COST OF PERSONNEL EVALUATION BOARDS AND PANELS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP92-00455R000100170012-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 21, 2002
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: June 5, 1980
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2002tGNM T$X-RDP92-00455RGO0100170012-4
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Personnel Policy, Planning, and Management
Chief, Policy to /OPPPM/P&E
SUBJECT : Cost of Personnel Evaluation Boards and Panels
1. The cost of personnel evaluation is a subject frequently addressed
during discussions of various personnel management issues. The subject
revolves around the associated costs (time and salary dollars) of evaluating
all employees by evaluation boards and panels. Frequently the solution offered
is to increase the base of the evaluation boards or panels by either expanding
the number of persons being evaluated or increasing the categories of persons
being evaluated. For various recorded reasons, neither of these alternatives
offer a viable solution.
2. From a historical review, it appears that the Agency consciously
chose to follow the path of evaluating employees by evaluation boards and
panels. Prior to 1978, Career Service and Sub-group panels were required to
annually evaluate all professional employees. In 1978, a policy decision was
reached to require all Career Services to use the panel system to determine
promotion eligibility for all employees regardless of category. In approving
the Agency Personnel Evaluation System in February of 1980, the DDCI confirmed
that "all CIA employees below SIS-4 will be evaluated for career development,
promotion and value to service by a personnel board or panel system." In.
addition, the movement toward more consistency in approach to personnel manage-
ment (but with flexibility of application by line management), as evidenced by
the uniform precepts paper, may add to the time involvement on the part of
evaluation boards and panels. These include: review the personnel file of
each employee; evaluate at least annually; concentrate the file review on the
last five years of service; etc.
3. Consistency and uniformity of evaluation, although reassuring, result
in a costly personnel management system by requiring many employee years devoted
to panel operations. Some alternative, such as rigid time-in-grade standards,
would marginally reduce panel evaluation time for the promotion exercise only.
The evaluation for value would need to be continued.
4. There is an alternative yet to be fully explored but one that would
require a change in Agency expressed philosophy. This alternative would be
based on the philosophy that the value of an employee is only to the immediate
work unit in the early and learning years of Agency employment. Value would
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 CIA-RDP92-00455R000100170012-4
 Approved For M ease 2 0419 CIA-RDP92-00455E 0100170012-4
then become more universal when certain levels of experience, performance and
time have been attained; that is, when the individual has attained the indepen-
dent full performance level. The universal or Agency-wide value would begin at
the supervisory or substantive specialist level. This independent full perform-
ance level would vary, and maybe widely, within the Agency but could be deter-
mined by position survey and the establishment of job standards in consultation
with component managers for those positions up to the independent full
performance level. Development, assignment, promotion, and certification would
be against these standards. Decisions affecting employees (such as promotion,
training, reassignment) until they reach this independent full performance
level, would be by supervisory certification thereby negating the need for an
evaluation panel review. Thus, the cost would be reduced. Evaluation board
and panel review would begin once the employee reaches the independent full
performance level, the break point to supervisory and substantive specialist
positions. A gross estimate means the removal of Demployees from the 25X9
evaluation review process which could re resent almost a 30 percent reduction
in evaluation board and panel workload.
rS'ECR
5. Once the plate of the Policy Staff starts emptying, I would like to
study this alternative in depth. However, as it is predicated on a change in
Agency evaluation philosophy, I feel the need for your approval prior to
pursuing this concept further.
Approved ( ) Disapproved ( )
Director of Personnel{ olicy,
Planning, and Management
Approved For Release 2002/05/0 : CIA-RDP92-00455R000100170012-4
 STATINTL Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP92-00455R000100170012-4
Approved For Release 2002/05/09 : CIA-RDP92-00455R000100170012-4