days off (holidays plus vaca-
                                        tion and personal leave) for employees than the typical state and local
                                        law enforcement agency until the maximum annual leave allowance
                                        begins at year 16. Almost one-third of the employers surveyed provide
                                        more total days of leave and holidays annually than the federal
                                        employer at both the starting and maximum accruals.

Table 5.3: Comparison of Total Number
of Paid Holidays and Annual Leave                                                                                        Percentage of
                                                                              Total number of annual               respondents providing
                                                                            holidays, earned vacation,            more leave and holidays
                                                                             and other personal leave            than the federal employer
                                        Employer                               at starting at maximum               at starting at maximum
                                        All police    agencies                            25              34                                     29
                                                                                                                     ~~_-.-_..56 - -~         -~~-
                                        Large police agencies -.-   ~~-. _____        __-.25.             35
                                                                                                          ~--___-.._         63                 35
                                        Small police agencies             --__.           23              32 ._I._           41                  15
                                        State orisons                     -.-     ____-   25              34                 62                   40
                                                                                                                     ~    _____         -.-. -...~-.
                                        Probation        agencies                         24              34                 50                   32
                                        Federal      government                           23    ---36                    /A---                 N/A
                                        Note: Figures for the state and local agencies are shown in rounded averages. N/A = Not applicable



                                        Allowances discussed here are in-kind, cash payments, or other benefits
Allowances            y                 traditionally associated with law enforcement work. Generally,
                                        allowances for items such as uniforms and clothing are not provided to



                                        Page 77                                                                OCG90-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
                 Chapter    6
                 Benefit6




       --_
                 federal law enforcement employees, except where personnel are uni-
                 formed. Among uniformed federal employees, the practices vary consid-
                 erably. Correctional officers receive an annual cash allowance of $300.
                 Border Patrol agents must purchase their uniforms from a single con-
                 tractor, for which they are reimbursed up to $400. Annually, both
                 groups of employees may spend substantially more than this for pur-
                 chase and cleaning of uniforms. Both agencies acknowledge that uni-
                 form expenses are a common complaint of employees, but we did not
                 obtain estimates of the amounts of those expenses. In the case of a new
                 Border Patrol agent, the initial outlay for the required uniform is
                 $1,250-$850 more than he or she is reimbursed. The Uniformed Divi-
                 sion of the Secret Service and the Park Police are provided uniforms
                 without charge. In addition, the Uniformed Division of the Secret Ser-
                 vice cleans all uniforms without charge.

                 Among state and local law enforcement agencies, the predominant prac-
                 tice is to provide uniforms free of charge and often either provide for
                 the cleaning or grant a cleaning allowance. In the NACLEsurvey, 79 per-
                 cent of uniformed police agencies that responded and 88 percent of state
                 prisons that responded provide uniforms at no cost to the employee. Of
                 these, three-fourths of the police and one-half of the state prisons pro-
                 vided a cash allowance as well.

                 Eighty-six percent of all state and local non-uniformed organizations
                 provided a clothing allowance averaging $440 per year. In contrast, fed-
                 eral non-uniformed personnel did not receive any clothing allowances.

                 In about 70 percent of police agencies, employees are permitted to take
                 patrol cars home. The privilege or benefit of taking home a patrol car is
                 a way for the employer to provide a police presence in the community,
                 which will hopefully deter crime. Personal off-duty use of that patrol
                 car is permitted by two-thirds of those who allow officers to take vehi-
                 cles home. The federal employer has few patrol cars and generally does
                 not permit personnel to take them home, but does permit employees to
                 take home unmarked and official cars in many instances. However, fed-
                 eral employees are not permitted off-duty use of these cars for personal
                 business.


                 The survey of benefits found a number of other differences between the
Other Benefits
          *      federal and nonfederal employers. These findings reveal that state and
                 local law enforcement agencies generally provide more comprehensive
                 benefits in the following categories.


                 Page 78                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                     Chapter    6
                     Benefits




Disability           Most state and local employers provide coverage of their employees
                     under workers’ compensation provisions, and the federal government
                     provides equivalent coverage under the Federal Employees Compensa-
                     tion Act (FECA).Additional disability coverage is only available for fed-
                     eral employees as disability retirement.

                     In contrast, about two-fifths of state and local police and probation
                     agencies and about one-half of state prisons provide short-term and
                     long-term disability insurance in addition to workers’ compensation.
                     Typically, the full cost of the premium is paid by the employer, who
                     provides about 60 percent of salary for a year in cases of short-term
                     disabilities and for up to 2 or 3 years for long-term disabilities. In addi-
                     tion, disability retirement benefits are also provided.

                     The federal employer permits the use of accumulated sick leave for
                     short-term disability and provides disability retirement for long-term
                     disability. A minority (13) of the federal law enforcement agencies
                     reported that they have special sick leave for on-duty injuries, but none
                     provide short-term or long-term disability for their employees.

                     The federal disability retirement benefit is inferior to those provided by
                     state and local law enforcement organizations and may simply be inade-
                     quate. E’ERS   provides a disability retirement for “occupational” disabili-
                     ties, i.e., a disability that prevents work in the current or a comparable
                     position of employment. With entitlement, the employee will receive 60
                     percent of “final salary” for 1 year. After that, the benefit will be
                     reduced to 40 percent. If Social Security is received, an additional reduc-
                     tion to the FEW retirement will be made as an offset. By contrast, the
                     disability retirement benefits paid by state and local law enforcement
                     organizations is generally equal to or greater than that paid at regular
                     retirement, typically between 50 percent and 60 percent of salary.

--__l__._...l.---~




Life Insurance       In general, the federal employer has been found to be less generous with
                     life insurance benefits than the private sector. We found this to be true
                     among law enforcement agencies as well. Table 5.4 compares life insur-
                     ance benefits for state and local versus federal employees.




                     Page 79                                             OCG90.2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                     Chapter    6
                                     Beneflts




Table 5.4: Life Insurance Benefits
                                                                             Percentage of           When benefit is provided as
                                                                          agencies that pay     multiple of annual
                                                                             all of premium             salary, the cash payment, the
                                                                                    (percent)           average is          average is
                                     All police agencies                                  88                       1.5           $15,612
                                     ___                      .______-                                                         -__
                                     State prisons              .______                   69                       1.5            10,722
                                                                                                                               _-~--..-
                                                                                                                          --
                                     Probation agencies                                   85                       1.2              9,436
                                     --___.                   ____--                   _____~
                                     Federal aovernment                                     0                        la              N/A”

                                     aActually, 1 year’s salary rounded to the next highest thousand plus $2,000

                                     “N/A = Not applicable.


                                     Often state and local organizations pay additional amounts for acciden-
                                     tal deaths. In contrast, the federal employer pays two-thirds of the cost
                                     of life insurance premiums under Federal Employee Group Life Insur-
                                     ance (bEGL1).This provides a basic coverage equal to 1 year’s salary plus
                                     $2,000.

                                     State and local law enforcement organizations also provide additional
                                     death benefits that the federal employer does not provide. About 75 per-
                                     cent of state police, 60 percent of state prisons, and 50 percent of proba-
                                     tion agencies supplement the federal death benefit for law enforcement
                                     personnel by unspecified amounts. Among correctional officers, this is
                                     reported to be over $25,000 and up to $100,000.


Comparison of Overall                Based on the data in our survey, it is estimated that 76 percent of the
Costs to Employees                   state and local employers deduct less from employees’ paychecks for
                                     their benefits than the federal government. The following tables illus-
                                     trate the additional cost to two groups of federal employees when com-
                                     paring their benefits and state and local benefits for which cost figures
                                     can be determined.




                                     Page 80                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement    Pay
                                            Chapter     5
                                            Benefits




Table 5.5: Value of Increased Benefits to
a Correctional Officer at OS-7, Step 1                                                                                   For an eyapGre with a
                                                                                      For a single employee                           Y
                                                                                                    Percentage                        Percentage
                                                                                        Value in       of gross             Value in     of gross
                                                                                         dollars         salary              dollars       salary
                                                                                                                                        ___-
                                            Health     insurancea                                                                                    _ ..-
                                              Mailhandlers                                 $284.88             1.46          $441.54                 2.26
                                                                                                                                                   -.-
                                              Blue Cross                                       392.64         2.01            494.90                 2.54
                                            Life insuranceh                  ..~   ~--__       105.81         0.54            105.81       _-._-..-~. 0.54
                                            Retirement      deductionC                         280.70          1.44           280.70                  1.44
                                                                            ~--.- ----______                                                   -.--..
                                            Uniform     allowanced                             200.00          1.03           200.00                  1.03
                                                                                                                                        ___-...-~
                                            Total value with Mailhandlers                  $871.39            4.47         $1,028.05                  5.27
                                            Total value with Blue Cross
                                               Standard Option                             $979.15            5.02         $1,081.41                5.55

                                            “For purposes of comparison, we have chosen a rate of employer-paid premium equal to 100 percent for
                                            employee-only coverage and 90 percent for family coverage. Such payments would place the federal
                                            employer above the 60th percentile when compared with most state and local plans.

                                            “At the 54th percentile (which is where the federal benefit ranks), the state and local employer pays 100
                                            percent of the premrum. Life insurance premium is based on the rates charged federal employees for
                                            FEGLI.
                                            “At the 61st percentile (which is where the FERS benefit ranks if the employee pays 5 percent to the
                                            thrift plan), the state and local employer requires the employee to contribute 5 percent of salary toward
                                            the cost of retrrement. This means that the amount currently deducted for the FERS annuity, 1.44 per-
                                            cent, if paid by the employer, would make the rates of contribution comparable.

                                            “Uniform allowance for correctional officers is an -.additional benefit, based on the assumption that
                                            unrforms WIII be provided to the employee without cost, as IS the predominant practice in state prisons
                                            and police agencies, and an allowance granted for cleaning and incidentals, as is the case for most
                                            uniformed officers. This should provide savrngs to the employee equal to the costs of cleaning and other
                                            costs not sufficiently paid for by the current allowance. Two hundred dollars is an estimate based on
                                            anecdotal evrdence. A clothing allowance of $430 per year for a special agent is based on the average
                                            clothing allowance paid to non-uniformed officers (detectives) of municipal police based on a 1987 sur-
                                            vey.




                                            Page 81                                                                   OCG90-2 Law Enforcement        Pay
                                           Chapter     6
                                           Benefits




Table 5.6 Value of Increased Benefits to
a Special Agent at GS-13, Step 1                                                                                         For an eyapio;ee with a
                                                                                   For a single employee                               Y
                                                                                                  Value as a                            Value as a
                                                                                                 percentage                            percentage
                                                                                     Value in       of gross                Value in      of gross
                                                                                      dollars         salary                 dollars         salary
                                           Health     insurancea
                                                                                ___-
                                              Mailhandlers                               $284.88             0.69 --GE54                             1.07
                                              Blue Cross                                  392.64             0.95              494.90                1.20
                                              SAMBA                                       490.80              1.19          1,244.39                 3.03
                                           Life insuranceb                                211.62             0.51              211.62                0.51
                                           Retirement      deduction”                     592.14              1.44             592.14                1.44
                                           Uniform     allowanced                         430.00             1.05              430.00                1.05
                                                                                                               --.-
                                           Total value with Mailhandlers               $1,518.64     ~       3.69          $1,675.30                 4.07
                                           Total value with Blue Cross
                                              Standard Option                                                3.96                                     4.20
                                                                                       $1,626.40                          -_$1,728.66~~-.. .~~- ~~. -~-~
                                           Total value with SAMBA                      $1,724.56             4.19           $2,478.15                 6.03

                                           “For purposes of comparison, we have chosen a rate of employer-paid premium equal to 100 percent for
                                           employee-only coverage and 90 percent for family coverage. Such payments would place the federal
                                           employer above the 60th percentile when compared with most state and local plans.

                                           “At the 54th percentile (which is where the federal benefit ranks), the state and local employer pays 100
                                           percent of the premium. Life insurance premium is based on the rates charged federal employees for
                                           FEGLI.

                                           “At the 61st percentrle (which IS where the FERS benefit ranks if the employee pays 5 percent to the
                                           thrift plan), the state and local employer requires the employee to contribute 5 percent of salary toward
                                           the cost of retirement. This means that the amount currently deducted for the FERS annuity, 1.44 per-
                                           cent, if paid by the employer, would make the rates of contribution comparable.

                                           “Uniform allowance for correctional officers is an -.additional benefit, based on the assumption that
                                           uniforms will be provided to the employee without cost, as IS the predominant practice in state prisons
                                           and police agencies, and an allowance granted for cleaning and incidentals, as is the case for most
                                           unrformed officers. This should provide savings to the employee equal to the costs of cleaning and other
                                           costs not sufficiently paid for by the current allowance. Two hundred dollars is an estimate based on
                                           anecdotal evidence. A clothing allowance of $430 per year for a special agent is based on the average
                                           clothing allowance paid to non-uniformed officers (detectives) of municipal police based on a 1987 sur-
                                           vey.



                                           Comparing federal and state and local law enforcement fringe benefits is
Conclusion                                 extremely complex and difficult. In addition to determining differences
                                           in the “value” of the benefits themselves, which is difficult for items
                                           such as retirement and health insurance, one must also consider the rel-
                                           ative importance, or weight, applicants and employees would place on
                                           them. This will vary among different people and with the same person
                                           over time, depending on such factors as age, marital status, and health
                                           conditions. In addition, a benefit-by-benefit comparison can be mislead-
                                           ing in that many state and local organizations do not provide the highest
                                           level for all benefits, but instead provide a mix of benefits (in both kind


                                           Page 82                                                                    OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
Chapter    6
Benefits




and cost) that meets their needs in terms of budget, labor relations,
recruiting and retention situation, affordability to employees, relation-
ship to benefit packages for other groups of employees in the jurisdic-
tion, etc. All of these factors must be considered when attempting to
determine the degree of comparability of a total benefits program.

In comparing benefits between the federal government and state and
local law enforcement organizations strictly based on their “generosity,”
the Commission concludes that the federal government’s benefits range
from generally comparable to somewhat less generous. Again, the degree
of comparability varies among the various benefits, the categories of
law enforcement personnel, the circumstances of the individuals
involved, and the value employees attach to the various benefits or dif-
ferences in benefits.

Retirement and health insurance are two benefits that many employees
generally regard as very important, perhaps even most important. The
type of health benefits provided by federal and state and local law
enforcement agencies appear, on balance, generally comparable. How-
ever, our data indicate that federal employees pay a higher proportion
of the costs of their health insurance than employees in many state and
local organizations.

Similarly, retirement benefits overall can be considered to be roughly
comparable among the two broad groups. In the short term, state and
local plans are generally more generous. However, over time, the effect
of cost of living adjustments equalizes and eventually exceeds the value
of the state and local plans. In addition, other factors may influence the
degree of comparability of retirement plans. These include whether and
how much federal employees contribute to the thrift plan, whether fed-
eral employees’ retirement benefits are offset by employment earnings
between the ages of 55 and 62, and the amount of the cost of living
increases over time.

Perhaps even more important than the comparison of the actual value of
retirement or health benefits between the two sectors are employee and
applicant perceptions of the benefits or differences in benefits, given the
great importance current law enforcement employees seem to attribute
to them. For example, even though retirement benefits in the state and
local sector may be somewhat more generous, at least in the short term,
federal law enforcement personnel generally do not view their retire-
ment benefits, compared with those of others, as a problem.



Page 83                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
     -
Chapter    6
Benefits




On the other hand, most federal law enforcement employees see their
health benefits, compared with those of others, as a significant problem.
We do not know whether they are referring to unequal coverage, which,
on balance, our contractor found to be generally comparable, or to
employee costs, which are greater for federal employees. Providing
employees with more information on the comparability of the benefits
may alleviate their concerns in the area of coverage. Concerning the dif-
ference in costs, it is unclear how much the additional costs would influ-
ence current or potential federal employees in deciding to enter or stay
in federal law enforcement, particularly if the wide differences in the
pay for law enforcement employees in the two sectors were narrowed.

Our study also found that state and local law enforcement organizations
are generally more generous with life insurance, both in terms of benefit
and cost, and with leave and paid holidays, In addition, many state and
local employers provide benefits that the federal employer does not pro-
vide, including bereavement leave, family illness leave, disability insur-
ance above workers’ compensation, and vision care insurance.

However, given the federal deficit, the increases in pay we are recom-
mending and the fact that most benefits for federal law enforcement
officers (except for retirement) are the same as for other federal
employees, with one exception, the Commission is not recommending
changes in benefits at this time. However, the Commission believes that
because of the perceived differences in costs and benefits, as well as the
rapid change occurring in benefits programs in the nonfederal sector,
benefits and their effects on recruitment, retention, and morale need to
be watched in the future. For example, growing concern about the earn-
ings offset under FERSbefore reaching age 62, the higher contributions
to the thrift fund necessary to achieve a benefit equal to the state and
local sector, or the perceived disadvantage faced by lower paid employ-
ees in their ability to contribute to the thrift fund, could result in the
government facing serious problems in the competition to recruit and
retain high-quality personnel.

There is one finding that the Commission believes supports a recommen-
dation, one that does not require reform of the wider federal employee
benefits program. We recommend that the uniform allowances for uni-
formed law enforcement personnel be improved. The inequity of prac-
tices among federal agencies should be ended and a common practice
adopted that is comparable to the predominant practice among local
police agencies and state prisons: Uniforms should be provided without
cost to the employees, and either an additional allowance granted for


Page 84                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Chapter    5
Benefits




cleaning and incidental costs be provided or the uniforms should be cle-
aned at the agency’s expense.




Page 86                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Charker   6

Recruitment, Retention,and Morale


               Information on agency practices and measures of success in the areas of
               recruitment and retention is vital to the study of pay and benefits of
               federal law enforcement officers. Many important themes have emerged
               on recruiting and retaining an adequate federal law enforcement
               workforce.

               We used several approaches to determine whether federal law enforce-
               ment organizations were experiencing recruitment, retention, and
               morale problems and the nature, extent, and impact of these problems
               on operations.’ A survey instrument sent to the headquarters of 37 fed-
               eral law enforcement organizations asked for quantifiable data in such
               areas as (1) applications received, (2) pool of qualified applicants, (3)
               number of applicants hired, (4) authorized positions, (5) actual on-board
               personnel, and (6) separations and retirements. It also asked for head-
               quarters officials’ perceptions on recruitment, retention, staffing, and
               morale. Additionally, we interviewed 102 field managers in 14 cities
               about these same issues. Information from federal law enforcement
               employees was obtained through 29 focus group discussions we con-
               vened in 14 cities and from a questionnaire we sent to a random sample
               of approximately 4,600 employees nationwide.2

               The information we obtained may be divided into two categories: quanti-
               fiable data and perceptions. The statistical data available were not as
               extensive as expected, but were sufficient to draw some conclusions.
               The management and employee perceptions involved such issues as the
               reasons management believes recruitment difficulties are increasing and
               indications of future problems. These perceptions proved to be a valu-
               able source of information on the reasons behind hiring obstacles, turn-
               over rates, internal staffing difficulties, and employee morale.

               Our work indicated problems in the recruitment and retention of federal
               law enforcement officers. The problems identified are not uniform or
               simple in nature. They affect certain groups, such as entry-level person-
               nel, more than others; are more serious in certain geographic regions,
               such as high-cost urban areas; and affect some agencies to a greater
               extent than others.

               According to headquarters and field managers, the most important fac-
               tor affecting the recruitment and retention of federal law enforcement

               ‘See appendix I for a detailed discussion of the various survey instruments and means employed by
               the Commission.

               ZThe results of the survey sent to the employees are subject to sampling errors of less than 5 percent.



               Page 86                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
                 Chapter 6
                 Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




                 employees was the inability of pay to offset the high cost of living in
                 certain areas. A practical impact on federal law enforcement agencies is
                 that excessive expenditure of time and money for recruiting and train-
                 ing new personnel adversely influences their operational missions.


                 In general, neither the headquarters of the organizations nor their local
Recruitment      offices had statistical data we sought on recruitment because officials
                 said they have not routinely or formally tracked these issues.” However,
                 they did provide their opinions and perceptions on the issues. The large
                 majority of both headquarters and field officials said they were experi-
                 encing significant recruiting problems.

                 We asked headquarters officials about recruitment during the time
                 period 1985 through 1988. The organizations reported that in 1985 69
                 percent experienced problems in recruitment.4 By 1988, the percentage
                 had grown to 80 percent. The largest number of field managers said that
                 they have had difficulty recruiting federal law enforcement employees
                 for the last 3 to 5 years. Some field managers indicated that they had
                 experienced recruiting problems for as many as 7 to 10 years.

                 Recruitment problems are widespread but are more severe in high cost
                 of living areas. Forty-two percent of the organizations recruit regionally
                 or locally as opposed to nationally, and 61 percent of headquarters offi-
                 cials identified recruitment problems as being regional and local in
                 nature. According to field managers, recruitment problems are more
                 extreme in the cities of Los Angeles; Washington, DC; Boston; and Miami
                 because of the high competition among employers for recruits.


Problem Groups   The entry-level employee is the primary target for recruiting efforts by
                 federal law enforcement agencies. Field managers view this level as by
                 far the most difficult level at which to recruit (see Fig. 6.1). Sixty-three
                 of the 69 field managers having recruitment problems said that their
                 offices could not successfully compete for recruits with state law
                 enforcement agencies and 62 of the 69 said that their offices could not

                 “While some organizations were able to provide the requested statistics, the sample was too small for
                 generalization.

                 ‘In the Recruitment and IZctcntion Survey, the responses were not evaluated in terms of 37 discrete
                 respondents but were weighted to reflect the agency’s percentage of the federal law enforcement
                 workforce. Therefore, when the words “headquarters” or “organization” are mentioned in this chap-
                 ter, the statement reflects a weighted number. See Appendix I for a further explanation of the procc-
                 durc to weight the responses.



                 Page 87                                                             OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
                                       Chapter 0
                                       Recruitment,   Retention,      and Morale




                                       successfully compete with local law enforcement agencies. A problem
                                       also exists, but is not as great, in recruiting full performance level
                                       employees.


Figure 6.1: Federal Field Management
Interviews-Recruitment
                                       100   Percent of Federal Field Managers lndlcatlng Problem

                                        90




                                        City (Number of Interviews)


                                              I        Eny Level
                                                       Full Performance Level

                                       Source: 102 federal field manager interviews performed by National Advisory Commission on Law
                                       Enforcement.


                                       All regions studied reported problems recruiting minority and female
                                       candidates. Officials at both headquarters and field offices indicated
                                       that their organizations had the most difficulty in recruiting Hispanics,
                                       Afro-Americans, and Asians (see Fig. 6.2). The responses to our
                                       employee questionnaire appear to corroborate this stated difficulty. The
                                       responses from members of the minority groups comprised 8 percent, 7
                                       percent, and 1 percent, respectively; 10 percent of the workforce is
                                       female.




                                       Page 88                                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement     Pay
                                         Chapter 6
                                         Recruitment,    Retention,   and Morale




Figure 6.2: Federal Field Management
Interviews-Recruitment    of Minority
Groups and Females                       100    Percent of Federal Field Managers Experiencing Problem

                                          90

                                          80

                                          70

                                          so

                                          50

                                          40

                                          30

                                          20

                                          10




                                        CIyRIumbsr of lntsrvlaws (Areas of Difficulty)

                                         ‘“All” represents Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women.

                                         Source: 102 federal field manager interviews performed by National Advisory Commission on Law
                                         Enforcement.



                                         The majority of headquarters officials said that recruiting people with
                                         special skills is also difficult. Many field managers indicated that they
                                         needed individuals with language, computer, accounting, and legal skills.
                                         (See Fig. 6.3.) They indicated that individuals possessing these skills
                                         were needed to fill undercover roles or to investigate financial and
                                         white-collar crimes. They also felt it important that these skills be inte-
                                         grated with other duties of law enforcement employees.




                                         Page 89                                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
                                            K@cruitment,    Retention,   nnd Mornle




Figure 6.3: Federal Field Management
Interviews-Recruitment    of Specialty     ,oo    Percent of Federal Field Managers Experiencing Problem
Positions
                                            90

                                            90

                                            m

                                            60

                                             60

                                             40

                                             30

                                             20

                                             10

                                              0




                                         Cities/Number of Interviews (Areas of Dlfflculty)

                                           Source: 102 federal field manager interviews performed by National Advisory Commission on Law
                                           Enforcement.

          --..-__.
Internal Staffing                           In addition to recruiting at the entry level, many organizations use inter-
                                            nal staffing or placement to fill vacancies.” Organizations reported diffi-
                                            culty staffing high cost of living locations. This difficulty causes a
                                            myriad of operational problems. Headquarters officials reported
                                            increased staffing problems not only in terms of the reluctance of
                                            employees to relocate but also in terms of employees’ lack of interest in
                                            remaining at a site for a period of time sufficient to meet management’s
                                            needs. Figure 6.4 highlights the factors adversely affecting internal
                                            staffing. Headquarters officials viewed the following cities as most diffi-
                                            cult to staff: New York; Los Angeles; San Francisco; Washington, DC;
                                            and Chicago.



                                            “Internal staffing is filling vacancies at levels other than the entry level within an organization with
                                            employees who are currently within that organization.



                                            Page 90                                                                OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement        Pay
                                      Chapter 6
                                      Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




Figure 6.4: Headquarters Officials’
Perception of Factors Adversely
Affecting Federal Law Enforcement     Percent of Agencies (Weighted)
Internal Staffing                     100   -        -
                                       90

                                       60

                                       70

                                       60

                                       50

                                       40

                                       30

                                       20

                                       10

                                        0                              t
                                                     A            L        A




                                      Pmblems

                                      Weighted according to agency representation in universe.

                                      Source: Survey of 37 federal law enforcement organizations performed by National Advisory
                                      Commission on Law Enforcement.

                                      Difficulty in relocating these employees was said by managers to ham-
                                      per the operational mission in the majority of organizations. Organiza-
                                      tional perceptions of the adverse effects of insufficient staffing included
                                      (1) lack of experienced employees to accomplish the mission, (2) high
                                      cost to replace lost personnel, and (3) insufficient staff to accomplish
                                      the mission. Further information may be found in Figure 6.5.




                                      Page 91                                                          OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement    Pay
                                          Chapter 0
                                          Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




Figure 6.5: Headquarters Officials’
Perceptions of Staffing Problem Effects
                                          100   Percent of Agencies (Weighted)
on Agency Operations
                                           90

                                           60

                                           70
                                                r                .
                                           60




                                           Problems

                                          Weighted according to percent in universe.

                                          Source: Survey of 37 federal law enforcement organizations performed by National Advisory
                                          Commission on Law Enforcement.


Causes                                    Organizations and employees identified pay as the greatest obstacle
                                          responsible for recruitment problems, Headquarters officials said that
                                          the greatest problem was the inability of federal salaries to offset the
                                          high cost of living and pay disparities with the state and local law
                                          enforcement employers and the private sector. (See Fig. 6.6, which illus-
                                          trates the range of responses by headquarters officials.) Fifty-four of
                                          the 69 field managers reporting recruitment problems (78 percent) said
                                          that low pay was a factor. Field managers also cited as problems lower
                                          benefits compared with state and local law enforcement, the high cost of
                                          living, tough competition from private sector and other law enforcement
                                          employers for recruits, a directed transfer policy,” inadequate overtime
                                          compensation, unpleasant work environment, lengthy and expensive

                                          %ee later discussion of the various mobility policies used to staff offices.



                                          Page 92                                                                OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                           Chapter 6
                                           Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




------
                                           background investigations, the generally low quality of life in a large
                                           metropolitan area, and lack of law enforcement authority. Employees
                                           interviewed in focus groups said that agencies were experiencing
                                           recruitment problems because of inferior pay and benefits of federal
                                           officers and the high cost of living. According to our employee question-
                                           naire, 52 percent of the employees view the superior pay of state and
                                           local law enforcement agencies as a problem, and over 60 percent of the
                                           employees view overtime policies and health benefits of those organiza-
                                           tions as problems.

--

Figure 6.6: Headquarters Officials’ Perceptions of Factors Adversely Affecting Federal Law Enforcement Recruitment
100      Penxnt of Agonclem (Wdghted)

 90




                                           Factors with less than 1% not shown

                                           Agency perception.9%; agency image 2%; lack of effort .l%; poor effort 0%.
                                           Source: Survey of 37 federal law enforcement organizations performed by National Advisory
                                           Commission on Law Enforcement.




                                           Page Q3                                                          OCGQO-2 Law Enforcement    Pay
-.-
         Chapter 6
         Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




         Lesser obstacles cited as responsible for recruitment problems included
         such issues as a poor agency image, ineffective recruitment tactics,
         incorrect perception of agency work, and the nature of the work.

         Employees participating in our focus group discussions also cited prob-
         lems with their agencies’ ability to recruit new employees. One partici-
         pant said, “We tell them a little about the job, and then ,.., you get to the
         pay. Every time they look at you with disbelief. Right away they back
         off.”

.-._-
Impact   Recruitment problems have several adverse effects on operations. Field
         managers said that recruitment problems resulted in unaddressed work,
         increased work load, and increased overtime hours. Other problems
         cited included more time and money spent on recruiting, training, and
         supervising new law enforcement personnel; a decline in morale; chronic
         understaffing of their offices; increased life span of cases; and a general
         decline in the quality of work produced by their offices.

         IIeadquarters and field officials were asked about the quality of
         recruits. Headquarters officials said they tracked quality and 47 percent
         said quality had improved since 1985,23 percent said it had stayed
         about the same, and 30 percent said it had worsened. Most field mana-
         gers acknowledged that although they did not track such information,
         they were concerned about quality of recruits. While 50 percent of the
         field managers believed quality had improved or stayed the same, 46
         percent believed the quality had worsened over the last 5 years.
         Employees in focus groups also voiced the same concern about the
         decline in the quality of applicants and recruits. The large majority of
         field managers reporting a decrease in quality indicated it had a nega-
         tive effect on their offices’ operations. In addition to low pay and non-
         competitive benefits compared with state and local law enforcement,
         field managers most frequently attributed the decrease in quality of
         applicants to a decline in the educational system. Some defined quality
         as previous law enforcement experience and thought fewer recent
         recruits had such experience.

         Evidence of the effects of these issues on the future of recruitment for
         federal law enforcement jobs may be found in our employee question-
         naire. Twenty-nine percent of the employees indicated they would not
         choose a career in federal law enforcement if they had the decision to
         make over again. Eighteen percent were unsure what they would do.



         Page 94                                             OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                 Chapter 6
                 Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




                 Thirty-four percent would not recommend to others a career in federal
                 law enforcement.


                 As in the area of recruitment, organizations did not have many of the
Retention        statistical data that we were seeking on retention. However, officials
                 overwhelmingly reported that they had difficulty retaining employees.
                 Seventy of the 102 managers questioned during out field visits said they
                 had retention problems.

                 According to field managers, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and
                 Washington, DC, have the most serious retention problems. Field mana-
                 gers reported that most individuals leaving were not leaving law
                 enforcement but were accepting positions in other federal, state, and
                 local law enforcement agencies for better pay and benefits or were relo-
                 cating to areas with a lower cost of living.

                 Twenty-five field managers (the largest number but not a majority),
                 reported that their offices had been experiencing retention problems for
                 the last 3 to 5 years. Many managers in high-cost areas said that their
                 offices had experienced a retention problem for over 10 years.

.-__~---
Problem Groups   According to headquarters officials, the turnover rate7 for federal law
                 enforcement officers in 1987 was 5 percent.s However, certain occupa-
                 tions and agencies experienced a higher rate of attrition. For example,
                 the turnover rates for criminal investigators in the Department of the
                 Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Inspector Gen-
                 eral were 17 percent and 18 percent, respectively; the Bureau of Prisons
                 experienced a 20-percent turnover rate for its psychologists.

                 Headquarters officials, field managers, and employees all said the inabil-
                 ity of agencies to retain employees is significant at the entry and full
                 performance levels. (See Fig. 6.7.) Certain agencies have particularly
                 serious retention problems. For example, the Border Patrol loses up to
                 40 percent of its entry-level employees in the first year (primarily
                 because new agents are not able to master the Spanish language). BOP
                 loses approximately 30 percent of its correctional officers in the first

                 7Turnover rate was calculated by dividing the total separations by the total on-board strength.

                 “According to the OPM’s “Federal White Collar Pay System - Report on a Market-Sensitive Study”
                 released in August 1989, the 1987 overall federal quit rate for employees in the professional, adminis-
                 trative, technical, clerical, and “other” categories was 4.3 percent.



                 Page 95                                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement        Pay
                                       Chapter 6
                                       Recruitment, Retention, and Morale




                                       year. The problem, however, is not limited to the entry level. The 1988
                                       annual  tUrnOVer  rate for all correctional officers is 12 percent. GAO
                                       reported in September 1989 that the Uniformed Division of the Secret
                                       Service had a turnover rate of 10.5 percent in 1987. According to FBI,
                                       fiscal year 1987 was the first time that more special agents resigned
                                       from FBI than retired.


Figure 6.7: Federal Field Management
Interviews-Retention
                                       100   Percent of Federal Field Managers lndlcating Problem

                                        90

                                        60

                                        70

                                        so

                                        50

                                        40

                                        30

                                        20

                                        10

                                         0




                                        Clty (Number of Interviews)

                                                       Entry Level
                                                       Full Performance Level

                                       Source: 102 federal field manager interviews performed by National Advisory Commission on Law
                                       Enforcement.


                                       A significant number of field managers said they had difficulty retain-
                                       ing specific employee groups. Hispanics, Afro-Americans, and women
                                       were the groups most frequently mentioned. (See Fig. 6.8.) Many field
                                       managers cited difficulty retaining employees with specialty skills.
                                       Employees with language and accounting skills were viewed by mana-
                                       gers as the most difficult to retain. (See fig. 6.9.)


                                       Page 96                                                         OCG90-2Law Enforcement Pay
         -----
                                        Chapter 6
                                        Recruitment,     Retention,   and Morale




Figure 6.8: Federal Field Management
Interviews-Retention    of Minority
Groups and Females                       80     Percent of Federal Field Managon Experiencing Problem

                                         SO

                                         70

                                         60

                                         60

                                         40

                                         30

                                         20

                                         10 P




                                       City/Number of Intervlewe (Awes of Difficulty)

                                         Source: 102 federal field manager interviews performed by National Advisory Commission on Law
                                         Enforcement.




                                          Page 97                                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement        Pay
                                       Chapter 6
                                       Recruitment,    Retention,   and Morale




Figure 6.9: Federal Field Management
Interviews-Retention    of Specialty
                                       100   Percent of Federal Field Managers Experlenclng Problem
Positions
                                        so




                                         CltlwNumber    of Infervlewe (Areae of Difficulty)

                                       Source: 102 federal field manager interviews performed by National Advisory Commission on Law
                                       Enforcement.


                                       Over the next several years, agencies’ retention problems may be aggra-
                                       vated by the large number of expected retirements. Our employee ques-
                                       tionnaire responses indicate that 86 percent of the federal law
                                       enforcement workforce are between 30 and 54 years old; 44 percent are
                                       at least 40 years old and are within 10 years of retirement eligibility.
                                       (See Fig. 6.10.) The questionnaire indicates almost 52 percent of federal
                                       law enforcement personnel plan to retire as soon as they become eligible.
                                       (See Fig. 6.11.) According to the Secret Service, over 70 percent of their
                                       SES personnel are now eligible to retire. By 1995, over 30 percent of BOP
                                       managers and 40 percent of FBI agents will be eligible for retirement.
                                       The loss of experience and expertise in the law enforcement workforce
                                       adversely affects law enforcement agencies.




                                       Page 98                                                         OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement    Pay
                                         Chapter 6
                                         Recruitment,   Retention,       and Morale




Figure 6.10: Age Ranges of Federal Law
Enforcement Officers
                                         50   Percent of Officers



                                         40



                                         30



                                         20



                                         10




                                               2944    2549
                                                                    A
                                                                            3
                                                                        30-39
                                                                                L
                                                                                    49-49
                                                                                            AoL
                                                                                             so-54
                                                                                                          L

                                                                                                     %-over
                                               Age Rangw
                                         Source: Survey of 4,600 federal law enforcement employees performed by National Advisory
                                         Commission on Law Enforcement.




                                         Page 99                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                        Chapter 6
                                        Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




Figure 6.11: Federal Law Enforcement
Officers-Plans   to Leave Federal Law
Enforcement                                                                                    Continue in federal law enforcement


                                                                                                          in federal non-law enforcement




                                                                                               Resign before eligible for retirement


                                                                                               Retire to non-federal law enforcement




                                                                                               Retire




                                                                                               5.6%
                                                                                               Other
                                                   I                                           Unsure
                                        Source: Survey of 4,600 federal law enforcement employees performed by National Advisory
                                        Commission on Law Enforcement.

                                        According to our employee questionnaire, reasons federal law enforce-
                                        ment employees remain on the job include satisfaction with the nature
                                        of their jobs, retirement benefits offered by the federal government, and
                                        tenure. Employees indicated, however, that these positive factors are
                                        not outweighed by their perceptions about inferior pay and poor health
                                        benefits compared with nonfederal employers.


Transfer Policies                       According to headquarters officials in our survey, almost 70 percent of
                                        federal law enforcement employees are employed by organizations with
                                        a geographical mobility policy.S’ Many are subject to “directed transfer”
                                        policies and other relocations for the benefit of the government. Most

                                        “The mobility policies were generally of two types. Directed transfers are those in which employees
                                        are required to relocate, usually without having chosen or requested the new location. Voluntary
                                        transfers are those in which employees relocate after indicating a willingness to move to another city,
                                        usually for career purposes.



                                        Page 100                                                             OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
                                         Chapter 6
                                         Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




                                         organizations indicated that the purpose of the directed transfer policy
                                         was to meet the operational needs of the agency. (See Fig. 6.12.) Many
                                         federal law enforcement employees relocate several times throughout
                                         their careers. The employee questionnaire indicates 67 percent of the
                                         workforce have been assigned to their present duty posts for 5 years or
                                         less and 59 percent have had at least one transfer. Many of these reloca-
                                         tions are to high cost of living locations.


Figure 6.12: Headquarters Officials’
Perceptions of Primary Agency
Objectives of Directed Transfer Policy   Percent of Agencies (Weighted)

                                         loo r-
                                           90

                                          50

                                          70

                                          66

                                          50

                                          40

                                          30

                                          20

                                          10

                                           0
                                                        L




                                         Source: Survey of 37 federal law enforcement organizations performed by National Advisory
                                         Commission on Law Enforcement


                                         Twenty-two of 40 managers whose agencies actively enforced a directed
                                         transfer policy indicated the policy had a negative effect on their agen-
                                         cies’ ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel. An employee
                                         responding to our questionnaire said, “recruitment in my geographic
                                         location is virtually impossible because of pay and benefits status. Even



                                         Page 101                                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
         Chapter 6
         Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




         management positions are not always filled by first choice candidates
         due to relocation hardships.”

         The mobility requirements of federal law enforcement employees
         greatly exceed those of their counterparts in state and local law enforce-
         ment agencies. According to our State and Local Survey, only 25 percent
         of the state and local law enforcement employees are employed by orga-
         nizations that had such a policy (the number of these employees who
         have actually transferred is unknown).“’ The state and local mobility
         polices, however, do not amount to the same magnitude when transfers
         within a state or city are compared with interstate or international
         transfers required for federal officers.

         Mobility policies of some agencies were identified as a major source of
         discontent. For example, an employee in a focus group said,

         “The transfer is the part-you    lose every time you transfer.     . I don’t care what
         anybody says, you can have the greatest job in the world, but when it comes right
         down to it, it is the pocketbook in the end. It again, creates stress, and probably the
         most important thing it affects is morale.”

         Twenty-eight of 40 field managers whose agencies actively enforced a
         directed transfer policy indicated that the policy had a negative effect
         on the morale of their law enforcement personnel.

         Mobility policies, along with rapidly rising housing costs in many high-
         cost areas, may place a severe burden on federal law enforcement
         employees. Managers and employees cited many adverse conditions for
         employment in high cost of living areas. These conditions include an
         inability to afford adequate housing, reluctance of employees to transfer
         to these areas, increasing commutes for federal law enforcement person-
         nel due to the inability to afford housing in reasonable proximity to
         places of duty, difficulty in recruiting in high-cost areas, and reluctance
         of employees to stay in these areas.


Causes   Headquarters officials identified low pay and benefits as the leading
         factors contributing to the retention problem. Disparity in salaries
         between federal law enforcement and the private sector, as well as state



          ““The survey results are based on responses from 576 state and local law enforcement agencies. More
         information on the survey is provided in Appendix IV.



         Page 102                                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
                                           Chapter 6
                                           Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




                                           and local law enforcement salaries, was the most frequently cited prob-
                                           lem. Inequity in benefits with state and local law enforcement and pri-
                                           vate employers was also cited as a problem. Factors adversely affecting
                                           federal law enforcement retention are presented on Figure 6.13.



Figure 6.13: Headquarters Officials’ Perceptions of Factors Adversely Affecting Federal Law Enforcement Retention
100    Percent of Agencies (Wolghted)

Qo

80

70
60

w

40
30

20

10

 0 .




Problems

                                           Factors with less than 1% not shown.

                                           Agency image .2%; agency perception .l%.

                                           Source: Survey of 37 federal law enforcement organizations performed by National Advisory
                                           Commission on Law Enforcement.


                                           Fifty-four of 70 field managers citing retention problems (77 percent)
                                           said low pay was a factor affecting retention; 50 percent said that the
                                           high cost of living was a factor. Other factors cited included benefits
                                           that were not competitive with state and local law enforcement; a
                                           directed transfer policy; the low quality of life in a large metropolitan


                                           Page 103                                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement    Pay
         Chapter 6
         Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




         area; inadequate or no overtime compensation; tough competition for
         quality personnel from other law enforcement agencies and private sec-
         tor employers; long commutes; lack of promotional opportunities;
         unpleasant work environments; negative public perception of law
         enforcement; and lack of law enforcement authority. Field managers
         reported that former employees cited the following reasons for leaving:
         low pay, lack of promotional opportunities, a directed transfer policy,
         the high cost of living in a large metropolitan area, and relocation to a
         more desirable area. Additionally, former employees interviewed in
         focus groups said low pay and benefits, high cost of living, and inade-
         quate incentives and promotions were problems.


Impact   Clearly, retention problems are costly to agencies in terms of lost exper-
         tise, increased caseloads, unaddressed work, and increased overtime.
         Perhaps most costly, however, is the expense of hiring and training new
         employees to replenish the workforce subject to such turnover. The 37
         organizations reported an average amount of $26,238 spent on each new
         federal law enforcement employee. I1The figure includes recruitment
         costs (advertising, processing, pretesting, and administrative costs);
         background investigations; training costs; relocation expenses; and other
         related costs.


         We were presented a mixed picture on morale. Field managers generally
Morale   were more positive than law enforcement officers. More than 70 percent
         of the managers indicated that morale was good or higher; however, 78
         percent of these managers qualified their responses by indicating low
         pay and high cost of living had negative effects on the morale of their
         law enforcement personnel. According to our employee questionnaire,
         63 percent of the employees believe the level of morale in their work
         groups is a problem. These employees believed that poor morale contrib-
         uted to their agency’s inability to retain employees.

         Employees responding to our questionnaire reported many positive
         aspects of their federal law enforcement careers. The questionnaire indi-
         cates that individuals choose a career in federal law enforcement
         because the nature of the work appeals to them. Federal law enforce-
         ment officers cited other positive aspects of their jobs as well. They are
         interested in serving their country and their community and want to

         ’ ‘We did not independently verify the figures. By far the largest expense within this computation
         was the relocation costs for the agencies.



         Page 104                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement          Pay
                                      Chapter 0
                                      Recruitment,     Retention,   and Morale




                                      contribute meaningfully to society through their abilities to investigate,
                                      arrest, and remove law offenders from society. Challenge, risk, variety,
                                      excitement, independence, and responsibility motivate federal law
                                      enforcement officers. They like the flexibility of their work assignments
                                      and hours of duty, and they value the security of their jobs. They enjoy
                                      teamwork and camaraderie, and they enjoy working with and for the
                                      public. The fact that they receive prestige and respect from the public
                                      and among themselves plays an important part in their overall
                                      contentment.

                                      Conversely, employees indicated many negative factors influencing their
                                       morale. Specifically, federal law enforcement employees view pay dis-
                                       parities and the resultant problems as a major factor affecting morale.
                                      Seventy-one percent of employees said that their failure to earn ade-
                                      quate pay to maintain accustomed standards of living in their present
                                       locations had a negative impact on their morale. Fifty-two percent said
                                      that morale was negatively affected by the fact that state and local law
                                      enforcement agencies pay more. Sixty-five percent said that morale was
                                       a problem because private sector employees are paid more for similar
                                      jobs. In most of the 29 focus groups, pay disparity was described as a
                                      major limitation and disadvantage of federal law enforcement work.
                                      (See Table 6.1 for elements of satisfaction/dissatisfaction of federal law
                                      enforcement officers.)

Table 6.1: Factors of Satisfaction/
Dissatisfaction of Federal Law                                                               Officers         Dissatisfied         Officers
Enforcement Officers                  Satisfied with                                        (percent)
                                                                                                    ,* .-..-.------    with       (percent)
                                                                                                                                  -... --
                                      Job overall                                                                    Salarv                 49
                                      Material..-. Challenge
                                                      ~. ...--                                      79-__.        rewards
                                                                                                               __--..                       52
                                      Meaningfulness                                                73           Lifestyle                  62
                                      Job security                                                                    Pay
                                                                                                           compared to
                                                                                        ---.-      89
                                                                                                  ___.-.___      others                     67
                                                                                                           Cost of living                   83
                                      Source: Survey of 4,600 federal law enforcement    employees performed by Natlonal Advisory Commis-
                                      sion on Law Enforcement.


                                      Pay disparities also negatively affect morale when federal officers are
                                      required to work with their state and local law enforcement counter-
                                      parts. For example, one focus group participant said the following:

                                      “llsed to be, you didn’t speak up and tell the locals how much you received a year
                                      because you were embarrassed because you made more than they did. Well, now, it’s




                                      Page 106                                                               OCG90-2 Law Enforcement    Pay
Chapter 6
Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




just the opposite. You’re embarrassed because you’re doing all this work and you’re
 making so much less than they are.”

Another focus group participant said:

“Right now you go out and work with the Boston police and it is embarrassing. They
laugh at us. You’re standing post with a Boston cop or a state policeman who is
making $70,000 to $75,000 without killing themselves. We can’t compare to them.”

Employees responding to our questionnaire identified two other pay-
related issues affecting their morale: the health benefits and the over-
time policies of their agencies. Sixty-five percent of the employees view
the disparity in health benefits offered by the federal government com-
pared with those offered by state, local, and private sector employers as
a problem.tz

Sixty-two percent of the employees think the overtime policy of their
agencies is a problem compared with other employers. An individual in
a focus group confirmed this complaint:

“In the private sector, if somebody was to pay somebody half time for their over-
time and not even full time for the scheduled overtime, the civil division of the U.S.
Attorney’s Office, I’m sure, would pursue them for violations of the Fair Labor Stan-
dards Act or whatever federal statute may apply to that. That’s a major beef that
I’ve got. The overtime is a joke. It is an absolute farce.”

In addition to pay and benefits, law enforcement employees cited sev-
eral other factors adversely affecting their morale. These included pro-
motion practices within their agencies; working conditions; and, for a
variety of law enforcement employees, the level of law enforcement
authority.

Our employee questionnaire indicates that 54 percent of the employees
said promotion practices within their agencies were a problem. Forty-
nine percent said they had not been promoted in at least the last 2 years.

The questionnaire also indicates that 55 percent of the employees in our
survey believed the level of support in their agencies was a problem.
Support includes, for example, equipment, supplies, travel or training
funds and office assistance. It also includes clerical and nonclerical
employees. Eighty-five percent of the field managers interviewed said

“Chapter 5 of this report discusses health benefits provided to law enforcement employees by state
and local agencies compared to health benefits provided by the federal government.



Page 106                                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
    Chapter 6
    Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




-
    that the problems experienced by law enforcement personnel also
    affected their support staffs. Problems cited most often were low pay,
    low morale, and the difficulty of recruiting and retaining qualified sup-
    port personnel. Although our employee questionnaire did not directly
    address this issue, some employees volunteered their “write-in” com-
    ments concerning support staff. A typical comment was:

    “Without a proper support employee structure, the entire (agency) machine is
    stymied. Agents cannot function properly and much time is wasted handling paper
    problems suited to much lower support levels.”

    In focus group discussions, participants stated that support staff suf-
    fered hardships because of low pay. According to one participant, a sup-
    port staff employee quit to collect the retirement that she had amassed.
    After using the retirement money to pay off her bills, she rejoined the
    agency but still had only enough to make ends meet.

    Also, over 55 percent of the employees in our employee survey cited the
    consistency of policies and procedures and the level of “red tape” as
    problems. Fifty-one percent said cooperation between upper-level man-
    agement and employees was a problem.

    Twenty-six percent of the employees in our survey were concerned
    about their level of law enforcement authority (e.g., statutory authority
    to carry a firearm, make arrests as federal officers, or enforce a wider
    range of statutes in the course of other law enforcement duties). Fifty-
    three of these percent believed this had a major impact on their morale.
    This issue was raised in our interviews with managers and in focus
    group discussions with criminal investigators in Offices of the Inspector
    General. Factors most frequently mentioned by managers as having a
    negative effect on morale of their law enforcement personnel were low
    pay and lack of or inadequate overtime compensation. Managers also
    cited factors that had a positive effect on the morale. These included
    interesting cases and job satisfaction.

    Field managers reporting morale problems offered a number of possible
    solutions. These solutions included increasing pay, agencies’ budgets,
    number of staff, and number and quality of government vehicles and
    equipment; instituting a locality pay system; and improving the over-
    time compensation system.




    Page 107                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   pay
              Chapter 6
              Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




              Although quantifiable data on recruiting problems were not widely
Conclusions   available, the pervasive concerns of federal law enforcement suggest
              that serious problems exist, More data exist on retention, showing that
              it is a serious problem for some law enforcement occupations, particu-
              larly correctional officers and Border Patrol agents. Nonetheless, it
              seems reasonable to assume the future will be problematic in the areas
              of recruiting and retaining qualified federal law enforcement personnel.

              The federal government will most likely face serious problems in the
              future resulting from its inability to attract and retain a highly qualified
              law enforcement workforce. These prospects make it essential to
              address causes of recruiting, retention, and morale problems. Pay dis-
              parities between federal law enforcement officers and state and local
              law enforcement officers, as well as the private sector employees, were
              perceived as having been a recurring problem affecting the recruitment
              and retention of qualified federal law enforcement officers. (See Fig.
              6.14.)




              Page 108                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                       Chapter 6
                                       Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




Figure 6.14: Headquarters Officials’
Perceptions of Significance of
Recruitment and Retention Problems     100    Percent of Agencies (Weighted)

                                        90




                                              El      Reauitment
                                                      Retention

                                       Weighted by percent in universe.

                                       Source: Survey of 37 federal law enforcement organizations performed by National Advisory
                                       Commission on Law Enforcement.


                                       The problems appear to have worsened in recent years. Without atten-
                                       tion, the problems we have highlighted strongly suggest that there will
                                       be major problems in the future. Anticipated retirements in the next 4 to
                                       6 years and the predicted expansion of law enforcement agencies will
                                       demand more new law enforcement personnel. In the face of heightened
                                       national concern with crime and the impact of drugs on society, competi-
                                       tion among state and local governments, the private sector, and the fed-
                                       eral government for well-qualified individuals will be more difficult. The
                                       federal government must be in a position to attract and retain a highly
                                       motivated and qualified law enforcement workforce.




                                       Page 109                                                         OCGBO-2 Law Enforcement    Pay
Chapter 6
Recruitment,   Retention,   and Morale




The President and Congress need to increase pay to levels more compar-
able with state and local law enforcement organizations. Further,
agency heads need to address other factors adversely affecting morale
and determine the actions that need to be taken. Finally, Congress could
review the differences in law enforcement authority among federal
agencies.




Page 110                                        OCGBO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Chapter
     ~- 7

Recommendations


                      The Commission’s report has identified and verified serious problems in
                      the compensation of federal law enforcement officers. Some problems
                      are already severe, while others present potentially serious problems in
                      the near future. The urgency of the compensation problems in federal
                      law enforcement requires that positive action be taken immediately if
                      federal law enforcement agencies are to attract and retain high-quality
                      personnel. The majority of our recommendations are designed for that
                      purpose.’ A potential long-range solution-a compensation system spe-
                      cifically designed for law enforcement officers-is recommended for
                      further study. The estimated cost of the major recommendations is pre-
                      sented at the end of this chapter in Table 7.3.

                      Table 7.4 presents examples of the effect of our various recommenda-
                      tions on selected grades in three cities. These cities represent a low-cost
                      area (New Orleans), a mid-range city (Chicago), and a high-cost city (Los
                      Angeles).


                      1. Congress should enact legislation to establish a national special salary
Improve Entry-Level   scale. The scale would cover all law enforcement occupations in the
Salaries              Commission’s study universe at appropriate entry-level grades.

                      Special salary rates are authorized by 5 USC Section 5303 and CFR Part
                      530 when organizations are significantly handicapped in the areas of
                      recruitment and retention because of higher salaries for competitive
                      positions in the locality. OPM requires evidence of a severe recruitment
                      and retention problem before it will authorize special salary rates. These
                      rates create a new lo-step structure, usually by beginning at one of the
                      steps of the current structure (i.e., a special salary rate for a GS-5 occu-
                      pation might start at GS-5, step 7, and build 10 steps from that point).

                      Using the OPM special salary rate structure as a model, this recommenda-
                      tion creates a special salary scale for all entry-level law enforcement
                      occupations in all locations. Each organization would not be required to
                      provide the extensive recruitment and retention data that OPM currently
                      requires for its special rate system. Waiving the documentation process
                      is appropriate for two reasons: (1) the Commission survey has demon-
                      strated that the pay problem exists in most areas and (2) the recruit-
                      ment and retention data required can generally only be sufficient after

                      ‘The recommendations outlined in this chapter apply to all current and future employees covered by
                      5 IJSC 8401( 17) and 8331(2(I), both General Schedule (e.g., criminal investigations) and non-General
                      Schedule (e.g., diplomatic security officers). Some adjustments may need to be made in the recommcn-
                      d&ions to apply to non-General Schedule employees.



                      Page 111                                                           OCGBO-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
Chapter 7
Recommendations




an employment crisis has occurred. The intent of this recommendation is
to avoid such a crisis.

This short-term entry-level salary recommendation attempts to lessen
the gap in compensation. The mechanism would be as follows: special
salary scales would be authorized for all federal law enforcement
officers nationwide, both newly hired as well as current employees. The
specific rates authorized at each entry grade level would be determined
by the following:

(1) Compare the national average entry-level salary for the combined
categories of state and local law enforcement officers with the federal
nationwide pay scale.

(2) The nationwide average entry-level salary for state and local law
enforcement officers should be compared with the GS-5 level, with the
new beginning step of the special salary scale established by the
national average of state and local salaries.

(3) Each succeeding entry grade level would be adjusted upwards in
turn to at least ~~-10. The succeeding entry grade’s new beginning steps
would be set at gradually decreasing intervals to minimize adjustments
into higher grade levels but would have intergrade differentials to avoid
pay compression. Pay in each of the succeeding grade levels would be
set in a manner accommodating promotions for both l-grade and Z-grade
career ladders.

(4) Entry grades below the GS-5 level would be adjusted to accommodate
promotions to the grades up to and including the GS-5 level.

(5) Entry grades for occupations outside of the General Schedule (for
example, Park Police and Uniformed Division of the Secret Service)
whose salaries are not established through collective bargaining could
be adjusted in a comparable manner or tied directly to local pay
practices.”

The average state and local law enforcement officers’ entry-level sala-
ries would be determined by Bureau of Labor Statistics salary surveys
every 3 years. The salaries would be adjusted in the intervening years
by the same amount as the General Schedule adjustment.

‘If salary adjustments are tied to local pay practices, the application of locality pay differentials
outlined in recommendation #3 may not apply.



Page 112                                                                OCG90-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
                                         Chapter 7
                                         Recommendations




                                         In the short term, the NACLEState and Local Salary and Benefits Survey
                                         could be used to set initial pay rates.

                                         The weighted average entry-level salary reported by the 100 largest
                                         state and local organizations on the NACLEsurvey is $22,333. To bring
                                         entry-level federal salaries in range close to the state and local salaries
                                         at this time, special salary rates could be set as follows (using 1989 fed-
                                         eral pay data):

Table 7.1: Currant and Proposed Entry-
Level Salaries                                        Current (1989)                                        Proposed
                                         Grade        ~.~-~_..-~-.~~----~ Salary
                                                                          ___.--             Grade        Salary
                                         GS-3/l                             $12,531    GS-3/i          $16,293          (current          GS-3/10)
                                         GS-4/l                               14,067   GS-4/l           18,288          (current          GS-4/10)
                                         GS-5/l                               15,738 ____-
                                                                                       GS-5/l           20,463          (current          GS-5/10)
                                         GS-6/l                               17.542   GS-6/l           21,637             (current        GS-6/8)
                                         GS-7/l
                                         G~~~ji _. ~.. ~~-~...-~
                                                               - -~           19,493
                                                                          .21,590      GS-7/l           22,743            (current
                                                                                       ~Gs-8/i-~ ..--. 24,470-.-. -- --~-.current          GS-7/6)
                                                                                                                                           GS-8/j)

                                         GS-9/i
                                         c;s:lo/i.-   _..~~~~_~_ ._.   ~~~~ ~~-26.26,      GS-9/i
                                                                              23,846-..__ GS--IO/i~-~.‘   28,0, ; -~-. ~----...~~(current.---~ GS-9/4)
                                                                                                          26,231                                  ~-.
                                                                                                                               (current GS-10/3)

                                         Note: This recommendation is based on the 1989 pay data collected in the study from the federal, state,
                                         and local law enforcement employers. If implemented in 1990, the recommended federal increases
                                         would reflect the 1990 General Schedule comparability adjustment (i.e., the 1990 salary for GSA/IO is
                                         $21,201 and would be used as the new GS-5/l in the proposed special salary scale).


                                         The entry-level grades included are GS-3 through ~~-10. These grade
                                         levels represent the range of the entry levels in our study universe.
                                         While the current Gs-9 and ~~-10 salaries exceed the NACLEState and
                                         Local Salary and Benefits Survey average, they are included because (1)
                                         the qualification requirements for these positions significantly exceed
                                         the typical entry-level requirements for the state and local occupations
                                         and (2) their inclusion reduces pay compression problems. Salary
                                         enhancements at these levels will help to attract well-qualified appli-
                                         cants at all entry levels in the federal law enforcement universe. In some
                                         locations where the nationwide special salary scale is still not competi-
                                         tive with state and local salaries in the area, a locality pay differential
                                         could be authorized by the method described in the locality pay differ-
                                         ential proposal. (See next section.)

                                         The special salary scale for law enforcement personnel as described
                                         above should be applied on a nationwide basis. However, while imple-
                                         menting these raises would address the extensive entry-level pay prob-
                                         lem, it would also result in paying federal law enforcement personnel in



                                         Page 113                                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement            Pay
                       Chapter 7
                       Recommendations




                       some low-cost cities more than their state and local counterparts. This is
                       not surprising in that all national pay schedules, by their very nature,
                       may provide more expendable income in low-cost areas while
                       “underpaying” other employees in higher cost areas.

                       If the salaries established under this proposal are not sufficient and
                       result in substantial recruitment and retention problems, agencies would
                       still be able to request higher rates under the existing special rate pro-
                       gram (5 USC 5303).

                       2. Congress should reduce the grade level for which advanced rates may
                       be paid for applicants with superior qualifications (5 USC 5333).
                       Authority to use advanced rates should be extended to the entry level in
                       order to attract and compensate highly qualified entry-level candidates.

                       This recommendation lowers the current threshold for the use of
                       advanced in-hire rates (also known as appointments above the minimum
                       rate). Title 5 Section 5333 and CFR 531.203(b) allow the appointment of
                       a new employee at a step higher than step 1 when the candidate has
                       superior qualifications. At this time, the authority to offer this higher
                       rate applies only at grades GS-11 and above. In order to compete for
                       well-qualified candidates, the ability to offer rates above the step 1 rate
                       is necessary at the entry-level grades as well.


                       3. Congress should enact legislation establishing a locality pay differen-
Establish a Locality   tial for law enforcement officers in selected locations. The locality pay
Pay Differential       differential will not be portable but should be included as part of basic
                       pay for all other purposes (e.g., retirement, life insurance, lump-sum
                       leave payments, and severance pay).”

                       Under this recommendation, a locality pay differential would be paid to
                       all law enforcement officers in selected locations.4 The locations would
                       be identified and the amount of the differential would be developed
                       through the use of both market-based (i.e., state and local law enforce-
                       ment salaries) and cost of living indexes. The differential would take the
                       form of a flat differential across all grades and occupations in our study
                       universe for each locality.

                       “Saved pay provisions under 5 IJSC Section 5363 and highest previous rate under 5 CFR Section
                       631.203 would not apply to the differential.

                       40rganizations or positions currently receiving premiums on the basis of their locations would be
                       individually considered for the application of this locality differential.



                       Page 114                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
     Chapter 7
     Recommendations




--
     In one illustrative model, a formula for the weighted state and local law
     enforcement average salaries in the area and indexes for cost of living
     could be used to identify locations. A percentage differential of base sal-
     ary would be provided to all federal law enforcement employees in loca-
     tions where the results of the above calculation exceed an established
     threshold by an established amount (for example, all cities” above 105
     would receive a locality differential of from 5 to 25 percent in 5-percent
     increments, depending upon how much above 105 percent they are). The
     cities that would most likely be affected by locality pay using this model
     are shown in Table 7.2. (The locations listed in Table 7.2 are areas with
     5,000 or more federal employees for which data were provided. The list
     of locations is illustrative and would depend on complete data on cost of
     living and wage comparison. It is not the intent of this recommendation
     to restrict locality payments on the basis of the extent of federal govern-
     ment employment in the area.)




     “In this illustrative model, the entitlement to locality pay extends to all locations within the consoli-
     dated metropolitan statistical areas in which the city is situated.




     Page 115                                                               OCG90-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
                                          Chapter 7
                                          Recommendations




Table 7.2: Locality Pay for Federal Law
Enforcement Officers to Pay the Index     Dollars
                                          _... ..- in millions
Amount Rounded Down to the Nearest 5                                         Number of federal                        State and local
Percent                                                                       law enforcement       Number of         mean we;tQ;d
                                                                                       officers     resoonses                        a
                                          Los Angeles            -. ~~~_~~._~____         1,828             35
                                                                                                    _______----                $38,988
                                                                                                                            ._~.-.---
                                          New York                  -- ~~ .~_.__.         3,563             40                   32,915
                                          San Francisco                                   1,097              14                  36,646
                                          Boston                                            528 -            11                  36,733
                                          San Diego                                       1,260              11                  31,510
                                          Washington, DC                                  5,413               6
                                                                                                          -----.--.-~~.       ~..31,321
                                                                                                                                      ~~-~
                                          Chicaao                                         1.236              28                 31.965
                                          Denver
                                          Philadelphia -~
                                          Minneapolis
                                          Seattle
                                          Portland, OR                                      153                6                32,249




                                          Sacramento                                        176              10                 29,470
                                          Pittsburgh                                        210               3                 30,585
                                          Baltimore                                         373               4                 28.469
                                          Dallas                                            593              27                 30,298
                                          Cincinnati                                        124               5                 30,761
                                          Total




                                          Page 116                                                   OCG90-2 Law Enforcement        Pay
                                        Chapter 7
                                        Recommendations




                  3-year ownership
State and local   of a house cost of         Cost of living/pa!                     Percent                AG2:
   pay relative          living index        combined index                     adjustment                 increase                 Total cost
            133                  120                        126.5                         25                  $7,337             ..__~._~ 13.4
                                                                                                                                            .-~~
            112                  132                        122.1                         20                    5,870                     20.9
            125                  120                        122.5                .--      20                    5,870                      6.4
            125                  116                        120.5                         20                    5,870                      3.1
            107                  114                        110.5                         10                    2,935                      3.7
            107                  109           -~           107.9 -..-~ .~-.-__            5                    1,467                      7.9
            109                  109                        109.0                          5                    1,467                      1.6
            117                   99                        108.0                          5                    1,467                      0.6
            104                  109                        106.5                          5                    IS----            ~- _~-. 1.2
                                                                                                                                _._-
            107                  106                        106.5      ._~-. ~~ ..__       5                    1,467
                                                                                                        ___---_----                    ~- ~-0.3
            113                  100                        106.5                          5                    1,467                      0.5
            110                  102 --                     106.0_~~~.~- ---        .-     5                    1,167                      0.2
            110                  100                        105.0                          5        _---.-      1,467                      0.1
            107                  102                        104.5                                                -.~     ____ ~.~~..__. ~.~ .~
            105                  104                        104.5                                                        . .~~-_-~   ~-    ~~~~
            100                  106                        103.0
            104                  102                        103.0                              ___.__
             97                  ~108                       102.5                        ..___..
            103                  100                        101.5               __-..       _____
            105                   97                        101 .o                                       ___
                                                                                                                                          60.2
                                        “See Appendix IV for the method used to calculate the mean weighted salary

                                        “Cost of Ilving/pay combined Index is an unwelghted average of the Runzheimer Cost-of-Living Index (3.
                                        year ownership) for each MSA and a pay index for that MSA derived from the state and local mean
                                        welghted salaries.




                                        Page 117                                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
-.
                         Chapter 7
                         Recommendations




                         The locality pay differential, added to the current General Schedule
                         grade structure, would provide the same percentage differential to all
                         employees in each location regardless of occupation or grade level.
                         While this payment would take the form of a differential and not base
                         pay, it would count as “basic pay” for all other purposes, including
                         retirement, life insurance, lump-sum leave payments, and severance
                         pay. The differential would compensate for differences in state and local
                         salaries in the area but would not be portable if the employee relocates.

                         For the long term, the Bureau of Labor Statistics should be authorized
                         and funded to conduct salary surveys that would be used to identify
                         state and local law enforcement average salaries. Data from the NACLE
                         State and Local Salary and Benefits Survey are available to set pay dif-
                         ferentials in the short term.” Policy decisions would be made on (1) the
                         threshold for earning a locality differential, (2) the percentage payable,
                         and (3) the geographical boundaries. In those situations where a federal
                         facility is located outside, but nearby an area qualified for locality pay
                         and must compete for staff, OPM would be authorized to permit exten-
                         sion of locality pay.


                         4. Congress should enact legislation to provide relocation payments for
Provide Relocation       federal law enforcement employees in certain areas through the use of a
Payments                 market-sensitive relocation bonus.

                         Our study has shown that requirements for geographic mobility for the
                         benefit of the government are much more prevalent in the federal law
                         enforcement community than in state and local organizations. A one-
                         time (per household), lump sum, taxable relocation payment may be
                         paid to law enforcement officers who transfer for the benefit of the gov-
                         ernment, including promotions, to high cost of living locations. The loca-
                         tions would be determined as follows:

                     l   OPMwould obtain data from a recognized expert in housing/cost of living
                       data, which would be used to determine an index of housing costs in all
                       local areas where federal law enforcement officers work.
                     . Any area for which the housing index exceeds the nationwide average
                       (100 percent index) would receive a housing bonus at a set amount (e.g.,
                       $1,000) per full point above 100 percent, or the bonus would be paid for
                       those areas that exceed the average by some minimum amount. In either
                       case, a limit to the amount of the total bonus could be set. The amount

                         “Appendix IV provides more detailed information concerning the cities in our survey.



                         Page 118                                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                         Chapter 7
                         Recommendations




                         per point can also be varied over time, depending on the desired level of
                         assistance to be provided.

                         The housing data used to establish the index should be reviewed by                             OPM
                         every 2 years, and the amounts of the housing bonus for each area
                         should be recomputed on the basis of the new data.

                         If an employee moved from an area with a lower bonus level to an area
                         with a higher bonus level, the employee would receive the difference in
                         the bonuses between the two areas (i.e., an employee moving from an
                         area with a $5,000 bonus to an area with a $10,000 bonus would receive
                         an additional $5,000).

                         A service agreement would be executed specifying the duration required
                         in that location, and a penalty/repayment system would be established
                         should the employee leave the location before the established time
                         frame.


                         5. Congress should require that either OPM or a specifically appointed
Explore Feasibility of   task force study an alternate compensation system for law enforcement
a New Compensation       officers.
System for Law           The recommended study could develop one or more new compensation
Enforcement              systems for law enforcement occupations as a long-term approach to
                         improving the pay delivery system for federal law enforcement officers.
                         One or more new compensation systems could be developed for most of
                         the law enforcement occupations covered by this study (and possibly
                         including other groups of employees, such as police positions, not cov-
                         ered by the special law enforcement retirement provisions). A new pay
                         system could be developed by creating new job evaluation components
                         or by using the current General Schedule grade structure and classifica-
                         tion system.7

                         A new pay system could include the following general features:

                         7A new compensation system with a job evaluation component that replaces the current position
                         classification system may not cover the less traditional law enforcement jobs in the Bureau of Pris-
                         ons, such aa psychologists, secretaries, and electricians, or pilots in the Customs Service and the
                         Immigration and Naturalization Service. While these positions include law enforcement responsibili-
                         ties on a regular basis, they primarily require knowledge and skills other than law enforcement and
                         are evaluated and paid using the system applicable to similar jobs in non-law enforcement environ-
                         ments. Special provisions for these kinds of jobs, such as differentials for the law enforcement
                         aspects of the work, and other non-specific provisions, such as housing bonuses, could be included in
                         legislation establishing separate law enforcement compensation systems.



                         Page 119                                                            OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
    Chapter 7
    Recommendations




. Pay systems would reflect the market in which the government would
  be competing for law enforcement officers. For example, occupations
  recruited at the local level without mobility requirements could be cov-
  ered by a locality pay system. Occupations with nationwide recruitment
  programs where employees are subject to geographic reassignment
  could be covered by a nationwide pay schedule with locality differen-
  tials in high pay/cost of living areas.
. Pay levels would be established reflecting comparable jobs in the
  nonfederal sector, recognizing the pay implications of significant differ-
  ences that may exist in the “value” of federal law enforcement as com-
  pared to law enforcement work in the nonfederal sector.
l Pay levels appropriate to the law enforcement occupations covered by
  the system would be established. For example, there might be more or
  fewer steps within a grade or no steps at all, wider or narrower rate
  ranges, and/or wider or narrower intergrade differentials and overlaps.
l Supervisory pay could be structured on the basis of the specific needs of
  law enforcement, not necessarily bound by the General Schedule grade-
  level restrictions. For example, the system could pay supervisory differ-
  entials rather than add grades for supervisory work. Such a pay struc-
  ture could give more flexibility to recognize different values of levels of
  supervision in different law enforcement organizations.
l Longevity pay should be considered as an element of wage progression
  in the new system.
l Differentials for unusual demands, such as unusual hazards and foreign
  language requirements, could be built into the system, rather than
  depending on systems designed for many different kinds of white-collar
  work.

    If a law enforcement pay system with a new job evaluation component
    is selected, general features of a possible job evaluation/job ranking sys-
    tem could include a factor-point job evaluation system that would
    reflect the unique requirements of law enforcement work. Alternatively,
    a simpler job ranking system, such as whole job ranking, could be
    devised. The appropriate number of grade levels for an occupation could
    be built into the system, rather than fitting law enforcement work into a
    grade-level structure designed for over 400 white-collar occupations.
    The overall grade structure could have more than the 18 grades of the
    General Schedule, although all occupations would not have to go
    through the same grade progression, as in the General Schedule. Con-
    versely, fewer grades, possibly in the form of pay banding, currently
    used in the Navy Demonstration Project as well as in GAO,could also be
    established.



    Page 120                                          OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                     Chapter 7
                     Recommendations




                     6. Congress should amend 5 USC 5542 to remove the restriction on the
Change Premium Pay   payment of overtime for law enforcement officers from the ~~-10, step
Compensation         1, to the employee’s actual salary level.

                     This recommendation would change the current restriction on the calcu-
                     lation of overtime payments from the current time-and-a-half rate of the
                     GS-10, step 1, to time and a half of the employee’s actual grade and step
                     level for scheduled and unscheduled overtime. The Commission notes
                     the recent legislative action that increased the overtime calculation of
                     AIJOto a percentage of the employee’s actual salary. Both scheduled
                     overtime and AIJOmay be paid only up to the current earning limitation.
                     The current earning ceiling limits an employee to earning no more per
                     pay period than the biweekly base salary at the GS-15, step 10, level.

                     This recommendation provides closer parity for all federal law enforce-
                     ment officers with the predominant policy of state and local law
                     enforcement organizations on overtime payments.

                     7. Congress should enact legislation to authorize Sunday and night dif-
                     ferential pay for all federal law enforcement agencies now ineligible for
                     these premiums.

                     The recommendation makes Sunday and night differential premium pay
                     provisions applicable to all federal law enforcement agencies that now
                     are not eligible for these premiums, such as the Uniformed Division of
                     the Secret Service and the Park Police.


                     8. Congress should enact legislation to provide a foreign language bonus
Provide a Foreign    for all federal law enforcement officers who are required to speak a for-
Language Bonus       eign language in the performance of their official duties.

                     This recommendation extends the authority in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
                     of 1988 to pay a foreign language bonus of up to 25 percent of base pay
                     to federal law enforcement officers who are required to speak a foreign
                     language in performance of their official duties. Employees eligible for
                     the foreign language differential would be required to demonstrate ini-
                     tial proficiency by passing a written and/or oral examination. Employ-
                     ees could be required to periodically demonstrate continued language
                     proficiency through follow-up examinations. In addition, examination
                     results could be used to determine the specific amount of differential to
                     which an employee may be entitled.



                     Page 121                                         OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                    Chapter 7
                    Recommendations




                    The percent amount could be a uniform amount applicable to all employ-
                    ees who maintain an acceptable level of proficiency (i.e., 3-percent dif-
                    ferential for all employees), or a “sliding scale” could be used. This
                    sliding scale would be determined on the basis of the level of proficiency
                    maintained by an employee and/or by a performance appraisal rating
                    addressing foreign language proficiency.


                    9. Congress should enact legislation establishing retention bonuses for
Improve Selected    selected federal law enforcement officers who would otherwise be eligi-
Retirement Issues   ble to retire.

                    Retention bonuses with service agreements could be offered at the agen-
                    cies’ discretion to selected employees. Retention bonuses for employees
                    allow the agencies flexibility in retaining experienced personnel. They
                    may also be used in specialized locations or for employees with needed
                    specialties exceeding basic law enforcement qualifications.

                    The recommendation has two primary components. First, it would pro-
                    vide “retirement delay” bonuses as a lump sum to employees who
                    remain in federal law enforcement until age 57. Second, the change
                    would provide retention bonuses for employees with needed specialties
                    (e.g., special language skills, or medical, technical, or chemical knowl-
                    edge) or in specialized locations (e.g., remote or high-crime areas). Ser-
                    vice agreements with repayment/penalty provisions would be
                    established as a condition of extending a retention bonus.

                    10. Congress should enact legislation raising the age for mandatory
                    retirement for law enforcement employees from 55 to 57 without affect-
                    ing the retirement annuity.

                    To offset the cost of raising law enforcement salaries, savings may be
                    possible by raising the mandatory retirement age from 55 to 57 years of
                    age for law enforcement employees. This recommendation would have
                    no impact on the retirement annuity or on the age and service require-
                    ments for optional law enforcement retirement.

                    11, Congress should amend the Internal Revenue Code to adjust the
                    lump-sum penalty on retirement funds of federal law enforcement
                    officers.

                    The Tax Reform Act of 1986 created Section 72(t) of the Internal Reve-
                    nue Code, which imposes a lo-percent tax on certain early distributions


                    Page 122                                           OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                         Chapter 7
                         Recommendations




                         from qualified retirement plans, including CSRSand FERS.The lump-sum
                         payment is subject to a lo-percent tax if the employee has not reached
                         age 55 in the year the lump sum is paid. The act did not take into
                         account retirement provisions allowing certain employees to elect
                         optional retirement before age 55. Law enforcement officers who retire
                         before age 55 and elect the Alternative Form of Annuity (AFA) option, in
                         which an amount equal to their total retirement contributions is
                         returned in a lump sum, must pay the lo-percent “early withdrawal”
                         tax penalty. The taxes are added to other federal, state, and local taxes
                         on the lump sum.

                         The lo-percent lump-sum tax penalty is levied unfairly on federal law
                         enforcement officers and others who are under retirement systems that
                         provide for and encourage retirement before age 55. The net result is
                         that AFA is more expensive to these employees. The Internal Revenue
                         Code should be amended to eliminate the lo-percent penalty tax for fed-
                         eral law enforcement officers who retire before age 55, or age 57 if rec-
                         ommendation number 10 is implemented.


                         12. If the recommendations in this report are implemented, Congress
Collect New Statistics   should require and provide appropriations for the Bureau of Labor Sta-
                         tistics to collect data on the compensation of federal and state and local
                         law enforcement positions.

                         Many of the Commission’s recommendations require the use of data on
                         the compensation of federal law enforcement as compared with state
                         and local law enforcement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics should be
                         instructed and funded to collect these data to provide a mechanism for
                         implementing the recommendations.


                         13. Congress and the Executive Branch may wish to consider reviewing
Differences in Law       the issue of differences in grants of law enforcement authorities among
Enforcement              agencies in the federal law enforcement community.
Authority Could Be
                         Lack of full law enforcement authority is considered a problem among
Studied                  some law enforcement officers. Accordingly, Congress and the Executive
                         Branch may wish to review the substantive issues underlying differing
                         grants of authority among federal law enforcement agencies.
             Y




                         Page 123                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                         Chapter 7
                         Recommendations




                          14. Congress should enact legislation that provides uniforms to federal
Improve Uniform          uniformed law enforcement personnel at no cost to the employee and
Policies                 that also provides for the care and cleaning of those uniforms.

                         The Commission’s study of benefits among the federal and state and
                         local law enforcement officers included a review of uniform policies. Sig-
                         nificant differences were found between the federal and state and local
                         practices. The federal law enforcement workforce should adopt the pre-
                         dominant practice among local police agencies and state prisons with
                         regard to uniform policies, (i.e., uniforms should be provided without
                         cost to the employees and either (1) an additional allowance should be
                         provided for cleaning and incidental costs or (2) the uniforms should be
                         cleaned at the agency’s expense).


                         15. Congress should direct OPMand law enforcement agency heads to (1)
Examine Working          review and take actions necessary to address aspects of employee work-
Conditions and Collect   ing conditions identified by the Commission’s study that adversely
Statistics               affect morale, including overtime policies and practices and promotion
                         potential, and (2) collect better and more comprehensive data on recruit-
                         ment and retention,

                         Responses to the Employee Survey revealed serious discontent with
                         some aspects of federal law enforcement employment other than salary
                         and benefits. Specifically, overtime policies and internal promotion poli-
                         cies were identified as areas of concern. A review of the agency systems
                         in these areas should be done to ensure consistency and equity in the
                         application of these policies. Consideration may also be given to changes
                         in career ladder structures, including the establishment of nonsupervi-
                         sory positions above the journeyman or “senior” level.

                         Additionally, a significant number of the federal law enforcement agen-
                         cies were unable to provide recruitment and retention data sufficient to
                         measure accurately the extent of, and trends in, problems in these areas.
                         OPMand law enforcement agencies should collect better and more com-
                         prehensive recruitment and retention data. These data will allow agen-
                         cies and other interested parties to better assess performance by helping
                         to correct the serious human resource problems we found affecting fed-
                         eral law enforcement agencies.




                         Page 124                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                         Chapter 7
                                         Recommendations




                                         16. Congress should provide new appropriations                        to fund the Commis-
Provide New                              sion’s recommendations.
Appropriations
                                         Commitment of new funds to resolve federal personnel compensation
                                         problems is needed now if dedicated federal law enforcement officers
                                         are to be recruited and retained for the current and continuing war on
                                         drugs.


                                         Recommendations that will be implemented need to be accurately
Implementing                             reflected in agencies’ budgets. The cost of implementing any of the Com-
Recommendations                          mission’s recommendations should be explicit in order to avoid the risk
                                         of no funding for all or parts of recommendations being implemented.
                                         For example, if changes are made in paying overtime, the total cost for
                                         an agency for a full fiscal year needs to be budgeted up front. This
                                         budgeting will prevent recurrences of such situations as a halt in over-
                                         time payments due to an agency’s inability to absorb these costs. (See
                                         Tables 7.3 and 7.4.)


Table 7.3: Cost Estimates for Major NACLE Recommendations
Dollars in millions
                                                                                                 Agencies affected
Recommendations                                                              Justice      Treasury       Other     Judiciary             Total
1.   Upgrade entry-level salarIes;’                                            $40.6          $13.6      $10.1 .~ ~~____~_...
                                                                                                                          $0.7            65.0
2.   Locality payc’                                 ~~~                         46.9           15.8       11.6             0.8            75.0
3    Relocation payments for housing                                            21.3        ~   7.1
                                                                                                 ..- __.   5.3             0.3            34.0
4.   Rewse overtlme pay”                                                         3.8            1.3        0.9 ---..- __~- 0.1             6.0
Total                                                                          112.4            37.8 ---~7.9                     ,,8     180.0
                                         “Does not include related benefits costs, such as retirement.

                                         “Does not include congressionally    mandated increase in AU0 effective October 1990.




                           Y




                                         Page 126                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement    Pay
                                            Chapter 7
                                            Recommendations




Table 7.4: Illustrative Comoensation Increase Per Commission Recommendation and H.R. 215
                                                 New Orleans                    Chicago                                    Los Angeles
Current salary 81estimated                                  Percent of                   Percent of                                     Percent of
overtime
GS-5                                      -._New
                             $17,312 -._.$22,037
                                              _~.--~.- .--.  increase
                                                                  ~__.
                                                                    27     New
                                                                       __.-..
                                                                        $23,538           increase
                                                                                                 36                   New
                                                                                                                   $27,,  52 -- --.. ---.-increase
                                                                                                                                                 57
                                                                                   __-__
                                                                                 --. -     ~--                     __--.-.        .__.._~~ -.~--
GS-7                           21,443      24,693                   15   26,194                  22
                                                                                               ____                  30,378                       42
GS-14                          55.157      60.739                   10   62.240                  13                  75.924                       38
                                            Note: Increases include, where applicable, entry-level increases, locality pay, and overtime, including
                                            AU0 per HR. 215, which provides that the employee’s rate of basic pay, rather than the minlmum rate
                                            for GS-10, is used in the computation of AUO. H.R. 215 was enacted on 1 l/27/89 and will become
                                            effective at the beginning of fiscal year 1991.


                                            After funding decisions are made, OPMand the agencies need to provide
                                            leadership for implementing change. Any legislation resulting from the
                                            Commission’s work will need to be implemented through the develop-
                                            ment of regulations, and leadership responsibility for this critical phase
                                            will lie with OPM.The Civil Service Reform Act envisioned a strong lead-
                                            ership role for OPMand tasked the Director with proposing policies to
                                            the President to promote an efficient civil service.

                                            Federal law enforcement agencies and organizations also have an impor-
                                            tant role in helping OPMdevelop regulations to implement legislative
                                            mandates. Although the Commission and its staff will be disbanded, the
                                            practice of having a working group of OPMand agency representatives
                                            discuss and comment on possible approaches that regulations should
                                            take has merit, Having senior staff meetings to discuss possible recom-
                                            mendations and draft report language greatly assisted the Commission
                                            in developing its final report and recommendations. Senior staff mem-
                                            bers would bring a working knowledge of the issues with which the
                                            Commission dealt, thereby assisting OPMin further accomplishing the
                                            Commission’s goals.

                                            An exposure draft of this report was made available to the public, and a
                                            public hearing was held on February 20, 1990. Fourteen witnesses rep-
                                            resenting federal law enforcement agencies and employee organizations
                                            testified. All witnesses supported the Commission’s recommendations.
                                            Some witnesses suggested that the Commission’s recommendations
                                            apply to other categories of federal personnel not covered under the
                                            Commission’s statutory mandate. Because these groups were not cov-
                                            ered in the Commission’s charter, the Commission did not include them
                                            in its recommendations. Some witnesses also requested clarification of
                                            various aspects of the exposure draft. The Commission clarified the



                                            Page 126                                                              OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement        Pay
Chapter 7
Recommendations




report where appropriate. A few witnesses suggested additional recom-
mendations, which the Commission chose to address by sending letters
to appropriate federal agencies and congressional committees.




Page 127                                       OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Qpendix
   --my. I

Deta;iledObjectives,Scope,and Methodology


              The National Advisory Commission on Law Enforcement (NACIX) was
Objectives    created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690, sec. 6160) to
              study the methods and rates of compensation, including salary, overtime
              pay, retirement policies, and other benefits of law enforcement officers
              in all federal agencies. It was also asked to study the methods and rates
              of compensation of state and local law enforcement officers in a repre-
              sentative number of areas where federal law enforcement officers are
              assigned. Specifically, the statute charges the Commission with
              determining

              1. “The differences which exist among federal agencies with regard to the methods
              and rates of compensation for law enforcement officers;”

              2. “The rational basis, if any, for such differences, considering the nature of the
              responsibilities of the law enforcement officers in each agency; the qualifications
              and training required to perform such responsibilities; the degree of personal risk to
              which the law enforcement officers in each agency are normally exposed in the per-
              formance of their duties; and such other factors as the Commission deems relevant
              in evaluating the differences in compensation among the various agencies;”

              3. “The extent to which inequities appear to exist among federal agencies with
              regard to the methods and rates of compensation of law enforcement officers, based
              on consideration of the factors mentioned in paragraph 2 of this subsection;”

              4. “The feasibility of devising a uniform system of overtime compensation for law
              enforcement officers in all or most federal agencies, with due regard for both the
              special needs of law enforcement officers and the relative cost effectiveness to the
              government of such a system compared to those currently in use;”

              5. “How salaries paid to federal law enforcement officers compare to those of State
              and local officers in the same geographical area, especially those in ‘high cost-of-
              living’ areas;”

              6. “The impact of the rates of compensation paid by various federal agencies on the
              lifestyle, morale, and general well-being of law enforcement officers, including their
              ability to subsist;”

              7. “The recruiting and retention problems experienced by federal agencies due to
              inequities in compensation among such agencies; the differences between rates of
              compensation paid to federal law enforcement officers and State and local officers
              in the same geographical areas; and other factors related to compensation;”

              8. “The extent to which federal legislation and administrative regulations may be
              necessary or appropriate to rectify inequities among federal agencies in the methods




              Page 128                                                  OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
            Appendix I
            Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




            and rates of compensation for law enforcement officers; to address the lack of uni-
            formity among agencies with regard to overtime pay; to provide premiums or spe-
            cial rates of pay for federal law enforcement officers in high cost-of-living areas; to
            ensure that the levels of compensation paid to federal law enforcement officers will
            be competitive with those paid to State and local officers in the same geographical
            areas; and to address such other matters related to the determinations made under
            this subsection as the Commission deems appropriate in the interest of enhancing
            the ability of federal agencies to recruit and retain the most qualified and capable
            law enforcement officers;” and

            9. “The average retirement age of the federal agencies and the retirement and bene-
            fits policies of federal agencies.”


            Section 6160(a) of Public Law 100-609, which established the Commis-
Scope       sion, states that “the term ‘law enforcement officer’ has the same mean-
            ing as provided in Section 8401(17) of Title 5, United States Code.” This
            is the definition of law enforcement officer for Federal Employees’
            Retirement System purposes; a similar definition for the Civil Service
            Retirement System purposes is found in Title 5, U.S. Code 8331(20). The
            definitions from both of these sections have been applied in this study.

            The definition of the federal law enforcement officer encompasses a
            wide variety of positions. Some are clearly within the conventional defi-
            nition of law enforcement, and others often are not thought to be tradi-
            tional law enforcement jobs. Many “less traditional” law enforcement
            positions covered by the definition include staff who work in the federal
            correctional facilities and have correctional responsibilities, such as sec-
            retaries, physician’s assistants, and accountants. Conversely, the defini-
            tion excludes some positions that many view to be typical law
            enforcement-Federal      Protective Service, Capitol Police, Zoo Police, and
            others.

            Approximately 250 occupations that meet the USC definition of law
            enforcement officer were included in the broad scope of the study. How-
            ever, we particulary focused on 19 law enforcement occupations whose
            incumbents are covered by the special law enforcement retirement pro-
            visions. These occupations and their series are:

        l   Accountant (correctional institution) - GS-510;
        l   Aircraft Operation - GS-2181;
        l   Border Patrol Agent -          GS-1896;


        l   Compliance, Inspection and Support - GS-1802;
        l   Correctional Institution Administration - ~~-006;


            Page 129                                                   OCG90.2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                  Appendix I
                  Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




              .   Correctional  Officer - GS-007;
              .   Criminal Investigation - GS-1811;
              .   Customs Patrol Officer - GS-1884;
              .   Diplomatic Security Officer (Not General Schedule);
              .   Game Law Enforcement - ~~-1812;
              .   General Inspection, Investigation and Compliance - ~~-1801;
              .   Park Police (Not General Schedule);
              .   Physician’s Assistant (correctional institution) - ~~-603;
              .   Police - ~~-083;
              .   Postal Inspector (Not General Schedule);
              .   Probation and Pretrial Services Officer (Not General Schedule);
              .   Psychologist (correctional institution) - ~~-180;
              .   IJniformed Division of the Secret Service (Not General Schedule); and
              .   IJnited States Marshal - ~~-082.

                  The remaining occupations are mainly those positions in federal correc-
                  tional institutions having correctional responsibilities, too numerous to
                  study in the time frame established for the Commission. BOPagreed to
                  provide the Commission with data about these occupations. The results
                  of the HOI’study are outlined in Appendix V.


                  We used the following seven data-gathering methods to obtain the infor-
Methodology       mation required to satisfy our objectives.

                  a survey of pay and benefits completed by federal agencies having law
                  enforcement personnel;
                  a survey on recruitment and retention of law enforcement personnel
                  completed by federal agencies;
                  interviews around the United States of present and former federal law
                  enforcement employees, using established focus group techniques;
                  a questionnaire covering morale, recruitment, and retention issues sent
                  to federal law enforcement employees;
                  interviews on recruitment retention issues at several locations through-
                  out the United States with regional level management officials at fed-
                  eral, state, and local law enforcement agencies;
                  a survey of pay and benefits for law enforcement personnel, completed
                  by state, county, and local law enforcement organizations; and
                  a comparison of federal law enforcement occupations with similar occu-
                  pations in the state, county, and local sectors; and interviews conducted
                  around the IJnited States.




                  Page 130                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                           Appendix I
                           Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




Federal Pay and Benefits   Details on the methodology used for the survey of federal pay and bene-
Survey                     fits completed by the federal agencies are included in Appendix III.

          --
State and Local Law        Details on the methodology used for the survey of state, county, and
Enforcement Salary and     local law enforcement organizations are included in Appendix IV.
Benefits Survey
     ---.-.--
Federal Recruitment and    The Federal Recruitment and Retention Survey was designed to gather
Retention Survey           information primarily on issues related to recruitment, internal staffing,
                           retention, and transfer policies. Headquarters personnel offices and
                           operating divisions in 37 federal law enforcement organizations com-
                           pleted the survey. (The survey instrument was sent to those federal
                           departments and agencies responding to the Federal Pay and Benefits
                           survey reporting a minimun of 10 employees covered by the of our
                           study.) The survey instrument captured a wealth of information on the
                           human resource management issues facing federal law enforcement
                           agencies over the past few years at all levels of employment.

                           The employment information received fell into two categories- statisti-
                           cal data and management perceptions. The statistical data consisted pri-
                           marily of quantifiable information pertaining to such matters as ratios
                           of applications received to qualified applicants hired. While these data
                           were not as plentiful as was expected, they proved sufficient to allow
                           some conclusions to be drawn and to provide interesting insights. These
                           perceptions involved such issues as the reasons management believes
                           recruitment difficulties are on the increase. The management percep-
                           tions proved to be a rich source of information on the reasons behind
                           hiring obstacles, turnover rates, and internal staffing difficulties.

                           In analyzing the survey responses, we realized that the responses could
                           not be evaluated equally. Some of the responses represented information
                           on fewer than 50 employees, while others provided information on
                           agency practices affecting many thousands of employees. Responses
                           were therefore weighted on the basis of the individual organization’s
                           representation in the NACLEstudy universe, i.e., the number of employ-
                           ees each organization contributed to the study universe. This weighting
                           gave more meaning to the volume and extent of problems. Therefore, in
                           the discussion of survey responses, information was not evaluated in




                           Page 131                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
               Appendix I
               Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




               terms of 37 discrete respondents, but rather in terms of each organiza-
               tion’s response as a percentage of the federal law enforcement
               workforce.


Focus Groups   Focus groups were used by the Commission to assess the impact of the
               rates of compensation on the lifestyle, morale, and general well-being of
               federal law enforcement officers, including their ability to subsist.

               Originally developed for marketing research, focus groups are a tool for
               obtaining qualitative, anecdotal information, which could not typically
               be gathered through surveys. Focus groups are a useful management
               tool that may help in explaining perceptions and in understanding moti-
               vations underlying human behavior. Because focus groups do not pro-
               vide quantitative data and are not statistically representative, their
               findings cannot be generalized to the study universe. However, if a
               number of focus groups are carefully recruited and composed, analysis
               may yield a pattern of common concerns.

               Typically, a focus group is composed of 7 to 10 participants who are
               unfamiliar with each other. Participants are selected because they have
               certain characteristics in common that relate to the topic of the focus
               group. Group discussions are guided by a moderator who creates an
               environment that nurtures and encourages different perceptions and
               points of view without pressuring participants to plan, vote, or reach
               consensus. The group discussion is conducted several times with similar
               types of participants to identify trends and patterns in perceptions.
               Careful and systematic analysis of the discussions provides clues and
               insights as to how a product, service, or opportunity is perceived.’

               For our study, focus group participants were drawn from among the
               nine major occupations in the study universe that have 87 percent or
               more of their positions covered by law enforcement retirement benefits.

               The focus groups were homogeneous with respect to job series and
               agency. In identifying the focus groups by location, the NACLEstaff
               included as many agencies among the nine major occupations in the
               scope as possible; an attempt was also made to reflect the diversity of
               occupations in the focus groups.



               ‘Richard A. Krueger, Focus Groups-a Practical Guide for Applied   Research,   pp. 18-19.



               Page 132                                                          OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                           Appendix I
                                           Detailed Objectives,       Scope, and Methodology




_-_..--..-__..   ---__.-.
                                           Focus groups were held with both current and former federal law
                                           enforcement officers. The employee focus groups were composed of a
                                           mix of entry- to journey-level employees. Supervisory employees were
                                           not included in the focus groups because of concern that they might
                                           inhibit nonsupervisory employees from speaking freely.


                                           Twenty-nine focus groups were conducted between May 3, 1989, and
                                           August 1, 1989, in 13 locations. (see table 1.1.) Twenty-seven organiza-
                                           tions were represented, and 269 employees participated in the focus
                                           group discussions. Four teams, each consisting of a moderator and an
                                           assistant moderator, conducted l-l/2 hour sessions at each location,
                                           which were tape recorded and later transcribed. Written summaries,
                                           which included selected quotations from the focus group discussions,
                                           were prepared after each focus group.


Table 1.1: Focus- Group Composition
-_--~-_-
                                                      Number of             Number of
Agency                                                 sessions            participants Sites
U S. Marshals Servrce                                             2                   16 Washington, DC (7) New York (9)
Drug Enforcement Administration                                   3                  31  Washington, DC (1 I), New York (10) Miami (10)
                                                                                    ~~___~
Federal Bureau of lnvestrgatton                                   5                   52 San Francisco (lo), Dallas (IO), Boston (1 I), New
                                                                                         York (IO), Newark (11)
US Customs Servrce                                                                    19 San Francisco (9), Miami (10) __--.-~        -.- ~~~
Internal Revenue Service                                                             35 Los Angeles (9), New York (8) Tampa (lo),
                                                                                         Charleston (8)        ~__._          .~~~.. -~~~
Bureau of Pnsons                                                  2                   20 Terminal Is./Lompoc, CA (IO), Leavenworth, KS
                                                                                     ___ (10,
U.S. Border Patrol                                                 1 .~     ~-~~--~ 10 Brownsville (10)
U.S. Secret Scrvrce (1811 S)                                       2                 20 Boston (IO), Washington, DC (10)
U S. Probation Servrce                                             1                  10 New York (10)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms                           1.                 11 Chicago (11)
Offices of the Inspectors General                                  2                  20 Chicago (1 I), Washington,
                                                                                                        _._-__ -__~ DC _~~~..~~
                                                                                                                         (9)    ~~~~~~
U S Secret Service (Uniformed Division)                            1                   8 Washington, DC (8)
Former Employees                                                   1                   5 New York (5)
Former Employees                                                   1                   3 Washington, DC (3)~____~         ~~~.~~~ ~.~
Naval lnvestrgatrve Servrce                                        1                   9 Washington, DC (9)
                                                                  29                269




Employee Questionnaire                     To supplement information gathered from the focus groups, a question-
                                           naire was sent to nearly 4,600 employees selected from a study universe



                                           Page 133                                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement     Pay
     Appendix I
     Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




--
     population of 44,865 employees. The objective of the survey was to
     obtain employee opinions of recruitment, retention, and morale in fed-
     eral law enforcement.

     A 12-page questionnaire was developed during May and June 1989 and
     was then pretested with federal law enforcement employees in the
     Washington, DC, area. From July to October 1989, the questionnaires
     were mailed directly to officers at their business addresses. Follow-up
     letters were sent to nonrespondents in September 1989. When adjusted
     for undeliverable questionnaires, 85 percent of the selected employees
     responded. The results of their completed questionnaires were entered
     into a computer data base and verified for accuracy.

     We used a stratified random sample to select the questionnaire recipi-
     ents. Names of most federal law enforcement employees and their areas
     of assignment were provided by OPM'Scentral personnel data file; for
     those whose names were not in OPMfiles, similar information was pro-
     vided by the parent agencies (we did not verify the data). Fourteen job
     series were targeted in 34 federal agencies.

     In selecting the sample, we divided the universe into 15 groups, or
     strata, on the basis of geographic location. Fourteen of the strata were
     metropolitan statistical areas (MSA); the remaining stratum consisted of
     all other locations in the United States. Of the 14 MSAS,we selected eight
     MSASwith large populations of federal law enforcement employees. The
     other six MSASgenerally had lower costs of living and were used to pro-
     vide contrast to the larger MSAS.We randomly selected employees in 10
     of the strata and selected all employees in the 5 remaining smaller
     strata. In all, 4,593 employees were selected for the sample. Table I.2
     shows the population and sample sizes in each stratum.




     Page 134                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                             Appendix I
                                             Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




-

Table
.-~.-..- 1.2: Employee Survey
                                                                                                                                      Response rate
                                                                      Number of           Response                                   adjusted for the
                                                                 respondents to                 rate         Undeliverable             undeliverable
Locationa                       Population        Sample      the questionnaire            (percent)       questionnairesb            questionnaires
                                                                                                                                             ---
Boston MSA                             592             255                 225                  88                            3                           89
Brownsville MSA                        204~            204                  164                 80        _____~---.-___.-   10.                          85
                                                                                                                                              .-.... ~-..-.-
Buffalo MSA                            220             220                  193                 88           _____-.__        2                          89
Charleston, WV MSA                      5%               55                  49 -.__.           89               -__.-____    4                          96
Chicago MSA                          1,403             332                 279
                                                                       - -..--__~-              84                            2                          85
Dallas MSA                             640             264                 218
                                                                             ~- --.      ___. 83          ____               10                          86
Kansas City MSA                        542             248                 202                  81                    -.---.__3           -.-...-        82
LosAngeles MSA                       1,593             340                 279                  82                           16                          86
Miami MSA                            1,317             327                 269 ~~.              82                            4                          83
New York MSA                         2,928             374                 3og      ~----83~-.                                8                          84
SanFrancisco MSA                       708             273                 243                  89                            1                          89
Spokane MSA                             53               53                  52                 98
                                                                                              __-                             0                          98
Tampa MSA                              255
                                        ..~~           255
                                                     ~..~                  231
                                                            ~~~~~ ~~. ~~~~~~.                   91
                                                                                               ----                           4                          92
Washington, DC MSA                   6,020             390                 333                  85                            4                          86
All other locations                 28,335           1,003                 760                  76
                                                                                         ---.-___                            47                          79
                                    44,865          4,593                    3,806                 83                      118                           85
                                             “MSA, for the purposes of this study, is defined as the city listed and may include other entire counties
                                             or citres and towns either surrounding or adjacent to the listed city.
                                             “The reasons that the questronnaires were undeliverable included (1) the employee was no longer at the
                                             grven address, (2) the address was incorrect or insufficient, and (3) there was no record of the employee
                                             at the grven address.


                                             All employees in the study universe had duty stations in the United
                                             States. The employees were classified in 14 occupations, 9 of which are
                                             General Schedule job series. These occupations are

                                       .     Criminal Investigation - Gs-18 11;
                                       .     Game Law Enforcement - ~~-1812;
                                       .     Correctional Institution Administration - ~~-006;
                                       .     Correctional Officer - Gs-007;
                                       .     United States Marshal - ~~-082;
                                       .     Psychologist - ~~-180;
                                       .     Accountant - GS-510;
                                       .     Physician’s Assistant - ~~-603;
                                       .     Uniformed Secret Service (not General Schedule);
                                       .     Diplomatic Security Officer (not General Schedule);
                                       .     Postal Inspector (not General Schedule);
                                       .     Park Police (not General Schedule); and


                                             Page 136                                                                OCG90-2 Law Enforcement          Pay
  Appendix I
  Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




. Probation and Pretrial Services Officer (not General Schedule).

  The law enforcement personnel were employed by the following federal
  agencies. The Offices of the Inspectors General are shown together at
  the end of the list.

  Department of Commerce
    Export Administration
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

  Department of Defense
    Naval Investigative Service

  Department of the Interior
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
    Bureau of Land Management
    Fish and Wildlife Service
    National Park Service

  Department of -Justice
    Bureau of Prisons
    Drug Enforcement Administration
    Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Immigration and Naturalization Service
    Marshals Service

   Department of State
     Diplomatic Security

   Federal Emergency Management Agency

   Federal Home Loan Bank Board

   General Accounting Office

   General Services Administration
     Public Buildings Service

   Postal Service

   Department of the Treasury
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
     Customs Service


   Page 136                                        OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendii  I
Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




   Internal Revenue Service
   Secret Service

   U.S. Courts

Offices of the Inspectors General
  Department of Commerce
  Department of Defense
  Department of Education
  Department of Health and Human Services
  Department of the Interior
  Department of Labor
  Department of State
  Department of Transportation
  Environmental Protection Agency
  General Services Administration
  National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  Railroad Retirement Board
  Small Business Administration
  Department of Veterans Affairs

The random sample of employees is weighted and therefore applicable
to the universe of employees in the overall study. Table I.2 also shows
the response rates for the questionnaire. The first column of the
response rates gives the rates before adjusting for questionnaires that
could not be delivered to the selected employee and is calculated by
dividing the number of responses into the total number of question-
naires mailed. The second column of response rates gives the rates after
adjusting for questionnaires that could not be delivered to the selected
employee. This response rate is calculated by dividing the number of
responses into the total number of questionnaires mailed minus the
questionnaires that could not be delivered.

We applied weights to the sample data in order to project sample results
to the universe of federal law enforcement employees. In each of the 10
strata in which we sampled employees, each employee represents some
number of employees in the universe. For example, we selected 327
employees out of a total of 1,317 employees with duty stations in the
Miami MSA.Each of the responding employees in the Miami MSAthere-
fore represents four employees in the universe (1,317/327 = 4). In the
five remaining strata in which we selected all employees, each response
has a weight of one.



Page 137                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                           Appendix I
                           Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




                           Two important sources of error in our estimates of population parame-
                           ters are nonresponse bias and sampling error. Nonresponse bias may
                           occur when not all survey recipients respond. If nonrespondent and
                           respondent opinions differ, the survey responses reflect a subpopulation
                           and not the universe. We are unable to estimate the effect of nonre-
                           sponse bias in this survey. However, if we make no assumptions about
                           the 17 percent of the sample that did not respond to the questionnaire
                           (see Table 1.2), we then project the results to an adjusted universe of
                           35,154 federal law enforcement employees.

                           Sampling error is a measure of an estimate’s precision. All sampling
                           errors for the employee are less than 3 percent.


Federal Field Management   Interviews of 102 federal managers were conducted in 14 cities across
Interviews                 the country. Eight of the cities chosen (Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los
                           Angeles, Miami, New York, San Francisco, and Washington, DC) are
                           major metropolitan areas where the cost of living is above the national
                           average. These cities encompass a large percentage of the study uni-
                           verse-almost one-third, or over 15,000 federal law enforcement per-
                           sonnel. The remaining six cities (Brownville, TX; Buffalo; Charleston,
                           WV; Kansas City, MO; Spokane; and Tampa) are smaller metropolitan
                           areas where the cost of living was at or below the national average.
                           Although smaller, these secondary cities contained a significant number
                           of federal law enforcement personnel.

                           The purpose of these interviews was to obtain subjective information on
                           these issues that would not otherwise be available through surveys. Spe-
                           cifically, the interviews were designed to obtain the views of federal
                           managers on the following issues: staffing, recruitment, retention, trans-
                           fer policy, morale, and whether these issues also affected the agency’s
                           non-law enforcement personnel. Most of the managers we interviewed
                           were at the special-agent-in-charge or assistant-special-agent-in-charge
                           level. Table I.3 lists the federal law enforcement agencies whose mana-
                           gers were interviewed and the cities in which these interviews took
                           place.




                           Page 138                                         OCG90.2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendix I
Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




Page 139                                        OCG-90-Z Law Enforcement   Pay
                                 -~      ____~___~
                                                ~_~~
                                       Appendix I
                                       Detailed Objectives,   Scope and Methodology




Table 1.3: Federal Agency Management
Interviews

                                       Agency                                                                   Boston
                                                                                                         I._--__--.----     Chicago
                                       (Number of Covered Employees)                                                  354      1,360
                                       Internal Revenue Service                                                        X           X

                                       Marshals Service                                                                X           X

                                       Secret Service                                                                  X           X

                                       Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco. Firearms                                            X

                                       Defense Criminal Invest. Service                                                 X

                                       Federal Bureau of Investigation                                                  X          X

                                       Fish and Wildlife Service                                                                   X

                                       General Services Administration (Inspector General)                                         X

                                       Customs Service                                                                             X

                                       Postal Inspection Service                                                                   X

                                       Bureau of Prisons                                                                           X

                                       Courts (Probation/Pretrial Services)

                                       Defense (Inspector General)                                                                 X

                                       Immioration and Naturalization Services                                                     X

                                       Department of Education (Inspector General)
                                       Health and Human Services (Inspector General)
                                       National Aeronautics and Space Administratio~t%eneral)
                                                                                       ..--
                                       Department of Veterans Affairs
                                       Department of Labor (Inspector General)
                                       Environmental Protection Agency (Inspector General)
                                       Commerce (Inspector General)
                                                                  -.-~ - - .~__. ~ ___
                                       Naval Investigative Service
                                       Small Business Administration (Inspector General)
                                       Forest Service                                  ~__-      ..__
                                       Secret Service (Uniformed Division)
                                       Department of Transportation (Inspector Generah-p
                                                                                   ~__-.--~..~          -.--..-     ~__.~~~~~ ~~....~~
                                       Department of~lnterior (Inspector General)                          .__--~~.~-~~.-.~..~~     ~.
                                       Border Patrol (Immigration & Naturalization Services)




                                       Page 140                                                     OCG90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
-              -.-   .-._.   ~I--




                                                     Appendix I
                                                     Detailed Objectives,            Scope and Methodology




-..                                                                          City
                                                                                                         San     Washington                 Secondary
      Dallas                        Los Angeles    Miami
                                                   -i~34 ~~~~           New    York
                                                            -.---..‘~-.-.--.-,203.--~..--.--.--643 Francisco             DC                      cities
       1,060                               1,838      -       ~~~~ _-~~~-  ~~~                                             2,491                      780
           X                                   X          X                             X                                       X                          X
                                                     .~       ~... ~. ..-.. ~~.._~ -~ ..~ ..--                                       ____             --
                                               X          X                                  X                                  X
                                                                                                                 ___-__.                   .-. -. .-- .~
                                               X          X                                  X                                  X
                                                                                                                                ____-..-.---
                                               X          X                                  X                               X
                                                                                                                       ______--.___.             --. -
           X                                   X
                                                                                                                     -_____
           X                                   X          X                                  X               X                  X                          X

                                                                                                                                X

                                                                                                                       .----.       ___     .-   .~    .~~
           X                                                                                 X               X                  X                        X

           X                                   X          X                                  X               X                  X

           X                                   X          X                                   X                                                            X
                                                                   .~- .._    ..~~   ~~.   .-~~   ~.
           X                                   X          X                                  X               X                  X

           X                                   X          X                                  X                                  X



                                               X          X                                  X               X                  X




                                                     Page 141                                                        OCG90-2 Law Enforcement          Pay
--
                              Appendix I
                              Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




Comparability Study:          The Commission contracted with a consulting firm to determine the
Duties and Responsibilities   comparability of federal and state and local law enforcement positions--
                              i.e., the extent to which the work of federal law enforcement officers is
                              comparable to the work of their state and local counterparts.

                              The consultants applied their job evaluation system to 196 federal posi-
                              tions and 83 state and local positions. The 279 positions were selected to
                              provide a sample of employees performing a broad range of assignments
                              within the law enforcement field. The consultant reported gaining inter-
                              esting insights concerning the various law enforcement positions and
                              organizations in the course of the field study and meetings with organi-
                              zation representatives.

                              The findings and conclusions of the job comparability study are
                              intended to aid the Commission in assessing issues regarding compensa-
                              tion of federal law enforcement positions. Specifically, the study should
                              contribute to the understanding to law enforcement work as it is per-
                              formed at federal, state, and local levels of government. The quantified
                              results of the job evaluations, which indicate the degree of comparabil-
                              ity between federal, state, and local law enforcement positions should
                              also contribute to an understanding of the considerable similarities in
                              the work-and      point to where important differences exist.

                              Several limitations were inherent to the study. First, because (by neces-
                              sity) the scope of the survey was narrowed-( 1) to locations where fed-
                              eral employment of law enforcement officers is high, (2) only to certain
                              populous law enforcement series in the federal service, (3) only to jour-
                              ney-level positions and their supervisors-there     are large numbers of
                              federal positions that were not included in the survey. These omissions
                              may represent significant areas of work that have not been evaluated.
                              Further, limitations may also be true of state and local law enforcement
                              positions. The Commission staff elected not to interview and evaluate
                              entry-level positions for several reasons-newly     hired law enforcement
                              officers are in a training status for much of their first year; closely
                              supervised assignments of limited scope usually comprise their duties
                              during the next few years; and, relatively permanent assignments usu-
                              ally begin during the fourth or fifth year of duty. It is the permanent
                              assignments, which represent the work of experienced and trained
                              officers, that the Commission sought to compare. Also, in keeping with
                              the study design, the Commission did not examine executive or manage-
                              ment positions in law enforcement.




                              Page 142                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
._._..-- -_-..-.
                        Appendix I
                        Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




                        A second limitation of the study was associated with the use of the job
                        measurement system. Point factor methods, such as the Quantitative
                        Evaluation System (QES), are considered to be more objective than other
                        methods used in evaluating jobs. Point factor methods involve written
                        descriptions of factors and factor scales that-when     properly defined
                        and applied-provide     objective, standard guidelines for evaluation and
                        result in a single, numeric measure of a job’s value.

                        Job evaluation is, however, as much art as science. Choosing factors,
                        determining how many levels to establish in a given factor, writing the
                        factor and factor level descriptions, assigning weights to factors, deter-
                         mining a method of scaling points- all of these rely on the individual
                        judgment, experience, and expertise of the system designer. Thus, while
                        the quantification and statistical methods used in QESlend objectivity to
                        the results obtained, job evaluation is still essentially a subjective
                        process.

                        The results of the study reflect designer judgments as much as they rep-
                        resent an ob.jective evaluation of the work itself. The study required the
                        considerable cooperation and assistance of the NACLEstaff and signifi-
                        cant input into the &ES factors and point scales by the consultant and
                        other experts.


Comparabili ty Study:   The Commission contracted with Human Resources System Group, Inc.,
Iknefits                to assess the comparability of benefits between federal law enforcement
                        and state and local law enforcement agencies. The assessment is primar-
                        ily based on data from the NACLEState and Local Law Enforcement Pay
                        and Benefits Survey (see App. IV). Other reliable data sources were also
                        used to help interpret these data or assist in the validation of findings.

                        The NACLE survey was conducted by means of a questionnaire that was
                        mailed to approximately 700 state and local law enforcement agencies in
                        all 50 states, generally concentrating in metropolitan areas where fed-
                        eral law enforcement officers are found. About 588 responses were
                        received.

                        The questionnaire consisted of 39 questions, 25 of which pertained to
                        benefits. Since many of the questions required several entries, the sur-
                        vey included a total of 97 different data elements concerning benefits.




                        Page 143                                          OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
    Appendix I
    Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




    The questionnaire covered four occupational groups: (1) uniformed
    (sworn police officers), (2) non-uniformed (such as detectives), (3) cor-
    rection personnel, and (4) probation agency personnel. In most cases, the
    responding agencies employed only police positions (uniformed and/or
    non-uniformed) or only corrections or only probation. In some, as in
    sheriff’s departments or certain municipal police forces, they employed
    both police and correction officers. In a few cases, both probation and
    correction personnel were part of the same agency. The data were ana-
    lyzed by these four basic occupations. Generally, however, the data for
    uniformed and non-uniformed were combined because the personnel
    practices were usually identical for both positions within the same
    agency. Also, distinctions were drawn between the patterns and prac-
    tices of jails versus state prisons, since wages, job classifications, and
    benefits may differ markedly between them and to combine such data
    may be misleading.

    The database developed from the survey is comprised of 1,080 individ-
    ual records from the 588 responding agencies. From these records, the
    following sample was selected for validation and analysis. The sample
    consisted of the following:

. all records of corrections agencies,
. all records of probation agencies,
. all “large” uniformed police agencies (agencies with 200 or more uni-
  formed employees),
. all “large” police agencies that reported as “joint” uniformed and non-
  uniformed agencies (agencies with 200 or more uniformed employees),
. all “large” non-uniformed police agencies (agencies with 100 or more
  non-uniformed employees), and
l a random sample (1 in 7) of the 17 1 remaining “small” police agencies-
  uniformed, non-uniformed, and “joint”, and those that did not report the
  size of their workforce.

    From this selection process, a total of 523 agencies were included in the
    sample. These agencies comprise the database upon which the survey
    results were finally evaluated. The purpose of the sample was to vali-
    date the responses to the questionnaire and review the questionnaire for
    information contained in notes and attached literature from the respon-
    dents. The sampling permitted contacts with respondents in those cases
    where responses seemed questionable or were inconsistent or
    ambiguous.




    Page 144                                         OCG-SO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendix I
Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




The consultant was charged by NACLEto provide a “cost/value assess-
ment of the federal versus the state and local benefits package.” The
assessment is limited by limitations in the data and in the instrument
used by NACLEto collect those data. For example, although the employer
cost in terms of percentage of salary for the benefits package is a useful
measure, overall costs were not requested by the NACLEquestionnaire.
Thus, no absolute comparison of employer costs can be made.

However, this comparison was primarily intended to evaluate benefits
from the employee’s point of view- i.e., to assess the relative value of
benefits in terms of cost to the employee and the “value” of comparable
benefits. The data collected by the NACLEsurvey in this regard are
extensive.

Comparability of benefits from the point of view of the employee tends
to be subjective. Honest interpretation of these data may see a greater or
lesser degree of comparability depending on the value employees place
upon the benefits, This is especially true when comparing benefits pack-
ages as a whole. Employers construct benefits packages with several
objectives in mind -benefit adequacy, benefit cost, benefit attractive-
ness for recruitment and retention. Moreover, most of the state and local
police and corrections agencies and some probation agencies are covered
by collective bargaining arrangements. Thus, their benefits packages
represent a mediation of employee and employer interests.

The conclusions of this study are based on comparisons of individual
benefits categories with the relevant federal benefits category-com-
paring life insurance to life insurance, etc. While a determination can be
made from this as to whether and to what degree the federal employer
is “comparable” to state and local employers with respect to each bene-
fit, it is more difficult to assess the overall comparability of the total
benefits package. This difficulty stems from the fact that few employers
will follow all leading practices; they may be more generous in one bene-
fit and less generous in another.

Thus, the use of comparability as a criterion for the determination of the
merit of benefits packages should be a guarded approach. The specific
needs of the employer, the adequacy of benefits, and the costs must be
considered.




Page 146                                          OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                          Appendix I
                          Detailed Objectives,   Scope, and Methodology




_-.__._...-..._ - __._
                    --.
                          In doing this study, the Commission followed GAOauditing standards. All
                          survey and questionnaire instruments were developed with the assis-
                          tance of GAOtechnical design specialists and statisticians. Unless other-
                          wise noted, all statistical data reported comply with GAOstandards for
                          statistical validity.

                          Several agencies assisted the Commission in fulfilling its mission. Specif-
                          ically, FBI and its Uniform Crime Reports section helped deliver, collect,
                          and keypunch the state and local law enforcement pay and benefits
                          surveys; GAO,FBI, and Secret Service field personnel did extensive inter-
                          views in selected field locations; and BOPgathered data on positions not
                          intensively studied by the NACLEsurvey methods.

                          In addition to the data described above, limited information was
                          obtained on two groups of employees not included in this study-Immi-
                          gration Inspectors and Customs Inspectors. Although these groups do
                          not fall within the definition of law enforcement officers, information
                          about their pay and benefits and recruitment and retention issues was
                          voluntarily provided by the respective agencies. In the event that legis-
                          lation or other administrative directive determines that these positions
                          meet the statutory definition for law enforcement officers, data were
                          collected to be available for the Commission to apply its overall recom-
                          mendations to these groups as appropriate. These data are being main-
                          tained and are available from Bernard L. Ungar, Director, Federal
                          IIuman Resource Management Issues, GAO,Rm. 3858a, 441 G St., N.W.,
                          Washington, D.C. 20548.




                          Page 146                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendix II

Brief Histo~ of Federal Law Enforcement


                    Federal law enforcement officers’ duties and responsibilities have
                    evolved during a rich and varied history. Though the role of the officers
                    and the names of their agencies have changed, the basic nature of both
                    the hardships and opponents they face have remained constant. Despite
                    their important task of protecting the public welfare, early officers were
                    given little pay, equipment, or encouragement.

                    The establishment and growth of federal law enforcement parallels the
                    growth of America as a nation. As the country shifted from a colonial
                    society to a fledgling nation, the need to uphold the Constitution and
                    enforce laws changed the scope of law enforcement activities. In the
                    17th and 18th centuries, there were various decentralized police groups
                    modeled after the Anglo-Saxon sheriff-constable system. Any citizen
                    could, acting under the concept of social obligation, “arrest” an
                    offender. Their motivation to do so was enhanced by the practice vic-
                    tims had of offering rewards. Eventually, this system of private awards
                    grew into a standardized system of fees. The sources of these fees
                    changed from individual victims of crime to the public purse, insurance
                    ventures, or commercial entities. The system was suited to an agrarian
                    society, not to an industrialized society faced with the accompanying
                    problems of urbanization. It became clear that the local, decentralized
                    police systems could not serve the needs of both individual citizens and
                    dependent states of a new country facing the “national” problems of
                    smuggling, counterfeiting, espionage, product defects, and fraud--all of
                    which crossed local and state boundaries.’


Early Enforcement   The first national enforcement efforts began in 1789 with the creation
                    of the Marshals Service, the Customs Service, and the Treasury Police.
                    Throughout the following century, the U.S. Marshals and a small
                    number of federal agents in the Treasury and the Post Office dealt with
                    a variety of crimes and subversive activities.

                    One U.S. Marshal was assigned in each of the 13 states and territories to
                    execute the orders of the federal government and to support its courts.
                    The first marshals were generally local men who held their jobs through
                    political patronage. Marshals’ fees and expenses were paid by the fed-
                    eral government; marshals did not receive a regular salary until 1896.
                    Throughout the 19th century, the marshals were involved in such varied
                    efforts as arresting counterfeiters, suppressing the slave trade, taming
                    of the West, and containing labor unrest. In the early 20th century, the

                    ‘Ottenburg, Miriam, The Federal Investigations (Englewood Cliffs, N..J.,Prentice Hall, Inc., 1962).



                    Page 147                                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement          Pay
Appendix II
Brief History   of Federal   Law Enf’orcement




marshals enforced prohibition. Later, marshals would play a role in the
racial desegregation challenges of the 1950s and 1960s. Today, the mar-
shals are involved in ensuring federal court security, protecting wit-
nesses, transporting prisoners, executing court orders, and capturing
fugitives.

The Customs Service was established in 1789, 2 months before the Trea-
sury Department of which it later became a part. As one of Congress’
first acts, it authorized the assessment and collection of duties on
imported goods. By 1799, the first customs inspectors were employed to
examine the books and records of customs officials. In 1846, the first
two special agents were appointed to the Customs Service; by 1869, the
number of agents had increased to 62 and formed a structured force
organized into 16 districts nationwide. In 1870, Congress formally recog-
nized this organization and authorized the official appointment of 53
additional special agents whose main duties were to detect and prevent
revenue frauds. Still today, the enforcement agents of the Customs Ser-
vice-together     with the marine and air patrols-combat    smuggling and
commercial frauds and now have the added responsibility of drug
interdiction.

The Secret Service was created in 1865 to stop the widespread counter-
feiting that occurred when paper currency was introduced during the
Civil War. Following the assassination of President McKinley in 1901,
the Secret Service began its presidential protection services, which have
since been extended to include protection of others as well. Secret Ser-
vice responsibilities were further expanded to cover bonds and other
government obligations and investigations of stolen or forged U.S. gov-
ernment checks; fraud and related activity involving identification docu-
ments; and major cases dealing with credit and debit cards, computers,
automated teller machines, telecommunications, and electronic fund
transfers.

The Service’s Iiniformed Division was created in 1922. Originally called
the White House Police, its purpose was to provide protection for the
Executive Mansion and grounds. This mission was expanded to include
protection of the White House Complex, the Department of the Treasury
building, the Treasury Annex building, and other presidential offices;
the President, Vice President, and members of their immediate families;
the official Washington residence of the Vice President; and foreign dip-
lomatic missions throughout the United States, its territories, and pos-
sessions, as prescribed by statute.



Page 148                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
          Appendlx II
          Brief History   of Federal   Law Enforcement




          FBI was created in 1908 after Congress passed a bill ending the loaning
          of Secret Service agents outside the Department of the Treasury. As the
          investigative force of the Justice Department, FBI was assigned to inves-
          tigate matters such as national banking, bankruptcy, naturalization,
          antitrust, peonage, land fraud, and examination of official records. FBI'S
          work increased in scope with the Espionage, Selective Service, and Sabo-
          tage Acts of World War I. Similarly, the 1919 National Motor Vehicle
          Theft Act further broadened FBI'Sjurisdiction,

          In the “gangster era” of the 193Os, FBI'S responsibilities increased again
          this time to include kidnapping, bank robbery, extortion, and racketeer-
          ing. In 1934, FBI agents received the power to arrest and the right to
          carry firearms. During *World War II, FBI was given the responsibility to
          investigate espionage, sabotage, violations of neutrality regulations,
          counterespionage and subversive activities, becoming an intelligence
          agency as well as an enforcement agency. FBI'Sjurisdiction expanded to
          include intelligence matters in Latin America. In the 1950s the “Ten
          Most Wanted Fugitives” program began; background security investiga-
          tions and other internal security matters for the White House and the
          Executive Branch were undertaken. Challenges facing FBI in the follow-
          ing decades included embezzlement, civil rights violations, hijacking, and
          organized crime. Today, the FBI has jurisdiction in over 200 types of
          crimes and is the only agency with foreign counterintelligence responsi-
          bilities within the borders of the United States.


          For most of the 19th century, there were virtually no federal prison
Prisons   facilities. Most sentenced federal offenders were incarcerated in state
          prisons and county jails. After the Civil War, the federal inmate popula-
          tion began to rise to over 15,000 by the 1890s. To take the burden of
          housing federal offenders off the states and counties, Congress autho-
          rized the construction of three federal penitentiaries. A women’s reform-
          atory, a youth facility, and a detention center became part of the federal
          prison system in the 1920s. However, new federal laws against organ-
          ized crime combined with the Prohibition Act led to a steep increase in,
          and overcrowding of, federal prisoners in the late 1920s.

          Congress passed a series of laws in 1930 establishing the Bureau of Pris-
          ons (BOP)to manage and regulate all federal prisons, authorizing the
          construction of several new facilities, establishing a new Board of
          Parole, and introducing other reforms.




          Page 149                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                    Appendix II
                    Brief History   of Federal   Law Enforcement




                    In the 193Os, the Bureau had four occupational divisions: professional;
                    subprofessional; clerical, administrative and fiscal; and custodial ser-
                    vice. Each of these categories had its own pay schedule.

                    After the prison construction in the 1930s the inmate population lev-
                    eled off and HOP opened very few new institutions. From 1940 through
                    the early 198Os, the number of inmates held fairly steady at between
                    20,000 and 25,000. Since the early 1980s however, the inmate popula-
                    tion, augmented by drug offenders and illegal aliens, has soared to over
                    50,000. This rise in the inmate population is presenting BOP with diffi-
                    cult challenges. Current estimates project growth to 95,000 prisoners in
                    over 100 federal prisons by 1995. To operate this massive complex of
                    correctional facilities, BOP will need to double its current workforce to
                    approximately 33,000 employees.


Other Specialists   Immigration laws have existed since 1789. Over time, responsibility for
                    the administration of these laws has been vested in state governments
                    and various departments of the federal government. The first central-
                    ized immigration enforcement entity was established in 1904. It con-
                    sisted of a small force of 60 to 75 mounted guards along the Mexican
                    border responsible for enforcing immigration, contract labor, white
                    slave, and Chinese exclusion laws. Responding to an increasing aware-
                    ness about illegal immigration to the United States and a demand for
                    more effective enforcement of foreign contract labor laws, Congress
                    formed the US. Border Patrol in 1924. Patrol inspectors were sought for
                    their courage and skills, such as horsemanship, marksmanship, and the
                    ability to endure long periods out of doors in severe conditions. Men
                    were recruited from law enforcement organizations such as the Texas
                    Rangers and the sheriff’s departments in the Southwest. These men
                    were furnished with a badge and pistol. At first, they were not uni-
                    formed and provided their own horses and saddles; the government pro-
                    vided oats and hay.

                    In 1933, the first corps of immigration investigators was formed in New
                    York City to combat immigration fraud, alien smuggling, and racketeer-
                    ing. As concern grew over national security, this group of investigators
                    was expanded nationwide in 1940 to promote more effective control
                    over aliens. The same law that authorized the expansion of the Special
                    Investigations Division authorized the hiring of detention guards. Thus,
                    with the founding of both the uniformed and non-uniformed enforce-
                    ment functions within INS, present-day enforcement has grown into a
                    complex, 5,800-member organization.


                    Page 160                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendix II
Brief History   of Federal   Law Enforcement




Today, Border Patrol agents use many of the skills-tracking,      horse-
back patrol-their    predecessors used. They also use such modern
devices as airplanes; helicopters; boats; and infrared, seismic, and elec-
tronic sensor devices. INS special agents also employ various sophisti-
cated equipment as well as traditional investigative techniques to
combat illegal immigration. Other law enforcement organizations use INS
and benefit from its ethnic and alien communities in the United States.
Since the INS enforcement branch has begun detaining aliens awaiting
deportation, INS officers have assumed roles similar to those of correc-
tions, probation, and parole officers. INS officers also supervise private
organizations that contract with INS to detain aliens.

DEA was established within the Bureau of Internal Revenue in response
to a 1915 narcotics act that required registering and taxing narcotics
used for medical purposes. In 1930, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was
established. In 1968, President Johnson reorganized the Bureau of Drug
Abuse Control and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics under the Depart-
ment of Justice as the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Two
year later, under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Con-
trol Act, enforcement authority rested on the authority of Congress to
regulate interstate commerce. DEA as we know it today was formally
established on July 1, 1973.

The IRSCriminal Investigations Division and Office of Inspections each
had their origins in the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Intelligence Unit,
which was established in 1919 with a staff of six former postal inspec-
tors. These agents were charged with exposing employee corruption and
investigating violations (e.g., tax fraud and tax evasion) of the revenue
laws. During World War II, agents participated in locating and freezing
funds and assets belonging to Axis power aliens living in the United
States. After the war, agents became more involved in organized crime
and tax-fixing cases.

In 1952, the Intelligence Unit was divided into two distinct units: the
Intelligence Division and the Inspection Division. The Intelligence Divi-
sion, renamed the Criminal Investigations Division in 1978, is primarily
responsible for investigating all tax-related violations. The Inspection
Division is primarily responsible for investigating agency employees,
employee backgrounds, bribery or attempted bribery of an agency
employee, and matters involving the general integrity of the agency.




Page 161                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendix II
Brief History   of Federal   Law Enforcement




The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, established in 1972, also
originated in the Bureau of Internal Revenue. With the repeal of Prohi-
bition, liquor law violations once again became a tax matter and, in
 1934, the Alcohol Tax Unit was established. Within a few years, the
large-scale liquor syndicates of the Prohibition era were scaled down.
Following World War II, enforcement efforts turned to the “moonshin-
ers” and the large distillers. In 1941, enforcement of the National and
Federal Firemans Acts, created under taxing authority, became the
responsibility of the Alcohol Unit. In 1951, enforcement of the tobacco
taxes was added. Today, ATF enforces federal laws involving excise
taxes on alcoholic substances, control of firearms and explosives, and
regulation of the tobacco industry.

The most recent additions to the ranks of federal law enforcement are
the criminal investigators of the Offices of the Inspectors General. Mili-
tary inspectors general have existed since the nation’s inception; how-
ever, the first civilian inspector general, created by the Secretary of
Agriculture, was only first named in 1962. The Department of Housing
and IJrban Development established an Inspector General by adminis-
trative action in 1972. Congress, seeing a need for the Inspectors Gen-
eral to be independent from program officials, established the first
statutory Inspectors General at the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare in 1976, and at the Department of Energy in 1977. The
Inspector General Act of 1978 significantly increased the number of
statutory Inspectors General. Today, there are 24 statutory Inspectors
General in federal executive agencies.

Inspectors General conduct and supervise criminal investigations and
audits relating to agency programs and operations. The approximately
1,900 criminal investigators within the Inspector General community
investigate fraud, public corruption, and related offenses. Criminal
investigations of contractors, program participants, and government
employees have led to successful prosecutions for bribery, bid-rigging,
collusion, embezzlement, contract fraud, forgery, conspiracy, and a vari-
ety of other offenses. Since fiscal year 1981, over 27,000 successful
prosecutions have been accomplished by the Offices of the Inspectors
General, either independently or with other federal or nonfederal
agencies.




Page 162                                          OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendix III

Federal Law Enforcement Pay ayld
Eknefits Survey

               To gather information on federal pay and benefits, the Commission dis-
               tributed questionnaires to 55 departments and agencies, one of which
               did not respond. Of the 54 responding, a total of 47 organizations in 28
               departments and agencies had employees within the scope of our study
               (i.e., covered by the special retirement provisions for law enforcement
               officers). Since some organizations had employees in more than one
               occupation, we received a total of 63 responses from the 47 organiza-
               tions with employees within the scope of our study. From our survey
               instrument, a total of 56,721 federal employees were reported to be in
               positions covered by the scope of our study. Table III.1 summarizes the
               distribution of employees by organization and occupation. These occupa-
               tions are listed in Appendix I. Tables 111.3,111.4,111.8,111.9,III. 11 and
               III. 13 list the departments and agencies participating in this survey and
               also summarize responses by agency. For purposes of our analysis, an
               “organization” includes subdivisions of a department or agency, such as
               FBI within the Department of Justice and the Office of the Inspector
               General within the Environmental Protection Agency. We received data
               on 19 different occupations having covered employees.




               Page 153                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                        Appendix IJ.I
                                        Federal Law Enforcement       Pay and
                                        Beneffts Survey




Table 111.1:Number of Law Enforcement
Employees by Occupation and Agency
                                                                                                                                          Postal
                                        --~         --                           16:;        0%      16::        Probation            inspector
                                        Justice
                                        --____                                  15,581      5,653   4,209
                                        Treasury                                10,494
                                        KS. Courts                                                                       2,390
                                        Postal
                                        .--~      Service                                                                             ---. 1,902
                                        Interior           ___..-__                176
                                        Navy                                     1,077
                                        State
                                        __-__-_-__-                                 35
                                        Agriculture                                389                                     -___-              .-~-
                                        DOD
                                        -.                                         309                                        -____    __-
                                        HHS                                        273
                                        Commerce                                   103
                                        Labor
                                        .____                                      179                      ______---.
                                        GSA
                                        -_.-...---..____                           105
                                        EPA                                         97
                                        HUD                       ____-             80
                                        Air Force                                   70
                                        Veterans Affairs                            66
                                        Transportation            ~-. .I__          62               ___-__
                                        Dept. of Education
                                        -..--___-        ___~~~~ .-                 57                               -___.~.-           . ...-_--
                                        NRC                                         45
                                        NASA
                                        .____--                                     38                         ___--__
                                        Small    Business ______-.
                                         ~----_____..-      Admin.                  37
                                        Energy                                      26
                                        GAO                                         25
                                        Inter. Dev. Coop. Agy. ~-___                25                             ~-
                                        Railroad Retirement Bd.                     15                            __-___              ___.
                                        FEMA                 -..-._------           10
                                        GPO                                          8                       ____-
                                        USIA                                         6
                                        Smithsonian Inst.                               4
                                        EEOC                                            3           ________._~.___
                                        Securities & Exch. Comm.                        3                    -~-                        -. .___
                                        FHLBB                                           1
                                        Army                                                                                ~..
                                        Total                                   29,399 5,653 4,209                       2,390               1,902




                                        Page 164                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement           Pay
                                     Appendix III
                                     Federal Law Enforcement               Pay and
                                     EfmetlC Siu?uey




 Treasury          State
uniformed    diplomatic              Interior park
  division      security   0::               police -__18%            18::             0::      2%         0::        18::      18::    Other       Total
                                                                                                                                                    __.
                           676                          572
                                                       .__--           331             467        66                                     7,459” 35,014
     1,010                                                                 147                   297                    104 __I______-
                                                                                                                                     ---I_        12,052
                                                                                                                  -                         --      2,390
                                                                                                                                                    1,902
                                                  638
                                                  ----__.--~                                               298                               -1,112
                                                                                                                                                 ---..
                                                                                                                                    -_              1,077
                    805.                                                                                                                               640
                                                  - --.__-.                            -__-__              II_-                                        389
                                                                              1                                                                        310
                                                                                                                                                       273
                                                                           ._____--.___                                          90                    193
                                       ~-.-~._I_.        __.-..     -.--                          ---                                                  179
                                                                             _--           ___.___                                                     105
                                                                              1                                                                ____~__     98
                           ._    .-.. .~~- -                                                                                                                80
                                                                                                             15         ___~-                               85
                                                                                                                              ---.        -                 66
                                                                     ~--.-.                                                                                 62
                                           __ .~~~.__.~~~.                    __~-___                             ____-                        ___       ~--57
                                                                           __-                                       --          --------                .--45
                                                       --~-.--___            ---.                                    _..                                    38
                                            ..-- ___.-             __.______                                                                                37
                                    -..-.~~.~- ~-- -.---      __.____                                                 -.__                                  26
                                                                                                                                                            25
                                                                                                                                                            25




                                                                            .______.-                                                           191b      191
     1,010          805    676                   638          572          480     467           363       313          104          90       7,650    56,721
                                     aLess-traditional   law enforcement          positions in BOP.
               Y
                                     “Less-traditional   law enforcement          positions at Ft. Leavenworth    Disciplinary Barracks




                                     Page 166                                                                            OCG-90.2 Law Enforcement         Pay
                          Appendix III
                          Federal Law Enforcement      Pay and
                          Benefits Survey




                          While most of the 47 organizations reported that their covered positions
General Information       are in the competitive service, 14 organizations reported that they have
                          at least some covered positions in the excepted service. These organiza-
                          tions are as follows:

                      . Air Force-excepted service for some appointments,
                      . Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms-excepted          service for some
                        appointments,
                      . Bureau of Indian Affairs-excepted       service for Indian preference
                        appointments,
                        Commerce-excepted service for overseas appointments,
                        Defense-excepted service for some appointments,
                        Diplomatic Security-excepted      service agency,
                        Drug Enforcement Administration-excepted          service for entry level
                        appointments,
                        FBI-excepted service agency,
                        General Accounting Office-excepted       service agency,
                        Labor-excepted     service for some appointments,
                        Naval Investigative Service-excepted service agency,
                        Nuclear Regulatory Commission-excepted          service agency,
                        Secret Service-excepted service for some appointments, and
                        U.S. Courts-excepted     service agency.

                          Those organizations with positions in the excepted service and those
                          with pay systems other than the General Schedule all have appropriate
                          specific statutory authority exempting them from the competitive ser-
                          vice and/or the General Schedule.

                          Eight occupations were reported to have special salary rates currently
                          in effect.’ These special salary rates cover specific grades (usually
                          entry-level) and geographic locations, and they were authorized by OPM
                          in response to requests from each agency that demonstrated recruitment
                          and retention problems. Special salary rates have been approved for
                          occupations as indicated in Table 111.2.




                          ‘Accountants in BOP have special salary rates and are included in this group. However, these posi-
                          tions arc included in a broader special salary rate program for accountants which is not unique to law
                          enforcement agencies. Special salary rates also apply to some law enforcement occupations in our
                          universe not included in the Federal Pay and Benefits Survey. These positions include some medical
                          officers, secretaries, legal technicians, etc., in BOP.



                          Page 166                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
                                   Appendix III
                                   Federal Law Enforcement      Pay and
                                   Benefits Survey




Table 111.2:Special Salary Rates
                                   Occupation                             Grades and Rates _---             Locations
                                   Detention Officer                     GS-2                    $14,169 Eastern, MA
                                                                         GS-3                     15,150 -       ---               _-----.-~
                                                                         GS-4
                                                                         _--.---                  16,092
                                                                         GS-5                -__-.16,972                 -..__      ---_--
                                                                         GS-6                     18,712               ____ - ..__ -_..----~
                                                                         GS-7
                                                                        __-___                    20,143
                                                                                           __---____-~_--__
                                                                         GS-8                     22,310
                                                                         GS-1                     11,013 CT
                                                                         GS-2                     12,216
                                                                         GS-3                     13,513
                                                                         GS-4                     15,172
                                                                         GS-5
                                                                        ~_..__                    16,972
                                                                         GS-6
                                                                      ---__..-.         __I__ 18,919                        ~__.~ __       -~ -~.-
                                   Border Patrol Agent                    GS-5
                                                                          -----.-                 18,363 CA,AZ,FL,LA
                                                                                                              .-___..
                                                                          GS-7                    21,443 NM,TX,AL,MS
                                   Deputy Marshal                         GS-5                    17,638    Washington, DC _.~--
                                                                                                       ____-___                                 -~.-
                                                                          GS-7                    20,598    New York, NY
                                                                                                       __-.___
                                                                          GS-9       -%435                  Los Angeles, CA
                                                                          --                               .-___. FL
                                                                                                            Miami,
                                                                                              ..__.____ Alexandria, VA
                                   Correctional Officer                   GS-6                    21,637 Otisville, NY
                                                                          GS-7         __-___ 22,743-____ New York, NY
                                                                          GS-8                    23,750 Danbury, CT ___-               .--.-      ~~~
                                                                                                            Lompoc, CA
                                                                          _-~ -~~                           Los____-___
                                                                                                                  Angeles, CA __.._ ~. -.-
                                                                                            .____.          Terminal   Island, CA - ._--
                                                                                                                     ______~.
                                   Police                                 GS-5                    18,407-__ Nevada    .__     ___~.._~        ..--.
                                   Park Police                                                    24,450
                                                                                                   -.-      Washington,
                                                                                                             -_              DC
                                                                             .._-- ____.                    New York, NY
                                                       .._~ ~~~~.
                                                               --                                ~-___      San   Francisco, CA
                                   Secret Service Uniformed Div.                                  24,450 Washington, DC
                                   Note: Twenty accountants in the Bureau of Prisons are covered by a special salary rate in given loca-
                                   tlons. Because accountant salaries are compared with state departments of corrections and private
                                   industry in Appendix V, they are not included in this table.




Entry-Level Hires and Pay          Federal agencies were asked to list their entry-level grades, the number
                                   of hires in calendar year 1988 at each entry-level grade, and the average
                      Y            salary offered to new hires in calendar year 1988 at each entry-level
                                   grade.



                                   Page 167                                                                  OCG90-2 Law Enforcement           Pay
Appendix III
Federal Law Enforcement   Pay and
Benefits Survey




True entry-level grades are usually defined as those levels at which
there is no required experience or graduate education specific to the
field. Under the General Schedule, entry level is usually GS-5 and/or
GS-7.

Table III.3 summarizes the entry-level grades and salaries reported by
organizations for each occupation. More than half of the respondents
(38 out of 63, or 60 percent) reported minimum entry levels of GS-5 and/
or GS-7, or their equivalent, with other reported entry-level grades rang-
ing from GS-3 through GS-13. Qualifications requirements followed
appropriate OPM qualifications standards for each grade level (i.e.,
employees hired at GS-5 are required to have a college degree or 3 years’
general experience, or a combination of education and experience total-
ing 3 years).




Page 168                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendix III
Federal Law Enforcement   Pay and
Benefits Survey




Page 159                            OCG99-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
-
                                     Appendix Ill
                                     Federal Law Enforcement     Pay and
                                     Benefits Survey




Table 111.3:Entry-Level Grades and
Salaries-General     Schedule
                                     Aaencv                           Bureau                        Occupation
                                     Agriculture                      Forest Service               1811 -Criminal Investigator
                                                                      Inspector General            1811 -Criminal Investigator
                                     Air Force                        Not Applicable               0083-Police
                                                                      Office of Special            1811 -Criminal Investigator
                                                                      Investigations
                                     Commerce                         Bureau of Export              1811 -Criminal Investigator
                                                                      Administration
                                                                      Inspector General National    1811 -Criminal Investigator
                                                                      Oceanic and Atmospheric       1812-Game Law Enforcement
                                                                      Administration
                                     Defense                          Office of the Secretary of    1801 -General Inspection,
                                                                      Defense and Defense           Investigation
                                                                      Agencies
                                                                                                    181 I-Criminal   investigator
                                     Education                        Inspector General             1811 -Criminal    Investigator
                                     Enerav                           Inspector General             1811 -Criminal    lnvestiaator
                                     EPA                              Inspector General             1801 -General    Inspection,
                                                                                                    lnvestiaation
                                                                                                    181 l-Criminal   lnvestiaator
                                     Federal Emergency                Not Applicable                1811 -Criminal   Investigator
                                     Management Agency
                                     Federal Home Loan Bank           Not Applicable                1811 -Criminal Investigator
                                     Board
                                     General Accounting Office        Not Applicable               1811 -Criminal Investigator
                                     GSA                              Inspector General            1811 -Criminal Investigator
                                                                      Public Buildinas Service     1811 -Criminal lnvestiaator
                                     HHS                              Inspector General            1811 -Criminal lnvestiqator
                                     Interior                         Bureau of Indian Affairs     0083-Police
                                                                                                   181 I-Criminal Investigator
                                                                      Bureau of Land Manaaement    1811 -Criminal lnvestidator
                                                                      Fish and Wildlife Service    1812-Game Law Enforcement
                                                                      Inspector General            1811 ..--
                                                                                                         -Criminal Investigator
                                     Justice                          BOP                          ~CIOI;~orrectional Institution
                                                                                                           .a
                                                                                                   0007~Correctional Officer
                                                                                                   0180-Psychologist
                                                                                                   0510-Accountant
                                                                                                   0603-Physician’s Assistant
                                                                      DEA                          181 l-Criminal Investigator
                                                                      FBI                          181 I-Criminal Investigator




                                     Page 160                                                      OCG90-2 Law Enforcement           Pay
                                              Appendix Ill
                                              Federal Law Enforcement       Pay and
                                              Benefits Survey




---                                                      Mean entry-level salary
       OS-3    GS-4         GS-5               GS-6 .~-____-___-______
                                     - ~...--.-.-..-.-..   GS-7        OS-9                 OS-10           GS-11              GS-12      - OS/GM-13
                                                         $21,580    $25,800                                                                   -.-
                          $15,774   ~~.                   19,026                                                                            ___-..-.
                           15,546                                           .~-.-~--                                                        I_--

                           15,118                          18,726                                          $27,716                                    -

                           15,118      -.-.
                           15,118                          18,726
                           15.118


                                                                                                      -_
                                                           18,726            22,907                                       ---
                           15,118                                                                                                        __.. -.__ ...~._~.~




                                                                    ..~.--22,go7 ~-.I_       -I_-..
                                                           18,726
                           14,067                                                            .--                -____-.         I__     ___.-~       ~~---
                                                                                                                                  .____   --
      12,138                                                                                                             -- .~
                                                           20,910       ~-.~-___.      .-                             .___--.__-              _~ ..---.
                                                   --.~ ..~~.                                                         ___-__
                           15,118       -.-                                                                      --.~.-__.              __-         -.-.
                           15,118                          18,726                                                --__

                                                                                                       ._______---
                           15,118         16[851                        ...~~ __-      --
                                                            _.      -..--                                   27,716---33,218--
                                                                                                            --
                           15,118                          18,726
                                                           18,726            22.907 .-____                             ----~            __-         ---~
                                                           18,838            23,323
                                                                                          $25;226                               -~___
                      Y                                                                                                                       (continued)




                                              Page 161                                                               OCG90-2 Law Enforcement              Pay
Appendix III
Federal Law Enforcement     Pay and
Benefits Survey




Agency                             Bureau                            Occupation
                                   INS                              1801-General Inspection,
                                                                   Investigation            ___-..
                                                                    1802Compliance inspection
                                                                   and Support _.-.            --~-.
                                                                    1811 -Criminal Investigator
                                                                                              -..-.
                        ~____.                                      1896-Border Patrol
                                                                   2181 -Aircraft Pilot
                               Marshals Service                    0082Deputy U.S. Marshal
                                                          ---       181 l-Criminal Investigator
                                                                                             -..-
labor     ~-.                  lnsbector General                    181 l-Criminal lnvestiaator
NASA                           Inspector General                    1811 -Criminal lnvestiaator
Navy                           Naval Investigative Service          1811 -Criminal Investigator..-- ~..
                                                                  _____-.__-~
Railroad Retirement Board --.. Inspector
                                 ___~__    General ~...__. ___.___-181 l-Criminal Investigator
Small Business                 Inspector General                    1811 -Criminal Investigator
Administration
State
  ~__..__      ~~~ ~    ..~    Inspector General___-____            1811 -Criminal___Investigator
                                                                                               --..
Transbortation                 lnsbector General                    1811 -Criminal lnvestiaator
Treasury                       Alcohol, Tobacco, and                1811 -Criminal Investigator
                            -~~Firearms
                                  ..______.                                        .~~._~~~.
                               Customs Service                      1801 -General Inspection,
                                                                   lnvestiaation
                                                                    181 l-Criminal
                                                                              ____ Investigator
                                                                                          ..~~
  _~~
                                              .-~.-__              1884Customs
                                                                        ___-          Patrol Officer ..~
                                 ~. .-___
                                .~.___-     __~-__                 2181 -Aircraft Pilot
                                                              ___..-__
                               IRS Criminal Investigation           1811 -Criminal Investigator
                               Division     ~-~__                 -______
                               IRS - Inspection Service             1811
                                                                      -~ -Criminal Investigator
                               Secret Service___--_____~____-__ -Criminal lnvestiaator
                                                                    1811                              .~
US. Information Agency         Inspector General                   1811   -Criminal Investigator
                                                                     -~_____
Veterans Affairs               Inspector General                    1811 -Criminal Investigator




Page 162                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
                          Appendix III
                          Federal Law Enforcement       Pay and
                          Benefits Survey




                          Mean entry-level salary
GS-3     OS-4    GS-5    OS-6         GS-7        GS-9                  OS-10          GS-11            GS-12           GS/GM-13

                15,738                  19,493                      .______                                           --.-____
                                                                                             -_______
13,513          15,116   16,851                                                                           _-.._---
                15,118                  18,726
                17,638                  20,598

                16,376                  19,662                                       --.
                                                                                                    .__._ ~_ ..-.__--~           ~~~.--
                15,738                  19,493           22,458                        28,592
                15,118                                                   ___-.---                          .__-
                                        18,726             22,907
                                        18,726
                                           ..- ~- -...-~~-.-.~ ~                                    .._~ .._-.-..--     --~ .~ ~. .




                          %orrectional Institution Administrators are promoted from within the Bueau of Prisons. Therefore, no
                          entry grade is indicated.
                          Source: Survey responses received from 47 federal law enforcement organizations.




                          Page 163                                                              OCG-SO-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
                                                   Appendix III
                                                   Federal Law Enforcement      Pay and
                                                   Benefits Survey




Table 111.4:Entry-Level Grade and Salaries-Other              _____.__.-.-     I__-                                                             ___--      .
                                                                                      Mean entry-level salary
Agency        Bureau           Occupation         EAS-17        FP-7         GG-5
                                                                              ____.-. GG-11    JPS-7      JPS-9          JPS-11         LE-1
                                                                                                                                        -____      SP-1
                                                                                                                                                     -.
Government    Not              1811.
Printing      Applicable       Criminal
Office                         Investigator                                                    __...--
Interior      U.S. Park        Park Police
              Police                                                                                                                             $23,487
Nuclear       Office of        1811.
Regulatory    Inspector        Criminal
Commission    and Auditor      lnvestiaator
                                      ”


              Office of        1811-
              Investigations   Criminal
                               Investigator
Postal        Postal           1811. .~
Service       InspectIon       Criminal
              Serwce           Investigator       $31,066
State         Diplomatic       2501.
              Security         Security
                               Officer                        $19,693
Treasury      Secret           Uniformed
              Service          Division,
                               Secret
                               Service                                                                    .__    ____    $22,626       ___.      ~~---..
U.S. Courts   Probation        Probation
              Dlvwon           and Pretrial
                               Services
                               Officer                                                          $19,298     $23,014      $27,876
                                                   Source: Survey responses received from 47 federal law enforcement   organizations


                                                   Sixteen agencies reported minimum entry levels at other than GS-5 and/
                                                   or GS-7:

                                              l Six organizations indicated that they hired employees at grades higher
                                                than usual entry levels. Such employees are required to have appropri-
                                                ate specialized experience as required by OPMqualifications standards
                                                and, therefore, are not truly entry-level employees. (Included in this
                                                group are psychologists at the Bureau of Prisons and pilots with the
                                                Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Customs Service.)
                                                These organizations reported entry-level grades of GS-9through ~~-13.
                                              . As an excepted service agency, FRI has the authority to hire its own
                                                employees. Accordingly, it hires special agents at ~~-10. Special agents
                                                enter on duty at the ~~-10 grade based on the difficulty of the duties and
                                                responsibilities assigned to the position. Special agents must perform
                                                work at the grade ~~-10 level immediately upon assignment to a field
                                                office following completion of an extensive course of training. FBI uses



                                                   Page 164                                                             OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
                                               Appendix III
                                               Federal Law Enforcement     Pay and
                                               Benefits Survey




                                             the Handbook X-l 18 Qualifications Standards as guidelines in determin-
                                             ing the requirements established for its positions, even though it is
                                             excepted from following this guidance.
                                           l The Bureau of Prisons hires correctional officers primarily at GS-6
                                             (requiring a college degree and 6 months’ experience, or 3-l/2 years of
                                             experience) and occasionally at GS-5.
                                           . Police in the Bureau of Indian Affairs have an entry level of GS-3.
                                           . Detention enforcement officers at INS have an entry level of GS-4.
                                           . Six respondents reported pay systems outside of the General Schedule.
                                             Of these, two (Probation Office of the U.S. Courts and Government
                                             Printing Office) have set rates identical to the General Schedule for their
                                             entry-level law enforcement personnel. (The U.S. Courts and Govern-
                                             ment Printing Office both reported entry levels equivalent to GS-5 and/
                                             or GS-7.) Entry-level rates for the other four organizations are shown in
                                             Table 111.5.

Table 111.5:Entry-Level Rates Outside of
the General Schedule                           Position                                                                                    Salary
                                               Postal inspector            __-..-..                _.___                    --.           $31,006
                                               Park Police                        __~                   _____
                                                                                                                                          24,450
                                                                                                                                          _-    --
                                               Uniformed Division of the Secret Service      .__.____                                .___ 24,450
                                                                                                                                            .-~- .~
                                               Dblomatic Securitv                                                                         19,693


                                               In calendar year 1988, organizations reported hiring 6,034 entry-level
                                               law enforcement personnel. (See Table 111.6.)Border Patrol reported the
                                               most hires (1,350);2 17 organizations reported no hires in 1988.




                                               “I’hc Ihreau of Prisons hired 2,830 employees in 1988. However, our survey only collected data on
                                               five occupations in 1301’.



                                               Page 165                                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
                                         Appendix m
                                         Federal Law Enforcement        Pay and
                                         Benefits Survey




Table 111.6:Calendar Year 1988 Federal
Law Enforcement Hires by Grade Level     Grade                                                 Number hired                   Percentaae of hires
                                         GS-3                                                                4                                      0.1
                                         GS-4                          __--__-                             130                                      2.0
                                         GS-5                     __.--                   -.            2,150                                      36.0
                                         GS-6                                                             923                                      15.0
                                         GS-7                                                           1,148         _.I__                        19.0
                                         GS-9                                                             360                                       6.0
                                         GS-10                                                             635                                     10.5
                                         GS-11                                                            310                 _--~.                 5.0
                                         GS-13
                                         .--.___                                                            28                                      0.4
                                         Other                                                            346                                       6.0
                                         Total                                                          6.034                                   100.00



                                         A summary of 1988 hires by organization is shown in Table 111.7.

Table 111.7:Federal Law Enforcement
Hires by Organization                    Calendar year 1988                                                                        ___
                                         Organization                                               Number of hires           Percentage
                                                                                                                                 _____ of hires
                                         Dept. of Justice                                                                     .-__-___--
                                         BOP                                                                       904”                             15
                                         DEA                                                    -~~                217
                                                                                                                    .~.--                        __ 3
                                         FBI                                                                       635                              11
                                         INS                                                                     2,040                             34
                                         USMS                                                                      263                               4
                                         Department subtotal                                                     4,059                             67
                                         Dept. of Treasury
                                         _-.-___---.--
                                         ATF                                                                       405                                7
                                         Customs                                                                   422                                7
                                         IRS                                                                       312                                5
                                         Secret Service
                                         _-~~    .-__-.                                                            158                                2
                                         Department subtotal                     ---___                          1,297                               21
                                         Other
                                         Defense
                                         --~. --.-~~ .- -                                      __                   64 __..~               _-        ~~1
                                         Interior                                                                  100                                2
                                         Postal Service                                                             92                                2
                                         State                                                                      53                                1
                                         U.S. Courts                                                               280 _.----.~-..--                  5
                                         Misc.                                                                      89                                 1
                                                      -...-___.                                                    678                               12
                                         Total                                                                   6,034                             100
                                         “Reflects hiring in five occupations that represent 50 percent of BOP’s workforce.




                                         Page 166                                                                OCG90-2 Law Enforcement           Pay
Appendix III
Federal Law Enforcement   Pay and
Benefits Survey




Agencies vary in the salaries they offer to new hires, This variance is a
result of (1) different grade levels at which employees are hired,
although most agencies reported hiring under the General Schedule at
GS-5 and/or GS-7; (2) instances where an agency has received approval to
offer special salary rates that are unique to a particular occupation and
location; and (3) salaries offered under pay systems outside of the Gen-
eral Schedule. Tables 111.8and III.9 provide a summary of the average
entry-level salaries offered by federal organizations for each occupation.




Page 167                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                         Appendix III
                                         Federal Law Enforcement     Pay and
                                         Benefits Survey




Table 111.8:Entry And Full Performance
Level Salaries and Overtime

                                         Agency                                 Bureau                                Occupation____~~ .~..
                                         Agriculture                         Forest Service                           181 l-Criminal
                                                                         ._____                                       Investigator
                                                                             Inspector General                        181 l-Criminal
                                                                                                                      Investigator
                                         Air Force                              Not Applicable     -                  0083-Police
                                                                                Office of Special Investigations      1811 -Criminal
                                                                                                  -~-~                Investigator
                                         Commerce                               Bureau of Export Administration       181 l-Criminal
                                                                                                                      lnvestioator
                                                                                Inspector General                     1811 -Criminal
                                                                                                                      Investigator
                                                                                                                              __-.-~~.-~
                                                                             National Oceanic and                     1812-Game Law
                                                                                Atmospheric Administration            Enforcement
                                         Defense                             Office of the Secretary of               1801 -General
                                                                                Defense and Defense                   Inspection
                                                                           ~__- Agencies            ~...______        Investigation
                                                                                                                      1811 -Criminal
                                                                                    ~---       ___~.                  Investigator
                                         Education                              Inspector General                     1811 Criminal
                                                                                         .._____           ..__       Investigator
                                         Energy                                 Inspector General                     1811 -Criminal
                                                                                                                      Investigator
                                         EPA                                    Inspector General                     1801 -General
                                                                                                                      Inspection,
                                                                                                                      lnvestigatron
                                                                                                                      1811 -Criminal
                                                                                ~____.                                investigator
                                         Federal Emergency                  Not Applicable                            1811 Crimrnal
                                           Management Agency                                                          Investigator
                                         Federal Home Loan Bank Board       Not Applicable                            1811 -Criminal
                                                                   ~-..~~---~-.                                       Investigator
                                         General Accounting Office          Not Applicable                            1811 -Criminal
                                                                                                                      Investigator
                                         Government Printing Office             Not Applicable                         1811 -Criminal
                                                                                                                      Investigator
                                         GSA         ~-                         Inspector General                     1811 -Criminal
                                                                                                                      Investigator
                                                                                Public Buildings Service              1811 -Criminal
                                                                                               .-~-I__.      .---.__~ Investigator
                                         HHS                                    Inspector General                     181 I-Criminal
                                                                                   __-.---                            Investigator
                                                                                                                               -_~
                                         Interior
                                            .-       ~    ~~~ -~~~              Bureau of Indian Affairs
                                                                                                    .___              0083-Police
                                                                                                                            .---           ~-..
                                                                                                                      1811 -Criminal
                                                                               .--____                                Investigator




                                         Page 168                                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
                                         Appendix III
                                         Federal Law Enforcement   Pay and
                                         Benefits Survey




                                                                                             Overtime compensation
                               Mean full performance                                                                       Comp.
Mean entry-level base salary   base salary                          AU0           Scheduled               Unscheduled        time           Other
                                                                                                                                             __.
$21,580   $25,800              $30,409                             ..~ ~~.--__                 X                     X      ~I_._ X

 15,774    19,026               36,853                                  X                                            X             -----
 15,546                         16,152                                                                               X

 15,118    10,726   27,716      31,227     35,254                       X                      X                     X     --__    X ---.__~

 15,118                         43,241
                                    .~                                  X                      X                     X             X

 15,118    18,726               34,891                                       -..~~ -~ -..~     X~-..--.~-.                         X

 15,118                         36,636                                  X                      X


                                46,605                                  X                     _..~    _ ._.~~.__~~        .-.-    -..---
 18,726    22,907               35,924                                  X                                            X             X

 15,118                         39,635     47,976                                              X                                   X

                                                                                       ~-      X
                                                                                              -__--

                                                                        X                      X                     X             X

                                39,851                                  X                      X                     X             X

                                33,218                                                         X                .~.___X   ~__-~    X

                                41,121                                                         X                                   X

                                35,156                                  X                      X                     X             X

                                34,580                                                         X                     X

 18,726    22,907               36,539                                  X
                                                                        -.._ ~~~_~            X
                                                                                        ~~ _..~~                __._~~X        X
                                                                                                                          ~__ ~~.

 14,067                         32,700                                                                               X             X

                                39,392                                  X                      X                     X
 12,138                         18,456                                --~X    __-~___.-~           -.-~

 20,910                 ”       29,144                                  X
                                                                                                                                       (continued)




                                         Page 169                                                               OCG90-2 Law Enforcement        Pay
    Appendix III
    Federal Law Enforcement           Pay and
    Benefits Survey




    Agency                                       Bureau                                  Occupation
                                                 Bureau of Land Management               1811-Criminal
                                                                                        lnvestiaator
                                                 Fish and Wildlife Service              1812-Game Law
      -- .--~-.       -~                                                                Enforcement
                                                 Inspector General                      1811 -Criminal
                     _..._~~                                                         - Investigator ~-.~
                                                 U.S. Park Police                       Park Police
              .~--.---
    Justice                                      BOP                                    0006Correctional
                                                                                        Institution Admin.a
                                                                                                        --.__-
                                                                                        0007Correctional
                                .~.         .-                                          Officer
                                                                                        0180-Psychologist
                                                 BOP                                    0510-Accountant
                                                                                        0603.Physician’s      ~-
                                                                                        Assistant
                                                 DEA                                    1811 -Criminal
                   ____~         .~                                                     Investigator
                                                 FBI                                    1811 -Criminal
                                                                                     _. Investigator ~-
                                                 INS                                     1801 -General
                                                                                        Inspection,
                                                                                        Investicration
                                                                                        1802Compliance
                                                                                        Inspection Support
                                                                                        1811~Criminal
                                       ___~                                             Investigator
                                                                                        1896-Border Patrol
                                                                                        2181 -Aircraft Pilot
              ~      .~___.
                                                 Marshals Service                       008208~!puty U.S.

                                                                                         1811 -Criminal
                                                                                         lnvestiaator
    Labor                                        Inspector General                       1811 Criminal
                                                                             -           Investigator
    NASA                                         Inspector General                       181 l-Criminal
                           .___-                                                         Investigator
                                                                                                --___ ___--
    Navy                                         Naval Investigative   Service           181 I-Criminal
                                                                                         Investigator
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission                Office of Inspector and Audit;.         1811 -Criminal
                                                                                   --~   Investigator
                                              Office of Investigations                   1811 -Criminal
                                ~-__     --___.                                          Investigator
    Postal Service                             Postal Inspection Service                 181 l-Criminal
Y
                                                                                         Investigator   _.-.---.
                               ___-     ~.-




    Page 170                                                                     OCG90-2 Law Enforcement           Pay
                                             Appendix III
                                             Federal Law Enforcement     Pay and
                                             Benefits Survey




                                                                                                    Overtime compensation
                                    Mean full performance                                                                              Comp.
Mean entry-level base salary        base salary                            AU0             Scheduled         Unscheduled                 time           Other

                                    30,950                                      X                                   -___         ____.__
15,118                              37,285                                      X

15,118   18,726                     40,690                                                             X                        X              X
23,487                                            -. ---..-~~   --.-.. -.-.. -----                                              X              X



15,118   16,851                     24,199                                                             X                        X              X
27,716   33,218                     37,019                                                        ._____--                     ______-___      X
15,118   18,726                     25,866                                                            X             -.          X              X

18,726   22,907                     31,914

18,838   23,323                     46,625                                      X        .~~.          X                             -__
25,226                              47,828                                      X                            --

15,738   19,493                     32,099   37,386                             X            - --..-,~ X     ..~____~.._._~X                   X

13,513   15,118   16,851            21,883                                      X                      X                        X              X

15,118   18,726                     37,099                                      X                     X                        X            X
17,638   20,598                     24,995                                      X                     X                        X
                                                                                                                            __~-      ~~~~~ X
                                    39,556                                      X
                                                                                ~~~__-..          __- X                        X

16,378   19,662                     24,418                                                             X                        X
                                                                                                                            ___~-_             X

                                    30,947                                                             X                        X
                                                                                                                                     _---
                                                                                                                                               X

15,738   19,493   22,458   28,592   38,293                                      X                      X

15,118   47,676                                                                                        X                                       X

18,726   22,907                     38,039                                      X                      X

                                    43,178                                                                                      X              X

                                    45,687                                           ~~~~ ~~___~__..                            X              X

31,066                     Y        47,389                                                  .~-                   ~--.__             --~~ .-
                                                                                                                                                   (continued)




                                             Page 171                                                                      OCG99-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
Appendix III
Federal Law Enforcement      Pay and
Benefit.9 Survey




Agency                     __~_        Bureau                               Occupation-___-_-
Railroad Retirement Board              Inspector General                  181 l-Criminal
               ___-                    __---                              Investigator      -_--..-
Small Business Administration          Inspector General                  181 l-Criminal
                                                                          Investigator
State                                  Diplomatic Security                2501Security -.-.--_-
                                                                                          Officer
                                       Inspector General -                181 l-Criminal
                                                                          Investigator---   __.~~
    --...-   .-.-.-.-
Transportation                         Inspector General                  1811 -Criminal
                                                                          Investigator
Treasury                               Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms     181 I-Criminal
                                                                     ___- Investigator
                                       Customs Service                    1801 -General
                                                                          Inspection,
                                                                          lnvestiaation
                                                                          1811 -Criminal
                                                               -__        Investigator
                                                                          1884Customs Patrol
                                                        --__              Officer
 ..~ ~~. ~._~..~~.~~_..~~~~_--.-~--_                                      2181 -Aircraft Pilot
                                       IRS - Criminal Investigation       181 l-Criminal
                                          Division                        lnvestiaator
                                       IRS . Inspection Service           181 l-Criminal
                                                                 ___      Investigator
                                                                                 __.---   - --.-
                                       Secret Service                     Uniformed Division,
                                                                          Secret
                                                                            .--__ Service
                                       Secret Service                     1811 -Criminal
                                                                          lnvestiaator
US Courts                              Probation Division                 Probation and Pretrial
                                                                          Services Officer
US Information Agency                  Inspector General                  1811 -Criminal
                                                                          Investigator
Veterans Affairs                       Inspector General                  1811 -Criminal
                                                                          lnvestiaator




Page 172                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
                                              Appendix III
                                              Federal Law Enforcement       Pay and
                                              Benefits Survey




                                                                                                       Overtime compensation
                                     Mean full performance                                                                                  Comp.
Mean entry-level base salary         base salary                             AU0             Scheduled           Unscheduled                 time            Other

18,726                               35,733                                                              x                      X         -____-__ X

                                     37,347                                                              X                      X                   X
                                                                                                                              ___.--
19,693                               41,009                                                              X                      X                   X
                                                                                                                                            --

21,846    26,727                     37,646                                                              X                      X                   X
                                                                                                                                -

15,118                               37530                                                               X                      X                   X
                                                                                        ~~    .____-                    --

15,l 18   18,726                     39,381                                       X                      X


15,118    18,726                     29,814                                       X                      X                           --

15,1 18   18,726                     37,815                                      X                       X
                                                                              ~~~~-._...                                        ._

                                     29,296                                       X                      X                                                              X
                                                                                                             ______~.        _~--__~-..-~~                       ~-
27,716    38,753                     35,486    43,834                             X                      X                                                              X
                                                                                                                                           ._____

15,118    18,726   26,171            30,842                                       X                      X                                          X

15,l 18   18,726   22,907   33,967   29,644                                       X                      X                                          X
                                                                                                                                     __~_..__

22,626                               30,356                                                                                                         X                   X

15,118    19,029                     37,757                                      X                       X

19,289    23,014   27,876            39,549                                                             .~_~--

45,208                               45,036                                                              X                                          X
                                                                              ~---__-         -.                                                        ____-.

18,726    27,716                     38.039                                      X                       X                                          X

                                              “The Correctional Institution Administrator series covers a variety of occupations, all of which are pro-
                                              moted from within the Bureau of Prisons. Therefore, no entry or full performance grades are indicated.
                                              Source: Survey responses received from 47 federal law enforcement organizations.




                                              Page 173                                                                  OCG90-2 Law Enforcement                       Pay
                                             Appendix III
                                             Federal Law Enforcement        Pay and
                                             Benefiti Survey




Table 111.9:Full Performance Grade Levels                                                                                                    __-
                                                                                                                           Full Performance Grade
Agency                           Bureau                                     Occupation                                     Levels
Agriculture                      Forest    Service       ~.. -- .-.-. -~ .~~~..1811 -Criminal Investigator                 GS-I
                                  ~~ _---...---~~-.--..-                                                        __~___     GS-121 __------.-~              -~
Agriculture                      Inspector General                              1811 -Criminal Investigator -~___
Arr Force                        Not_.~-.-.-.----.___~.
                                      Applicable                               0083.Police                __---            GS-5
                                                                                                __--                         _.--.__-..
Air Force                       -Office of Special Investigations               181 I-Criminal Investigator                GS-11                      GS-12
Commerce                         Bureau of Export Administration                181 I-Criminal Investigator                GS-12
Commerce                         Inspector General                             181 l-Criminal Investigator        ___I_    GS-12
Commerce                         National Oceanic and Atmospheric              1812-Game Law Enforcement                   GS-11
                                    Administration
Defense                          Office of the Secretary of Defense             1801-General Inspection,                   GS/GM-13
                                    and Defense Agencies                          Investigation
Defense                          Office of the Secretary of Defense            1811 -Criminal Investigator                 GS-12
                                    and Defense Agencies                      ---     ..--
Education                        Inspector General                             181 l-Criminal Investigator                 GS-12                GS/GM-13
Energy                           Inspector General                             181 l-Criminal-__.
                                                                     .- ._~~.~~~-               Investigator -~-__         GS-12
EPA                              Inspector General                             1801.General Inspection,                    GS-12
                                                                                  Investigation
EPA                              Inspector General                             181 l=al         Investigator               GS-12
Federal Emergency Management     Not Applicable                                181 l-Criminal Investigator                 GS-12
  Agency
Federal Home Loan Bank Board     Not Applicable                        1811 -Criminal Investigator             GS/GM-13                 .~
General Accounting Office        Not Applicable                 .l.    1811  -Criminal investigator            GS-12  ~- ~__..~.”  --     ~-
Government Printing Office       Not Applicable                        1811 -Criminal Investigator-_-.--       GG-12__~-~
                                                                                                         .___ -__
GSA                              Inspector General                     1811 -Criminal Investigator
                                                                                           _L--__
                                                                                                               GS-12
GSA                              Public
                                   _~~ Buildings
                                              ..~~_ Service
                                          ~-~~.      _~ ~_~ ~_~~~~~~~~_1811 -Criminal
                                                                              _..__    Investigator            GS-I 1
HHS                              Inspector General                     181 I-Criminal lnvestiaator             GS-12
Intenor                          Bureau of Indian Affairs              0083-Police                             GS-6
Interior                         Bureau of Indian Affairs              181 l-Criminal Investigator             GS-I 1
Interior                         Bureau of Land Management---~~ ..___~..
                                                                       181 I-Criminal lnvestigator- -~--._-.~__-GS-11     -- .~~~_    --..
Intenor                          Fish and Wildlife Service             1812-Game Law Enforcement --___ GS-12      --.. ~-   ~~~-.~~ ~~~...~~
Interior                         Inspector General          -~ .~~ _~____~.
                                                                       181 I-Criminal Investigator             GS-12
Interior                         U.S. Park Police                      Park Police
Justice                          BOP~      ..                          OO~rX&$rectional Institution
                                                                                  a
Justice                          BOP                                        0007Correctional Officer__-_.~-              GS-8
                                                                                                                         -_-~----..-
Justice                          BOP                                        0180.Psychologist
                                                                    ..~~ -.-__                                           GS-12
Justice                          BOP                                        051 O-Accountant                        __.- GS-9
Justice                          BOP                                        0603-Physician’s Assistant                   GS-11
Justice                          DEA                                         1811 -Criminal Investigator                 GS/GM-13
                                                                                                                         GS,GM-13 __             -~    ~~_..~~
Justice                          FBI                                         1811 -Criminal Investigator                             ___               ~~--
                                                                                                                                                (continued)




                                             Page 174                                                                     OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
                                             Appendix III
                                             Federal Law Enforcement       Pay and
                                             Benefits Survey




                                                                                                                      Full Performance Grade
Agency                           Bureau                                    Occupation                                 Levels
                                                                                                                           ._________.  ___
Justice                          INS                                       1801 -General Inspection,                  GS-11                       GS-12
                                                                             Investigation
Justice                          INS                                       1802Compliance Inspection and              GS-7
                                                                             Support--~-.._____~_____
J~JS~IC~                         INS                                       1811 -Criminal Investigator -_--__         GS-12
                                                                                                                         __..-~----~~         -
Justice                          INS                                       1896-Border Patrol                         GS-9
Justlce                          INS                                       2181 -Aircraft Pilot                       GS-12
Justlce                          Marshals Service                          0082.Deputy U.S. Marshal                   GS-9
JustIce                          Marshals Service                          181 I-Criminal lnvestiaator                GS-11
L.abor                           Inspector General                         181 l-Criminal Investigator                GS-12
NASA                             Inspector General                         1811 -Criminal Investigator
                                                                                                   -.______           GS/GM-13
Navy                             Naval Investigative Service               1811 -Criminal InvGator                    GS-12
Nuclear Regulatory CornmIssion   Office of lnsoector and Auditor           1811 -Criminal lnvestiaator                GG-13
Nuclear Regulatory Commrsslon    Office of investigations                  1811 -Criminal Investigator                GG-13
Postal Service                   Postal Inspection Service                 1811 -Criminal Investigator                EAS-23
Rarlroad Retirement Board        Inspector General                         1811 -Criminal Investigator                GS-12
Small Business Admmrstration     Inspector General                         181 l-Criminal Investigator                GS-12
Stale                            Diplomatic Security                       2501 -Security Officer                     FP-3
State                            Inspector General                         181 I-Criminal Investigator                GS-12
Transportation                   Inspector General                         181 l-Criminal lnvestiaator                GS-12
Treasury                         Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms            1811 -Criminal Investigator                GS-12
Treasury                         Customs Service                           1801 -General Inspection,                  GS-I 1
                                                                             Investigation
Treasury                         Customs Service                           1811 -Criminal Investigator                GS-12
Treasury                         Customs Service                           1884.Customs Patrol Officer                GS-9
Treasury                         Customs Service                           2181 -Aircraft Pilot                       GS-12               GS/GM-13
Treasury                         IRS - Criminal Investigation   Division   1811 -Criminal Investigator                GS-11
Treasury                         IRS - Inspection Service                  181 I-Criminal Investigator                GS-11
1 reasury                        Secret Service                            Uniformed Division, Secret Service         LE-1
‘Treasury                        Secret Service                            181 l-Criminal Investigator                GS-12
U.S.     courts                  Probation Division                        Probation and Pretrial Services            JPS-12
                                                                             Officer
US Information Agency            Inspector General                         1811 -Criminal Investigator                GS/GM-13
Veterans Affairs                 Inspector General                         1811 -Criminal investigator                GS-12
                                             Source: Survey responses recerved from 47 federal law enforcement organizatrons.
                                             “The Correctional lnstitutron Administrator series covers a variety of occupations. Therefore, no single
                                             grade level can be Indicated.




                                             Page 176                                                               OCG90-2 Law Enforcement          Pay
-
                                           Appendix III
                                           Federal Law Enforcement       Pay and
                                           Benefits Survey




Full Performance Level                     All responding organizations with positions under the General Schedule
Pay                                        reported full performance levels for covered occupations consistent with
                                           OI'M classification standards.

                                           Thirty-one respondents (49 percent) reported a full performance level of
                                           Gs-12 or equivalent; (there are, however, more law enforcement person-
                                           nel at the ~~-13 level than at the GS-12 level). As with entry-level grades,
                                           organizations reported some variance in full performance level grades.
                                           Full performance levels ranging from GS-5 through GS-9were reported
                                           for such occupations as police, Border Patrol agent, and correctional
                                           officer. Criminal investigators were reported to have full performance
                                           grade levels ranging from GS-11 through ~~-13.

                                           Table III. 10 summarizes the distribution of full performance level grades
                                           reported by organizations on the NACLEstudy.

Table 111.10:Distribution of Federal Law
Enforcement Full Performance Levels                                                                           Percentage of
                                                                                                      respondents indicating
                                           Grade
                                           ___~_
                                               .._~_..~.. ~~.~~~.--..-                                            this grade
                                           GS-5                                __--      .-.__                                2
                                           GS-6                                                                               2
                                           GS-7                                                                               4
                                           GS-9                                                                               6



                                           Other            ~~~ ~-__        ~___-                                             2
                                           Total                                                                            100



Premium Pay                                Agencies were asked to indicate (1) the types of overtime pay available
                                           to their law enforcement personnel-scheduled     overtime, unscheduled
                                           overtime, AUO, compensatory time, etc., and (2) the average number of
                                           overtime hours for which employees were compensated. While organiza-
                                           tions were able to report the various types of overtime compensation
                                           available to their personnel, they were not always able to report the
                                           average number of overtime hours worked by employees.

                                           There were significant variations in overtime compensation as reported
                                           by organizations. For example, postal inspectors and probation and pre-
                                           trial services officers are exempt from governmentwide provisions and
                                           do not receive any form of overtime pay, regardless of the number of


                                           Page 176                                              OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
. ..-_       .?-..-. I__.____
                           _-_..-.-
                                                       Appendix III
                                                       Federal Law Enforcement    Pay and
                                                       Benefits Survey




                                                       hours worked. Other agencies reported that they pay only ALJOfor all
                                                       overtime, some pay AU0 plus scheduled (and sometimes unscheduled)
                                                       overtime, still others pay scheduled and unscheduled overtime, but not
                                                       AIJO.

                                                       Agencies were also asked to report on other types of premium pay dif-
                                                       ferentials that may be available to law enforcement personnel. This
                                                       includes holiday pay, Sunday pay, hazardous duty pay, shift differen-
                                                       tial, foreign language differential, etc. A summary of responses is pro-
                                                       vided in Table III. 11.


Table 111.11:Pav. Differentials                                                  ~~ ~~ - ---
                                                                                              Pay differentials
                                                                             Hazardous                  cost of           Shift/     Foreign
Agency                  Bureau              Occupation            Holiday          duty     Sunday        living          night    language     Other
&JMXJhJN’?              Forest Service      1811 -Criminal
                                            Investigator                X                         X                            x
                        Inspector           1811 -Criminal
                        General             Investigator                X
Arr Force               Not Applicable      0083.Police                 X                         X                            X
                        Office of Special   181 l-Criminal
                        Investigations      Investigator                X                         X                ~~--        X
Commerce                Bureau of Export    1811 -Criminal
                        Administration      Investigator                X               X         X                            X
                        Inspector           1811 -Criminal
                        General             Investigator                X               X         X                            X
                        National            1812.Game Law
                        Oceanic and         Enforcement
                        Atmospheric
                        Admlnistratron                                  X               X         X                            X
Defense                 Office of the       1801 -General
                        Secretary of        Inspection,
                        Defense and         Investigation
                        Defense
                        Agencies
                                            1811 -Criminal
                                            Investigator                                          X                            X
Education               Inspector           1811 -Criminal
                        General             Investigator
Energy                  Inspector           1811 -Criminal
                        General             Investigator
EPA                     Inspector           1801 -General
                        General             Inspection,
                                            Investigation                                         X                            X
                                            1811 -Criminal
                                    Y       Investigator                                          X~--                         X
                                                                                                                                          (continued)




                                                       Page 177                                                       OCG90-2 Law Enforcement     Pay
                                                  Appendix III
                                                  Federal Law Enforcement   Pay and
                                                  Benefits Survey




                                                                                          Pay differentials
                                                                        Hazardous                   cost of                 Shift/     Foreign
Agency            Bureau              Occupation            Holiday           duty    Sunday
                                                                                      ~.~_____.       living                night    language    Other
Federal           Not Applicable      1811 -Criminal
Emergency                             Investigator
Management
Agency                                                             X                         X                                   X
Federal Home      Not Applicable      1811 -Crirr&al
Loan Bank                             Investigator
Board
General           Not Applrcable      1811 Criminal
Accounting                            Investigator
OffIce                                                             X              X          X
Government        Not Applicable      1811 -Criminal
Printrng Offrce                       Investigator                                           X              ..___-               X
GSA               Inspector           1811 -Criminal
                  General             Investigator                 X                         X
                  Public Buildings    181 I-Criminal
                  Service             Investigator                 X                         X
HHS               Inspector           1811 -Criminal
                  General             Investigator                 X                         --.__           ~~~~-__
Intenor           Bureau of Indian    0083.Police
                  Affairs                                          X                         X                                   X
                                       1811 Cnminal
                                      Investigator                 X                         X                                   X
                  Bureau of Land       1811 -Criminal
                  Management          Investigator                 X                         X
                                                                                            ____                                 X
                  Fish and Wildlife    181 Z-Game Law
                  Service             Enforcement                  X ~~ ..~
                                                                   .~~                                 ..~__-
                  Inspector            1811 -Criminal
                  General             Investigator                 X                                 ___~            ____
                  U.S. Park Police    Park Police                  X                                                                                  X
JuStIce           BOP                 0006.
                                      Correctional
                                      Institution
                                                                                                                                X
                                      Admin.                       X                    ~-__ X
                                      0007.
                                      Correctional
                                      Officer                      X                         X                                  X
                                      0180.
                                      Psychologist                                                                              X
                                      0510-
                                      Accountant
                                      0603-Physician’s
                                      Assistant                    X                         X                                  X
                  DEA                 1811 -Criminal
                                      Investigator
                                                _.~         ~~~~_~X ~_ ~~_ ~~ ~_ X
                                                                                 ~~~~~~-_    X                              -.__X         ~~.X
                                                                                                                                             ~~ .~~~ X
                  FBI                 1811 -Criminal
                                      Investigator                 X                         X                                  X            X         X
                                                                                                                                            (continued)




                                                 Page 178                                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
                                              Appendix III
                                              Federal Law Enforcement   Pay and
                                              Benefits Survey




                                                                                    Pay differentials
                                                                    Hazardous                 cost of       Shift/     Foreign
Agency           Bureau           Occupation             Holiday          duty    Sunday        living      night    language       Other
                                                                                                                           _...._~ -... ~..
                 INS              1801 -General
                                  Inspection,
                                  Investigation                X                        X                        X __-.-    -~~~
                                  1802.
                                  Compliance
                                  Inspection and
                                  Investigation
                                  Support                      X                        X                        X
                                  1811 -Criminal
                                  Investigator                 X              X         X                        x
                                  1896.Border
                                  Patrol                       X                        X                        X
                                  218VAircraft -
                                  Pilot                        X                        X                        X
                 Marshals         0082.Deputy
                 Service          U.S. Marshal                 X                        X                        X
Justrce          Marshals         1811 Crimrnal
                 Service          Investigator
Labor            Inspector        1811 -Criminal
                 General          Investigator
NASA             Inspector        1811 -Criminal
                 General          Investigator
Navy             Naval            1811 -Criminal
                 investigative    Investigator
                 Service
Nuclear          Office of        1811 -Criminal
Regulatory       Inspector and    Investigator
Commission       Auditor
                 Office of        1811 -Criminal
                 Investigations   Investigator
Postal Servrce   Postal           1811 -Criminal
                 Inspection       Investigator
                 Service
Railroad         Inspector        1811 -Criminal
Retirement       General          Investigator
Board
Small Business   Inspector         1811 -Criminal
Administration   General          Investigator
State            Diplomatic       2501 -Security
                 Security         Officer                                     X
                 Inspector        1811 -Criminal
                 General          Investigator                                X
Transportation   Inspector        1811 -Criminal
                 General          investigator
Treasury         Alcohol,         1811 -Criminal
                 Tobacco, and     Investigator
                 Firearms,




                                              Page 179                                                   OCG90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
----_
                                                 Appendix III
                                                 Federal Law Enforcement      Pay and                                                                     ’    ;
                                                 Benefits Survey




                                                                                             Pay differentials
                                                                         Hazardous                     cost of            Shift/             .
AgWWy               Bureau           Occupation                Holiday         duty        Sunday        living           night       !a!$~~~__..-_-..-Other
                    Customs          1801 -General
                    Service          Inspection,
                                     lnvestiaation                   x                X           X                            X
                                     181 l-Criminal
                                     Investigator                    X                X           X      --                    X
                                     1884Customs
                                     Patrol Officer                  X                 X
                                                                           ~~.~~ .-~~.__          X            --..-I__        X
                                     2181.Aircraft       ~~.
                                     Pilot                           X                X           X                        __..~X
                    IRS Criminal     1811 Criminal
                    lnvestlgation    Investigator
                    Dwwon                                            X                            X                            X
                    IRS InspectIon   1811 -Criminal
                    Service          Investigator
Treasury            Secret Service   Uniformed
                                     ll~~ic”,“, Secret

                                     1811 Crimhal
                                     lnvestlgator
U.S Courts          Probation        Probation and
                    Divwon           Pretrial Services
                                     Officer
U.S. lriformatlon   Inspector        1811 -Criminal
Agency              General          Investigator
Veterans Affairs    Inspector        1811 -Criminal
                    General          Investigator
                                                 Source: Survey responses received from 47 federal law enforcement   organizations.




Employee Iknefits                                All responding organizations except the Federal Home Loan Bank Board
                                                 provide health insurance under the standard governmentwide FEHB. In
                                                 addition, all agencies provide life insurance under the governmentwide
                                                 FEGLI.

                                                 All but three organizations reported that their employees are covered
                                                 under the standard governmentwide retirement system: CSRSfor
                                                 employees hired prior to January 1984 and FERSfor employees hired
                                                 since that date. The State Department reported that its diplomatic secur-
                                                 ity officers are covered by a retirement system unique to the Foreign
                                                 Service. Park Police and Uniformed Division employees of the Secret
                                                 Service hired prior to January 1984 are covered by the Washington, DC
                                                 Metropolitan Police Department retirement system. Certain eligible
                                                 criminal investigators of the Secret Service who are covered by CSRS,




                                                 Page 180                                                            OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement            Pay
                                          Appendix III
                                          Federal Law Enforcement   Pay and
                                          Benefits Survey




                                          may elect to transfer into the DC Metropolitan Police Department retire-
                                          ment system. However, all new hires of the Secret Service and Park
                                          Police are covered by FERS.

                                          Table III. 12 is a summary of the law enforcement personnel retirements
                                          reported by organizations for the past 3 fiscal years and the average age
                                          of the retirees during this period.

Table 111.12:Number and Average Age of
Law Enforcement Retirees by Fiscal Year   Fiscal   year                        Total number                   Average age
                                          1986                                          925                             53.4
                                          1987                                          738                             53.3




                                          Organizations were also asked if they provided other types of benefits to
                                          their law enforcement personnel (i.e., use of government car, child care
                                          facility, uniform allowance, etc.). Table III. 13 provides a summary of
                                          these responses.




                                          Page 181                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                                Appendix III
                                                Federal Law Enforcement   Pay and
                                                Benefits Survey




Table 111.13:Other Benefits                                               ---__           -.-__
                                                              Home to     Of;;:lu;
                                                                 work                                     Uniform          Cleaning     Shoe repair
Agency                Bureau           OccuDation            authoritv    aov’t car   Uniform          allowance          allowance      allowance
Agnculture            Forest Service    1811 -Criminal
                                       investigator                   X                                                 .-__-_    -
                      Inspector        1811 -Criminal
                      General          Investigator                   X                                    ___---__
Arr Force             Not Applicable   0083-Police                                                X .-.._____.___ X
                                                                          ~~-   ~_..___
                      Office of        1811 -Criminal
                      Special          Investigator
                      Investigations
Commerce              Bureau of        1811 -Criminal
                      Export           investigator
                      Administration                                  X
                      Inspector        1811 -Criminal
                      General          Investigator                                                                   .__._~~~.~~~~   .~~~~~
                      Natronal         1812~Game
                      Oceanrc and      Law
                      Atmospheric      Enforcement
                      Administration
Defense               Office of the    1801 -General
                      Secretary of     Inspection
                      Defense and
                      Defense          1811 -Criminal
                      Agencies         Investigator                  X
Educatron             Inspector         1811 -Criminal
                      General          Investigator
Energy                Inspector        181 l-Criminal
                      General          Investigator                                                                   ~..____~~       .~~~--.   ~~.~
EPA                   Inspector        1801 -General
                      General          Inspection
                      Inspector        181 i-criminal
                      General          Investigator
Federal Emergency     Not Applicable   1811 -Criminal
Management Agency                      Investigator
Federal Home Loan     Not Applicable   1811 -Criminal -
Bank Board                             Investigator
General Accountrng    Not Applicable   1811 -Criminal
Offrce                                 Investigator
gF;;c;nment Pnnting   Not Applicable   1811 -Criminal
                                       Investigator
GSA                   Inspector        1811 -Criminal
                      General          Investigator                  X
                      Public           18li -Crjminal
                      Buildings        Investigator
                      Service                                        X




                                               Page 182                                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
                                          Appendix III
                                          Federal Law Enforcement   Pay and
                                          Benefits Survey




                                                                                                                                                                     -
                          Other leave                          Physical             Annual                      Child
    Tuition   Workers’          for job           Death         fitness            medical                       care      Relocation             Housing
allowance compensation illness/injury           benefits        facility   ~~...
                                                                                    exams
                                                                                   --..-_______-.Ldd
                                                                                                              facilitv       Drogram   ---__
                                                                                                                                               assistance Other

                        X                              X                                                                              X

                        X                              X               X                               X                    .-~-      X
                        X             X                X               X                               X


                        X             X                X               X                                            X                 X


        x               X                                              X                               X            X         ----    X                  X

                        X                                              X                                            X
                                                                                                                  ____--


                        X                                                                              X                              X        --~     -~ ~~~..~~~~
                        X                                              X                               X            X                 X

                        X                                              X                               X            X                 X

                        X            X                 X                               -~              .__...--     X
                                                                                                                   ~.--               X

                        X            X                 X               X                                                              X                  X

                        X                              X               X                               X            X                 X                  X

                        X                              X               X                               X            X                  X
                                                                                                                                     .__         ~~-     X

                        X            X                 X                                                                              X

                        X                              X               X                               X            X       -__-~-
                        X            X                 X               X                               X

                        X                              X

                        X            X                 X               X                                            X       ~___.     X                  X


                       X                               X                                                            X
                                                                                                                                                       (continued)




                                          Page 183                                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement          Pay
                                        Appendix III
                                        Federal Law Enforcement   Pay and
                                        Benefits Survey




                                                                                                                                     ___     ..--.
                                                      Home to Of&cyJ
                                                         work                                     Uniform           Cleaning         Shoe repair
Agency         Bureau           Occupation           authority ---____.
                                                                  gov’t car       Uniform      allowance           allowance          allowance
HHS            Inspector        1811 -Criminal
               General          Investigator                  X
Interior       Bureau of        0083-Police
               Indian Affairs                                 X                           X              X
                                1811 -Criminal
                                Investigator                  X
               Bureau of Land 1811 -Criminal
               Management       Investigator                                                            ____...~.            .--.      ~~~. ~~
               Fish and         1812-Game
               Wrldlife Service Law
                                Enforcement                   X                                                 -~         ..-~-..    ~~~-   ~~~.
               Inspector        1811 -Criminal
               General          Investigator                                         _______-~-         ___.__~~ ..-~.
               U.S. Park        Park Police
               Police                                         X                           X
Justice        BOP              0006.
                                Correctional
                                Institution
                                Administration
                                0007.
                                Correctional
                                Officer                                                                  X
                                0180.
                                Psychologist                      ~~~~ ~~-.~
                                0510-
                                Accountant
                                0605
                                Physician’s
                                Assistant
               DEA              1811 -Crimjnal
                                Investigator                  X                                                                                -
               FBI              181 I-Criminal
                                Investigator                  X                   ~~~~ ~~__        ~.   .-..-~_~
               INS              1801 -General
                                Inspection,
                                Investigation                 X                                          X
                                1802.
                                Compliance
                                Inspection and
                                Support                                                                  X
                                1811 -Criminal
                                Investigator                  X
                                1896.Border
                                Patrol                                        ~     __~       ~__~~.     X           ~~~
           3




                                        Page 184                                                             OCG90-2 Law Enforcement         Pay
                                         Appendix III
                                         Federal Law Enforcement    Pay and
                                         Benefits Survey




                                                                                                                                          --~
                          Other leave                         ‘p=~             Annual           Child
    Tuition   Workers’         for job           Death                        medical            care     Relocation        Housing
allowance compensation illness/injury          benefits         facility       exams          facility      program
                                                                                                           --.-          assistance Other

                                                                       X                            X          -__ X
                       X                              X                             X             I_-.             X                 X

                       X                              X                             X                              X       .-~--     X

                                                      X
                                                                                                                 ---X                X


                       X                              X                             X                              X

                       X                              X                X            X              ~--.            X                 X

                       X             X                X                X                                           X



                       X                              X                X            X               X              X


                       X                              X                X             X              X              X
                                                                              ~~~ --~.   .~

                       X                              X                X            X               X              X

                       X                              X                X            X               X              X
                                                                                                                        ~-__         ~~... -. ~


                       X                              X                X            X               X              X
        X                                                              X            X                              X                 x          x

        X              X             X                                 X            X                              X                 X

                       X                              X                             X                              X                 X




                       X                              X                             X

                       X                              X                             X                              X

                  I    X                              X                             X                              X
                                                                                                                                   (continued)




                                         Page 186                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
                                            -~~~             ~~
                                                   Appendix III
                                                   Federal Law Enforcement        Pay and
                                                   Benefits Survey




                                                                 Home to           Off-duty
                                                                     work            use of                     Uniform             Cleaning       Shoe repair
Agency                Bureau            Occupation          ___. authority         gov’t car   Uniform       allowance-            allowance        allowance
                                         2181-Aircraft
                                         Pilot
                                       .._____                                                                        X
                      Marshals           0082.Deputy
                      Service            U.S. Marshal                    X                                                          -
                                         181 ICriminal
                                         Investigator                    X
Labor                 Inspector          1811 -Criminal
                      General            Investigator                    X
NASA                  Inspector          1811 -Criminal
                      General            Investigator
Navy                  Naval              1811 -Criminal
                      Investigative      Investigator
                      Service                                                                            X
Nuclear Regulatory    Office of         1811 -Criminal
Commrssion            Inspector and     Investigator
                      Auditor                                                     ~__-__
                      Office of         1811 -Criminal
                      Investigations    Investigator                                                                                        _.~~       .. -~~-.--
Postal Service        Postal            1811 -Criminal
                      Inspection        Investigator
                      Service
Ratlroad Retirement   Inspector         1811 -Criminal
Board                 General           Investigator                                                                         ..-
Small Business        Inspector         1811 -Criminal
Administration        General           Investigator                         ~-     ~.___
State                 Diplomatic        2501Security
                      Secunty           Officer                          X                                                         .___..      -~__-      __-
                      Inspector         1811 -Criminal
                      General           Investigator
Transportatron        Inspector         1811 -Criminal
                      General           Investigator
Treasury              Alcohol,          1811 -Criminal
                      Tobacco, and      Investigator
                      Firearms                                           X                     ____..-                             .____-
                      Customs           1801 -General
                      Service          Inspection,
                                       Investigation                     X                               X            X ~.....______
                                        1811 -Criminal
                                       Investigator                      X                               X            X
                                        1884Customs
                                       Patrol Officer                   X                                X            X
                                       2181 -Aircraft
                                       Pilot                             X                               X             X
                                                                                                                   -.___                    _~-__-~




                                                 Page 186                                                                  OCG90-2 Law Enforcement              Pay
                                          Appendix KII
                                          Federal Law Enforcement   Pay and
                                          Benefits Survey




                          Other leave                          Physical            Annual            Child
    Tuition   Workers’          for job             Death       fitness           medical             care       Relocation           Housing
allowance compensation illness/injury             benefits      facility           exams           facility        program         assistance Other

                        X                                X                                  X                               X             -.
        X               X                                X             X                    X                               X                           X

        X               X                                X             X                    X                               X     _.---.___          ~~ X
        X               X                                              X                        ___          X    -___..~- X
                        X             X                  X             X                    X__-             X              X


                        X                                X             X                    X                               X
                                                                           -..-     .--__             __-


                        X                                                                X                                  X
                                             .~                                     .--~ ___.         -_____.

                        X                                                                   X                               X
                                                                                                                            ---      --


        X               X             X                  X             X                    X                               X

        X               X            X                  X                                                                   X



                       X                                                                    X

        X               X                                                                   X
                                                                                                            --   ~~..__~_         ~ -...--     ~.-

                        X            X                  X              X                    X                X              X                   X


        X               X                               X              X                    X                               X




                                          Page 187                                                                  OCG90-2 Law Enforcement           Pay
                                             Appendix III
                                             Federal Law Enforcement   Pay and
                                             Benefits Survey




                                                           Hovo$       Of;Gd&j
                                                                                                    Uniform        Cleaning    Shoe repair
Agency             Bureau            Occupation           authority    gov’t car    Uniform      allowance        allowance     allowance
                   IRS Cnminai       1811 -Criminal
                   Investigation     Investigator
                   Division                                        X                          ____
                   IRS -Inspection   181 l-Criminal
                   Service           Investigator                  X                                                    ___     .._~.~~~~- ~~~
                   Secret Service    Uniformed
                                     Division,
                                     Secret Service                    ~~-.-.~---         X
                                     1811 -Criminal
                                     Investigator                  X
U S Courts         Probation         Probation and
                   Division          Pretrial
                                     Services
                                     Officer                                                         -
U.S. Information   Inspector         181 l-Criminal
Agency             General           Investigator
Veterans Affairs   Inspector         1811 -Criminal
                   General           Investigator




                                             Page 188                                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                          Appendix III
                                          Federal Law Enforcement     Pay and
                                          Benefits Survey




                                                                             -.                                                          --.
                          Other leave                            Physical          Annual       Child
    Tuition   Workers’          for job           Death           fitness         medical        care      Relocation            Housing
allowance compensation illness/injury
                             _.       ~~       benefits
                                               ~~...~_            facility         exams      facility -     program
                                                                                                                   --         assistance
                                                                                                                                      -__- Other

        X               X                                                X              X            X                 X

        X               X                                                               X
                                                                                       .__.
                                                                                                     X

                                      X                 X                               X




                                          Source: Survey responses received from 47 federal law enforcement   organizations




                                          Page 189                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement          Pay
Appendix IV

State and Local Law EnforcementPay and
Benefits Survey

                          To gather information on state and local law enforcement pay and
                          benefits, surveys were sent to approximately 700 state and local law
                          enforcement organizations. All 50 states were included in this survey
                          as were all locations where federal law enforcement officers are
                          employed. Through FBI’S Uniform Crime Reporting Unit, copies of
                          the survey instrument were hand delivered to the state and local
                          organizations. Completed questionnaires were returned to FRI and
                          entered into a computer data base. Survey responses were received
                          from 585 law enforcement organizations-a      response rate of approx-
                          imately 82 percent.

                          Organizations were asked to complete a survey instrument for each of
                          four major employee categories appropriate to their organization. The
                          four categories of employees are:

                      . uniformed officer-includes     sworn police personnel (sheriff, patrol
                        officer, Park Police, harbor patrol, and other paid uniformed police
                        personnel);
                      l non-uniformed officer-includes      plainclothes detectives and criminal
                        investigators;
                      . correctional officer-includes   personnel responsible for guarding, hous-
                        ing, and counseling prison inmates; and
                      . probation officer-includes    personnel responsible for investigation,
                        guidance, and counseling of criminal offenders in community correction
                        or pretrial programs.

                          In some instances, state and local organizations reported that they do
                          not make distinctions between their uniformed and non-uniformed
                          officers. Survey responses for these organizations were included in a
                          “*joint” category.


                          A total of 1,188 responses were received from state and local organiza-
General Information       tions. Information collected from this survey covers 374,277 paid full-
                          time permanent law enforcement personnel (the median number of
                          employees was reported to be 73). (See Table IV.1.)




                          Page 190                                         OCGYO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                                   Appendix N
                                                   State and Local Law Enforcement           Pay and
                                                   Benefits Survey




Table IV.l: Number of State and Local
Responses and Employees in Each Job                Category                                        Number of responses              Number of employees
                                                                                                                                                --
Category                                           Uniformed                                                            478                           158,713
                                                   Non-uniformed                       -.-.____                         479                     ___-- 40,338
                                                   Joint                                                                 46                            32,177
                                                                                                   ___-
                                                   Probation                                                             54                            15.165
                                                   Correctional                        ~. ----_-                        131                     --__  127,884
                                                   Total                                                           1,188                             374,277




Table IV.2: State and Local Law Enforcement Pay Systems
                                                                                                  Responses
                                                       All                                   Non-
                                                   responses        Uniformed             uniformed      Joint                Probation      Correctional
Collective bargaining                                %       #        %       #             %       #    %          #           %       #       %         #
All salary is negotiated                            40       460      42       197          40     186     58        26     22      12          31      39
Salary is partially negotiated                      15       182      17        82          17      79     18         8     11       6           5       7
No negotiation                                     25        519      41       195          43     195     43        11     67 .__--__---
                                                                                                                                   36           64      82
                                                   100     1,161     100       474         100     474    100        45
                                                                                                                      ____ 100 ___-~
                                                                                                                                   54          100
                                                                                                                                               __-~.~~ 128
Separate pay system for law enforcement:                                              ._____                  -I__--___-____.~                  --.-
Yes                                                 51       594      57     269     55    251             60        27     21      11          29        36
No                                                  49       562      43 -~~~-265
                                                                              __ .-__45    207             40        18     79     42           71        90
Total                                              100     1,156     100     474    100    458            100      45         100      53      100       126
                                                   Source: State and Local Pay and Benefits Survey



Table IV.3: Qualifications       Required for New Hires                                                 .___
                                                                                                    Responses
                                                       All                                   Non-
                                                   responses        Uniformed             uniformed       Probation   Correctional               Joint
                                                              #        %      #             %       #       %       #    %        #              %         #
                                                 .~ %~~~._~- ~~     .__._                                 .___-
High school diploma or equivalent                   95     1,023       98      454          96     391      72      28      87    110            93       40
                                                                                                                    34        2 -__- 2            0        0
Bachelor’s Degree                                    6        58
                                                              __.    ..--.. ~~~~-. 7
                                                                        2                ~   4      15__-   76   .____
Written test                                        86       932       92      427          84_~.___.
                                                                                                   337      63      32      76     92           100       44
                                                                                           __             __~
Psychological test                                  79       850       89      414          78     313      26      12      59     70            91       41
Physrcal standard                                   90       978      96       452          88     358
                                                                                                    ___--__ 63      30      82     94            98       44
Minimum age                                         92       944      95       424          91-__ 342       53      24      94
                                                                                                                          ___.__  109           100
                                                                                                                                             -.__~-.      45
Maximum age                                         37       339      41        165         43     142       5       2      17     16            34       14

                                                   Source: State and Local Pay and Benefits Survey.




                                                  Page 191                                                                    OCG90-2 Law Enforcement    Pay
---.-_.--
                                             Appendix IV
                                             State and Local Law Enforcement              Pay and
                                             Benefits Survey




Table IV.4: State and Local Responses                                                                                                                  _-.
                                                     Responses by job category
                                        Uniformed         Non-
                                                  # of uniformed        Joint                             Probation        Correctional          All
                                        % rewonses        %      #      %      #                            %
                                                                                                         ._______   #         %         #---x--T
Geographrc transfer?
  Yes                                   14%               68        14%          63       13%        6     13%         7   -.__ 10%     13      14      157
Do you have problems recruitrng law
  enforcement personnel?                           .                      .--
  Some problem                          39             ~.iai----.-28.           i2i.~4~-“130                -~--      ,6         3g    48      34~~.. 387
  Great problem                          9                 43         7           29       11        5      7          4          6     7       8      88
Do you have problems retaining law
  enforcement personnel?                                                                                          ____--__-_-                . ~~~~ ~~~
  Some problem                          37               169        29          126       44        20     39        21          46    56       3.5  392
  Great problem                          5                22         4           17        4         2     11          6         21    25        6    72
Factors affecting recrurtment and
  retenhon problems
  Pnmanly pay                           20                53        20           38       17         5     25-7                   21   18      20       121
  Pay and other factors                 45               120        49           96       40        12     61         17          54   46      48       291
  Factors other than pay                35                93        31           59       43        13     14          4        -42    21      31       190


                                             Regarding pay systems, 55 percent of the respondents (642 out of 1,161
                                             respondents) in our survey indicated that law enforcement salaries are
                                             at least partially negotiated through collective bargaining. Over half (5 1
                                             percent) of the respondents (594 out of 1,156 responses) indicated that
                                             law enforcement personnel are covered by a pay system separate from
                                             non-law enforcement employees. Table IV.2 summarizes pay system
                                             responses by job category.

                                             Ninety-five percent of the respondents indicated that a high school
                                             diploma or equivalent is required for employment; only 6 percent
                                             require a college degree. However, in the probation officer category, 76
                                             percent of the respondents indicated that a bachelor’s degree is required
                                             for new hires. Although 92 percent of the respondents reported that
                                             they have a minimum age requirement for employment (with an average
                                             reported minimum age of 20), only 37 percent reported having a maxi-
                                             mum age requirement. Table IV.3 summarizes responses on qualifica-
                                             tions for new hires.

                                             Only 14 percent of the survey respondents indicated that employees are
                                             required to transfer from one geographic area to another. Over half (58
                                             percent) said they have no difficulty recruiting employees; 59 percent
                                             said they have no difficulty retaining employees. Of those organizations


                                             Page 192                                                                      OCG90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
                       Appendix Iv
                       State and Local Law Enforcement   Pay and
                       Benefits Survey




                       reporting at least some difficulty in recruiting and retaining employees,
                       only 20 percent indicated that these problems stem primarily from pay.
                       A summary of responses regarding transfer, recruitment, and retention
                       is shown in Table IV.4.

                       The average number of paid holidays reported by respondents was 10.8.
                       Reported holidays ranged from 0 (reported by 16 respondents) to 21.
                       The midpoint and the mode were both 11 holidays.


                       State and local organizations were asked to report the minimum and
Entry-Level and Full   maximum yearly base entry level and full performance level salaries, as
Performance Level      well as the average 1988 gross salary and the average 1988 base salary
Salaries               at the entry and full performance levels. Almost all organizations
                       reported minimum and maximum base salaries, but a large percentage
                       did not report the average base and gross salaries. Our analysis, there-
                       fore, is based on the minimum and maximum reported salaries. Tables
                       IV.5 and IV.6, summarize responses concerning entry and full perform-
                       ance level salaries.


                       Eighty-nine percent of the state and local survey respondents (1,027 out
Overtime               of 1,150 responses) indicated that overtime pay is provided to law
Compensation           enforcement personnel. Of those respondents providing overtime pay,
                       94 percent pay time-and-a-half for all overtime hours worked, and 93
                       percent indicated that there is no limit on the amount of overtime pay
                       an employee can receive. (See Table IV.7.)




                       Page 193                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                                  Appendix IV
                                                  State and Local Law Enforcement    Pay and
                                                  Benefits Survey




Table IV.5: Weighted Mean Minimum, Maximum, and Midpoint
                                                  _---___--Entry-Level Salaries for MSAs With 40 or More Federal Employees
                                                                   Weighted Mean Entry-Level Salaries
                                Number of                        Number of          Minimum        Maximum
                                  Federal     Number of           Positions       Entry-Level    Entry-Level Midpoint Entry-
MSA                            Employees   Records Used       Represented
                                                                       -__..            Salary         Salary-_____Level  Salary
                                                                                                                      __--~~~
Oakland, CA                                220                      1                    101         $33,060            $33,060              $33,060
                                                                                                                                           .~~-~
San Franctsco, CA                          758                      2                  1.483          32.629             37.677 -.-.--A-. 35.153
Los Angeles, CA                          1,423                     15                 16,702
                                                                            -~ ~..._____              31:839             391960____---
                                                                                                                       ______-                 35,899
Boston, MA                                 528                       7                 2,427          31,812             34,224 ..___          33,018
New Haven, CT                      .~       92
                                           ~.~     .             -~~~1 -...- ~~~         315          31,716             31,716
                                                                                                                 -________-.                   31,716
Santa Ana, CA                              194                       5                   586          30,492             38,112
                                                                                                                     ___-____-                 34,302
                                                                                                                                          .~~~~~.._~~
Rversrde, CA                               186                       7                   698          28,815             36,883
                                                                                                                       ~~______                32,849
Frcsno, CA                                  77                      4                    829          28,030             33,497                30,763
Philadelphia, PA                           784                       1                 4.063          26.984             30.687                28.836
New York, NY                            ij720                      10                 35,531 .~       26,908             36,472                31,690
Chicago, IL                             1,236     -~                9                    583          26,605             30,886                28,746
Bakersfteld, CA                             56                      5                  1,134 ____..- 26,559              32,324                29,442
Santa Barbara, CA                          219 --                    4                   291          26,498             28,443                27,471
Seattle, WA                                334                       7-                  897          26,311             27,290
                                                                                                                  -___I__..-~~~                26,801
San Antonio, TX                            243
                                        !iJ,413                     55              4,704-
                                                                                       1,554     ._~..26,274
                                                                                                      25,996             26,314                26,294
                                                                                                                         37,45,-...-~-.‘--31.,723
Washington, DC                                                                                                 -___      __-~.         ._
Rochester, NY                              42                       4                729             25.987              28.890               27.438
Detrott, Ml                               611                       1                 98    ____- 25,826~-                321441              29,134
Mtnneapolrs, MN                           209                       8              1,396             25,287               34,820              30,053
Miami, FL                               1,257                       7              4,993            25,283 __-            28,946--    -       27,114
Portland, OR                              ik3                       2                611
                                                                              -~~ ~_---__           24,997                26,524              25.760
Omaha, NE                                  34               .-      I-~              458             24,801               25,719
                                                                                                                          ___~__              25,260
Las Vegas, NV                             160                       6                396            24,758                31,236
                                                                                                                            ____~             27,997
Fort Lauderdale, FL                       121                       6                794             24,712               33,793              29,252
Duluth, MN                                  48                      2                125            24,494                32,112              28,303
Denver, CO                                435                       4                476
                                                                                 ~~~~~~
                                                                                     ..~___         24,454
                                                                                                ...~~                     26,131              25,293
Mtlwaukee, WI                             129                       2-             1,559            24,355                31,361              27,858
Newark, NJ                                486                       2                206            24.307   --..-.A..--- 24.307              24.307
                                                                                                                                          ~~~~-~ ...~~~
Suffolk County, NY                        105                       6              3,586            24,200                39,840              32,020
San Diego, CA                           1,260                       8              3,453            23,962                30,997              27,480
Sacramento, CA                            176                       8              1,743            23,927                25,819              24,873
Dayton, OH                                  il3                     3-               288            23,834                29,401              26,617
Pittsburgh, PA                            210                       2              1,151            23,419                30,301              26,860
Provrdence, RI                             74                       3     ~. ____~.~ 295            23,418
                                                                                                   .__                    24,893              24,155
Grand Rapids, Ml                           ti5                      5                371            23,383                25,714              24,548
Des Moines, IA      y                      50                       4                344            23,341                25,733              24,537
                                                                           -~-..___~~     ~____
                                                                                                                                        (continued)




                                                 Page 194                                                          OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement     Pay
                                     Appendix IV
                                     State and Local Law Enforcement        Pay and
                                     Benefits Survey




                                                                 Weighted Mean Entry-Level Salaries
                          Number of                             Number of       Minimum          Maximum
                            Federal        Number of             Positions   Entry-Level      Entry,-&%&                             Midpoint Entry-
MSA                      Employees      Records Used          Represented          Salary                                               Level Salary
                                                                                                                                               ---
Htllsborough, FL                219                      6               1,510              $23,251                   $30,603                   $26,927
Corpus Christi, TX               66                      1                 347                23,136                   28,248 -_I-               25,692
                                                                                                                                                    ---
Fort Worth, TX                  212                     8                  553                23,040 -                 25,628                    24,334
Dallas, TX                      593                     9                3,305              23,009                     30,567
                                                                                                                    ._____I_------.               26,788
Atlantic City, NJ                90                     2                  376                23,000                   37,117                    30,059
Houston, TX                     561                      1               2,282 __-            22,986                   22386                      22,986
Palm Beach, FL                   83                     3                1,224                22,947                   26,716-__                  24,831
Danbury, CT                     108                      2                  135               22,881                    29,151
                                                                                                                             __-~.                26,016
                                                                                                                                           -.--_-- ~-
Cleveland OH                   ~282           .~~
                                                         2
                                                    .~~ ..~~ .~-.~ ~~
                                                                             85               22.611       -__
                                                                                                                        22.719                    22,665
Spokane, WA                      46                     3                  303                22,389            -__    28,612                     25,501
Honolulu, HI                    212                      1               1,314                22,272
                                                                                               --_---                  22,272                     22,272
Saint Louis, MO                269                      6                2,275                22,220                   23,586                     22,903
Albany, NY                      99                      3                  405                22,184 --__-             23.748                     22,966
Baltimore, MD                  373                      3                  448               sii&r---                  26,666                     24,311
Atlanta, GA                    751                      4                1,761       ..___-   21,933
                                                                                                  --_                  30,092                     26,012
Kansas City, MO                504                      8                1,464 .__.__         21,744                    23,132                    22,438
Cincinnati, OH                 124                      3                    70               21,355                    26,229                    23,792
Tucson, AZ                     321                      4                  612                21,122                    28,171
                                                                                                               ___-.--.----~-__           ----.- 24,647  ~-~
Jacksonville, FL               179                      4                1,633                20,836                   22,989                     21,912
Ann Arbor, Ml                  142                      4                  284     __--__-__. 20,716                   26,186                     23,451
Tallahassee, FL                140                       1                  137
                                                                   ~-~ _____-                 20,515                   28,281
                                                                                                                 .__-I_.___                       24,398
Raleigh, NC                     61                      3 -.- ~~-.-.~~--~.__.
                                                                           694                20,175                    24,174
                                                                                                                           _.._       -~. --~. ~~~22,175
Birmingham, AL                  88                      7                  725                19,961 ----631 .___-              ___~        ~.__20,796
                                                                                                                                                    ~.~.~.
Oklahoma Cttv. OK              346                      7                1.761                19.806
                                                                                          _____                         21,925                    20,865
Richmond, VA                   245                      3           .~~~-__329            .~- 19,678__--.              301614 .----           -25,746
Nashvtlle, TN                   92                      4                1,102                19,619                    21,525
                                                                                                                             __~~~          -- 20,572   --
Springfield, MO                245                      4                  244           -iT$i-                        22,925
                                                                                                                            _-._..__.       ~---- 21,193 -~..-
Phoenix, AZ                    416                      5                3,823     ~~-..      19,423
                                                                                              _____               _-I_~26,672__..~         -~ .-23,047  ~.-
Charlotte, NC                  110                      4                  853 --- __-__.19,368                         25,290                    22,329
                                                                                                                                                   .~.~~.~~
Buffalo, NY                    192                      4                1,149                19,354
                                                                                           -____..                      25,374                    22,364
Austin, TX                      90                      5                1,307                19,260                    25,849                    22,554
Virginia Beach, VA             255
                                46      ~-              62                 664
                                                                       -~..53~~--.            19,251
                                                                                     -.-1g,212-~.         .--.-~        25,879
                                                                                                                       ~16         --~ .~~-22,364 22,565
Williamsport, PA
Sanford, FL                     85~                   2                      80                  19,070             28,675                        23,873
Indianapolis, IN               145~                   4                     545                  18.998             21.141                        20.070
Parkersburg, WV                127                                           59                  18,925             18,925                        18,925
San Angelo, TX                  46                                          171                  18,857             22,141                        20,499
Greensboro, NC       ”          61                                          444                  18,648 -----27,196                               22,922
Salt Lake City, UT             125                                          380                  18,214             19,919                        19,067
                                                                                                                                            (continued)



                                  Page 196                                                                        OCG90-2 Law Enforcement              Pay
                                       Appendix lV
                                       State and Local Law Enforcement Pay and
                                       Benefits Survey




                                                                      Weighted Mean Entry-Level Salaries
                                                                     Number of       Minimum          Maximum
                      N”FebtirE\             Number of                Positions    Entry-Level     Entry-Level Midpoint Entry-
MSA                  Employees            Records Used
                                                   --.-            Represented           Salary          Salary   Level Salary
Columbus, OH                    80--                          1                    45           $18,139               $18,139              -___$8,139
Orange County, NY   ~~-..-~.   144                         I_-.1                   70            17,887                24,931                  21,409
Savannah,GA           ~~.____-. 74
                                 ._-.                         4            --     448            17,819                21,525           ___----19,672
Bowre, TX                      106                            1                    54            17,564                18,267                  17,916
Charleston, SC                  98                            1                   198            17,340                24,399                  20,870
Memphis, AR                   247                             6                 1,900            17,138                18,793           --17,965
Laredo,TX                      198                            2                   138            17,089                17,089                  17,089
                                                                                                                                            ___~
Louisvrlle, KY                  96                            2                   710            17,007                21,439                  19,223
Montgomery, AL                  81                            2                    35            16,924                23,912                  20,418
Brownsville, TX                198                            2                   148            16,905                16,905                  16,905
Pensacola, FL                   51                            1                    81            16,822                24,570                  20,696
McAllen,TX                     155                            1                   120            16,515                16,515                  16,515
Harnson, MS                     42                           4                    146            16,496                18,535                  17,515
Mobile, AL                     124                           6                    571            16,339                25,355                  20,847
Huntinqton, WV                 130                           5
                                                  _........____.   -~-            191            16,118                16,118                  16,118
El Paso TX                      690
                    .~. ~~~.-..-~
                                , o6 ~ ~.~--~~---~~-        3                     423            16,041                22,522            ---__-19,281
Little Rock, AR                                                  -.-              145            15.979                21.698                  18.838
Jackson, MS                     78                        1                       364            15,876                15,876                  15,876
Lexrngton, KY                 194                    _-___4                       473            15,512                21,374            -__-
                                                                                                                                          ____-18,443
Albuquerque, NM               161                         3     .-__-.          1,051            15,494                16,683                  16,089
                                                                                                                                               .-
LasCruces. NM                   59                         1 .___                  70            15,192                17,777____           -_ 16,485
Terre Haute, IN               194                          1 ..__.-.-              82            141443                17,094                  15,769
NewOrleans,LA                 389                         5                       549            13,406
                                                                                                  -                    18,074                  15,740-
Bellrngham, WA                 .60
                                 ..-     __-..            0 -.__..
Lexington, SC                   88          -~~ ..___     0___-_-..----.                                                        ---__
Panama City,FL                  40                        0                             ____.-___________                                  ~__    .~~-
SanJose,CA                    119                         0
                                                ._ ..~~..-.-                                                       ____~.
Springfield, IL                 52                        0
                                       Note: Mean salaries are weighted by the number of full-time officers.

                                       Source: Survey responses from 585 state and local law enforcement       organizations.




                                   Page 196                                                                    OCG90-2 Law Enforcement           Pay
                                          Appendix IV
                                          State and Local Law Enforcement      Pay and
                                          Benefits Survey




Table IV.6: Weighted Mean Minimum, Maximum, and Midpoint Full Performance Level Salaries for MSAs With 40 or More Federal
Employees                                                                   __-.____
                                                     Weighted Mean Full Performance Level Salaries
                                                               Number of        Minimum Full   Maximum Full   Midpoint Full
                                   N”Fi!z:l    NuRm,:eo~~~      Positions        Performance    Performance   Performance
MSA                               Employees        Used      Represented
                                                                       .~~.      Level Salary   Level Salary   Level Salary
Atlantic City, NJ                           90          2               376            $42,187        $45,001       $43,594
                                                                                                               ____._~.._
Spokane, WA                               46
                                         758                     43            382
                                                                             1,587               37,445 .-~4~.~2----.-..38,T74
                                                                                                 37,347               37,445                      37,445
San Francisco, CA                         42                     4             729               35,237 - .-..-~3j,4,4--~~               . --~35,325
Rochester, NY
Oakland, CA                              -220                    4           1,030 ~~__-     35,153
                                                                                                  _---.-.--_-..----...-.38,646                    36,900
                                                                                                                                                     ..~
Los Angeles, CA                         1,423
                                          528                   17
                                                                 8          17,956           35,019
                                                                             2,544 ~~~~~---~o,4,.2--                    44,845                    39,932
                                                                                                                                       _.._~ .. -371701
Boston, MA
Santa Ana, CA                             194                     6           421              34,125 ---~--~3,2~~------                            38 I708
Denver, CO                                435                     8         1,958              33,884                   36,165                .~__~ 35,025
Detroit MI                                611                     2           168              33,131                   33,131                      33,131
New Haven, CT                              92~                    2           425 --____       32,607                   32,607                      32,607
Duluth, MN                                 48                     2           125              32,112                   32,112
                                                                                                                 __. _-.-_ --          ---.--       32,112.~~.
Portland. OR                              153                     4           850              3i ,483                  35,794                      33,638
Seattle, WA                               334                     8           923              31,369
                                                                                         ____.__                        35,187                      33,278
Milwaukee, WI                             129                     2         1,559              31,361
                                                                                          _-..~--~                      31,361
                                                                                                                        ___..~~_          .__       31,361
                                                                                                                                                      .~~
Suffolk County, NY                        105                     6     ..-~3,586
                                                                              ___..~~~ ~.__ 31,124                      44,022                      37,573
San Antonio, TX                           243         --       ~.~6         1,578              30,961                   31,013                      30,987
Danbury, CT                               108                     2           135              30,654
                                                                                                 -__~-.__               31,029                      30,841
Pittsburgh, PA                            210                     3         1,161              30,647                   30,647                      30,647
San Jose, CA                              119.                    2         1,028              30,555                   40,934                      35,745
RIversIde. CA                             186         ~-          9           767              30,449              __-. 38,624---~-..-         .~-...34,536
                                                                                                                                                      -~ _~~~
Fresno, CA                                 77                     4           829              30,258                   36,203                      33,231
Phlladelphla, PA                          784         -----2                4,584              29,746                   31,036                      30,391
San Diego, CA                           1,260                   IO          3,521              29,694                   36,366                      33,030
Newark, NJ                                486                    6            554              29,675                   32,448                      31,062
Spnngfleld, IL                             52    --              1            167      -__     2g,51g   ..-.---.32,471
                                                                                                   ___-.__                 -.----.-~       .~~.--~~ 30,995~
Aalelgh, NC                                61                    5            769              29,030                   32,791                      30,911
Albany, NY                                 99                    5            431 ___-___ 28,971                        30,237                      29,604
Clnclnnatl, OH                            124                    5            961              28,772                   34,153                      31,462
New York, NY                            2,720                   12        35,690               28,717                   38,312                      33,515
tlouston, TX                              561                    1          2,282              28,661                   28,661                      28,661
CorDus ChristI, TX                         66                    1            347              28,248                   31,116 ~--.                 29,682
Omaha, NE                                  74                    2            613              28,
                                                                                          __.__-   104--‘--.32,440                                  30,272
Miami, FL                               1,257                   13          5,415              28,087                   35,342
                                                                                                                  .__-.___.                         31,714
                                                                                  __-
Bakersfield, CA      Y                     56                    7          1,207              28,071                   36,708                      32,389
                                                                                                                                           (continued)




                                          Page 197                                                                OCG90-2 Law Enforcement             Pay
                                                                                                                                                       -
                                  Appendix IV
                                  State and Local Law Enforcement            Pay and
                                  Benefits Survey




                                                 Weighted Mean Full Performance Level Salaries
                         Number of         Number of      Number of     Minimum Full   Maximum Full                                     Midpoint Full
                           Federal          Records        Positions    Performance     Performance                                     Performance
MSA                     Employees              Used     Represented      Level Salary   Level Salary                                    Level Salary
Santa Barbara, CA                 219                    6                 447
                                                                            _______-.           $27,954                 $32,474            _    $30,214
                                                                                                                                                -.~---.
Dallas, TX                        593
                         -_ . --*I_...-. . ____..____   13   - .-~-.-~~. 3,461                   27,845                   37,304                  32,575
Phoentx, AZ MN
Mrnneapolis,                     416 - --. --..-~-..--.,o8 .~~-.
                          --.-.-209                                      3,908
                                                                         1,716
                                                                     ~~-.--___                   27,242
                                                                                                 27,242                   33,743
                                                                                                               -I_-cI--__ 36,052 .---             30,493
                                                                                                                                           ..-~.3i,647
                                                                                                                                                  ...~~_._~~
Austin, TX                        90                6
                          _~ .~~ ..~ ~. ~-.-~...~~~..~~-..~                 1,355                 27,224   ___-           29,055                    28,140
Bellrngham, WA                    60                 1                         81                 27,216
                                                                                                   ______--               33,456                    30,336
Las Vegas, NV                   160               IO                        1,574                 27,214                  35,652                    31,433
Sacramento, CA                  176               10                        1,940                 27,075 -__-.            33,549                    30,312
Grand Raprds, MI                  65                8                         391                 26,877                  32,229                    29,553
Chrcago, IL                  1,236                15                       12,604                 26,846                  40,460                    33,653
Dayton, OH                        53                4                         492                 26,798                  29,431
                                                                                                                          __-~-.   ---.---‘---28
                                                                                                                                      ---      ~~~ l-~115
Ann Arbor, MI                   142                 3                         224                 26,547
                                                                                                     -.                .- 33,147                    29,847
Washrngton, DC               5,413                  6                       4,754                 26,428                  38,087
                                                                                                                           __-..---                 32,257
                                                                                                                                                  ~~ -~~~.-
Palm Beach, FL                    83                7                       1,615                 26,377 -----35,896_____-..            ..~... ~..-~31,136
                                                                                                                                                     ..~.~--.
Baltimore, MD                  373                  4                         534          -__-.- 26,322       __.        29,417                    27,869
Providence, RI                    74                4          ~-.~~~~~~~-.__ 308 __.-            26,167                  26,198
                                                                                                                        .-~                         26,182
Williamsport, PA                  46                3                          58                 25,800                  26,640
                                                                                                                      _.~.-__-~.         --.~~-     26,220
                                                                                                                                                         -~--
Honolulu, HI                   212                  2                       1,820                 25,008       _____.~_.  33,096                    29,052
Fort Lauderdale, FL             I.21                7                         738                 24,981
                                                                                                 ___..        __.-..      35,381                    30,181
Des Moines, IA                    50                5                         427                 24,945                  28,748                    26,846
Jacksonville, FL                179                 5                       1,849 .____           24,638                  30,505                    27,572
Sarnt Louis, MO                269                  8                       2,295
                                                                            ~-__~         -__ 24,469 __.-____             30,436
                                                                                                                       --__                         27,453
Cleveland, OH                  282                  4                       1,867                 24,410                  25,834                    25,122
                                                                                                      __---.
Indranapolis, IN                145                 5                         634                 24,284                  25,675
                                                                                                                        --__-~~~~_.~                24,979
                                                                                                                                                      ~ ~
Fort Worth, TX                 212                10                        1,393           .--.  23,893__-               30,665                    27,279
Tucson, AZ                     321 .~~              6 ~--~ ~~.-~__          1,349                 23,663                  31,656                    27,660
Oklahoma City, OK              346                  7                       1,761                 23,514                  26,673                    25,094
Kansas Crtv. MO                504                  8       ~-    --.1----
                                                                            1.456       -2
                                                                                                  23.482  ----34.599-                               29,040
Atlanta, GA                    751                  6                       1,843
                                                                         ~___-.~__                23,328
                                                                                              ____-       __-             32,073                    27,701
Virginia Beach, VA             255                  8                       1,310                 23,156                  33,781                    28,468
Hillsborough, FL               219                11                 -~~ 2,950
                                                                             ~~--__~              23,034                  31,972
                                                                                                                            ---..~~-            -- 27,503   ~
Spnngfreld, MO                 245                  4                         244                 22,641                  23,333                    22,987
Birmingham, AL                    88                7                         862                 22,479                  24,935                    23,707
Memphis, AR                    247     - -          7                       2,260
                                                                            __--                  22,448       __----__   23,899                    23,173
Buffalo. NY                    192                  5                       1,170                 22,221                  26.537                    24,379
Laredo, TX                     198                  2                -        138       ________~ 21,350               21,350
                                                                                                                      -__-___-~~                    21,350
                                                                                                                                                    -.-.
Little Rock, AR                106                  6                         4go                 21,210                  25,871                    23,541
Richmond, VA                   245                  6                       1,028                 21,142                  35,624                    28,383
Tallahassee, FL     *          140                  2                         185                 21,028                  28,281                    24,655
                                                                                                                                             (continued)



                                  Page 198                                                                        OCG90-2 Law Enforcement             Pay
                            Appendix IV
                            State and Local Law Enforcement       Pay and
                            Benefits Survey




                                          Weighted Mean Full Performance Level Salaries
                      Number of                    Number of     Minimum Full   Maximum Full                         Midpoint Full
                        Federal     NuRm,:::zl      Positions    Performance     Performance                         Performance
MSA                  Employees          Used     Represented
                                                        __.-      Level Salary   Level Salary                        Level Salary
Parkersburg, WV             127                 2                  59           $20,820             $20,820               $20,820
Nashville, TN                92                 5              1,111             20,652               27,643-               24,148
Greensboro, NC               61                 4                 525            20,551               31,724          ___-I 26,138
San Angelo, TX               46                 5                 213            20,493               23,129                21,811
Sanford, FL                  85~--              2                  80            20,215               28,675                24,445
Loulsvllle, KY               96       -~        2                  57            20,154               20,154                20,154
Charlotte. NC               110                 4                 853     ~-_____19,875               26,874       ____--- 23,375
Savannah, GA                 74                 4                 448            19,835
                                                                               __________             25,595       --___ 22,715
Albuquerque, NM             161                 5              1,173             19,750               25,292                22,521
Pensacola, FL                51                 1                  81            19,370               27,014                23,192
Orange County, NY           144                 1                  70            19,282               28,509______-.-. 23,896
Jackson, MS                  78                 1                 364            19,056
                                                                                   __-        ____ 30,168                   24,612
Bowle, TX                   106                 2                  78            18,996 --__          21,370                20,183
Columbus, OH                 80        .~       6              1,422
                                               .~~~~~ ~~.~- ~- --~. ~-~.~-       18,836            75X----                  24,489
Charleston, SC               98                 2    _~~ ~ .      242 ~~.        18,207               26,900                22,554
MoblIe, AL                  124                 2           .- 370 ~~.- ~~ 53i-                       2m--------     __- 22,974 -.~
Las Cruces, NM               59                 2             .--.97          '~17,777--. .____-..    25,761                21,769
Harnson, MS                  42                -2                  66            17,510               21,867 __-I_--        19,689
Salt Lake City, UT          125                 2                  60            17,500
                                                                             ~~.___                   28,300
                                                                                                         ___-.              22,900
Brownsville, TX             198                 3                 159            17,379               20,868
                                                                                                        ___.          ___-~-19,123
Lexington, KY               194                 4                 473            17,243----           22,231                19,737
                                                                                                                            __.-
Huntington, WV              130                 7                 222      .___  16,865
                                                                                     ____.__           19,247
                                                                                                    --_-.~-.__              18,056
                                                                                                                            -I_
El Paso, TX                 690                 2                 350            16,431               21,506                18,969
McAllen, TX                 155-                5                  92 _-.~~-~
                                                                            ~__ 16,021
                                                                                  ___                 20,440                18,230
Terre Haute, IN             194-                2                 114            15,505                17,763               16,634
New Orleans, LA             389 ~~ -            5                 811            14,875                18,946               16,911
Lexington, SC                88                 0                                  __-~..--        -.--~~-.      ~-~ .-~~-~ -~
Montgomery, AL               81    ~-     -~ 0
Panama Cltv, FL              40    ~-       ~- ~0.~
                            Note: Mean salaries are weighted by the number of full-time officers.
                            Source: Survey responses from 585 state and local law enforcement       organizations




                            Page 199                                                                 OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                                 Appendix Iv
                                                 State and Local Law Enforcement      Pay and
                                                 Benefits Survey




Table IV.7: Overtime Pay
                                                                                        Responses
                                                 All                                  Non-
                                                       # of      Uniformed         uniformed     Probation        Correctional         Joint
                                            %    Responses         %       #         70      #      %
                                                                                                  _---____
                                                                                                           #         %          #
                                                                                                                      _-______-____    %       #
                                                                                                                                             _~..
Percent   paying   overtime                 89          1,027 ..__- 93     437       91     415     35    18         89       112      98      45
                                                                                                         ____--
Percent   with no limit on overtime   oav   93          1.045       95     444       93     415     68    28         94       116      93      42

                                                 Source: State and Local Pay and Benefits Survey.


                                                 Only 533 of 1,027 responses answered the question in our survey con-
                                                 cerning percent of employees receiving overtime compensation; only 426
                                                 of 1,027 responses answered the question in our survey concerning
                                                 average number of hours. Eighty-six percent of the respondents
                                                 reported that their law enforcement personnel received overtime com-
                                                 pensation in calendar year 1988. The average number of overtime hours
                                                 for which compensation was provided in that year was 120 hours per
                                                 employee.

                                                 Organizations reported that 40 hours is the average number of hours in
                                                 a base work week. Responses ranged from 34 hours to 56 hours; both
                                                 the midpoint and the mode were 40 hours.


                                                 Table IV.8 summarizes responses from organizations concerning various
Pay Differentials                                types of pay differentials provided to law enforcement personnel (e.g.,
                                                 shift differential, hazardous duty pay, foreign language differential).
                                                 While shift differentials and Sunday pay are not available in most orga-
                                                 nizations, holiday pay is provided by 60 percent of the respondents (684
                                                 out of 1,146 responses).




                                                 Page 200                                                         OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                       Appendix N
                                       State and Local Law Enforcement         Pay and
                                       Beneflta Survey




Table IV.8: State and Local Pay and
Benefits Survey-Pay Differentials                                                                       Percentage               Number
                                                                                                      providing pay                   of
                                       Pay differential
                                       ________.____~_.              __                                  differential         responses
                                                                                                                                 -___
                                       Shift differential-evening
                                       ---___                                                                     30%                341
                                       Shift differential-midnight                                                30       .---
                                                                                                                          -----      340-
                                       Holiday pay                                                                60                 684
                                       Sunday pay                                                                  3    ______        31
                                       Hl~arFluus duty pay-SWAT team                                     ______   12    -.-...a--    134
                                       Hazardous ctuty pay-Bomb      Squad                                         12                133
                                       Hazardous duty pay-Motorcycle                                               14                149
                                       Hazardous duty pay-general                                                   4                 48
                                       Retention bonus                                                              4                 46
                                       Foreign language differential                          _____                 6                 62
                                       Technician pay                                                              18                197
                                       Pilot                                                                        7                 76


                                       All but 37 percent of the respondents (437 responses) provided longev-
                                       ity pay to their law enforcement personnel. On average, organizations
                                       reported that a minimum longevity pay increase (either as a percentage
                                       of base salary or as a flat dollar amount) is provided after 5 years of
                                       service; a maximum longevity pay differential is provided after 20 years
                                       of service. (See Table IV.9.)

Table IV.9: State and Local Pay and
Benefits Survey-Those    Respondents                                                                                             Number
Not Providing Longevity Pay                                                              Percentage not providing                     of
                                       Category                                                     longevity pay             responses
                                       Uniformed                                                                  34                162
                                       Non-Uniformed         ___                                         ___I     34                162
                                       Joint                              __-____                     ~__-__      40                  18
                                       Probation                                                                  50                 27
                                       Corrections
                                       _-.--.-     ~-.-_----..~---              ___-                              52                 68
                                       Total                                                                      37                437


                                       State and local organizations also reported that periodic step increases
                                       are provided to employees in their pay systems. The average number of
                                       steps within a pay range was reported to be 5 for entry level and 6 for
                                       full performance level. The average waiting period between steps was
                                       reported as 11 months at entry level and 13 months at full performance
                                       level.




                                       Page 201                                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement     Pay




                                                                                                                          I
-
                        Appendix IV
                        State and Local Law Enforcement   Pay and
                        Benefits Survey




                        State and local organizations responsible for the operation of prisons
Correctional            and/or correctional facilities were asked to respond to a series of ques-
Administrator and       tions concerning staff pay. Employees included in this group are correc-
Support Staff Pay       tional administrators and managers as well as other employees working
                        within correctional facilities (e.g., as psychologists, physicians, physi-
                        cian assistants, accountants, secretaries, cooks, and plumbers).

                        According to the surveyed organizations, 33 percent said the pay system
                        for correctional administrators is

                    . the same as that for correctional officers, 36 percent indicated that the
                      pay system for administrators is the same as for noncorrectional admin-
                      istrators, 13 percent said that it is specifically designed for correctional
                      administrators, and another 18 percent indicated none of the above
                      responses.

                        Surveyed organizations reported the following on the retirement system
                        for correctional administrators:

                    9 129 respondents reported that the retirement system for administrators
                      is the same as for correctional officers,
                    . 77 respondents reported that the retirement system for administrators
                      is the same as for non-correctional administrators,
                    . 6 respondents reported that they have a retirement system just for cor-
                      rectional administrators, and
                    9 39 respondents reported none of the above.

                        For support staff, responses are as follows:

                    . 81 respondents reported that the pay system is the same as for correc-
                      tional officers,
                    l 9 respondents reported that the pay system for some employees is the
                      same as for correctional officers,
                    . 114 respondents reported that the pay system is the same as that for
                      similar kinds of support positions in the governmentwide pay system,
                    . 5 respondents reported that the pay system for some employees is the
                      same as that for similar kinds of support positions in the govern-
                      mentwide pay system,
                    I 22 respondents   re~tii%Yl Hi&t! all BU~~WEemgloyees are in&&d     under
                        9 sopnrke     q&em      for correctional    suppO?t Siiff;   Wiil
                    l   17 respondents reported that some support employees are included
                        under a separate system for correctional support staff.



                        Page 202                                                     OCG90.2 Law Enforcement   Pay
    Appendix N
    State and Local Law Enforcement   Pay and
    Benefits Survey




    Twenty-five percent of the respondents (53 out of 212 responses) indi-
    cated that blue collar and white collar support employees are paid under
    different compensation systems. Ninety-five percent (191 of of 292
    responses) reported that the pay for support staff is based on the per-
    formance of the primary support duty only. In addition:

l   37 respondents indicated that a grade for correctional related work is
    added to the grade assigned for the performance of the primary support
    duty;
l   Four respondents indicated that a premium is added for correctional
    related work; and
l   One respondent indicated that a cash bonus is regularly paid.

    The responsibility of state and local correctional support employees for
    the custody of inmates and the security of the facility is as follows:

. 48 percent (108 out of 226 responses) have no significant security or
  control responsibility;
. 24 percent (55 out of 226 responses) supervise inmates without the
  immediate presence of correctional officers but are not required to per-
  sonally handle inmate incidents in their immediate work area;
. 12 percent (26 out of 226 responses) supervise inmates without the
  immediate presence of correctional officers and personally handle
  inmate incidents in their work areas, but they are not required to
  respond to general disturbances in the institution;
l 8 percent (18 out of 226 responses) supervise inmates without the
  immediate presence of correctional officers and are required to respond
  to both inmate incidents and general disturbances in the institution; and
l 8 percent (19 out of 226 responses) described other kinds of
  responsibilities.




    Page 203                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendix V

Compensationof Law Enforcement Positionsin
the Federal Bureau of Prisons

                                       The Commission’s study could not reasonably examine all of the approx-
Introduction                           imately 250 law enforcement occupations in the study universe in the
                                       time allotted for the project. Because the Bureau of Prisons has the larg-
                                       est number and widest variety of law enforcement positions in the fed-
                                       eral law enforcement community, the Commission staff requested that
                                       the Bureau of Prisons study and provide data on a number of its “less
                                       traditional” law enforcement positions that are included in the study
                                       universe.

                                       The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is a Department of Justice agency employ-
                                       ing 16,000 staff nationwide. The nature of the correctional environment
                                       requires BOPto replicate most of the services found in a community. As a
                                       result, BOPstaff includes occupations ranging from psychologist, recrea-
                                       tion specialist, dietitian, and budget analyst to plumber, factory fore-
                                       man, electronics technician, and cook. (See Fig. V. 1). All employees in
                                       federal correctional institutions have primary responsibility for the cus-
                                       tody, control, and supervision of convicted felons.


Figure V.l: Breakdown of Bureau of
Prisons Staff Size as of 11/27/89 bv




                                                                                Correctional officers: 6,572
                                                                            -   Other employees:     8,280




                                                                                Correctional   administrators:   854




                                       Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons.


                                       BOPhas traditionally    considered all employees in its institutions-
                                       regardless of position title- as correctional workers or law enforcement
                                       officers first, and then as occupational specialists. This premise is not a
                                       technicality: it is evident in everyday duties. Thus, all BOPstaff (1) have
                                       clear and active responsibilities for the custody and supervision of


                                       Page 204                                                OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                        Appendix V
                        Compensation     of Law Enforcement   Positions
                        in the Federal   Bureau of Prisons




                        inmates, (2) respond to emergencies, (3) participate in fog and escape
                        patrols, (4) respond to institutional disturbances, (5) assume correc-
                        tional officer posts when necessary, (6) maintain professional relation-
                        ships with inmates, (7) actively participate in maintaining the security
                        of the institution and supervising inmates, and (8) supervise inmates on
                        work details.

                        Because their direct and frequent daily contact with inmates puts ROP
                        staff at the same risk and requires the same skills as more traditional
                        law enforcement personnel, all BOP institutional employees are subject to
                        the same employment screening process as correctional officers. Fur-
                        ther, they also must attend basic training at the Federal Law Enforce-
                        ment Training Center in Glynco, Georgia.

                        Due to the primary responsibility for the custody, control and supervi-
                        sion of incarcerated felons, over 93 percent of BOP staff-regardless    of
                        their secondary duties-are covered by the federal law enforcement
                        retirement system. The validity of the inclusion of less traditional law
                        enforcement personnel into the special retirement system has been sup-
                        ported by Congress, public law, the courts, and in the policy and prac-
                        tices of the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Prisons. The
                        practice of assigning correctional responsibilities to all staff members
                        allows nor’ to operate its facilities with a lean staff complement: BOP has
                        a higher inmate to correctional officer ratio than all but one of the state
                        correctional systems.


                        The variety of occupations in HOP makes it unique in the federal law
Impact of Recruitment   enforcement community. While most of the federal organizations stud-
and Retention on        ied have only 1 or 2 law enforcement occupations, BOP has nearly 200
Correctional Work       law enforcement position classifications. BOP’S occupational profile
                        requires it to compete not only with other federal law enforcement agen-
                        cies and state and local law enforcement organizations, but with the pri-
                        vate sector as well. Several other factors unique to BOP also affect its
                        recruitment and retention of correctional law enforcement officers.
                        These are described in the following paragraphs.


Recruitment             The projected rapid expansion of BOP requires that its work force more
                        than double from year-end 1989 to 1994. During this period, BOP is
              I         expected to grow 132 percent from a workforce of 16,598 employees to
                        38,623 employees. The majority of these positions-13,525,61      percent--
                        will be for new institutions while 8,500,39 percent, will be added to


                        Page 206                                          OCG90.2 Law Enforcement   Pay
            Appendix V
            Compensation     of Law Enforcement   Positions
            in the Federal   Bureau of Prisons




            existing institutions. BOPturnover trends suggest that between 1989 and
            1994, over 32,000 employees will either leave BOPor transfer at least
            once into other occupations within BOP.Thus, despite a phenomenal
            growth of 22,025 positions, it is estimated that BOPwill need to recruit
            (from both internal and external sources), develop, and train over
            54,000 employees for its various occupations.

            Staffing BOPwill be such a critical and difficult job that this task was
            listed in a Government Executive magazine article1 as one of the most
            important domestic challenges facing the President in the 1990s. 1301"s
            ability to provide adequate pay and benefits to employees will be signifi-
            cant in determining its ability to succeed in this massive expansion.
            Recruitment problems due to this buildup will be exacerbated by similar
            expansion in other correctional systems and by demographic predictions
            of an aging and shrinking labor pool.


Ketention   Regarding retention, like other law enforcement organizations, nor is
            plagued with excessive first-year turnover rates. Approximately 30 per-
            cent of its entry-level correctional officers leave the organization each
            year. It is worth noting, however, that ISOPhas found that over 81 per-
            cent of non-correctional officer/non-correctional      administrator employ-
            ees
            -   leave  BOP within  their first 7 years of service.  (See Fig. V-2.)




            ‘Elaine Orr “Diversity in the Domestic Departments,” Government Executive (Nov. 1988).



            Page 206                                                        OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                        Appendii   V
                                        Compensation       of Law Enforcement      Positions
                                        in the Federal     Bureau of Prisons




Figure V.2: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Cumulative Turnover Rates From 1990-
87 by Years of Service                  100     Turnover Rate

                                         60

                                         so
                                         70

                                         60




                                          0

                                              1              2               3            4    6      6           7           6
                                              Years ot Service

                                                 -         All Other Employees
                                                 - - - -   Correctional Officers

                                        Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons.


                                        A problem also stems from BOP’S tradition of mobility. Geographical
                                        transfers are critical to management development. BOP believes it is
                                        important for potential and current managers to experience the breadth
                                        of operations in the agency. Almost 1,500 employees were transferred
                                        within BOPlast year. For fiscal year 1990,3,500 moves are projected.


Nature of Correctional                  The influx of drug offenders in federal prisons has created an increas-
Work                                    ingly sophisticated inmate population with greater sentence lengths,
                                        making the need for experienced correctional personnel more acute
                                        since the risks of escape and assault become higher. The explosion in the
                                        inmate population will significantly increase the current overcrowding
                                        in the federal prisons. This will in turn increase the need for a stable and
                                        experienced work force since severe overcrowding increases the volatil-
                                        ity of the prison environment and places extreme stress and burdens on
                                        staff.

                                        Recently implemented sentencing guidelines were accompanied by the
                                        abolition of parole in the federal system and a major reduction in “good


                                        Page 207                                                   OCGSO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendix V
Compensation     of Law Enforcement    Positions
in the Federal   Bureau of Prisons




time” credit available to inmates. These reductions in the ability of an
inmate to influence his/her release date affect the motivation and incen-
tive of inmates.

The dramatic increase in the number of unsentenced inmates has com-
pelled BOP to locate facilities in major metropolitan areas. (Turnover
rates in major urban areas such as New York and Los Angeles continu-
ally exceed 20 percent. Turnover rates in the correctional facility in
Manhattan continually exceed 30 percent). This makes staffing even
more difficult because of the turnover rates. At the same time, emphasis
on the use of current and former military bases for low-security inmates
means that many of BOP’S other sites are in remote areas.

Linking turnover rates with housing costs presents an interesting per-
spective. The housing index for 44 metropolitan areas where BOP institu-
tions are located were regressed against the turnover rate at those
institutions. Figure V.3 displays a plot of the housing cost index2 and the
institution turnover rates. The chart clearly indicates that institutions
experience high turnover in metropolitan areas that have high housing
costs.




‘Data on Housing Cost Index was obtained from the “Places Rated Almanac” by Richard Bayer and
David Savageau. The Housing Cost Index is a measure of the relative cost of a single-family house in
the IJnited States. Boyer and Savageau cite that the National Association of Realtors reported that in
1989, an existing single-family house carried a median price tag of $91,600. Thus, an index of 100 =
IJS. average.



Page 208                                                            OCG-90-Z Law Enforcement      Pay
                                             Appendix V
                                             Compensation     uf Law Enforcement   Positions
                                             in the Federal   Bureau of Prisons




Fiaura V.3: Housina Costs and Turnover Rates



            Turnover Rates
                _-.
      35
                                                                                           m




      30


      25
                                                                          .

      20                                 .
                                                                                                   .

                                                                                                             .
       15


       10

                                nm
                                     .
        5

                            I                   I                     I                        I        I
        0
            0             50                 100                    150                 200            250             300
                                               Housing              Cost Index
 Turnover   4.22 + .08731(Housing
                  n                Index                 1
 Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons




                                             Inadequate staffing levels and inexperienced staff may result in several
                                             legal and administrative problems for BOP, including
                      Y




                                             Page 209                                                   OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                  Appendix V
                                  Compensation     of Law Enforcement   Positions
                                  in the Federal   Bureau of Prisons




                              . potential escape, riot, and hostage situations that can result from having
                                an increasingly large and sophisticated inmate population managed by
                                inexperienced personnel;
                              . a decline in the quality of service delivery systems in the areas of medi-
                                cal services, psychological services, and inmate management;
                              . loss of accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation of the Ameri-
                                can Correctional Association; and
                              l exorbitant expense in overtime costs, in that all correctional posts must
                                be manned.


                      At the onset of our study, it was mutually agreed upon by the Commis-
Commission Study of   sion staff and the Bureau of Prisons that it would be impractical for the
Bureau of Prisons Law commission staff to study all of BOPoccupations in the time frame estab-
Enforcement           lished for the study. It was decided that only one occupation-correc-
                      tional officer-would    be examined in the job equivalency portion of the
Occupations           study. Five 1301’occupations-correctional    officer, correctional institu-
                                  tion administrator, psychologist, accountant, and physician’s assis-
                                  tant-were    chosen to be included in the Federal Pay and Benefits
                                  Survey, the Federal Recruitment and Retention Survey, and the Federal
                                  Employee Survey. It was agreed that BOPwould gather information on
                                  its most populous occupations other than correctional officer and cor-
                                  rectional institution administrator and provide the information for this
                                  report.


                                  The following sections compare the compensation of 19 occupations
BOP Report on                     between HOI’, state correctional systems, and the private sector. Each of
Compensation of 19                the 19 occupations studied had at least 100 employees. Salary data for
Positions                         27 state and 13 county governments in areas in which federal institu-
                                  tions are located were collected during July 1989 through a compensa-
                                  tion survey. All 27 states and 10 of the 13 counties responded to the
                                  survey, representing a response rate of 93 percent. County data were
                                  excluded from this report because of their inconsistency with BOI’ and




                                  Page 210                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
---..----__-
                          Appendix V
                          Compensation     of Law Enforcement   Positions
                          in the Federal   Bureau of Prisons




                          state data (e.g., job titles and descriptions appeared significantly differ-
                          ent from both BOPand state data). Salary information for the private
                          sector was obtained from several sources, depending on the occupation.:>

                          Two important points on the study methodology should be noted: (1)
                          unlike the base of comparison in the occupations intensely reviewed in
                          the Commission study, the salary information used in the BOPstudy was
                          not weighted on the basis of the size of the respondents’ workforce; and
                          (2) the BOPsurvey asked respondents to report the midpoint salary, as
                          opposed to the full performance level salary. Differences may exist in
                          the responses that may make direct comparisons between these posi-
                          tions and those studied most intensely by the Commission inaccurate.

-              _----
Results of Salary Study   Table V. 1, at the end of this appendix, presents the salary ranges of the
                          19 occupations studied in BOPand an average of the 27 state correctional
                          departments, Table V. 1 also shows the percentage by which BOP'Ssala-
                          ries exceed or lag behind state salaries. Table V.2, also at the end of this
                          appendix, contrasts the salary ranges of the various occupations in HOP
                          with the salaries paid in the private sector. It also shows the percentage
                          by which BOPsalaries exceed or lag behind the private sector.


Entry-Level Salaries      Tables V. 1 and V.2 show that the entry-level salaries (shown on the
                          tables as minimum salary) for BOPlag behind those offered by state gov-
                          ernments and private industry for several occupations. In fact, BOP
                          entry-level salaries were lower than state salaries in 10 of 19 occupa-
                          tions by more than 9 percent, and they were lower than private sector
                          salaries in 12 of 19 occupations by more than 10 percent. It should be
                          noted that state entry-level requirements for the 10 positions are gener-
                          ally higher than HOI minimum qualifications for the same positions. In
                          spite of this, the fact that HOPentry-level salaries lag behind those paid
                          by the state and the private sector may have a significant impact on

                          “Data for “secretary” and “accountant” were obtained from the National Survey of ~‘rOfC!SShdl,
                          Administrative, Technical, and Clerical Pay: Private Nonservice Industries, March, 1988, published
                          by the 1J.S.Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin #2317. These data were
                          adjusted to 1989 standards using the 1989 RI8 Employment Cost Index (4.6 percent). Data for “phy-
                          sician assistant” were obtained from the American Academy of Physician Assistants 1989 Salary
                          Kcport. Data for “psychologist” was obtained from Salaries in Psychology, 1987, published by the
                          American Psychological Association. These data were updated to 1989 standards using the 1988 and
                          1989 BIS Employment Cost Index (5.2 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively). Data for the remaining
                          occupations were obtained by IIewitt Associates from different sources by matching BOP job descrip-
                          tions against published salary surveys that reported similar job duties and responsibilities. When
                          necessary, data from different surveys were adjusted to the same time frame (August 1989) using an
                          update factor computed by Ikwitt Associates’ 12th Annual Survey of Salary Increases.



                          Page 211                                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
                                                                                                           k
                                                                                               ..          1

                         Appendix V
                         Compensation     of Law Enforcement   Positions
                         in the Federal   Bureau of Prisons




--
                         BOP’Sability to recruit and retain employees at the entry level. If begin-
                         ning salaries are not competitive with both state government and pri-
                         vate industry, it is difficult to expect to attract and keep the best
                         qualified employees.

                         Table V.3, at the end of this appendix, presents comparable entry-level
                         salaries for BOP,state correctional departments, and the private sector.
                         It also shows the first-year separation rate of employees in select occu-
                         pations within BOP.Interestingly, some BOPoccupations that experience
                         very high first-year separation rates also tend to lag behind the state
                         and/or private industry entry-level salaries. These positions include
                         case managers, recreation specialists, personnel management specialists,
                         secretaries, physician’s assistants, legal technicians, and teachers. As
                         documented in Table V.3, these positions have first year separation
                         rates that exceed 19 percent. It is possible to conclude that one reason
                         individuals in these occupations leave BOPis that they can obtain a much
                         higher first-year salary with the state or private industry.

                         There are some exceptions to this trend in that accounting technicians,
                         nurses, utility systems repair foremen, and maintenance worker fore-
                         men all have relatively high first-year separation rates (greater than 17
                         percent), but BOPentry-level salaries either exceed or are equivalent to
                         those of states and/or the private industry. Perhaps issues with little
                         relation to compensation (i.e., working conditions) also compel individu-
                         als in these occupations to leave BOP.It should be noted, however, that
                         according to BOPexit interview statistics, more than 70 percent of sepa-
                         rating employees state they liked their jobs with BOP.The major reasons
                         these same employees cite for leaving are pay and better job
                         opportunities.


Full Performance Level   The results shown in Table V.l indicate that BOI’ salaries meet or exceed
Salaries                 the midpoint of full performance salaries paid to state employees across
                         all occupations with the exception of contract specialists. While it is not
                         as obvious when comparing BOPwith the private sector (see Table V.2),
                         it appears that BOPequals-and, in most instances, surpasses-the mid-
                         level salaries paid in the private industry. It is worth noting that four
                         ISOPoccupations fall behind private industry at all salary levels. These
                         occupations are psychologists, personnel management specialists, secre-
                         taries, and accountants. Thus, there is evidence that a number of HOI’
                         occupations have pay scales that appear to be noncompetitive with pri-
                         vate industry regardless of career tenure.



                         Page 212                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                           Appendix V
                           Compensation     of Law Enforcement   Positions
                           in the Federal   Bureau of Prisons




Geographical Differences   The BOPstudy was done on a nationwide basis only. Data demonstrate
                           that more dramatic salary discrepancies exist in a number of the state
                           departments of corrections. For example, business managers in BOP have
                           average minimum salaries of $30,776 up to a full performance salary of
                           $41,310. In contrast, the California state system pays a minimum salary
                           of $42,864 up to $47,304 for mid-level salaries, and the Pennsylvania
                           State Department of Corrections pays $32,411 at the entry level and
                           $40,039 for business managers at the full performance level. Case mana-
                           gers in the New York Department of Corrections start at $30,657 as
                           compared to $15,738 for BOP employees. Similarly, the New York
                           Department of Corrections pays an entry-level salary of $21,939 for
                           teachers; BOP pays $15,738. No full performance level salary informa-
                           tion was provided by the New York Department of Corrections, which
                           had an impact on the data. While the national averages used in the BOP
                           study present a broad view of pay comparability, geographical differ-
                           ences are significant and can directly affect recruitment and retention.


Conclusion-l               By far, the most significant finding in the BOP study of the 19 occupa-
                           tions is that BOP entry-level salaries tend to be lower than those salaries
                           offered by states and private industry. This finding extends our conclu-
                           sion to a whole range of law enforcement occupations in the Commis-
                           sion’s study universe not studied by our surveys and reinforces the
                           validity of our recommendation that entry-level salaries must be
                           increased nationwide for all law enforcement occupations. Clearly, if
                           beginning salaries are not competitive with both state governments and
                           private industry, it is difficult to recruit the best qualified applicants.

                           The study of the full performance level positions indicates that BOP sala-
                           ries meet or exceed the midpoint of salaries paid to state employees
                           across all occupations with the exception of contract specialists. The BOP
                           study was done on a nationwide basis only. Data demonstrate that sal-
                           ary discrepancies exist in a number of the state departments of correc-
                           tions This finding again confirms the results of our State and Local
                           Salary and Benefits Survey that show that full performance levels are
                           not as problematic on a national basis but a pay disparity exists in some


                           ‘When 1101’results arc examined, a few cautionary notes require mentioning. First, data for each
                           occupation were viewed on a nationwide basis. It is likely that greater salary discrepancies would
                           emerge if broken down by geographic locations. Second, BOP occupations were matched to state
                           department of corrections and private industry occupations may be the basis of relatively condensed
                           1301’job descriptions. It is likely that some occupations may not be exact matches as a result of the
                           small amount of information that was provided.



                           Page 213                                                           OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement      Pay
Appendix V
Compensation     of Law Enforcement   Positions
in the Federal   Bureau of Prisons




major employment areas. Both findings coincide to justify our recom-
mendation of locality pay.

Some 130~occupations fall behind private industry at all salary levels.
These include psychologists, personnel management specialists, secre-
taries, and accountants. Thus there is evidence that a number of HOP
occupations have pay scales that appear to be noncompetitive with pri-
vate industry regardless of career tenure.

While BOP’sexit interview program reveals that pay, not working condi-
tions, is the greater cause of turnover, the correctional institution envi-
ronment cannot be dismissed as a negative factor in the recruitment and
retention of employees. Even where the salaries are competitive, work-
ing conditions discourage recruitment. Unlike other federal and most
private industry employment, BOPwork is rarely performed in a safe
and secure office setting. Besides the threat of assault, additional risks
involve contact in a relatively close environment with inmates who have
communicable diseases such as hepatitis B, tuberculosis, or acquired
immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Even the comparison of job respon-
sibilities to state departments of corrections shows that BOPrequires
added duties from its employees. In addition to being responsible for
their specific job duties, all BOPstaff must also maintain institution
security, supervise inmates, respond to emergencies, and face the daily
possibility of assault. Our State and Local Government Salary and Bene-
fits Survey for Corrections revealed that only 8 percent of respondents
indicated that non-correctional officer employees supervise inmates
without the immediate presence of correctional officers and are required
to respond to both inmate incidents and general disturbances in the
institution.




Page 214                                          OCG90.2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                                          Appendix V
                                                          Compensation         of Law Enforcement        Positions
                                                          in the Federal       Bureau of Prisons




Table V.l: Comparison of Bureau of Prisons’ Salaries With State Departments of Corrections Salaries, 1989
                                                                    State departments of corrections
                                     BOP salary rangea                        salary rangeb               Differences between
                                                      Number of -                           Number of SOP and State SalarieS
Occupation                    Minimum      MiWt;;    ewW@=;         M;;y5!        MW-&;;; employees       Minimum      Midpoint
Case manager                             $15,738                                                                                   NA               -29.0%                        12.6%
                                                           --. , .._- . . ---.----
Psychologist                              28,852              45,921                  111           26,739           33,286        NA                  7.9                        38.0
Recreation       specialist               15,738             26,231                   133           19,558           23,958        NA               -19.5                           9.5
                                                                                                                                                                            ---
Personnel      officer                    34,580             40,733                    70           24,616           29,809        NA                 40.5                        36.6
Personnel management
  specialist                              19,493          24,641              117         22,414                     27,196        NA               -13.0                           9.4
                                                   ~~~.~~ ~~.._~. ~-..~- ~~~ .-..- ~.~...
Secretary                                 12,531          17,313              672         14,930              -17;165              NA               -16.1
                                                                                                                                                                             -
                                                                                                                                                                               -2.5
                                                                                                                                                                                   .-
Bustness       manager                    30,776             41,310                    66           27,094           32,960        NA                 13.6                      25.3
Accountant                                15,738             24,641                   174           21,652           24,955        NA               -27.3                         -1.3
Accounting       technrcian               15,738             19,493                   203           15,781           18,803        NA                     0                        3.7
Phystcran’s      assistant                19,493             31,738                   341           24,610           28,954        NA               -20,8---        -.-..         s.6

Nurse                                     23,846             29,761                   123
                                                                                            ~--~ ---.23,301          26,096        NA
                                                                                                                                             -_--       2.3                       14.0
Legal technician                          15,738             21,659               487               18,015           21,469        NA             -12.6                                  .8
                                                                                                                                            __-___
Contract      snecialist                  15.738     -~      26.231               210               24.507           30.230        NA             -35.8        ----iTsT
                                                             .-..:--. ~~ ~-. -~ -..~
Food service       admin.                 28;852             37,510               119               23,197           28,053        NA                 24.4                        33.7
Teacher                                   15,738             32,219                   236           21,420           26,922        NA               -26.5                         19.7
                                                                                                                              ________.--                                 .----
Util. sys. repair foreman                 25,211             31,889                   197--.~-20,213                 22,675        NA                 24.7                        40.6
                                                                                       --     ~~-__
Maintenance        worker      foreman    24,272             33,204                   291           20,496           23,660    ___-~
                                                                                                                                   NA                18.4                         40.3
                                                                                -    - --.~-         .___                                        __-__.~-
Warehouse        worker       foreman     16,279   ~-        24,001                   339           17,894           21,046        NA               -9.0                          14.0
                                                                                                                                        ______
Cook foreman                              24,272             31,159                   454           17,193           20,827        NA                 41.2                        49.6

                                                          Note: NA = Not available.
                                                          “Entry-level salary information for BOP is the average of the lowest reported salaries within each
                                                          occupation.

                                                          “Salaries included in this column are from 27 states and 10 counties in which federal prisons are
                                                          located. All 27 states responded to the survey. They are AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, GA,
                                                          CO, CT, AZ, NM,KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NM, NY, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV. Salaries are
                                                          an average across all states of the lowest reported salaries within each occupation.




                                    Y




                                                          Page 216                                                                 OCG90-2 Law Enforcement                         Pay
                                             Appendix V
                                             Compensation     of Law Enforcement     Positions
                                             in the Federal   Bureau of Prisons




Table V.2: Comparison of Bureau of Prisons’ Salaries With Private Industry Salaries, 1989
                                     BOP salary rangea                       Private industryb
                                                      Number of                                Number of BOP/private                            percentage
Occupation                    Minimum      Midpoint employees        Minimum                               Minimum
                                                                                   Midpoint employees ____---.                                      Midpoint
Case manager                    $15,738        $28,852             408           ___-__-
                                                                               $20,200           $24,300            945             -22.1                  18.7
Psychologrst                     28,852         45,921             111         TiyG-- ~-          52,563          3,064             -17-~5           .-. -12.6
Recreation specialist            15,738
                                 34,580         26,231
                                                40,733             133
                                                              ~..~____
                                                                    70          20,400
                                                                                34,900            24,700
                                                                                                      NA            570
                                                                                                                    161
                                                                                                                    I_-----__       -22.9
                                                                                                                                      -o,g.-~               6.2
                                                                                                                                                    .. -~~~~NA
Personnel officer                              .-    ..__ ~              ____-.                                                         ___~~ .- ~~~
Personnel management
   specialist                     19,493        24,641            117         29,400              37,200           949              -33.7               -33.8
Secretary                         12,531        17,313            672         17,840
                                                                                ---               23,375 -__355,845-                -29.8               -25.9
Busmess manager                   30,776 ~~ 41,310 -~~~-.          66         39,200                  NA .___~      50            -21.5                    NA
Accountant                        15,738        24,64i        ..-174          22,950              39,184     147,170
                                                                                                              -___                -31.4                -37.1
Accounttng technician             15,738        19,493            203         14,600              16,300       10,331 __~            7.8                  19.6
Phystctan’s assistant             19,493        31,738            341         25,000              32,500            NA            -22.0
                                                                                                                                _____.~..                -2.3
                                                                                                                                                      ___-
Nurse                             23.846        29.761            123         22.900              27.700         5,341               4.1                   7.4
Legal technlctan                  15,738        21,659           487          20,200              25,000           286.           -22.1                -13.4
Contract specialtst               15,738        26,231
                                                  ~. --_. ~~~~~ .~210         22,300                  NA           188            -29.4                    NA
Food servrce admin.               28,852        37,510            119 _~~~- 32,300                    NA
                                                                                                               --___24            -10.7                    NA
Teacher                           15,738 ~~~-..-.~-.~~
                                                32,219 ~~~      236        .-~\lA                     NA            NA               NA                    NA
Util. sys. repair foreman         25,211 ~. 31,889 ~~~- .         197 .~~..~ 220 200              24,600           216
                                                                                                                   -__-.-~          24.8                  29.6
Matntenance worker foreman     ~- 24,272~~~~~ ..33,204.
                                              _-.-.--_~~~      ~~~~~
                                                              ~~~             21 ,400             26,400           436              13.4                  25.8
Warehouse worker foreman          16,279        24,001           339          18,200              22,300           316            -10.6                    7.6
Cook foreman                      24.272        31.159           454          18.100              21.900         1.068              34.1                  42.3
                                             Note: NA = Not available
                                             “Entry-level salary Information for BOP is the average of the lowest reported salaries within each
                                             occupation.
                                             “Salaries included In this column are from 27 states and 10 counties in which federal prisons are
                                             located. All 27 states responded to the survey. They are AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, GA,
                                             CO, CT, AZ, NM,KS, KY, LA, MI, MN, MO, NC, NM, NY, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV. Salanes are
                                             an average across all states of the lowest reported salaries within each occupation.




                                             Page 216                                                               OCG90-2 Law Enforcement                  Pay
                                           Appendix V
                                           Compensation        of Law Enforcement       Positions
                                           in the Federal      Bureau of Prisons




Table V.3: Comoarison of Entrv-Level Salaries
                                                 SOP first-year                                         Salary information
                                                separation rate                                         State Department                     Private
Occupation                                            (percent)              BOPB                         of Correctionf9                  industryC
Case Manager                                                   19.0       $15,738                                 $22,158   -             $20,200
                                                                                                                                               -
Psychologrst                                                    7.7        28,852__                                26,739                  34,953
Recreatton Specralrst                                          28.6                                                19,558 -____
                                                                            15,738
                                                                                                                                    ___-- 20,400
Personnel Officer                                               0.0        34,580                                  24.616                   34,900
Personnel Management        Spectaltst                         25.0         19,493                                 221414                   29,400
Secretary
                                                ~~-~ --.-~ ..__ -.-- 12,531
                                                               23.6                                                14,930                   17,840
                                                                                                                                          ---.
Business Manager                                                NA         30,776                   -              27,094                   39,200
Accountant                                           -..~ ~- ~ 11.1         15,738                                 21,652                   22,950
                                                                    .~~-..~~
                                                                           .~- .----.
Accountinq     Technician                                      18.5         15,738                                 15,781     ___~-         14,601
                                                                                                                                                 .~
Phystctan    Assistant                                         23.6        19,493                           -      24,610                   25,000
Nurse                                                          38.1        23.846                                  23.301                   22,900
Legal Technician
                                                          .~- 27.3 - 15,738             -   _____                  18,015                   20,200
Contract Specialist                                           -~7~-~      15;138-            ___-~                 24,507                   22,300
                                                                                                                                     -_____---
Food Servrces Adminrstrator                                     0.0        28,852                                  23,197                   32,300
Teacher                                                        26.7       $15,738                                 $21,420               ___     NA
Utility Systems Reparr Foreman                                 17.2       $25,211                                 $20,213                 $20,200
Marntenance Worker Foreman                                     35.0       $24,272                                 $20,496                 $21,400
Warehouse Worker Foreman                                        8.0       $16,279                                 $17,894                 $18,200
                                                                                                                                            __
Cook Foreman                                                   13.2       $24,272                                 $17.193                 $18,100
                                           Note: NA = Not available.
                                           “Entry-level salary Information for BOP is the average of the lowest reported salaries within each
                                           occupation.
                                           “Salaries rncluded in thts column are from 27 states and 10 counties in which federal prisons are
                                           located. All 27 states responded to the survey. They are AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, GA,
                                           CO, CT, AZ, NM,KS, KY, LA, Ml, MN, MO, NC, NM, NY, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV. Salaries are
                                           an average across all states of the lowest reported salaries within each occupation.
                                           “Most of the data for pnvate industry was obtained from Hewitt Associates, Data for ‘secretary’ and
                                           ‘accountant’ were obtained from the National Survey of Professional, Administrative, Technical, and
                                           Clerical Pay: Pnvate Nonservice Industries, March, 1988 (PATC), published by the U.S. Department of
                                           Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin #2317. The data were adjusted to 1989 standards using the
                                           1989 BLS Employment Cost Index (4.5%). This figure was obtained from BLS’s Employment Cost
                                           Trends section. Data for ‘physician assistant’ was obtained from the American Academy of Physician
                                           Assrstants 1989 Salary Report The figures were extrapolated from a table that reported average salary
                                           ranges by years of experience. Therefore, the ‘min’ represents the lowest salary. The ‘mrd’ is simply the
                                           middle number between the ‘min’ and maximum salaries. Data for ‘psychologists’ were obtained from
                                           Salanes In Psychology, 1987, published by the American Psychological Association. Identical to the
                                           approach used to determtne the data for physician assistant’, the figures were extrapolated from a table
                                           that reported average salary ranges by years of experience These data were adjusted to 1989 stan-
                                           dards usrng the 1988 and 1989 BLS Employment Cost Index (5.2 percent for 1988; 4.5 percent for 1989).




                                           Page 217                                                                   OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendix VI                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                      1




Additional Data for Comparisonof Federal id-                                                                                                          ’
State and Local Law Enforcement
Retirement Benefits
                                         The Federal Employees Retirement System has been the exclusive
                                         retirement plan for employees whose continuous federal service began
                                         on or after January 1, 1984. In addition, employees who entered on duty
                                         before that date and were therefore covered by the Civil Service Retire-
                                         ment System had a one-time opportunity to irrevocably switch to FERS.
                                         Since the future law enforcement workforce will be covered by FERS,the
                                         present comparison of retirement benefits focuses on FERS.

                                         E'ERSbenefits are derived from three components: a defined benefit plan
                                         or annuity, a thrift plan, and Social Security. Additionally, to support
                                         the retirement of personnel before Social Security eligibility, FEW pro-
                                         vides a special supplemental annuity that is in addition to the basic pen-
                                         sion and any proceeds from the thrift plan. Note that two-thirds of
                                         police organizations surveyed have defined contribution plans rather
                                         than plans that include a Social Security component. On the other hand,
                                         80 percent of correctional and probation organizations have plans with
                                         Social Security coverage.

Table VI.1: Comparison of Contribution
Rates Including Social Security                                                      Percent of salary
                                                                                            employee
                                                                                        contributes to Social Security
                                                                                      retirement plan     rate in 1988                Combined
                                         State and local agencies with no
                                         social security coverage
                                                              ---__-                                 6.37                      0%      ..~..   6.37
                                         State and local agencies with
                                         social securitv                                             3.51                  6.06                9.57
                                         FERS                    ____.._~                            1.44                  6.06                7.50
                                         FEW with 2 percent thrift fund
                                         contribution                                                3.44                  6.06                9.50
                                         FEW with 5 percent thrift fund
                                         contribution                                                6.44                  6.06                12.5
                                         Note: When companng contribution rates, 37 percent of all law enforcement   organizations   with Social
                                         Security coverage require no employee contributions on their retirement.



                                         In 1988, the earnings test would have reduced any benefit where earned
Effect of Earned                         income exceeded $6,120 per year at a rate of $1 of benefit reduction for
Income Offset                            every $2 of excess earnings. For example, a retired Gs-7 corrections
                                         officer would probably find his or her FERSbenefits reduced to the basic
                                         annuity and thrift fund annuity (approximately 36 percent of final sal-
                                         ary where no employee contribution to the thrift fund had been made) if
                                         he or she had been over 55 and earned more than about $13,800. No
                                         such reduction was reported by any of the state and local retirement
                                         plans surveyed.


                                         Page 218                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement           Pay
                                            Appendix VI
                                            Additional Data for Comparison of Federal
                                            and State and Local Law Enforcement
                                            Retirement Benefits




Contributions to the Thrift                 Contributions to the thrift plan give the employee an opportunity to
Plan                                        enhance retirement benefits to a large extent. With the Supplement and
                                            a thrift plan contribution of 2 percent of salary, the FERSbenefits may
                                            exceed the average state and local retirement benefit. But if the FERS
                                            retiree works full time after retirement, the benefits will be offset and
                                            likely will be inferior unless the employee greatly increases his or her
                                            contribution to the thrift plan. At least a 4-to 5-percent contribution
                                            must be made to make FERSbenefits comparable without the supple-
                                            ment. That in turn makes the employee contribution to his or her retire-
                                            ment much more costly than the average. (See Table VI.2.)

Table Vl.2: Comparison of FERS Benefits
With Additional Thrift Fund Contributions                                                  FERS annuities as a percentage of final
                                                                                                          salary at
                                                                                            20 years of                 25 years of
                                                                                                service ___--               service
                                            FERS without sutMement                                  36                           41
                                            With contributions at rates comparable to
                                              average state and local employees (about 2
                                              percent of pay)                                       40                           46
                                            With 5-Dercent contribution                             48                           57


                                            Among the law enforcement agencies, the rate of participation in the
                                            thrift plan by FERSemployees is between 38 percent and 53 percent,
                                            according to the Federal Employees Thrift Investment Board. A 1988
                                            study by the board found that, generally, those who do participate con-
                                            tribute 5 percent or more of their salary. The study also found that par-
                                            ticipation varies with employee salary and that the most common reason
                                            given for not participating was that the employee believed he or she
                                            could not afford to contribute.

                                            In an August 1989 survey by the HOP,the participation rate of correc-
                                            tional officers (paid at GS-7 or GS-8 levels) was found to be 27 percent,
                                            well below the average. This survey also found that the correctional
                                            officers in a high cost of living area, as determined by eligibility for spe-
                                            cial salary rates, were much less likely to participate in the thrift fund
                                            than those in a “low” cost of living area. Average participation rates
                                            were 19 percent in high cost compared to 45 percent in the low cost
                                            areas, although the contributions averaged near 5 percent regardless of
                                            the cost of living.

                                            Those who do participate generally contribute enough to benefit from
                                            the whole matching contributions of the federal employer, and, in this
                                            way, assure themselves maximum potential benefits. But if employee


                                            Page 219                                                  OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
                                            Appendix VI
                                            Additional Data for Comparison of Federal
                                            and State and Local Law Enforcement
                                            Retirement Benefits




                                            participation rates do not change, large numbers may receive substan-
                                            tially lower benefits, Lower paid workers may be particularly
                                            vulnerable.


Cost of Living                              FEW has a much more generous cost of living adjustment than those
Adjustments                                 afforded retirees in state and local law enforcement. Four out of 10 state
                                            and local law enforcement agencies provide no cost of living adjust-
                                            ments at all. Of those that do, few provide full adjustment to the Con-
                                            sumer Price Index (CPI). Many provide adjustments only at the
                                            discretion of the pension trust or state legislature or local government. If
                                            automatic adjustments are made, they are typically capped at 3 or 4
                                            percent per year; they are sometimes limited to a lifetime maximum
                                            increase. FERSalso has a limited adjustment: no adjustment is paid on
                                            thrift proceeds except those subject to actuarial reduction; no cost of
                                            living is paid on the supplement; and the cost of living on the basic
                                            annuity is cut by one percentage point if the CPIis more than 2 percent.
                                            Nonetheless, FERSmaintains the value of its benefit dollars better than
                                            other state and local plans.

Table Vl.3: Estimated Effect of Inflation
on Retirement Benefits                                                                             Retirement annuities as a percentage of
                                                                                                                final salary at
                                                                                                         age 50         age 62       age 75
                                            State and local agencies with no Social
                                              Security coveragea                                              46                37                 27
                                            State and local agencies with Social Skcurity”                    42          __..~~..33    --...-~ ~- 24
                                            FERS without supplement ..____    _____                           36
                                                                                                          ____.___              32                 27
                                            FERS (without supplement plus 2-percent
                                              contribution to thrift Dlan)                                      40               35                  29
                                            Note: Inflation in these calculations is assumed at 4 percent average annually, as used by the Social
                                            Security Trustees in their standard economic assumptions.
                                            “Assumes a COLA equal to CPI minus 2 percent.


                                            The value of this adjustment cannot be underestimated. Once Social
                                            Security benefits begin, the FERSemployee is essentially as well off with
                                            his or her retirement income as the state and local employee. In real
                                            dollars, and as a percentage of final salary, the FERSretirement benefit
                                            will actually “catch up” with that of the average state and local
                                            employee.




                                            Page 220                                                              OCG90-2 Law Enforcement           Pay
                       Appendix VI
                       Additional Data for Comparison of Federal
                       and State and Local Law Enforcement
                       Retirement Benefits




                       It is difficult to make a simple overall comparison of retirement benefits
Comparing Retirement   because (1) the federal plan is so different from those of state and local
Benefits by Group      law enforcement organizations and (2) the predominant practices among
                       them vary considerably by the different occupations in our universe.

                       Among police, more than two-thirds of the retirement plans are not cov-
                       ered by Social Security. The age of retirement and years of service
                       requirement are typically the same as in FERS.However, the benefits are
                       even more generous than the average cited above. Even if the federal
                       employee contributes 5 percent of his or her salary to the thrift plan,
                       that level of benefit would not be achieved. And with such a contribu-
                       tion, the deduction from pay would rise to 12.5 percent--more than twice
                       what these police employees have taken from their pay for retirement.

                       The predominant retirement plan among more than 80 percent of pris-
                       ons is covered by Social Security. Retirement benefits are, on average,
                       40 percent of salary with 20 years of service and 50 percent of salary
                       with 25 years of service. However, many organizations reported in our
                       survey that they pay even more. Compared to these, FERSbenefits are
                       less generous, even with increased contributions to the thrift fund,
                       which it appears some correctional employees may have difficulty
                       making.

                       State and local probation officers are generally not covered by a special
                       law enforcement retirement plan as they are in the federal government.
                       Typically, they retire at a much older age (the average is SS), and their
                       benefits average 36 percent for 20 years of service and 44 percent from
                       25 years, rates that are only slightly better than FERS.




                       Page 221                                         OCGgO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendix VII

Staff of the National Advisory Commissionon
Law Enforcement

                        Cameron Craig, Special Agent, FBI
                        Lorraine Gentile, Special Agent, EPA/oIG
                        Robert Hengstebeck, Special Agent, DOD
                        Sara Herlihy, Special Agent, GAO/OSI
                        Jeff Johns, Assistant Inspector, Secret Service
                        Patrick Mullen, Deputy Staff Director, GAO
                        Jacques Pokoyk, Chief, Wage Systems Division, OPM
                        Robert H. Reed, Supervisory Special Agent, INS
                        Joseph Sadler, Special Agent, IRS/CID
                        Dick Suekawa, Assistant Special Agent-In-Charge, Secret Service
                        Regina Sullivan, Deputy Personnel Director, ROP
                        Drew Valentine, Staff Director, GAO
                        Bob Walker, Senior Evaluator, GAO
                        Chris Warrener, Special Agent, FBI
                        Steve Weigler, Assistant Personnel Officer, U.S. Marshals
                        Ed Wood, Regional Inspector General, SBA/OIG

                   -
                        Al Banwart, Survey Statistician, FBI
Additional Assistance   James Bell, Operations Research Analyst, GAO
Provided by             Stu Kaufman, Social Science Analyst, GAO
                        Joanne Parker, Social Service Analyst, GAO




                        Page 222                                       OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
Appendix VIII

Additional Views of Commissioners



                          ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN DON EDWARDS,
                 CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM J. HUGHES, FBI DIRECTOR WILLIAM S. SESSIONS,
                DEA ADMINISTRATOR JOHN C. LAWN, AND ERNEST J. ALEXANDER, NATIONAL
                   PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL IWVESTIGATORS ASSOCIATION
                          The Commission's                  report      convincingly          documents            the need for
                immediate          improvements               in the pay and benefits                      of federal           law
                enforcement          officers.               However,       due to the specific                    legislative
                language         defining          the scope of the Commission's                            jurisdiction,
                certain         employees          in law enforcement                could     not be included                      in the
                Commission's              formal      recommendations.                 The support             personnel              at
                covered         agencies       are one group that                   was excluded             from the study
                universe.           Yet support              employees         face the same financial                         burdens
                as law enforcement                  officers          and are just           as deserving               of relief.
                          Support         personnel          are critical           to the mission               of law
                enforcement          agencies.               They hold         positions       of the highest                   trust.
                These are the employees                        who translate           and transcribe                  intercepted
                conversations.               In some cases,                they monitor            Title       III's          and
                conduct         certain      types          of surveillance.               They have custody                    of
                evidence         and seized           property,           and they maintain                 equipment
                inventories          worth         millions          of dollars.           They run their                agencies'
                manual and computerized                        information          databases,         where they               have
                access to electronic                       surveillance         indexes,       intelligence               data,            and
                the names of targets                       and informants.             In many cases,                  they     are

                privy      to sensitive             information            before      the case agent                  knows it:            in
                few cases does information                           not pass through           their         hands.            At the
                FBI,      all    support      employees              require     a Top Secret               clearance.
                        These employees                    face the same financial                  burdens            as agent
                personnel.           Indeed,          if     anything       their      situation            is more acute,




                           Paye223                                                                               OCG90-2LawEnforcementPay
-
           Appendix VIII
           Additional Views of Commissioners




                                                               2

    since       support        personnel       are trying             to make ends meet             on     $14,000

    or     $17,000.           The problem           is particularly               acute      in the high           cost-
    OS-living          cities.           In several           major     cities,          the FBI collected
    data      comparing           its    salaries       with        salaries           paid by state       and local
    agencies          and private          employers.               The results            are dramatic.             For
    example,          in San Francisco,               city         and county           law enforcement
    agencies          pay support          personnel           $4,000      to $~~,ooo more than                    the
    FBI.

                                                               Y SURVEY

                       BASIC PAY IN GBBPE                                                                EBZ
              Secretary           I                                             $19,120                  $14,822

              Senior      Telephone          Operator                             19,400                   13,248
              Secretary           II                                              22,120                   18,174
              Executive           Secretary                                       24,240                   20,806

              Legal     Stenographer                                              25,980                   14,822

              Administrative              Secretary                               27,120                   23,723

              Senior      Legal         Stenographer                              28,580                   18,174

              Confidential              Secretary                                 33,980                   18,174


                       The above salary                information             was from the following
    offices:
                       District          Attorney                               Public       Defender
                       City      Attorney                                       Fire       Department
                       Sheriff's          Office                                Police       Department
                       Probation          Office                                City       of San Francisco
                       San Francisco
                        International               Airport




            Page224                                                                             OCG9OdLawEnforcementPay
          AppendixVtU
          AddMonalViewsofChtunissioners




                                                             3

          These figures            translate          into         shortages           in support           personnel,
and problems             in retaining          qualified,                 experienced           employees.            In
Newark,        FBI support          staff      vacancies             were recently                7% of targeted
staffing         levels.       Resignation             rates          for     the support            staff        equaled
12.32      in fiscal         year    1988.          The Newark office                        was able       to add 8
part      time    employes         only     after      testing              145 candidates.                 In New
York City,             the FBI found that,              for         each support               employee hired,
more than         100 prospects             started          the application                   process.           These
problems         are repeated             in other      agencies              and in other                major
cities.
          To respond        to this         developing              crisis,       the Commission's
recommendation             on locality          pay should                 be extended            to all
employees         of law enforcement                 agencies              in geographical                 areas
covered        by the locality              pay recommendation.                         If     locality       pay is
not adopted             government-wide,             this          proposal       will         produce       a
differential             between     support         personnel               in law enforcement
agencies         and     support     personnel          in other              agencies.            But the
greater        unfairness          would result              if     agent personnel                got a locality
pay differential              and support            personnel               in the same agency did
not.       One of the bases for                 the Commission's                       recommendations              is
that      law enforcement,             because of the sensitivity                               and importance
of its       work,       is facing        a personnel               crisis       and deserves               special
attention.             Those justifications                       apply      equally          to support
personnel.




          Page226                                                                                 OCG90-2LawEnforcementPay
         AppendLx      VIII
         Additional     Views of Commissionera




                                                         4
         There        is also     a serious         morale       issue.          In 1988, the FBI was
statutorily            authorized         to pay additional               compensation           to agents
in New York City.                 The exclusion           of     a large         percentage        of support
employees            caused deep morale              problems.
         In response,           Congress          approved       legislation          in 1989 to extend
the program to all                FBI employees              in New York City.              At     a hearing
on whether            to extend        the program before              the Subcommittee              on

Compensation            and Employee Benefits                   of the House Committee                 on Post
Office        and Civil        Service,          Suzanne Bender,           the physical            security
specialist            and a senior         support       employee         at the FBI's           New York
Field      Office,        testified:
                     "1 feel,  as do a lot of people that I represent,        that
                     it has been a gross inequity,     what has happened to us
                     in the office.    The agents go out, collect     information,
                     solve the cases, but we are the backbone of that
                     office.   We handle all that information     that comes in.
                     There is no judicial   proceeding   that you can handle
                     without  documented evidence.
                     We take care of everything     that comes into that office,
                     handle it, send it out to the other offices,      process it
                     for the U.S. Attorney.      People feel that they have been
                     unfairly  handled, unfairly    taken care of.   They feel
                     that they work hand-in-hand      with the agents and that
                     they should be compensated in the same way."
         Her comments apply                equally       to support             personnel       in other
agencies.
         What does it           benefit          law enforcement           if     we increase        the
compensation            of agents         only     to find      them typing           routine       documents
because their            agencies         cannot      attract      and retain          qualified
support        personnel?




         Page226                                                                        OCG90-2LawEnforcementPay
          AppendixVIJI
          AdditionalVkwsofCommissioners




                                                     5
          The views       expressed        herein    are directed      only      to the
Commission*s          locality       pay     recommendation.         Extending       that    one
recommendation            to support        personnel     in the 10 or 11 cities               that.
would      be covered       should     not increase        the overall        cost    of the
Commission's         package so much as to jeopardize                    the package's
chances       of being      adopted.          The Commission        estimates      that     locality
pay for       law enforcement          officers       would cost      between      $50-75
million       annually.          Extending      it   to support      personnel       would     cost
about      half   that     much, i.e.,         $25-37 million        annually.




          Page227                                                                OCG90-2LawEnforcement Pay
Appendix     VIII
Additional    Views of Commissioners




                                                  U.S. Department of Justice

                                                   Federal Bureau of Investigation




                                                 February       23,   1990

                                                 BY LIAISON
Honorable    Charles  A. Bowsher
Chairman,    National  Advisory  Commission
    on Law Enforcement
General    Accounting  Office
Washington,     D.C.
Dear    Chairman      Bowsher:
                  The National           Advisory    Commission       on Law Enforcement             was
established           to study pay and benefit                issues    facing      Federal      law
enforcement           agencies,        to identify      any disparity,          and to make
recommendations              necessary        or appropriate        to rectify       any
inequities          identified.           Pay disparity         and the high cost of living
in certain          areas has had a negative                impact    on the morale           and
lifestyle         of FBI personnel              and on our operational
responsibilities.                  The FBI has devoted           a great     deal of time and
energy     to address            these problems.          However,      recognizing         that
there     was much to be gained                  by a comprehensive          study     of these      pay
and benefits            issues,       I was pleased       to cooperate         with    the
Commission's            efforts.

                In a relatively        short    period      of time,    the Commission
staff     have undertaken       the difficult          task of compiling        the
necessary       data and information          and preparing         a report    with
recommendations.            The end result        of the Commission's         work are
recommendations          which will     generally        address    concerns    of various
Federal      law enforcement        agencies.        Although     I support     the
Commission's         work,   it is important         to again bring        to your
attention       some concerns       which I have identified             with  the report
and certain        recommendations        as they apply         to the FBI.

                With regard        to the report,        I previously        communicated        my
concern      that    the Commission          has not sufficiently          distinguished
the various         Federal     law enforcement         organizations.
Generalizations           about the work and responsibilities                    of Federal
law enforcement           agencies      may leave     the erroneous         impression      that
all    are performing         generally       similar    duties.       The report,       in
certain      areas,     divides      Federal     law enforcement        into     four




Page 228                                                                          OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
      Appendix     VIII
      Additional    Views of Commissioners




Honorable      Charles     A. Bowsher

categories:   nonuniformed    officers,     uniformed officers,
corrections  officers,    and probation     officers.    For this report,
FBI Special Agents are grouped in the nonuniformed            officers
category.   I believe   the category     of nonuniformed    officers   is
too broad and unwieldy to afford        fair or accurate comparisons.
                Even the report implies          that this grouping may be
unwieldy.        The report notes that the duties and responsibilities
of Federal uniformed officers,               correctional      officers     and
probation       officers     are essentially       equivalent      to their   state and
local counterparts.             However, the duties and responsibilities              of
Federal nonuniformed            positions    generally     exceed those of state
and local nonunifonned            officer    positions.       Specifically,      53
percent of the Federal nonuniformed                 positions     were evaluated    to
be above state/local            positions.     The work of FBI Agents is
multijurisdictional            and very complex, often involving             years of
extensive       investigation.         FBI Special Agents should not be
grouped with other Federal investigators                   who have narrow, less-
complex responsibilities.
               This issue of grouping jobs or positions                becomes
particularly         important      if that is the basis upon which pay
adequacy or disparity             is evaluated.       For example, I note that the
report states that the pay gap was found to be most extensive                          at
the entry level,          but that there is data to show that the pay gap
exists     at the full      performance level in certain           geographic      areas.
I believe      that the pay gap at both the entry and the full
performance        levels    is more pervasive       with regard to those
Federal nonuniformed            investigators      whose jobs or
responsibilities          were found to be more complex or difficult                than
the state and local group with whom they were compared.
Therefore,       the report's         conclusions   and recommendations        regarding
pay deserve additional              scrutiny    by both the Administration         and
Congress.        More difficult,          complex responsibilities      justify
higher pay at both the entry and full                  performance   levels.
            The report contains   a proposal that all entry-level
grades GS 3 through GS 10 receive special           salary rates.      The
proposal compresses pay among these entry-level             positions.     This
recommendation seems to base the increases           solely   on a comparison
of the individual    grade to the state and local average salaries
for all positions    as opposed to a comparison of the pay of
specific  Federal jobs to specific      state and local jobs.          Such
general comparisons disadvantage      those Federal law enforcement
agencies which hire law enforcement        officers     at higher grades due
to the complex and difficult     nature of the work performed.
             Also, with regard to the special              salary rate proposal,
it   is noted that no increases  are proposed              for employees in




      Page 229                                                       OCGQO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
     Appendix       VJII
     Additional      Views of Commissioners




Honorable         Charles   A. Bowsher

grades above GS 10. This recommendation will                  also compress pay
among GS 10 through GS 15 Federal law enforcement                  officers.         In
addition,     in a short time newer Federal law enforcement                  officers
will    be earning more than those with more seniority.                  The FBI
therefore     believes      that legislation      enacting this Commission
recommendation must incorporate              percentage   increases     for those
law enforcement        officers    in positions      above GS 10. Further,
raising    the pay cap as it applies           to overtime should also be
considered.
            A major concern with the Commission's        report is the
fact that the report does not sufficiently       address the pay
disparity   and cost-of-living   problems which are facing Federal
law enforcement    support employees.    I join with Congressman Don
Edwards and others in recommending that the locality           pay proposal
be expanded to cover all law enforcement       support employees in
those locations    where Federal law enforcement     officers    would
receive locality    pay.
             Finally,   in my letter     to you dated February 21, 1989, I
identified    certain   other pay and benefit          issues which have not
been addressed in the Commission's report.                   For example, I
communicated certain       problems in the Federal Employees
Compensation Act (FECA) or the regulations                 implementing      that Act.
I noted that certain       organs should be added to the list                of organs
for which lump sum compensation will           be paid if there is a loss
of or injury     to the organ.      I understand       that,      on behalf of the
Commission, you will       be communicating      support of certain            changes
in the FECA. In my letter,          I also noted that the reimbursement
permitted    for the relocation       expenses of new Agents is less than
that allowed for employees already working for a law enforcement
agency.    Such disparity      creates financial         difficulties      for those
new Agents who are relocated         to their    first       office.    This
situation    should also be addressed.
           I look forward to cooperating    with Congress as it
pursues legislation   to address these and other problems.       There
remains much to be done before the pay problems facing the FBI
and other Federal law enforcement agencies can be adequately
addressed.    Thank you for your leadership    in these important
Commission endeavors.           /



                                     Lfzzzizm   William S. Sessions
                                                       Director




     Page 230                                                       OCG90.ZLawEnforcementPay
          Appendix      VIII
          Additional     Views of Cbnmissioners




                                %ehernl(ariminnl JnuestigatorsAseottntian
                                                          Qfficr of ilje @redbent
                                                            y.@9.1Bn* 691145
                                                      Ban Antonto. ihas 76269-1145


Erneet I. Alexnnber
   MatloMlpJrenibmr

                                                                               February    5, 1990




           The Honorable       Charles    A. Bowsher
           Chairman,     National     Advisory
              Commission      on Law Enforcement
           U.S. General      Accounting      Office
           Washington,     D.C.      20548


           Dear   Mr.     Bowsher:


               Please       accept     the enclosed      as my additional       comments    to the
           Commission's        final     report.



                                                                       Sincerely,




                                                                       Commissioner,       N.A.C.L.E.




          Page 231                                                                             OCGQO-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
            Appendix       VIII
            Additional      Views of Commissioners




                                   %eberalQtriminnilhnxitigatork3 Assoctation
                                                            Wffce of tip @resibent
                                                              gl.@.lBox 691145
                                                        Bnn Antonfo. CBerae78269-1145


Erneet 8. AlernnZler
   MationdBreelbent

            Additional        views    of Ernest     J. Alexander,     National                       President
                         Federal    Criminal     Investigators     Association
                                          February      5, 1990

       This Commissions         report     sets the stage      for the Congress           to act on
       these      extremely       important      issues      impacting       on      federal      law
       enforcement.           MY concern         and    that   of this      Aseociation        is the
       manner in which we have played               down the      overtime      issue       and have
       taken    the position       that    HR-215 (the recently          passed AU0 bill)         has
       resolved       the problem.       IT HAS NOT.
       The Commission             study clearly            points     out that         State       and Local           law
       enforcement            in      most       all     cases       compensates            its      officers          for
       overtime       work at time               and     a half         their        regular         hourly        rate.
       Federal      officers            working       overtime        today      receive        overtime        pay at
       the straight           rate of the base of a (X-10.                         In simpler            terms,       the
       G-12      or (X-13         street        agent    receives       a cut in pay after                 the first
       forty     hours     of the work week.                  Current         overtime        law      also      limits
       the      amount        of      overtime         to     25%.      Again,       in simpler          terms,       the
       agent       works        his       forty        hours       at      his       regular           salary,           is
       compensated          for       the next        10 hours       (25%) at less than his regular
       rate,     and from then on works                    for nothing           other      than       love of the
       job.         HR-215          corrected          this     inequity       somewhat         by allowing            the
       agent     to be paid his regular                    rate    for the 10 hours after                    40.
       He will      continue          to receive         NO compensation             from fifty           (50) hours
       and beyond.            This      is a good deal for the government                          and the agent
       is not really            complaining           because      HR-215        at least          corrected           the
       situation        where         his pay won't           be reduced         after      forty      hours.        But,
       the street         agent must wait              until       October       1,      1990 for          HR-215 to
       provide      this      relief.           THAT STILL IS NCJT THE PROBLEM.

      TO further           complicate         this      situation,              AU0 (administratively
      uncontrollable          overtime)        is the       only form             of compensation     which
      is added        to an agents           base    salary        ifi      calculating      his/her    high
      three     for retirement.              Now for        the REAL PROBLEM.                  AU0 has not
      been funded.            Consequently          each agency               is looking     for money it
      will   need after         October      1, 1990        to pay          the increased         AU0 rate.
      What is        even worse         is that     some agencies,                INS for example.      have
      removed      agents     from the         list   of      those       eligible        to receive    AIJO.
      This has        created      a situation        for many who are within                  three  years
      or leas from          retirement           of  having           this        $6000.00     plus figure
      removed      from     their     retirement        calculation.

                         "Qebirateb ta Grognitian of UIriminul ?lnueetigntion a8 B #lrofession"
                                      member -?&~tionnl &II Gfortemenr (Cnunril
                            member-Mationnl lliolu Enforrement (18ffirer's iemorinl %unb




            Page 232                                                                                   OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
        Appendix     VIII
        Additional    Views of Conunbsioners




Can you picture          the situation        wherein     you have    worked for twenty
plus years         and planned        your retirement          (and planned     retirement
income!    and with        the stroke     of     a pen     eomeone lops      two or three
thousand    dollars          a year    off of your retirement           income.      This is
actually    happening         to    many    individuals        out   here    and creating
tremendous      bitterness          and morale       problems.       Other agencies        are
conducting       studies      to remove even more agents           from AUO.
  This Commission           was established            under a law when                the Congress
recognized         that     a problem       existed        in the method of compensation
for FEDERAL law enforcement.                   The       intent      of    the Commission,            the
Congress,         and    HR-215 are       all    very        honorable.          But that has not
solved       the problem.        Anybody       working          in     law     enforcement         today
realizes        that    no one puts people           in jail       by simply        putting      in his
forty      hours      a week.       State       and local          governments         have allowed
their      law     enforcement      to    work part           time jobs          to augment their
incomes.          Most federal      agents      are not allowed              this    privilege        and
probably        to    the betterment          of the         people.       Crime is constantly
going up in the nation,               not down.         Let us continue              to     hire     only
the      cream       of   the    crop     for      federal         law enforcement.              Let us
continue        to be the premier         group        of all        law enforcement.                But,
please       provide      us with      the funds           necessary       to accomplish           these
proud goals.

MY   sincere           thanks       to     the     Director,         Office         of    Personnel
Management      for        appointing      me to the Commission.                  It has been an
honor to this          Association         and     a great        personal          experience      to
both    witneaa          the    working       efforts        of the fine         memebers of the
Commission      and      to contribute        to the end result.




        Page 233                                                                  OCG90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
      Appendix     VIII
      Additional    Views of Commissioners




AMERlQlNFEDEfHTlON
                 OFGOVERNMENr
                           EMPLOYEES,
                                  AFL-CIO

                     John N. Sturdivant                  Allen H. Kaplan                         Joan C. Welsh
                       N.,lO”.l Preddent      Natlonal       8eoret.yhm.urer          Dlrwtor,    Women’s   Oepartm~nt




                                                                                                  6f/NACLE



                                               February              12,       1990



     Mr. Charles    A. Bowsher
     Chairman,    National   Advisory
        Commission     on Law Enforcement
     441 G Street,      NW
     Washington,    DC 20548
     Dear   Mr.    Bowsher:
     I am taking       the opportunity     to present       additional       views                    of AFGE
     pertaining      to the Commission's       final     recommendations.                             I would
     respectfully      request   that these recommendations           be included                      as part
     of    the final      Commission    Report    submitted        to Congress                        and the
     President.
                                               Sincerely,


                                                                   Sturdivant




       80 FStreet,NW l44shington,DC 20001                                         (202) 737-8700
                               @*ia




       Page 234                                                                            OCG90-2 Law Enforcement       Pay
       Appendix VTII
       AdditionalViewsof'Commiasioners




                                ADDITIONAL  VIEWS OF THE
             AMERICAN     FEDERATION   OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,                      AFL-CIO


1.      The Exclusion          of Traditional            Law Enforcement          Occupations
The American     Federation             of Government     Employees     strongly     believes
that    any implementing              legislation     must expand       the scope of the
covered     occupations              to      include   the    following         occupational
categories:
        1.     Immigration       Inspectors,       Series    1816
        2.     Customs Inspectors,           Series    1890
        3.     Federal     Protective      Service     Officers,            Series 083
        4.     Department      of Defense      Police,      Series          081, 085
We also     understand          that  various       agency         police      personnel       in job
series    803 will       be included      in the scope             of the study if they are
currently       eligible          for  law     enforcement              retirement          benefits.
However,    other       comparable      police     positions           in series        803 will        be
excluded    from      the study because          they are          currently       ineligible         for
law enforcement          retirement      benefits.
We strongly        recommend that all police      in series    803 be included         in
the Commission's         study,   irrespective  of retirement      status.        All of
these         employees      have       roughly  similar      job      duties         and
responsibilities         compared with law enforcement        coverage      criteria.
No assessment            of the status             of Federal         Law Enforcement             pay and
overtime       provisions           would       be complete            without         including       the
approximately           2,000     officers         in job series           1816.        Although      most
1816 officers            are not,       at the present             time,     included        within    the
provisions         of Public          Law 80-168           or the provisions                of Section
8336(c),      Title       5, U.S.C.        [6(c)],      there     is ample evidence              that all
Immigration         and Customs Inspectors                meet   and exceed the criteria               for
inclusion.            Inspectors         routinely         apprehend,         arrest,       and detain
criminals.            Immigration          and Customs Inspectors                  are Primary         Law
Enforcement         Officers       and any complete             study of law enforcement                 in
the Federal         Sector     must include           these employees.              There are bills
in both Houses of Congress                       to include         these     officers        under    the
provisions        of 6(c)       retirement.            At   both the Department                level   and
the Agency          level,      efforts        are on going            to seek administrative
inclusion.
        "Inspection        personnel       are available          for     duty   day or
        night,     weekdays,    Sundays,      or holidays,      at the need of the
        traveling       public      entering      the     country        via   highway,
        ferryboat,      steamship,      aircraft,      or train       in all kinds of
        weather      without       commensurate         consideration          for    the
        employee's      personal      and family      life.        The job requires
        that the employee be on standby               for call        out any hour of
        the day or night,          any day of the year.                The inspection
                                                     1




       Page   236                                                                  OCG-99-2LawEnforcementPay
      Appendix      VIII
      Additional     Views of Commissioners




        employee  is the first           to greet    the traveler      from ebroad:
        he must be pleasant             and at the same time thorough            and
        discreet  in conducting            intensive    examinations.      His duty
        is at times hazardous             to his health     and life."
The above quote            appears  in a report          to Congress       by   the   Assistant
Attorney General            for Administration.
One word has been the               greatest      hurdle      for     the      inclusion        of
Immigration       and Customs       Inspectors       under     6(c).          That      word is
INSPECTOR.       OPM at one time said that           the very word inspector                 does
not    fall    within      the    Congressional        intent        of     investigation,
apprehension,       or detention.       A dictionary       definition         of inspection
is,  "a critical       examination,      close    and careful        scrutiny,         a strict
or prying     examination      or an investigation."
Inspectors     are considered        law enforcement      officers     by all other law
enforcement      officers.       Both the National       Fraternal      Order of Police
and the       Federal        Law Enforcement       Officers        Association    accept
Immigration       and Customs          Inspectors    as active         members.      Both
organizations         restrict    membership      to full-time         law enforcement
officers.
Inspectors'          duties have shifted   in the direction  of law enforcement
in recent          years according    to an OPM study conducted   in 1981:
       Without       a doubt,          the      duties     of     the     Customs       and
       Immigration        Inspector      have changed in the past few years
       from the public           image of a “meeter             and greeter"        to an
       employee more involved              in law enforcement          . . . Inspectors
       perform      their      duties       undaunted      by the        problems       and
       dangers     involved.          Their      hours of work far exceed               the
       normal    40-hour       work week.          And, during       those     few hours
       they have off for rest                 and recreation,         they     are often
       called     back to work,             even though       they     may have just
       completed      a 12 to 16 hour shift,            and are due back to work
       in less than 0 hours.                We observe     a highly       professional
       work force.
Since that OPM finding               in 1981, the duties           and responsibilities          of
the      Inspector       have grown           increasingly        hazardous      and complex.
Anyone in the world,             whether       a tourist      or a terrorist,      is less than
24 hours away from a United                    States      Port of Entry.       This,     coupled
with the increased            sophistication           in drug smuggling      and counterfeit
documents,         has required        a change in the manner and the means that
Inspectors         use in their          investigations.            Agencies    have equipped
most ports         of entry      with up-to-date            equipment     to detect     criminal
activities.           The Inspector          routinely       uses equipment       that   was not
in existence          ten years ago,             Inspectors      are linked     to data bases
in Washington,           D.C.,    Dallas,       and San Diego by a modern computer


                                                 2




     Page 236                                                               OCG-90-2 Law Enforcement   Pay
         Appendix     VIII
         Additional    Views of Commissioners




network    that     did not exist                   seven years   ago.               He   uses a stereo
microscope      with fiber  optic                 lighting,   an infrared               video  analyzer,
and a photo phone that were                       only dreams a decade                 ago.
As     drug        smuggling          and        document            fraud        have       become        more
sophisticated,              so has         the      Inspector.                 In     1984      Immigration
Inspectors         detected       9,152 fraudulent                 passports       or visas.           In 1988
that     number grew to 24,222,                    an increase            of 165%.          In 1984 total
document        fraud       was 18,569,           but in 1988 that                  figure       swelled       to
51,690,      an increase             of 118%.             In 1985 Immigration                     Inspectors
refused      admission          to 585,000           inadmissible              applicants,          but    just
three     years later          that     number swelled               to 803,000,          an increase          of
37%. There have been increases                          in all        statistical          areas,      but the
greatest       increases        have been in the area of sophisticated                               document
fraud.      This type of fraud is a favorite                           of both terrorist              and drug
smuggler.           Statistics        from early            fiscal        1989 indicated             that    the
detection         of fraudulent           documents           will      increase        another        100% in
1989 at United            States      airports.            In 1988, Immigration                   Inspectors
alone made 2,335 arrests                 for drug violations                  and seized        drugs worth
$55,000,000.             Also,     in 1988 Immigration                    Inspectors          seized      5,693
vehicles        worth       $15,500,000.              These vehicles                had been used to
attempt     to smuggle aliens                into     the USA.
Inspection           Stations       are connected          by computer             link      to the FBI's
National         Crime       Information         Center       (NCIC).            This      computer         link
provides        access to approximately                 two million            records        of criminals
and fugitives.              Using this and other systems,                     Inspectors        apprehend,
arrest,       and detain          fugitives.         In recent           years,        these    inspectors
have accounted             for 7% of all NCIC arrests.                    This 7% is greater                than
any other           single      law enforcement             entity        in the country.                   What
clearer       demonstration           of primary        law enforcement                responsibilities
can be made? The Inspector                      is the first           person        to meet      and greet
the visitor           to the United           States      and the returning                United        States
citizen.          While doing this,              he must also determine                    who among the
409 million             yearly       applicants        for     admission            is attempting               to
smuggle drugs or violate                   U.S. criminal           law.       He does this           six days
a week and often              12 hours a day.            Inspectors           work more than 80% of
all holidays           and weekends.           The Inspector          misses      many family           events
because       he is working.                 The strain         that       the job places               on his
family     life      is enormous.           The Inspector's           job (Series           1816) and the
Customs Inspectors                (1890) should         be studied           by this       Commission.
In addition,      we believe       it           is  appropriate           to include    the           Federal
Protective      Service   Officers                (Series     083)        and the various              Agency
Police     Incumbents      (Series               081 and 085)              in the    scope            of the
Commission's      study.
The FPO's intense       training       and hazardous     assignments,    we believe,
qualify   them as fully       fledged    law enforcement      personnel   on par with
the Capitol     Police    or Secret       Service.    Crime     against  persons     and
property     has skyrocketed          in federal     buildings.         When cabinet
officials    receive   threats,       not contract    guards,      but FPS officials
                                                        3




         Page 237                                                                         OCG90-2 Law Enforcement    Pay
       Appendix     VIII
       Additional    Views of Ckxnmbsioners




are asked to protect            them.           We believe,       therefore,          that    it would
be prudent       to include      the        approximately        700   FPO's     in     the   scope of
the Commission’s         study.
2.      The Need        for   Competitive             Salaries    at   the     Full      Performance
        Level
        -*
The Draft          Commission      recommendations       document    the    serious    pay
disparities         between Federal       law enforcement      occupations      and state
and local       government     employees     at the entry-level.         We believe    the
proposed        increases       at    the   entry   levels      are   appropriate      and
necessary        to close    the gap.
However,      AFGE believes           that    the pay differentials                are equally    as
serious      at the full          performance        level,      where state         and local  law
enforcement        officials        may reach      the "journeyman"            level    in as short
a period       of time as two years,                whereas       federal       employees    do not
reach    this    level      until    18 years.         Therefore,       we will      seek, as part
of any new legislation,                appropriate        increases       at the GS-11 through
GS-13 levels.           As you know, specific               increases       for these levels      of
work    were not specified              in the Commission's            recommendations.




                                                      4




      Page 233                                                                  OCG!W2        Law Enforcement   Pay
  Appendix VIII
  AdditionalViewe   ofCommissioners




                                      UNITED      STATES
                       OFFICE   OF    PERSONNEL            YANAOEYENT

                                WA.“IWOTON.         D.C.    a0416


                                     llarch    8,     1990




Mr. Charles A. Bowsher
Chairman, National   Advisory             Commission
  on Law Enforcement
Room 7000
General Accounting   Office
441 G Street,   NW
Washington,   DC 20548
Dear Mr. Bowsher:
The Report of the National         Advisory   Commission on Law
Enforcement    provides   a comprehensive      picture   of the
inadequacies    of the Federal Government's          compensation   program,
and the recruitment,      retention,      and management problems these
inadequacies    are creating      for law enforcement     agencies.     I
compliment   the Commission staff         and my fellow   Commissioners
for the thoroughness      of this effort.
I appreciate     the problems currently      faced by the Federal law
enforcement     community that are related       to pay, and I agree
with the basic purpose of the recommendations              made by the
Commission for dealing with these problems:             higher entry-
level salaries,     more flexibility     for recruiting       and retaining
personnel    with critical      skills, and greater     distinctions      in
salaries   to reflect      local labor markets.      I must, however,
register   two major concerns:
   - The pay-related    problems of law enforcement    personnel
   identified   in the report are not unique;   rather    they are
   indicative   of problems affecting  the Federal workforce
   generally.
   - The recommendations,    whether limited to law enforcement
   personnel  or extended Government-wide,   are extremely  costly
   and do not represent   the best use of scarce payroll   dollars.
Many of the problems identified           by the Commission derive from
basic inadequacies        in the structure      of the Federal pay System:
low entry-level     salaries:    lack of sensitivity       to pay rates in
the labor markets in which the Federal Government COmpeteS for
personnel;     lack of pay flexibility        to deal with special     SitUa-
tions involving     critical    skills:    inadequate   incentives   for




  Page299                                                               OCG90-2LawEnforcementPay
     Appendix     VIII
     Additional    Views of Commissioners




Mr. Charles         A.   Bowsher                                                            2
high-quality          performance:  inadequate   incentives  to accept
geographic         relocations.    These problems affect    all Federal
employees         and Federal agencies,    not just law enforcement
personnel         and agencies.
Some members of the Commission expressed concern about the
problems that would occur if support personnel                             in law
enforcement        agencies did not benefit               from the Commission's
recommendations           along with personnel            in core law enforcement
occupations.           This concern should be extended to the problems
that will       occur if one segment of the workforce                        is dealt with
in isolation         from the remainder.             It is essential            that we view
the problems of the law enforcement                      community in the broad
context      in which these problems              exist,     and that we consider
the consequences of our recommendations                       for the Government's
hundreds of thousands of non-law enforcement                          public       servants   -
- including        nurses, medical researchers,                 occupational           safety
and health       specialists,         environmental         specialists,          air traffic
controllers,         food inspectors         -- who are, like            law enforcement
personnel,       engaged in the critical               tasks of protecting              the
nation's       health,     safety,     and security.          Singling         out workers
in law enforcement            occupations       for preferential             treatment
would raise a serious              issue of equity,          and would create
widespread       morale and management problems throughout                           the
Federal community.
While I appreciate            the fact that in the course of its work the
Commission did make an effort                   to narrow the scope of its
review so that only the most critically-needed                            actions        would
be addressed,           I am nevertheless           concerned about         the     cost
implications          of the recommendations               and the fact that little
attention         was given to identifying               actions    that might help to
offset      the cost of the recommendations                    that are made. We
should bear in mind that the costs identified                           would be in
addition        to increases       totaling       nearly $100 million             for
administratively           uncontrollable           overtime that were enacted
recently,         to be effective         in October 1990. Moreover,                   the
identified          costs are understated,              since there is little
justification           for limiting        these changes to the law
enforcement          community.       For example, the ceiling                on the base
rate that is used for the computation                         of overtime       is one that
applies       to all employees, not just to law enforcement
personnel.           Thus, the removal of this ceiling                  for     all exempt
white-collar          employees (non-exempt employees already                         receive
full     time-and-a-half)          could cost as much as $100 million,
rather      than the $6 million             identified.
For many of the occupations        and locations,     the total  package
of recommended increases      would be more than is needed to
recruit   and retain  a well-qualified       workforce.     When added
together,   some employees would, under these recommendations,




     Paye                                                                 OCG90.2 Law Enforcement   Pay
      Appendix     VIII
      Additional    Views of Commissionem




Mr. Charles        A. Bowsher                                                          3
receive     immediate pay increases   of more than 50 percent.
Increases     of this magnitude at a time of severe budget
constraints     and widespread   pay problems are difficult    to
justify.
The Administration           is already moving to address the pay-
related     problems identified           by the Commission in a
comprehensive       and equitable         way.     The President's         Fiscal       Year
1991 Budget proposes initial                steps toward a reformed and
restructured       white-collar        pay system that is responsive                  to
occupational       and geographical          labor market differences.                  These
steps include        increases      in starting        salaries    for    college
entry-level       occupations:        authority      to hire at pay rates above
the minimum; bonuses to recruit,                  retain,     or relocate       critical-
skill    workers:      and geographic        differentials       in certain         high-
cost metropolitan          areas.      The Administration's            proposals
address basic flaws in the current                   pay system, and will
contribute      to solving       pay-related        staffing    problems for all
Federal agencies,          including      law enforcement        agencies.
In summary, while I share my fellow         Commissioners'     concerns
about the shortcomings      of the Federal pay system and the
problems they cause for Federal law enforcement            agencies,     I
would urge the Congress to use the Commission's            report not as
a blueprint   for immediate changes, but as an important
background document against which the Administration's               more
comprehensive    and cost-effective     proposals   for solving      the
problems of the Federal pay system -- including            the problems
of law enforcement    personnel     -- can be judged.
                                                 Sincerely,




       Page 241                                                           OCGgO-ZLawEnforcement Pay