Cover: A Preliminary Analysis of the Increase in the Average Grade of General Schedule Federal Employees.

A Preliminary Analysis of the Increase in the Average Grade of General Schedule Federal Employees.

Published 1978

by James H. Hayes, Geraldine Walter, S. K. Matyskiela, E. R. Kabe

Purchase Print Copy

 Format Price
Add to Cart Paperback38 pages $20.00

A description of the general schedule (GS) system as it exists today and a discussion of alternative hypotheses to explain the average grade increase from 6.6 in l959 to 7.4 in l976. The analysis indicates: (1) "Grade creep" occurred throughout the federal government, not only the DOD. (2) There was a clearly observable change in the mix of occupations. (3) Before 1969, when comparability was achieved, the GS was pushed in subtle ways to increase grades as a substitute for pay raises. (4) The agencies that use GS are almost autonomous in their ability to prescribe their organizational structure. (5) Even more significant was the movement out of the lower grades into the middle grades. It is unclear what degree of importance to attach to any of the multiple factors affecting GS grades, but average grade may not be an appropriate measure of the problem. 38 pp.

This report is part of the RAND report series. The report was a product of RAND from 1948 to 1993 that represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.