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
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)