Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2010
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
MSPB
Susan Tsui Grundmann
Chairman
Performer
Ernest A. Cameron
Chief Financial Officer
Performer
Board
The Board Members adjudicate the cases brought to the MSPB. The bipartisan Board
consists of the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Member, with no more than two of its three
members from the same political party. Board members are appointed by the President,
confirmed by the Senate, and serve overlapping, non-renewable seven-year terms. The
Chairman, by statute, is the chief executive and administrative officer of the MSPB. Office
Directors report to the Chairman through the Executive Director.
Board Member
Performer
Office of the Administrative Law Judge
The Office of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adjudicates and issues initial decisions
in corrective and disciplinary action complaints (including Hatch Act complaints) brought by
the Special Counsel, proposed agency actions against ALJs, MSPB employee appeals, and
other cases assigned by the MSPB. The functions of this office are currently performed by
ALJs at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), and the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) under
interagency agreements.
Administrative Law Judge
Performer
Office of Appeals Counsel
The Office of Appeals Counsel conducts legal research and prepares proposed decisions
for the Board in cases where a party petitions for review of an Administrative Judge’s (AJ)
initial decision and in most other cases decided by the Board. The office prepares proposed
decisions on interlocutory appeals of rulings made by judges, makes recommendations on
reopening cases on the Board’s own motion, and provides research and policy memoranda
to the Board on legal issues.
Appeals Counsel
Performer
Office of the Clerk of the Board
The Office of the Clerk of the Board receives and processes cases filed at MSPB
headquarters, rules on certain procedural matters, and issues MSPB decisions and orders.
The office serves as MSPB’s public information center, coordinates media relations,
produces public information publications, operates MSPB’s library and on-line information
services, and administers the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act programs. The
office also certifies official records to the courts and Federal administrative agencies, and
manages MSPB’s records systems, legal research systems, and the Government in the
Sunshine Act program.
Clerk of the Board
Performer
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity
The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity plans, implements, and evaluates MSPB’s
equal employment opportunity programs. It processes complaints of alleged discrimination
brought by agency employees and provides advice and assistance on affirmative employment
initiatives to MSPB’s managers and supervisors.
Performer
Office of Financial and Administrative Management
The Office of Financial and Administrative Management administers the budget,
accounting, travel, time and attendance, human resources, procurement, property
management, physical security, and general services functions of the MSPB. It develops and
coordinates internal management programs, including review of internal controls agencywide.
It also administers the agency’s cross-servicing agreements with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, National Finance Center for payroll services, U.S. Department of the
Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt for accounting services, and U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for human resources management
services.
Performer
Office of the General Counsel
The Office of the General Counsel, as legal counsel to the MSPB, advises the Board and
MSPB offices on a wide range of legal matters arising from day-to-day operations. The office
represents the MSPB in litigation; prepares proposed decisions for the Board to enforce a
final MSPB decision or order, in response to requests to review OPM regulations, and for
other assigned cases; conducts the agency’s petition for review settlement program; and
coordinates the agency’s legislative policy and congressional relations functions. The office
drafts regulations, conducts MSPB’s ethics program, and plans and directs audits and
investigations.
General Counsel
Performer
Office of Information Resources Management
The Office of Information Resources Management develops, implements, and maintains
MSPB’s automated information systems to help the agency manage its caseload efficiently
and carry out its administrative and research responsibilities.
Information Resources Management
Performer
Office of Policy and Evaluation
The Office of Policy and Evaluation carries out MSPB’s statutory responsibility to
conduct special studies of the civil service and other Federal merit systems. Reports of these
studies are sent to the President and the Congress and are distributed to a national audience.
The office provides information and advice to Federal agencies on issues that have been the
subject of MSPB studies. The office also conducts special projects for the agency and has
responsibility for preparing MSPB’s strategic and performance plans and performance
reports required by the Government Performance and Results Act.
Performer
Office of Regional Operations
The Office of Regional Operations oversees the agency’s six regional and two field offices,
which receive and process appeals and related cases. It also manages MSPB’s Mediation
Appeals Program (MAP). AJs in the regional and field offices are responsible for
adjudicating assigned cases and for issuing fair, well-reasoned, and timely initial decisions.
Performer
To protect Federal merit systems and the rights of individuals within those systems.
Adjudication
To provide fair, high-quality, timely and efficient adjudication of cases filed with the MSPB and to make effective use of alternative methods of dispute resolution in MSPB proceedings.
_aa5156cc-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
1
The MSPB met all four of its adjudication performance goals for FY 2010. We continued to issue high-quality decisions. We also met our performance goal for overall adjudication case processing timeliness. We began implementing changes in our PFR process to improve understanding and transparency. For the first time in 24 years, we held oral arguments on two related cases that raised a significant legal issue of broad potential impact.
Overall, MSPB received 8,260 cases in FY 2010, 11 percent more cases than were received in FY 2009. The MSPB processed 7,708 cases in FY 2010. Each case is adjudicated on its merits and in a manner consistent with the interests of fairness, which is achieved by assuring due process and the parties’ full participation at all stages of the appeal.
Quality
Issue high-quality decisions.
_aa5157a8-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
1.1
Summary of results for Performance Goal 1.1: This Performance Goal was MET.
Ninety-two percent of MSPB decisions were unchanged on review by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which meets the FY 2010 performance target. The percent
of cases decided by the Board on PFR that were reversed and/or remanded to MSPB judges,
adjusted for those cases that were not due to an error or oversight by the AJ, was 9%,
slightly fewer than the performance target of 10%. The percent of cases left unchanged by
the court has varied from 87% to 93% over the last five years. The FY 2011 target of 92% or
greater for percent of cases left unchanged by the Court is near the best actual result
demonstrated in recent years. There is considerable year-to-year variability in PFR remands
and reversals. Therefore, the FY 2011 target for this measure will remain 10% or fewer.
None
Resources
Dollars in Thousands
Budget $ (000) (requested) % of total MSPB Resources
= 82%
36380
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
Budget $ (000) (enacted) % of total MSPB Resources
= 82%
35286
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
1.1.a
MSPB decisions unchanged on review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Court dismisses case or affirms Board decision).
Percentage
92% or greater.
92
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
92% or greater; study alternative measures of quality of Board decisions.
92
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
93
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
91
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
87
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
92
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
Ninety-two percent of MSPB cases were left unchanged by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
92
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
1.1.b
Cases decided by the Board on Petition for Review (PFR) that are reversed and/or remanded to MSPB judges for a new decision, adjusted for those not due to error or oversight by the AJ.
Percent
10% or fewer.
10
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
10% or fewer; study alternative measures of quality of initial appeals.
10
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
10
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
9
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
6
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
5
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
Nine percent of initial decisions filed with the Board on PFR were reversed or remanded to MSPB judges.
9
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Timeliness
Issue timely decisions.
_aa515848-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
1.2
Summary of results for Performance Goal 1.2: This Performance Goal was MET. Of
the five measures of adjudication timeliness, two met, two exceeded, and one failed to meet
the targets. The average case processing time for initial decisions was 89 days, slightly faster
than the target of 90 days. The proportion of initial appeals that were decided within 110
days was 72%, which exceeded the target by 44%. The average processing time for PFRs
was 134 days, or slightly over 10% faster than the target of 150 days. The proportion of
PFRs closed within 110 days was 42%, which was 16% short of the target of 50%. The
average case processing time for petitions for enforcement was 180 days, 10% faster than the
target of 200 days.
Overall processing time for PFRs slowed in FY 2010. Three factors contributed to this
result. Conservative hiring decisions in FY 2009 led to a higher than average number of
vacancies among the attorneys who process PFRs and draft PFR decisions for the Board
members. Several of the attorneys who process PFRs were also assigned to the offices of
new Board members, further reducing the number of attorneys available to draft decisions
for the Board members. The arrival of two new Board members also increased Board
membership to its authorized level of three Board members. PFR processing time normally
increases when cases are reviewed by three rather than two Board members. In addition,
temporary increases in processing time also occurs as MSPB attorneys adapt to the style and
priorities of new Board members, and the new Board members gain experience with MSPB
procedures and processes. Resolution of these issues will continue through FY 2011. During
this process, we are committed to maintaining the target for average processing time for
PFRs at 150 days or less. However, because the inventory of PFRs is larger, the target for
percent of PFRs closed within time standards has been adjusted to 50% or more PFRs
closed within 150 days. The FY 2011 timeliness targets for initial appeals and petitions for
enforcement at headquarters will remain at FY 2010 levels.
1.2.a
Average case processing time for initial decisions.
Days
90 days or less.
90
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
90 days or less.
90
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
89
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
89
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
87
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
83
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
89
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
1.2.b
Initial appeals decided within time standards.
Percentage
50% or more of cases decided within 110 days.
50
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
50% or more of cases decided within 110 days; review measure and set future targets.
50
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2007.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
85% decided within 120 days.
85
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
72% decided within 110 days.
72
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
75% decided within 110 days.
75
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
72% decided within 110 days. We exceeded our timeliness targets for percent of initial decisions closed within 110 days and for average PFR processing, and met our targets for average processing time for initial appeals and for enforcement cases at
headquarters.
Seventy-two percent of initial appeals were processed in 110 days or less (84 percent of initial appeals were processed in 120 days or less) … The remaining 28 percent of initial appeals took more than 110 days to process (16 percent took more than 120 days to process) …
72
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
1.2.c
Average case processing time for Petitions for Review (PFRs).
Days
150 days or less.
150
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
150 days or less.
150
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
154
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
132
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
112
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
94
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
134
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
1.2.d
PFRs decided within time standards.
Percentage
50% or more of cases decided within 110 days.
50
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
50% or more of cases decided within 150 days.
50
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2007.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
48% decided within 110 days.
48
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
60% decided within 110 days.
60
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
72% decided within 110 days.
72
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
42% decided within 110 days.
We did not achieve our target for percent of PFRs closed within 150 days. More information about the issues involved in the timeliness of PFR processing is
included in the performance section of this report.
58 percent of PFRs were processed in 110 days or less… and 42 percent of PFRs took more than 110 days to process.
42
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
1.2.e
Average case processing time for Petitions for Enforcement (Headquarters only).
Days
200 days or less.
200
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
200 days or less.
200
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2008.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
New measure in FY 2008.
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Measure assessed and target established for FY 2009.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
171 days.
171
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
180 days.
180
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
ADR
Make effective use of alternative methods of dispute resolution.
_aa5158de-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
1.3
Summary of results for Performance Goal 1.3: This Performance Goal was MET. The
settlement rate of initial appeals that were not dismissed was 62%, which exceeded the
performance target of 50%. The methods for measuring success of the PFR settlement
program were found to be inconsistently applied in FY 2010. Therefore, we do not have a
valid and accurate measure for the success rate of the program. The number of cases
mediated in FY 2010 was 273, far exceeding the performance target of 101 cases. The
success rate for the MAP was 62 percent exceeding the performance target of 50%.
Although recent settlement rates for initial appeals have been higher than the target of 50%,
we will retain this target level for FY 2011 because it is reasonable and achievable without
inappropriately emphasizing settlement as a method of resolving cases. During FY 2011, we
will review and refine measures of success and impact of the PFR settlement program. The
MAP has become an established option for resolving select cases brought to the MSPB.
Therefore, the MSPB will no longer set targets for the number of cases mediated, but will
retain a target success rate for the MAP at 50% or better.
1.3.a
Success rate for settlement of initial appeals that are not dismissed.
Percentage
50% success rate or better.
50
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
50% success rate or better.
50
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
58%
58
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
57%
57
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
54%
54
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
62%
62
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
63%
We met our performance goal for alternative dispute resolution. The initial appeals settlement program and the mediation appeals program both had success rates over 60
percent. However, we discovered that the methods for measuring success rate in the PFR settlement program were inconsistently applied so we do not have an accurate measure for success of the PFR settlement program.
63
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
1.3.b
Success rate for settlement of cases selected for the PFR settlement program.
Percentage
25% success rate or better.
25
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Continue to examine and refine measures of program success and impact.
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
38%
38
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
23%
23
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
34%
34
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
65%
65
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
*** The methods for measuring program success were found to be inconsistently applied in FY 2010. Therefore, we do not have a valid and accurate measure for the success rate of the program. We have begun a review of the methodology used to measure program success
and impact, which will continue in FY 2011.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
1.3.c
Success rate for cases resolved through mediation procedures.
Percentage
Mediate 106 or more cases with a 50% or better success rate.
50
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
50% success rate or better.
50
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
109 cases mediated with a success rate of 45% at the conclusion of Mediation Appeals Program (MAP), and a success rate of 61% including cases that settled after returning to adjudication.
61
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
100 cases were mediated with a success rate of 48% at the conclusion of MAP, and a success rate of 67% including cases that settled after returning to adjudication (19 additional cases settled).
67
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
147 cases were mediated with a success rate of 54% at the conclusion of MAP (79 settled cases), and a success rate of 71% including cases that settled after returning to adjudication (26 additional cases settled).
71
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
173 cases were mediated with a success rate of 55% at the conclusion of MAP, and a success rate of 62% including cases that settled after returning to adjudication.
62
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
273 cases were mediated with a success rate of 62% at the conclusion of MAP, and a success rate of 64% including cases that settled after returning to adjudication.
62
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Customer Satisfaction
Achieve and maintain customer satisfaction with our adjudicatory and
alternative dispute resolution programs and with adjudication outreach efforts.
_aa515974-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
1.4
Summary of results for Performance Goal 1.4: This Performance Goal was MET. We
implemented several improvements in e-Appeal to improve the external and internal
usability of the system. We also successfully migrated the hosting of e-Appeal from its
original contractor to MSPB Headquarters saving an estimated $237,000 annually. A report
updating adjudication customer satisfaction data was completed. In FY 2011, we will
establish a strategic customer satisfaction survey program and schedule for the adjudication
program.
1.4.a
Customer satisfaction with adjudication and alternative dispute resolution processes
and with adjudication outreach efforts.
Implement appropriate modifications to e-Appeal based on survey results.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Establish a strategic customer satisfaction survey program and schedule, and set targets for overall level of satisfaction with adjudication.
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2007.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
Completed internal report on customer satisfaction with initial appeals and settlement processes, which indicated that customers are satisfied with MSPB processes and their interactions with MSPB employees; feedback from e-Appeal
users was positive including many who reported encouraging all users in their agencies to file using e-Appeal.
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Developed four automated surveys for e-Appeal customers including those who file appeals, use automated pleadings, use the repository, and those who created e-Appeal accounts but did not use the system to file their appeal.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
The automated surveys for e-Appeal customers were implemented.
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
Improved internal and external usability of e-Appeal by upgrading, redesigning, or clarifying processes involving security, email reminders, document listing, help
text, pleading options, and file size limits. Successfully migrated the hosting of e-Appeal from the original external contractor to MSPB headquarters. A report including adjudication customer satisfaction data was completed.
We met our performance goal for customer satisfaction of our adjudication program. We implemented several changes to e-Appeal to improve its internal and external usability and successfully migrated the hosting
of e-Appeal from the original contractor to MSPB headquarters. We continued to collect and use feedback from our adjudication stakeholders.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Studies
To conduct studies that support strong and viable merit systems that ensure the public’s
interest in a high-quality, professional workforce managed under the merit principles and free from Prohibited Personnel Practices.
_aa515a0a-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
2
Selected Results:
Significant impact of MSPB merit systems studies -
Increased attention on the importance of improving the Federal recruitment and
selection process. Numerous longstanding MSPB policy recommendations were
enacted in the President’s 2010 hiring reform initiative, introduced through the
Presidential Memorandum—Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process. These
recommendations include:
* Making the application process less complex, being enacted through the
introduction of resume-only applications;
* Improving communication with applicants, being enacted through a systematic
4-touch approach;
* Improving the quality of job announcements to better attract applicants;
* Improving the validity and reliability of applicant assessment tools;
* Educating and involving selecting officials more in the recruitment and selection
process; and
* Replacing the rule of three with category rating.
Selected recent merit systems studies (beginning with most recent):
* A Call to Action: Improving First-Level Supervision
* Merit Systems Protection Board Annual Report for FY 2009
* Prohibited Personnel Practices: A Study Retrospective
* Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining
* As Supervisors Retire: An Opportunity to Re-Shape Organizations
* Job Simulations: Trying Out for a Federal Job
* Addressing Poor Performers and the Law
* Managing for Engagement: Communication, Connection, and Courage
* The Federal Government: A Model Employer or a Work in Progress?
* The Power of Federal Employee Engagement
* Alternative Discipline: Creative Solutions for Agencies to Effectively Address
Employee Misconduct
* Federal Appointment Authorities: Cutting Through the Confusion
Studies and Recommendations
Conduct merit systems studies and recommend improvements to policy-makers and practitioners.
_aa515ab4-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
2.1
Summary of results for Performance Goal 2.1: This Performance Goal was MET. Five
external studies (including the FY 2009 Annual Report) were completed, and an additional 4
internal studies were completed. A draft research agenda has been developed and we are
committed to a transparent process for finalizing the new agenda. Merit Systems studies
continue to be cited by wide range of stakeholders and policy-makers. Most significantly, the
President’s 2010 hiring reform initiative included numerous, longstanding MSPB policy
recommendations. In FY 2011, the target will be completing six studies and issuing four
editions of the Issues of Merit newsletter. We will also continue to track and evaluate methods
for measuring the impact of studies and pilot the use of revolving content on our webpage.
None
Resources
Dollars in Thousands
Budget $ (000) (requested) % of total MSPB Resources
= 6%
2634
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
Budget $ (000) (enacted) % of total MSPB Resources
= 6%
2536
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
2.1.a
Number and scope of MSPB reports and Issues of Merit newsletters issued.
Number of Reports
The agency has conducted extensive outreach in developing its 2011-2014 research agenda and we are committed to a transparent process for finalizing the agenda.
2010-10-01
2014-09-30
Complete 6 reports and 4 editions of the newsletter; assess scope of studies and
newsletters; develop a new research agenda for approval by the Board Members.
6
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Complete 6 reports and 4 editions of the newsletter; assess scope of studies and
newsletters; obtain approval and begin implementing a new research agenda.
6
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
Published 8 reports and 4 editions of the Issues of Merit newsletter. Report topics
included: designing effective pay-for-performance compensation systems,
managing contracting officer representatives (CORs) to achieve positive contract
outcomes, reforming Federal hiring, the symposium on the practice of merit, the
effect of Van Wersch and McCormick on the probationary period, study of initial
appeals and settlements (internal report), the MSPB FY 2005 Annual Report and
the MSPB FY 2005 PAR; completed reports on the 2005 Merit Principles Survey
(MPS), baseline data for DHS, baseline data for the Department of Defense
(DoD), and a draft of the MSPB Strategic Plan for FY 2007-2012.
8
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
Published a report on the results of the 2005 Merit Principles Survey and 4
editions of the Issues of Merit newsletter; completed a report on Federal entry-level
new hires and four internal reports; published MSPB’s FY 2006 Annual Report,
FY 2006 PAR, FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, and FY 2007 (revised) - FY 2008
(final) Performance Plan; received Board Member approval for a new research
agenda covering the 2008-2010 time period.
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Published reports on hiring upper-level employees from outside the Federal
Government, the use of various hiring authorities, Federal employee
engagement, the use of alternative discipline in Federal agencies, a longitudinal
analysis of prior Merit Principles Surveys, the MSPB FY 2007 Annual Report,
and four editions of the Issues of Merit newsletter. Completed three internal
reports including a report outlining MSPB Human Capital Survey results for the
public that was placed on the MSPB website. Assessed the scope of study reports
and selected research topics from the existing research agenda.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
Completed reports on addressing poor performers in the Federal Government,
the utility of job simulations in employee selection, an examination of how the
role of the supervisor is changing, fair and equitable treatment in the Federal
workforce, a summary report of the FY 2007 Merit Principles Survey results that
focuses on performance management practices that drive employee engagement,
and the FY 2008 MSPB Annual Report. Completed an internal report
summarizing MSPB’s Annual Employee Survey data, and published four editions
of the Issues of Merit newsletter. Assessed the scope of study reports and selected
research topics from the existing research agenda.
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
Performance goal met - The MSPB completed five external reports and four internal evaluation reports dealing with a variety of topics, including supervisory preparedness, Prohibited Personnel Practices, Federal competencies and how to obtain them, whistleblowing protections and the law, as well as the FY 2009 MSPB annual report.
Merit systems study reports continue to be cited by practitioners, policy-makers, and the media.
Completed four external merit systems studies including: A Call to Action:
Improving First-Level Supervision of Federal Employees; Prohibited Personnel Practices: A
Study Retrospective; Making the Right Connections: Targeting the Best Competencies for
Training; and Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees. Published the FY 2009
MSPB Annual Report and four editions of the Issues of Merit newsletter. Completed
four internal studies, including evaluations of MSPB’s annual employee survey
results for FY 2009 and 2010. Developed a draft list of research agenda items
and are preparing to present them to MSPB stakeholders and Board members.
9
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
2.1.b
Studies or study recommendations referenced in policy papers, professional
literature, legislation, and the media.
Continue to track and evaluate mechanisms for measuring the impact of studies and newsletters.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Continue to track and evaluate mechanisms for measuring the impact of studies and newsletters. Pilot the use of revolving content on the studies web page to
improve outreach efforts.
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
Used customer feedback survey cards in hard copy reports and an online version
for web-based users to help assess usefulness and impact of studies; continued
review of vacancy announcements including projected cost impacts; collected
information about use of MSPB study findings and recommendations as reports
are referenced in policy papers, professional literature, legislation, and the media.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
Evaluated the feedback provided by customers through both report feedback
cards and web-based surveys concerning study reports and the OPE newsletter;
collected information concerning MSPB report findings and recommendations
through references in the professional literature, legislation, and the media which
included a presentation on referencing MSPB reports at the Annual Conference
of the American Society for Public Administration.
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Tracked references to findings and recommendations in the policy, professional
literature, legislation, and the media. Following a 2006 Board decision and
previous MSPB study reports, OPM strongly advised agencies against using the
Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural hiring authorities. Citing the COR
report, OMB set new standards for training and development of CORs.
Following publication of two previous Board reports, OPM revised regulations
regarding procedural and appeal rights of individuals serving a probationary or
trial period. Testified by invitation before the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia on recruiting
and hiring the next generation of Federal employees.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
Tracked references to findings and recommendations in policy, professional
literature, legislation, and the media. Following numerous MSPB studies that
advocate better applicant recruitment, assessment, and communication, OPM
included many of MSPB’s recommendations in its end-to-end hiring process as
well as instructions to agencies on how to improve job announcements and
hiring processes. Following the release of two employee engagement studies,
numerous requests were received for more information about engagement from
Federal agencies, Congress, oversight agencies such as OMB and GAO, goodgovernment
groups, and the media. Testified by invitation before the House
Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee about government hiring practices and
before the Defense Business Board about pay for performance. Findings and
recommendations of studies were highlighted by numerous media outlets,
including the Washington Post, Federal Times, Government Executive, Federal News
Radio, and others.
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
Performance goal met - MSPB completed four editions of the Issues of Merit newsletter and has begun posting revolving content to the studies webpage.
Numerous longstanding MSPB policy recommendations were enacted in the
President’s 2010 hiring reform initiative, introduced through the Presidential
Memorandum—Improving the Federal Recruitment and Hiring Process. These
recommendations include making the application process less complex;
improving communication with applicants; improving the quality of job
announcements; improving the validity and reliability of applicant assessment
tools; educating and involving selecting officials more in the recruitment and
selection process; and replacing the rule of three with category rating.
MSPB reports have been referenced in numerous print and online sources,
including The Washington Post, Government Executive Magazine, Federal
Computer Weekly, Federal Times, IPMA’s HR News, FEDManager, FedWeek,
and the Federal Daily newsletter. Interviews of MSPB staff have also been
conducted on Federal News Radio, Open Government Radio, and News
Channel 8. Research has been cited by external stakeholders such as National
Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and National Federation of Federal
Employees (NFFE), and cited in Congressional testimony. We provided
presentations and other consultations to Federal agencies to improve their
human resources practices, and met or worked with academia and public policy
groups such as the Partnership for Public Service, National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA), National Association of School of Public Affairs and
Administration (NASPAA), and various colleges and universities. Study reports
and newsletters continue to be actively sought by our stakeholders as evidenced
by over 105,500 accesses to eighty-five study reports, and over 19,000 accesses to
fifty-eight different editions of the newsletter. Reviewed measures of studies
impact in conjunction with developing the new strategic plan.
2009-10-10
2010-09-30
2.1.c
Recommendations
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
Most significantly, the Office of Personnel Management has enacted numerous longstanding MSPB recommendations as part of the President’s 2010 hiring reform initiative.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Assessments
Assess the practice of merit in the workplace.
_aa515b54-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
2.2
Summary of results for Performance Goal 2.2: This Performance Goal was MET. We
completed administration of the 2010 MPS to over 70,000 Federal employees and
supervisors with a 60% response rate for the online version of the survey. We published a
retrospective study on PPPs and completed a draft report on telework and presented key
findings from that study at the IPMA-HR Annual Conference. In FY 2011, we plan to
publish a study on PPPs from the 2010 MPS data, draft an additional report using this data,
and pilot test our ability to host our own surveys.
2.2.a
Periodically conduct merit principles survey (MPS) or other surveys to monitor and
report on perceptions of merit in the workplace.
Continue to assess the practice of merit and PPPs in agencies. Conduct a version
of the Merit Principles Survey. Draft a report on the 2009 telecommuting survey.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Publish a study on PPPs from the MPS 2010 data. Draft an additional report on
the 2010 Merit Principles Survey. Pilot MSPB’s ability to host our own surveys
through the administration of a study-focused Governmentwide survey.
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
Completed three reports using data from the 2005 MPS including a baseline
report on DHS and a baseline report on DoD; collected data from OPM’s
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) on DHS and DoD to monitor the impact of
personnel system changes; collaborated with the Senior Executive Association
(SEA) on the annual survey requirement followed by SEA proposing legislation
which included a requirement to use the MSPB MPS in alternate years to the
OPM Human Capital Survey; began planning a survey to assess the practice of
merit and Prohibited Personnel Practices related to equitable treatment.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
Published a report on the FY 2005 MPS; began electronic administration of the
FY 2007 MPS, which included assisting several agencies in meeting their
statutory requirement for conducting an annual survey of their workforce; began
electronic administration of a separate survey to investigate career advancement
issues in the Federal workforce.
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Completed the administration of the Governmentwide 2007 MPS which
included assisting a number of agencies in meeting their statutory requirements
for conducting an annual survey of their workforce by providing them with their
survey results for posting on their agency websites; completed a report on
longitudinal MPS results including those from the 2007 MPS; completed
administration of the governmentwide career advancement survey and began
analysis of the results; determined that planning should begin for a
governmentwide administration of the next MPS to be administered in FY 2010.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
Completed a report on the findings from the 2007 MPS, focusing on improving
Federal performance management practices; completed the administration of a
Governmentwide telework survey and began analysis of the results; administered
surveys to Federal proposing and deciding officials of suspension and removal
actions in nine agencies and completed a report on addressing poor performers
using this data; completed a report on fair and equitable treatment using survey
data from the 2007 career advancement survey; completed agency interrogatories
regarding how agencies use qualification standards and job simulations; began
planning for the MPS 2010 administration.
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
Performance goal met - MSPB successfully administered the 2010 Merit Principles Survey to over 70,000 Federal employees and supervisors, with a 60 percent response rate on the online survey.
Successfully administered the 2010 MPS to over 70,000 Federal employees and
supervisors to obtain their perspectives on PPPs, whistleblower protection
issues, and other workplace issues that affect employees’ abilities to carry out the
missions of their agencies. Obtained a 60% response rate on the online survey.
Published a retrospective study on the occurrence and perceptions of PPPs.
Completed an initial draft of our report on telework and presented key findings
from that study at the IPMA-HR annual conference.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Customer Satisfaction
Achieve and maintain customer satisfaction with merit systems studies products and outreach efforts.
_aa515c08-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
2.3
Summary of results for Performance Goal 2.3: This Performance Goal was MET. We
used stakeholder feedback to improve reports, newsletters, and the website including the
addition of rotating content on our web page. We evaluated data from the Issues of Merit
customer satisfaction survey and shared our plans to address the feedback in the newsletter.
We conducted extensive outreach to obtain stakeholder input on our new research agenda
and are committed to a transparent process to finalize the agenda. In FY 2011, we will
continue to use customer feedback to improve our study products and outreach efforts.
2.3.a
Customer satisfaction with reports, newsletters, website, and outreach efforts.
Use feedback on quality, usefulness, and impact of reports to maintain or
improve the readability of reports, and make improvements to the MSPB
website. Use feedback received from the Issues of Merit survey, as appropriate, to
improve the newsletter. Evaluate feedback received from agency presentations
and outreach efforts. Seek feedback from stakeholders to inform the
development of the FY 2010-2013 research agenda.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Use feedback on quality, usefulness, and impact of reports to maintain or
improve the readability of reports and newsletters, and make improvements to
the MSPB website. Evaluate feedback received from agency presentations and
outreach efforts.
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2007.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
Collected and analyzed feedback from customers concerning their satisfaction
with MSPB reports, newsletters, our website, and outreach efforts using a variety
of methods including discussions with stakeholders, responses received from
feedback cards distributed with reports, and information obtained directly from
users of the website. Used this information to inform the development of our
research agenda for FY 2008-FY 2010, improve the quality, usefulness, and
impact of our reports and newsletters, and completely redesign our website to
make it more accessible and helpful to potential users.
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Collected and analyzed feedback from customers about their satisfaction with
MSPB reports, newsletters, the studies website, and outreach efforts using a
variety of methods including discussions with stakeholders, responses received
from feedback cards distributed with reports, outreach feedback, and
information obtained directly from users of our website.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
Collected and analyzed feedback from customers about their satisfaction with
MSPB reports, newsletters, the studies website, and outreach efforts using a
variety of methods including discussions with stakeholders, outreach feedback,
and information obtained directly from users of our website. In addition, we
began administering a survey of newsletter readers to obtain feedback on the
quality, content, and utility of the Issues of Merit. Feedback about the
newsletter was very positive.
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
Performance goal met -
Collected feedback from customers concerning their satisfaction with MSPB
reports, newsletters, the studies website, and outreach efforts using a variety of
methods including discussions with stakeholders, outreach feedback, and
information obtained directly from users of our website. Used feedback to
improve reports and outreach, and to improve our website including providing
additional information in the form of rotating content on our web page on areas
of interest to our stakeholders. Evaluated data from the Issues of Merit customer
satisfaction survey and communicated strategies to respond to comments in our
September issue of the newsletter so stakeholders could see the impact of their
comments. Conducted extensive outreach to our stakeholders to obtain their
input on MSPB’s new research agenda, including CHCOs, HR Directors,
employee groups and unions, Federal employees, supervisors and managers, and
good government groups.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Organizational Excellence
To achieve organizational excellence and strategically manage MSPB’s human capital, information technology, and other internal systems and processes.
_aa515cb2-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
3
The MSPB met all three of our performance goals for management support and organizational excellence. We achieved the targets on all four human resource and EEO measures. We exceeded one and met two of our information technology measures, and fell short of the target on the fourth measure. Finally, we met our performance goal for effective and efficient management of our budget, financial, and other support programs.
Workforce
Attract, develop, and retain a high-quality, diverse and highly motivated workforce.
_aa515d66-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
3.1
Summary of Results for Performance Goal 3.1: This Performance Goals was MET. As
part of the hiring makeover project’s emphasis on timely hiring and to incorporate guidance
in the President’s Hiring Initiative, we created templates for user-friendly vacancy
announcements, implemented applicant notification procedures at four points during the
application process, and implemented electronic application processes for all MSPB
vacancies. Managers and employees continue to ensure a healthy EEO program. The annual
Unity Day program included a presentation on “The Business Case for Diversity.” The
Office of EEO collaborated with the Training and Development Subcommittee to develop
an enhanced training plan for all employees. The EEO and Diversity Training Policy was
circulated for review and issued. Agency turnover rates and employee survey results were
reviewed to identify potential barriers to improving representation. We initiated reviews of
the agency’s reasonable accommodation policy and complaint processing procedures. A
customer satisfaction survey was administered to internal customers of our human resources
program. We received provisional certification of the SES Performance Management Plan
and results of the evaluation of the e-OPF program indicated the program is effective and
provides quick access to data needed by employees to map career objectives.
We have restructured the performance goals and measures for our human resources and EEO
programs. The first measure of HR performance has been reworded to focus on ensuring
hiring timeliness and a workforce with the right competencies. The FY 2011 target is to
implement hiring makeover recommendations related to achieving timely recruitment and
establish future targets to improve recruiting timeliness. The second measure of HR
performance has been reworded to focus on diversity. Specifically, the measure includes
improving the diversity of the MSPB workforce and increasing employee knowledge and
appreciation of individual differences, including how diversity can positively affect agency
results. The FY 2011 target is to improve representation in the MSPB workforce of at least
one group that is below the participation rate as compared to that in the relevant civilian labor
force, and to review indicators to measure knowledge and appreciation of individual
differences. The third measure continues to focus on customer satisfaction with HR and EEO
programs. In FY 2011, we will develop and implement an internal customer satisfaction survey
for HR and EEO programs and services, establish baseline customer satisfaction levels, and
set future targets. The measure for compliance with HR policies and procedures has been
refocused to emphasize our commitment to modeling or practicing the recommendations we
make in our merit systems study reports. In FY 2011, we will review study recommendations
and develop a process for selecting appropriate recommendations for implementation.
None
Resources
Dollars in Thousands
Budget $ (000) (requested) % of total MSPB Resources
= 12%
5206
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
Budget $ (000) (enacted) % of total MSPB Resources
= 12%
5116
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
3.1.a
Program managers assure that the right employees are in the right place to achieve
results.
Review assessment process based on results of hiring makeover project to include timely hiring process, user-friendly vacancy announcements, and exit interview
questionnaire.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Implement hiring makeover recommendations related to achieving timely recruitment; establish future targets to improve recruiting timeliness.
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2007.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
The MSPB placed as the second “Best Places to Work in Government” in the
small agency category; Office Directors focused on specific issues relevant to
their offices; increased use of structured interviews resulted in a better
comparative assessment of the qualifications of the best qualified candidates.
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Implemented an exit interview questionnaire and refined vacancy
announcements to be more user-friendly and better able to attract the right
applicants for the targeted position.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
Due to low employee turnover in FY 2009, one annual assessment was
completed with no areas of concern referenced in the exit interview
questionnaire. Also, the MSPB increased its use of electronic hiring software to
improve the timeliness of the hiring process. The Executive Resources Board
recommended and secured three training slots at the OPM Federal Executive
Institute as part of MSPB’s training program, including the Senior Management
Fellows Program. A variety of health and wellness programs were provided for
employees throughout the year.
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
As part of the hiring makeover project’s emphasis on timely hiring, and to incorporate guidance in the President’s Hiring Initiative, we created templates for user-friendly vacancy announcements, implemented applicant notification
procedures at four points during the application process, and implemented electronic application processes for all MSPB vacancies. We continue to use exit interview questionnaires and consider other options to improve hiring timeliness.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
3.1.b
Workforce Diversity -
MSPB managers and employees ensure the agency's mission is enhanced by a diverse
workforce.
Update, develop, implement, and evaluate measurement goals or indicators (i.e.,
EEO policies, hiring and training practices, reasonable accommodations, climate
surveys, exit surveys, special emphasis observance programs, representation
turnover, turnover costs, participation in vendor fairs) for achieving diversity and
inclusiveness in the broadest context (including language proficiency and cultural
backgrounds) across all occupations and grade levels.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Improve representation in the MSPB workforce of at least one group that is
below the participation rate as compared to that in the relevant civilian labor
force. Review possible ways to measure knowledge and appreciation of
individual differences.
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2008.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
New measure in FY 2008.
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Developed and implemented a Unity Day celebration and various special
emphasis initiatives to improve inclusiveness, and respect for and appreciation of
individual differences among employees; improved employee opportunities by
notifying them about career advancement seminars and opportunities offered by
affinity groups, and by working with managers to add inclusiveness in crediting
plans and target vacancies toward minority populations; used data audits and
other tools to assess effectiveness of diversity initiatives.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
The delivery of Special Emphasis Observance Programs was enhanced with
presentations from noted speakers on Federal workplace diversity issues such as
generational differences and sexual orientation. Awareness and appreciation of
diversity in its broadest context was promoted through these programs and other
communications to all employees. Strategies were developed for achieving
diverse applicant pools and for proposing training plans that will assist
employees with achieving their best in accomplishing the agency's mission and
assist managers and supervisors with managing a diverse workforce. Training and
developmental opportunities were offered to employees, largely from affinity
groups; a new collateral duty Disability Program Coordinator was recruited; an
EEO and Diversity Training Policy was developed; and an expansion of the
mission and goals of the Office of EEO to include a focus on diversity was
proposed.
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
We continued to support a diverse workforce by developing a new employee training and development policy, and implementing a new EEO and Diversity training policy.
The delivery of Special Emphasis Observance Programs was enhanced with the
annual Unity Day program and a presentation on “The Business Case for
Diversity.” The Office of EEO collaborated with the Training and Development
Subcommittee to develop an enhanced training plan for all employees. The EEO
and Diversity Training Policy was circulated for review and issued. Proposed
options for diversity training for managers and supervisors were identified for
testing. The MD-715 report was completed and submitted to EEOC.
Recommendations were developed for recruiting and hiring qualified applicants
from underrepresented groups. Agency turnover rates and employee survey
results were reviewed to identify potential barriers to improving representation.
We initiated reviews of the agency’s reasonable accommodation policy and
complaint processing procedures.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
3.1.c
Customer satisfaction with internal human resources (HR) and EEO programs.
Complete hiring makeover project and make changes to agency hiring program
based on analysis of project results.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Develop and implement an internal customer satisfaction survey for HR and EEO
programs and services such as hiring, EEO programs and services, employee
benefits, and employee development. Establish a baseline customer satisfaction
levels and set future targets for improvement and use results to design future EEO
programs, training, and events.
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2007.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
Informal interviews with employees suggested a high level of satisfaction with
HR programs; staffing actions handled by the APHIS servicing personnel office
met or exceeded governmentwide standards; hired a new HR Director and
detailed an employee to serve as the Acting EEO Director to replace the
previous Director who transferred to another agency.
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Administered internal HR and EEO customer satisfaction surveys. Convened a
team of employees to recommend changes to MSPB’s hiring process and
prepared a report containing a number of recommended initiatives for the
Chairman’s review and comment.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
Feedback received from senior management concerned communication
regarding the year-end procurement process, which will be further addressed in
FY 2010. The MSPB implemented a hiring makeover team to review hiring
processes and procedures and make recommendations on options to our hiring
process with a goal of more timely, efficient hiring procedures. The team is
currently tracking the recruitment process from initial planning to onboard.
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
We received provisional certification of our SES Performance Management Plan and our employees gave positive feedback on the e-OPF program.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
3.1.d
Effectively implement human capital authorities and flexibilities.
Continue to comply with new and existing program requirements; retain full
certification of SES Performance Management Plan; evaluate first year of the e-
OPF program
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Review existing merit system study recommendations and develop a process for
selecting appropriate recommendations for implementation.
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2007.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
Forwarded employee OPFs to contractor for scanning and began using the
electronic Official Personnel Folder (e-OPF) for all new employees; received
provisional certification from OPM on our SES Performance Appraisal System;
HR Director visited APHIS Service Center to discuss operational processes and
opportunities for change.
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Updated the interagency agreement between APHIS and MSPB to better reflect
the service needs of the agency; received full certification of our SES
Performance Management Plan from OPM, which was endorsed by OMB.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
The e-OPF was implemented, which allows MSPB employees immediate access
to their personnel information. Arranged an on-site pre-retirement seminar for
MSPB employees, conducted two brown-bag lunch seminars on human
resources topics, and detailed MSPB health and wellness initiatives in a report to
OMB that was selected as a template for other agency submissions. No
modification of the SES Performance Appraisal System was required due to a
full certification evaluation of the current plan by OPM.
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
Received provisional certification of the SES Performance Management Plan.
Results of the evaluation of the e-OPF program indicated the program is
effective and provides quick access to data needed by employees to map career
objectives. Continued to comply with other new and existing HR program
requirements.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
IT
Effectively use information technology to enhance organizational performance and efficiency, and provide access to and dissemination of MSPB information.
_aa515e24-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
3.2
Summary of results for performance goal 3.2: This Performance Goal was MET. Fortythree
% of initial appeals were filed electronically, 8% more than the target of 40%. Thirtysix
% of pleadings were filed electronically, 29% more than the target of 28%. Ninety-nine
% of technical support tickets were resolved within one business day, 15% more than the
target of 85%t. Seventy-five % of IRM customer satisfaction survey respondents were
satisfied or very satisfied with IRM meeting their needs, 12% lower than the target of 85%.
The MSPB met all information technology regulatory requirements including FISMA
reporting and complying with the Open Government Directive. All MSPB employees
completed of Information Security Awareness Training. The FY 2011 performance targets
for the information security measures will remain at FY 2010 levels, except that percentage
of pleadings filed electronically will be increased to 30% or more.
3.2.a
E-Filing - Support e-Government objectives by increasing appeals and pleadings filed
electronically.
Percentage
40% or more of initial appeals are filed electronically and 28% or more of
pleadings are submitted electronically.
40
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
40% or greater of initial appeals are filed electronically and 30% or greater of
pleadings are submitted electronically.
40
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2007.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
29% of initial appeals were filed electronically through e-Appeal (1763/5991).
29
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
37% of initial appeals were filed electronically (2,175/5,891). E-Appeal was
selected as a finalist for the FY 2008 Web Managers Best Practice Award and
listed as one of the 10 great .GOV websites by Government Computer News
magazine.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
39% of initial appeals were filed electronically (2,546/6,586), and 28% of
pleadings were filed electronically (11,156/40,276).
39
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
43% of initial appeals were filed electronically (2,963/6,890), and 36% of
pleadings were filed electronically (15,397/42,252). Redesigned the MSPB public
website including the addition of multimedia links and electronic MAP
evaluation form; upgraded the intranet portal to support personalizing employee
home pages. The electronic case file processing pilot continues.
43
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
3.2.b
Improve customer service by conforming with established IRM service level
agreements (SLA).
Percentage
86% or more of tickets resolved within one business day.
86
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
86% or more of tickets resolved within one business day.
86
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2007.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
88% of technical support tickets or requests were resolved in one business day.
88
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
87% of the 4,120 technical support tickets were resolved in one business day.
87
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
88% of the 3,589 technical support tickets were resolved in one business day.
In addition, 2,877 tickets were resolved from external customers.
88
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
98.9% of 3,668 technical support tickets were resolved within the service level
agreement of one business day. Over 3,000 technical support tickets were
resolved from external customers.
98.9
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
3.2.c
Customer Satisfaction - Measure success in enhancing organizational performance and efficiency through IRM customer satisfaction surveys.
Percentage
85% or more of staff who responded to the survey indicated they were satisfied
or very satisfied with IRM meeting their needs.
85
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
85% or more of staff who responded to the survey indicated they were satisfied
or very satisfied with IRM meeting their needs.
85
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2007
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
86% of the 64 MSPB staff who responded to the survey indicated they were
satisfied or very satisfied with IRM meeting their needs.
86
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
89% of the 89 survey respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with IRM
meeting their needs.
89
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
86% of the 116 survey respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with IRM
meeting their needs.
86
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
75% of the 94 survey respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with IRM
meeting their needs.
75
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
3.2.d
Compliance - Comply with information management regulatory requirements.
Comply with information management regulatory requirements.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Comply with information management regulatory requirements.
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
Comply with information management regulatory requirements.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) compliance was
reviewed by an outside contractor and the final FISMA report was submitted to
OMB; 100% of MSPB employees completed annual security awareness training;
remained in full compliance with FISMA, HSPD-12, and IPv6 (Internet Protocol
Version 6).
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Complied with FISMA including 100% of MSPB employees completing security
awareness training, completion of FISMA security audit, and submission of
annual FISMA report. Complied with requirements for e-Gov Act, IPv6, TIC
(Trusted Internet Connections), Networx, and FDCC (Federal Desktop Core
Configuration).
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
Began tracking FISMA Plan of Action and Milestones tasks on a weekly basis
and continued to work with auditors on the FISMA report as the deadline was
postponed by OMB due to new reporting requirements. To minimize
vulnerabilities from further virus attacks, servers were established at
Headquarters, the regions, and field offices to download and apply Microsoft
patches, all PCs and servers were upgraded to the Symantec latest antivirus client
version, and servers were programmed to push virus definition files to all PCs
and servers on a daily basis. Potential disaster recovery sites were visited and we
obtained a commitment from one site to host MSPB servers. Other activities
included the Networx transition and its associated statement of work, TIC
(Trusted Internet Connections), and DNSSEC (Domain Name Service Security).
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
We continued to comply with IT regulatory requirements including FISMA, and information security awareness training.
We are voluntarily complying with the Open Government Directive as we focus on improving transparency.
Conformed with all information regulatory requirements including the Open
Government Directive, posting data sets on data.gov, transitioning to Networx,
responded to Data Center Consolidation Initiative, performed 508-comliance
testing, submitted all FISMA reports on time through CyberScope, completed 19
of 26 POAMs (plan of action milestones) tasks. Completed projects to
strengthen or improve firewall protection, virus scanning and protection, data
security and availability, and increase the number of secure, remote connections
to the network. All MSPB employees completed Annual Information Security
Awareness training.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
3.2.e
Open Government Directive
Compliance
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
We are voluntarily complying with the Open Government Directive as we focus on improving transparency.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Effectiveness and Efficiency
Effective and efficient operation of financial, budget, and other support programs.
_aa515ee2-f29e-11df-a016-150c7a64ea2a
3.3
Summary of results for performance goal 3.3: This Performance Goal was MET. We
received an unqualified opinion on the annual financial audit for the eighth straight year. The
customer satisfaction survey of internal customers of our management programs was initiated.
We successfully developed and deployed the e-Requisition system and we increased our
physical security as a result of threats and vulnerabilities that were identified. In FY 2011, we
will finalize the customer satisfaction survey and establish baseline customer satisfaction levels
and future targets for improvement.
3.3.a
Audit
Unqualified Opinion - Maintain accurate and legally sound budget accounts and accountings ledgers.
Achieve unqualified opinion on the annual financial audit.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Achieve unqualified opinion on the annual financial audit.
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2007.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
Achieved unqualified opinion on the FY 2006 financial audit; maintained
accurate, up-to-date budget and accounting ledgers; began update of internal
Financial Management Manual.
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Achieved unqualified opinion on the FY 2007 financial audit.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
Achieved unqualified opinion on the FY 2008 financial audit.
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
We achieved an unqualified opinion on the audit of our FY 2009 financial statements for the eighth straight year.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
3.3.b
Miscellaneous - Customer satisfaction of employees with other support programs (i.e., payroll, travel, printing, and procurement).
Develop and administer an updated customer satisfaction survey; initiate an electronic procurement requisition system.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
Finalize and implement an internal customer satisfaction survey for administrative
functions; establish baseline customer satisfaction levels and set future targets for
improvement.
2010-10-01
2011-09-30
New measure in FY 2007.
2005-10-01
2006-09-30
Used customer feedback to review and update support program manuals; issued
new procurement manual; began update of Time and Attendance; hired new
travel coordinator and a second employee as a procurement specialist.
2006-10-01
2007-09-30
Completed an internal customer satisfaction survey for other management
programs and an additional survey of MSPB Administrative Management staff.
2007-10-01
2008-09-30
Customer satisfaction increased by 10% for most support programs except in
one area in procurement regarding issues with spending during the fourth
quarter. These issues will be addressed in the next fiscal year. The MSPB began
pilot-testing a new electronic purchase requisition system, which will provide a
more efficient procurement process and better tracking of orders from inception
of order to receipt of item. Agency video conferencing equipment was updated
to include Internet Protocol access, which will allow MSPB to connect to sites
that were previously unavailable.
2008-10-01
2009-09-30
We successfully implemented a new e-Requisition system, increased our physical security as a result of threats and vulnerabilities that were identified, and administered a
customer satisfaction survey of the internal customers of these programs.
The updated customer satisfaction survey of internal customers of our management
programs was initiated. The electronic requisition system was pilot-tested, refined,
and successfully deployed.
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
2009-10-01
2010-09-30
2010-12-01
http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=552737&version=554319&application=ACROBAT
Owen
Ambur
Owen.Ambur@verizon.net