This column was originally published on Jeff Neal’s blog, ChiefHRO.com, and was republished here with permission from the author.

A recent report from Transitions in Governance 2016 includes a section titled Reform/Eliminate Office of Personnel Management. That section says “Widespread dissatisfaction exists on the role of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Some suggest reforms be implemented to streamline the agency and focus OPM on value-added roles. Others believe OPM should be abolished with functions assigned to other agencies — and savings used to bolster management assistance to federal agencies on core HR capabilities. The new administration should not assume that OPM, as it exists today, is the right structure for the future of federal workforce management. A solid management agenda should answer the question: What should be done with OPM?”

I think they punted on this one by saying the next administration should include the answer in their management agenda. It is easy to say OPM should be reformed or eliminated, but much more difficult to say how. I have written a series of articles on federal HR management reform, and OPM reform is a big part of that, so I have some suggestions regarding OPM and what, specifically, the next president should do with it.

The Mission

Any discussion of reform has to start with the mission of OPM. Why does it exist? Without a clear understanding of OPM’s raison d’être, it is impossible to know what should be done with the agency. OPM itself described its mission in the agency’s 2014–2018 Strategic Plan as “Recruit, Retain, and Honor a World-Class Workforce to Serve the American People.” That mission statement is more of a bumper sticker than a description of what OPM should be expected to do, so I am basing my recommendations on the more specific legal requirements.

OPM was created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Its primary mission is in 5 U.S. Code § 1103. Simply put, it gives OPM the authority to “design a set of systems, including appropriate metrics, for assessing the management of human capital by federal agencies.”

It goes on to set requirements for those systems, saying they must include standards for aligning human capital strategies of agencies with the missions, goals, and organizational objectives of those agencies; integrating those strategies into the budget and strategic plans of those agencies; ensuring continuity of effective leadership through implementation of recruitment, development, and succession plans; developing and implementing a knowledge management strategy supported by appropriate investment in training and technology; and holding managers and human resources officers accountable for efficient and effective human resources management in support of agency missions in accordance with merit system principles.”

Other laws give OPM the authority to manage the Federal Employees Health Benefits program (FEHB) and to negotiate contracts with insurers, and to administer the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program (FEGLI). OPM also has statutory authority for administering civil service retirement programs (other than the Thrift Savings Plan). In addition, OPM also has authority to conduct background investigations and to operate a revolving fund to cover costs of the investigations.

The revolving fund authority, found in 5 USC 1304(e), authorizes OPM to use the revolving fund for “…training, and such other functions as the Office is authorized or required to perform on a reimbursable basis, including personnel management services performed at the request of individual agencies (which would otherwise be the responsibility of such agencies).

What the OPM mission should be

The Governing for Results report suggested that one option is to eliminate OPM and move the work elsewhere. It is not a new idea. The problem is that getting rid of OPM really means moving much of what it does to another agency or group of agencies. After decades of dealing with OPM, I have come to the conclusion that little good would come from eliminating OPM. The real answer is rethinking what they do and getting them focused on performing a more narrowly defined mission.

If I could decide what OPM’s mission should be, OPM would play several key roles in federal HR. It should be the leader in identifying policy requirements, writing regulations, and providing advisory services to agencies. It should run health and life insurance and retirement programs. It should provide oversight of federal HR. Finally, I believe OPM should be responsible for developing and delivering training for federal HR professionals.

Insurance

I am not going to waste a lot of words on this. OPM does an excellent job of managing the FEHB and FEGLI programs. Although I have heard a lot of folks who want to do away with OPM suggesting that these could be moved to another department (usually Health and Human Services), there is little to be gained and much risk in tampering with what is working.

Retirement

OPM administers the CSRS and FERS programs, as well as the processing of retirement claims. The actual program administration is done very well. The bulk of negative press OPM gets on retirement is in the claims processing, where persistent backlogs have been a problem for years. It makes sense for OPM to keep these programs and devote more attention to the backlogs.

Policy, advisory services and oversight

OPM’s most critical missions are policy and oversight. They are the reason the agency and its predecessor, the Civil Service Commission, were created. I believe policy and the advisory services that go with it have gotten a bit lost in the shuffle in OPM. Policy initiatives that could make a tremendous difference for the government, such as simplifying job classification and hiring, improving performance management, improving the SES, and other reforms that can be done through better and more flexible regulations, do not get the attention they deserve.

In the past, OPM was the go-to place for HR offices who needed help understanding HR laws and regulations. The OPM team of experts was superb. These were folks who were typically involved in developing HR regulations and government-wide policies and they knew their business inside and out. Today, OPM does not have enough people doing policy and advisory work and it does not give the ones it has the resources they need to do the work well.

It takes years to get regulations out of OPM. Phased retirement was a great example. OPM took more than two years to get the regulations written and issued. A more recent example is a change in eligibility for conversion from career-conditional to career status. OPM issued draft regulations in January 2014 and issued the final regulation on Nov. 8, 2016 — almost three years later. A reformed OPM must devote sufficient resources to do this work effectively. It is the single most critical step the next administration can take to improve federal HR.

Oversight is another area that is under-resourced. OPM’s oversight is much more than the area where OPM says “gotcha” to agencies. Good oversight can identify problems as they are happening and ensure they do not get out of hand. As OPM attention and resources devoted to oversight have dwindled, agencies have been asked to do more of their own oversight. In turn, many agencies have cut the dollars they devote to their own reviews. The result is rampant over-grading of jobs, questionable hiring practices, and little likelihood that people who run bad HR programs will get caught. That undermines the credibility of the civil service, both with the federal workforce and with the public. OPM should do more oversight through analysis of the massive amounts of data they collect from agencies.

Background investigations

OPM currently devotes 66 percent of its $2.1 billion budget and 52.3 percent of its manpower to background investigations. When one mission area represents more than half of your money and people, it has to get a lot of management attention and it detracts from other mission areas that are the real reason the agency exists. The same law that authorizes OPM to do background investigations also gives the president authority to assign background investigations for groups or classes of employees to the FBI “when the president considers it in the national interest.”

OPM should get out of this business and it should be moved to the FBI or to the intelligence community. The FBI is a law enforcement agency whose reason for being is conducting investigations. The intelligence community is also well-suited to the mission. Either would have the ability to manage this program more effectively than OPM or most other agencies. Yes, moving this work out of OPM would cut the agency and its budget in half, but it would also result in a far more focused agency that is not trying to run its own mini-FBI.

Trust funds

OPM manages five Earned Benefits Trust Funds:

•  FEHB – Federal Employees Health Benefits
•  FEGLI – Federal Employees Group Life Insurance
•  CSRDF – Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
•  PSRHB – Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits
•  FSA FEDS – Flexible Spending Accounts for Federal Employees.

Revolving funds

OPM’s revolving fund authority has been the subject of IG reports, congressional hearings, and more angst than anything in OPM (other than the cyber breach). OPM uses the revolving fund so agencies can pay for OPM services that are not covered by appropriated funds. OPM’s 2017 budget justification includes $1,738,228,457 in planned revolving fund authority. The six OPM programs that use revolving funds are listed below, along with their 2017 budget:

Read the latest news about the incoming administration on our Tracking the Transition page.

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.