This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in
this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only.
Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under
copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research
documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public
service of the RAND Corporation.
6
Jump down to document
THE ARTS
CHILD POLICY
CIVIL JUSTICE
EDUCATION
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
NATIONAL SECURITY
POPULATION AND AGING
PUBLIC SAFETY
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research
organization providing objective analysis and effective
solutions that address the challenges facing the public
and private sectors around the world.

Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute
View document details
For More Information
Purchase this document
Browse Books & Publications
Make a charitable contribution
Support RAND
This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may
include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discus-
sions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey
instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research profes-
sionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND
reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for re-
search quality and objectivity.
The Department of
the Navy’s Civilian
Acquisition Workforce
An Analysis of Recent Trends
Susan M. Gates, Edward G. Keating, Bryan Tysinger,
Adria D. Jewell, Lindsay Daugherty, Ralph Masi
Prepared for the United States Navy
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis
and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors
around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its
research clients and sponsors.
R
®

is a registered trademark.
© Copyright 2009 RAND Corporation
Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered
and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized
posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND
documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking
permissions, please visit the RAND permissions page (
permissions.html).
Published 2009 by the RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665
RAND URL:
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002;
Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email:
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication.
ISBN 978-0-8330-4618-5
The research described in this report was prepared for the United States Navy. The research
was conducted in the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research
and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint
Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Department of the Navy, the Marine
Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community under Contract
W74V8H-06-C-0002.
iii
Preface
e defense acquisition workforce (AW) is responsible for providing a wide range of acquisi-
tion, technology, and logistics support to the nation’s warfighters. e United States Navy
asked the RAND Corporation to characterize the Department of the Navy (DoN) civilian
AW by means of a cross-sectional examination of key workforce characteristics and an analysis

of workforce turnover.
is report provides a descriptive overview of the DoN civilian AW over the past decade
and presents the results of preliminary analyses of data related to specific workforce manage-
ment issues: retention, professional development, and leadership. It demonstrates the utility
of workforce analysis and focuses attention on issues that deserve further analysis and policy-
maker attention. In performing this work, RAND leveraged prior work for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense/Personnel and Readiness (Program Integration) (OSD/P&R(PI)) (Gates,
Eibner, and Keating, 2006) and concurrent work conducted for OSD/Acquisition, Technol-
ogy, and Logistics (AT&L). e concurrent work is described in a companion report, TR-572-
OSD, e Defense Acquisition Workforce: An Analysis of Personnel Trends Relevant to Policy,
1993–2006 (Gates et al., 2008). at report provides additional background and method-
ological detail on the work presented here. All references in this report to AW trends through-
out the Department of Defense (DoD) relate to that report. is report combines data that
RAND received from the DoN with data received from the Defense Manpower Data Center
(DMDC).
is report will be of interest to officials responsible for acquisition workforce planning
in the Department of Defense and those in other parts of the DoD, workforce managers more
generally, as well as members of the defense acquisitions community. is research was spon-
sored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and
Acquisition and conducted within the Forces and Resources Policy Center of RAND’s National
Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the
Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence
Community. For more information on RAND’s Forces and Resources Policy Center, contact
the Director, James Hosek. He can be reached by email at ; by phone
at 310-393-0411, extension 7183; or by mail at the RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street,
Santa Monica, California 90407-2138. More information about RAND is available at www.
rand.org.

v

Contents
Preface iii
Figures
vii
Tables
ix
Summary
xi
Acknowledgments
xvii
Abbreviations
xix
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction 1
CHAPTER TWO
An Overview of the DoN’s Civilian Acquisition Workforce 5
Summary
13
CHAPTER THREE
Retirement Behavior of the DoN’s Civilian Acquisition Workforce 15
CHAPTER FOUR
A Look at the FY 2001 DoN Acquisition Workforce Interns 21
Background on the NAIP
21
Characteristics of NAIP Participants and eir Early Careers
22
Career Outcomes of Interns Compared with ose of Other New Hires
24
Retention of NAIP Participants
24

Promotion of NAIP Participants
28
Summary
29
CHAPTER FIVE
An Analysis of DoN’s Acquisition Workforce Senior Executive Service Members 31
Summary
36
CHAPTER SIX
Summary and Conclusions 39
References
41

vii
Figures
2.1. DoN Civilians in the Acquisition Workforce, September 30 Annual Snapshots 5
2.2. FY 2002 Recategorizations into the Acquisition Workforce, by Command
6
2.3. DoN Civilians, by Education Level, September 30, 2006
7
2.4. DoN Acquisition Workforce Civilians, by Command, September 30, 2006
8
2.5.
DoN AW Civilians, by Location, September 30, 2006 8
2.6. DoN AW Versus Non-AW Civilian Attrition Rates
9
2.7. AW Versus Non-AW Civilian Attrition Rates, BA/BS-Only Population
10
2.8. AW Versus Non-AW Civilian Workforce Inventory and Attrition Rates, by Years of
Service, BA/BS-Only, FY 2006

11
2.9. FY 2006 AW Versus Non-AW Civilian Attrition Rates, by SYSCOM
12
2.10. SYSCOMs’ AW Versus Non-AW Civilian Attrition Rates, FYs 1999–2006
12
3.1. Percentage of DoN AW and Non-AW Civilians At or Near Full Retirement
Eligibility
16
3.2. FY 2006 DoN Civilian Attrition as a Function of Years Relative to Full Retirement
Eligibility
16
3.3. Percentage of DoN Civilians in CSRS, FY 2006
17
3.4. Attrition Rates for DoN Civilian Workers Covered by CSRS and FERS, FY 2006
18
3.5. Attrition Rates for DoN AW and Non-AW Civilians in CSRS, FY 2006
19
3.6. Attrition Rates for DoN AW and Non-AW Civilians in FERS, FY 2006
20
4.1. Basic Demographics of the FY 2001 DoN AW Interns
22
4.2. FY 2001 DoN Interns Still Employed by the DoD
23
4.3. Commands of the FY 2001 DoN AW Intern Cohort, FY 2006
23
4.4. Grade Levels of FY 2001 DoN AW Interns
24
4.5. Promotion of DoN AW Interns and Non-Interns
29
5.1. Age and Gender Profile of DoN AW SES Personnel, September 2006

32
5.2. DoN AW SES Members, by Command, 2006
32
5.3. Historical Commands of FY 2006 DoN AW SES Members,
by Service
33
5.4. Command Switches by FY 2006 DoN AW SES Members, 1992–2005
34
5.5. Movement of DoN AW SES Members Between Commands
34
5.6. Service-Level Exports and Imports of AW SES Personnel, 2006
35
5.7. Historical Grade Levels of FY 2006 DoN AW SES Members
36
5.8.
Years Spent by FY 2006 DoN AW SES Members as GS/GM-15s 37

ix
Tables
4.1. Summary Statistics on NAIP Interns and Other DoN AW New Hires 25
4.2. Logistic Regression Results Predicting Employment in the FY 2006 DoN
Acquisition Workforce for Employees in Engineering or Logistics Management
with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
27
4.3. Logistic Regression Results Predicting Employment in the Department of
Defense Workforce for Employees in Engineering or Logistics Management
with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
28

xi

Summary
While workforce issues in general—human capital strategic planning efforts in particular—
are important throughout the DoD, the AT&L workforce has received special attention. e
strategic human capital plan for the AW, which is currently in its third revision (see DoD,
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 2007), emphasizes several critical workforce issues:
the eventual loss of retirement-eligible personnel and their knowledge, understanding the dif-
ferences in the workforce generations (aging baby-boomers compared with Generations X and
Y, for example), and coping with the increasing demand for workers educated in science and
engineering.
In 2006, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics, Director of Human Capital Initiatives (OUSD(AT&L)/HCI)), asked RAND to
analyze DoD AW data. RAND’s findings for OUSD(AT&L/HCI) are presented in Gates et
al. (2008). While that inquiry was under way, the United States Navy asked RAND to under-
take a complementary analysis focusing on the DoN’s civilian AW.
1
e DoN asked RAND
to provide a descriptive overview of the DoN civilian AW and conduct preliminary analyses of
data related to specific workforce management issues of retention, professional development,
and leadership. is report summarizes what we learned about DoN’s civilian AW and these
workforce management issues.
Data Sources and Methods
e DMDC maintains rich data sources on the DoD’s military and civilian workforces.
Because of congressional reporting requirements, there is even more information available
about the acquisition workforce. However, these data are spread out among several data files
and are not readily usable for more elaborate types of workforce analysis that require longitu-
dinal information. To create analytical files, RAND assembled data from several sources and
linked records across time and across data files.
DMDC provided RAND with annual civilian inventory and transaction file data cover-
ing the period September 30, 1992, to September 30, 2006. e inventory data provide annual
demographic “snapshots” of each civilian employee, e.g., their grade, location, and education

level. e transaction data complement the inventory data by noting “transactions” that occur
to workers between inventory snapshots. Attrition transactions were of central interest to us.
DMDC also provided RAND with acquisition workforce person file data covering fiscal
year (FY) 1992 through FY 2006. ese data identify both military and civilian personnel
1
e DoN includes the United States Marine Corps along with the United States Navy.
xii The Department of the Navy’s Civilian Acquisition Workforce: An Analysis of Recent Trends
who are part of the acquisition workforce, and provide additional information relevant to the
acquisition community on these workers, such as acquisition career field and certification level.
In addition, the DoN gave RAND a list of individuals who were identified as part of the DoN
AW at the end of each fiscal year for FYs 1998–2006. ese data include individuals who work
for the Navy and the Marine Corps. Unlike the DMDC acquisition workforce data, the DoN
acquisition workforce data distinguish between “incumbents” (those who are currently in des-
ignated acquisition positions) and “nonincumbents” (individuals who are considered part of
the acquisition workforce but are not currently in designated acquisition positions). Our analy-
sis of the
DoN AW is restricted to incumbents in FYs 1998–2006.
2

The DoN Civilian Acquisition Workforce: Profile
As of September 30, 2006, there were 36,164 DoN civilians in the AW, representing about 27
percent of the DoN’s non–wage grade civilian labor force. ere was a considerable increase in
the size of the DoN civilian AW between September 30, 2001, and September 30, 2002. e
preponderance of that increase occurred because 6,586 non-AW Naval Sea Systems Command
(NAVSEA) civilians were recategorized into the AW during FY 2002.
DoN AW civilians are more likely than non-AW civilians to be scientists and engineers.
DoN AW civilians have a higher level of educational attainment than non-AW civilians. ese
differences between the AW and non-AW workforces are not specific to the DoN and are true
for the DoD as a whole (Gates et al., 2008).
Reflecting the fact that acquisition is the primary function of the major commodity com-

mands (NAVSEA, Naval Air Systems Command [NAVAIR], and Space and Naval Warfare
Systems Command [SPAWAR]), two-thirds of all DoN AW civilians are in NAVSEA and
NAVAIR. Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, is the single biggest DoN AW civilian
location.
e number of DoN AW civilians who become fully retirement-eligible will increase in
FY 2012 and will remain at higher than current levels for about seven years after that. How-
ever, proportionally fewer DoN AW civilians have attained that status in recent years than has
been the case for non-AW civilians.
As is true for the DoD as a whole, the DoN civilian AW has had consistently lower attri-
tion than the DoN’s non-AW civilian workforce, even controlling for education and experience
level, a finding that is driven by lower rates of nonretirement separation from the AW.
Our descriptive overview reveals that the AW is a sizable share of the DoN’s civilian work-
force and that it looks quite different from the non-AW civilian workforce in terms of occupa-
tion and education level. Despite concerns about attrition among members of this workforce,
our analysis shows that the AW actually experiences lower rates of separation than non-AW
civilians.
2
e findings presented in our companion report, TR-572-OSD, on the entire DoD AW include both incumbents and
nonincumbents.
Summary xiii
Retirement Behavior of the DoN’s Acquisition Workforce
e analysis confirms that there is a burst of attrition when DoN AW civilian employees
become fully retirement-eligible. Annual attrition rates jump from around 3–5 percent in the
years preceding full retirement eligibility to more than 20 percent in the year in which indi-
viduals attain retirement eligibility. is is true for both the AW and for non-AW civilians,
although the jump is slightly larger for AW civilians.
Most DoN civilians who became fully retirement-eligible in recent years were covered by
the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). However, the fraction of the newly retirement-
eligible workers in CSRS will decrease because most newer DoD civilian employees are instead
in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS).

Whereas CSRS is an “all-or-nothing” retirement plan, FERS has a “deferred benefit” for
which a civilian worker becomes eligible after five years of creditable service. We observe that
attrition among those not yet retirement-eligible is greater for DoN civilians covered by FERS
than for those covered by CSRS. However, we also see that employees covered by FERS do
not experience as large a leap in attrition upon attainment of full retirement eligibility as their
CSRS counterparts do.
e ongoing DoN-wide transition from “mostly CSRS” to “mostly FERS” retirement
eligibility lags in the DoN’s civilian AW. DoN AW civilians are disproportionately in CSRS,
controlling for years until full retirement eligibility.
ese findings on the retirement of the DoN AW civilians mirror our findings for the
DoD AW workforce (Gates et al., 2008). ey point to a need for AW managers to track retire-
ment eligibility and to understand and plan for the differences between those covered by CSRS
and those covered by FERS. It is also important to note that while attrition rates increase dra-
matically once individuals become retirement-eligible, it is not true that all employees depart
immediately upon reaching retirement eligibility.
DoN Acquisition Workforce Interns
In light of possible future challenges in maintaining the size of the civilian acquisition work-
force as a growing share of the workforce reaches retirement eligibility, the DoN has put special
emphasis on intern programs to attract and train high-quality new civilian employees.
We studied the 271 DoN AW civilians hired into the Naval Acquisition Intern Program
(NAIP) during FY 2001 and how their careers have evolved. We compared their outcomes
with those of other new hires to the DoN AW in that fiscal year.
Our analysis of the career experiences of new DoN AW hires in FY 2001 suggests that
NAIP participants are promoted quickly to mid- and senior-level positions and that they are
neither more nor less likely to remain in the DoN AW or the DoD overall through FY 2006
than other DoN AW new hires. Our analysis also suggests that the DoN AW has a harder time
retaining new hires into the contracting career field compared with those in the engineering
field, regardless of whether new hires are in the intern program or not. We caution that this
analysis is based on the outcomes of only one cohort of new hires (those hired in FY 2001) and
may not apply to current new hires. However, similar analyses could be done to track the out-

comes for more-recent cohorts over shorter periods of time and to further explore the disparity
in retention based on career field.
xiv The Department of the Navy’s Civilian Acquisition Workforce: An Analysis of Recent Trends
Analysis of the DoN’s Acquisition Workforce Senior Executive Service
Members
e DoN had 151 AW Senior Executive Service (SES) members as of September 2006. Over
half were in NAVSEA or NAVAIR. Of those 151, 140 were DoN civilian employees on Sep-
tember 30, 1992. One-hundred nineteen of the 151 had not changed DoN command since
1992. is suggests that DoN AW SES personnel have a command-specific depth of knowl-
edge and experience rather than DoN-wide breadth.
e limited number of intercommand switches that we see in the data most often involves
an employee leaving NAVSEA. NAVSEA is disproportionately the “cradle” of DoN AW SES
members. DoD-wide, it has been more common for a civilian worker to leave the DoN and
become an AW SES member elsewhere than it has been for the DoN to hire a civilian worker
from another service who eventually becomes an AW SES member in the DoN.
In some respects, the experience of the DoN’s civilian AW SES members complements
the experience of the Navy’s and Marine Corps’s military leaders. While Navy and Marine
officers rotate extensively, DoN AW SES members generally have focused expertise in their
current command.
Our analysis of DoN AW SES careers reveals a high degree of retention among those in
senior leadership positions and a low degree of intraorganizational mobility within the DoD.
More Detailed Analysis of the Current Acquisition Workforce and Historical
Trends Could Yield Additional Insight
In this report, we provide only a few examples of the type of analyses of current AW data
that could more fully inform the AW management process. Further analysis of these issues,
as well as an exploration of others, could provide useful information for acquisition workforce
managers.
Our analysis suggests that the DoN should continue to monitor the effectiveness of the
DoN AW intern program in improving the retention of new hires for post-2001 entry cohorts.
Improved retention is a primary goal of most DoD intern programs, and organizations spend

substantial resources providing interns with mentoring and professional development experi-
ences in support of this aim.
While this report illustrates that, overall, the AW actually experiences lower rates of sepa-
ration than do non-AW civilians, we also find evidence that attrition is higher for those enter-
ing the contracting career field in 2001. Further analysis should be done to monitor retention
by career field. If trends persist over time, the DoN may need to develop targeted retention
efforts.
e analysis also points to a few potential policy issues related to the senior DoN AW.
First, we found that senior-level DoN AW personnel are more likely to move from the DoN
to other DoD services or agencies than the reverse. is may be due to changes in the overall
demand for senior AW executives (e.g., declining demand in the DoN and increased demand
in other parts of the DoD) and thus may not be a cause for concern. Alternatively, it may
reflect a desire on the part of DoN senior leaders to work in other parts of the DoD—an idea
worthy of further exploration by DoN AW managers. Second, we found that few senior DoN
AW SES members have experience in more than one naval command. is lack of intracom-
Summary xv
mand mobility may reflect a belief that senior AW leaders of a particular system must have
deep knowledge of that system. However, a command focus can inhibit senior leaders from
developing an “enterprise” (DoD- or DoN-wide) perspective, and the DoD has emphasized
the need for such breadth among its senior leaders.

xvii
Acknowledgments
We thank Rodger Madison for programming assistance and James Hosek of RAND for com-
ments on earlier drafts of this research. Susan Pinciaro, Susan Wileman, and Carolyn Willis of
the DoN provided us with feedback and assistance with data at various stages of this research.
We are grateful for the comments of RAND colleagues Frank Camm and Jeffrey Drezner, who
reviewed an earlier draft of this report. We also appreciate comments and input we received
on related work from RAND colleagues Al Robbert, from Larry Lacy of Lacy Associates, and
from Garry Shafovaloff and Frank Anderson of the Defense Acquisition University. Former

RAND colleague Carl Dahlman, now in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, provided
input in the early stages of this project. Margot Lynn of the Defense Acquisition University
helped us understand characteristics of the data files used in our analyses. Portia Sullivan,
Samantha Walker, and Terry McMillan from DMDC provided us with access to the data we
needed for this research.
Of course, the authors alone are responsible for errors that remain in the document.