REVIEW OF RECRUITMENT PROCESS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050011-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 25, 2003
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: April 21, 1981
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2003/08/13: CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050011-9
21 April 1901
~~?~~R~L~'Dt1~I FOR: Deputy Director for Administration
Harry E. Fitzlaater
Director of Personnel
Policy, Planning, and Alanagement
SUBJECT: ~ Review of Recruitment Process ,
REFER~CE: Your Memo (DDA 81-0707f 6) , dtd 15 April I98I,
Same Subject
Ntax:
1. jvhen we talked last week about the subject, Review of the Recruitment
Process, I had not had an opportunity to read it. As you will recall, in
response to your desire to send it to the other Deputy Directors, I suggested it
be attached to our paper for the Executive Committee.
2. After reading the Review I withdra:a that suggestion and return it to
yoga to be distributed as you see fit. Although there are some recommendations
that I .endorse, e.g., one, two and four (which is being done), I have trouble
ttiTith the others. There are inaccuracies, misperceptions, omissions and
speculations in the paper that I do not iJant to compound by appearing to endorse
the P,eview.
3. At first blush several of the recorru;:endatior_s and their supporting
comments appear to make sense. Deeper analysis ray indicate otherc,rise_ For
exW,~ple, it is easy to co.-rpare the number of professionals recruited by Z;~4R0
against the Field Recruiters. jvhat the paper fails to discuss is the difference
in qualifications of the professionals. Generally, ~VARO handles the entry-level
BA graduate who is in town looking for a job. On the other hand the recruiter is
out beating the bushes for the hard-to-get individual who is being sought by
both the private and public sectors, i.e., engineers, computer science personnel,
economists, CT's, etc. There are other inaccuracies about the recruiters and
their mode of operations, i.e., only "work standard hour days" and no "expense
account." It is disturbing to read that "all" of our optimization activity has .
been?centered on the processing portion lahich implies nothing has been done in
the field which is a gross misstatement.
4. Recommendations 8 and l0 ar-e very troublesome since they impact on the
suitability~'and quality of employees entering on duty_ It is highly doubtful
that the directorates and components who now rely on the PATE for a better
Approved For Release 2003/08/13: CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050011-9
 Approved For Release 2003/08/13: CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050011-9
u---derstanding of the qualifications of professional applicants titiill be agreeable
to dropping the PATB tests. A few years ago I thought this z?as necessary in
oz~der to speed up the hiring process and cut ei~erses for ontry of CT's, j~nat
I quicxly learned is that you cannot depend on College SAT scores. The applicant
Tray have gone through college with a 3.5 average but cannot read nor i~-rite_
I~:nother disturbing recommendation, nu~ber 8, is that t.e eliminate the clinical
portion of medical processing for those involved in ~edentary_jobs until
the person has entered on duty. I can assure you that this could result in
not only a higher cost to the Government but also in Legal cases_ It can be
predicted that it will be necessary to terninate individuals t:ha are found to
have a serious medical problem after entering on duty. This problem is
caTpounded if the individual has sold his/her house and has quit his/her job
to move to ldashington.
5. I agree that the invitee travel must be better controlled and the are
titiorking toward this end. The paper fails to note that we are trying to improve
the staffing requirements to ensure that vacancies do indeed exist before an
applicant is invited in to 1~~ashington. Also, the pre-investigative interviews
by security and medical representatives and the task force approach for
technical testing, pre-polying and medical exams in the field krill reduce
unnecessary invitee travel. The Revie~,r suggests that invitee travel is
s~.yrocketing despite front-end screening. The paper fails to note that this
is directly attributable to a large increase in positions, FY 81-291, FY 82-483
and possibly up to 1000 in FY 83. Also, there has been a significant increase
.in travel costs. At present it costs on the average X450 per trip_ j'1e estimate
that this trill increase to $507 by FY 1983. I have not seen a projection of
2.b8?YI for invitee travel in FY 1983 but assume this was a figure initially
STAl~eing considered by for a projected increase of 1000 positions
in FY 83. Belo~r is a comparison of EOD's that required invitee travel during
the period FY 1979-80 and projected through FY 1983:
1'E4R
FY 79
FY 80
FY 81
FY 82
FY 83
TOTAL EOD'S
EOD'S REQUIRING
IIv'tI1TEE TR:4L~~L
I1~~r7TEE
T RAb'EL FUNDS $ K
STAT
Current Package
Projected Packa
Approved For Release 2003/08/13: CIA-RDP84B00890R000400050011-9
 Approved For Release 2003/08/13 :CIA-RDP84BU0890R000400050011-9
It mt:st be noted that all people provided travel are not hired, l~Tel~ertheless,
it may be cheaper in the Long run to spend $500 on travel to save several
thousands by not hiring the wrong applicant.
6. I mow this memorandum is quite negative toti~ard the report, but the
concerns noted. above and others are so serious that I could not let the paper
stand unchallenged.
Harry E. Fitz