their missions, (2) providing CSC input regarding its recruiting efforts, (3) developing ALJ training programs, and (4) identifying ALJS whose performance might warrant initiation of adverse action proceedings. Agencies employing ALJs have also not implemented effective ALJ financial disclosure systems. At the four agencies we reviewed, financial disclosure statements were not considered by the chiefs in assigning cases to ALJs. Another way in which the APA sought to provide ALJS a measure of semiindependence involved assigning CSC responsibility for determining ALJ qualifications, tenure, and compensation--functions normally assigned to employing agencies. The APA, however, makes no mention as to whether these specific functions are in addition to those for which CSC is normally responsible--issuing specific personnel management guidelines and periodically evaluating agency personnel systems. As a result, CSC has been reluctant to perform these normal functions and accordingly has not been as helpful as it could in assisting agencies employing ALJS. The lack of ALJ performance standards and evaluation has also precluded agencies from providing CSC with meaningful reports on ALJ productivity and use; information which is critical in determining the propriety of agency requests for additional ALJS. Without this data, CSC is in no position to approve or disapprove such requests. In this regard, the current efforts of the Administrative Conference of the United States in gathering ALJ productivity data to develop a uniform ALJ caseload accounting system is a step in the right direction and should be continued. We also noted that selective certification, a practice which generally results in agencies hiring their own staff attorneys to be ALJs, may be adversely reflecting on the impartiality of the administrative adjudication process. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CONGRESS To improve the administrative adjudication process and permit the establishment of effective ALJ personnel management systems, the Congress should amend the APA to: --Clearly assign the responsibility for periodic evaluation of ALJ performance to a specific organization. The responsible organization could be CSC by itself or as part of an ad hoc committee composed of private attorneys, Federal judges, chief ALJs, agency officials, and the Administrative Conference of the United States. --Clarify the extent to which CSC can, in the case --Establish an initial probationary period of up to 3 years and thereby eliminate immediate, virtually guaranteed appointment and tenure. The Congress should also: --Establish parameters or criteria to use in deciding --Amend legislation as necessary to provide for stand- RECOMMENDATIONS TO HEADS OF AGENCIES We recommended that the heads of agencies employing ALJS (see app. I): --Establish procedures which would preclude extensive review of ALJ decisions in cases where the parties have not filed exceptions and where the case does not involve compelling public interest issues or new policy determinations. --Establish one control body to conduct case reviews when necessary so as to avoid, to the maximum extent, duplication and inefficiency. --Establish in cooperation with the chief ALJ and the --See that an effective financial disclosure system In addition, the chief ALJ at each agency, commission, or board should review the procedures by which cases are formally adjudicated to determine if simplified procedures can be used. The accomplishments and progress toward meeting each of the above recommendations should be reported to the appropriate congressional committee. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CHAIRMAN, CSC We also recommend that the Chairman: --Encourage and assist the Administrative Conference of the productivity data being accumulated by --Reexamine the need for selective certification at Commodity Futures Trading Commission Consumer Product Safety Commission Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice Environmental Protection Agency Federal Maritime Commission Department of Housing and Urban Development International Trade Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission National Transportation Safety Board Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Postal Rate Commission U.S. Postal Service Total 15 541 187 1 1 1 6 43 1 3 1,025 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN, ADMINISTRATION, AND RESPONSES In late August 1977, we sent a questionnaire to all permanent Administrative Law Judges in the Federal Government. The questionnaire was built from earlier surveys of this group of Federal officials (particularly the La Macchia study 1/), on ideas contained in scholarly analyses by leading jurists (particularly those contained in papers by Fauver, 2/ Hollaran, 3/ Pfeiffer, 4/ Ruhlen, 5/ and Zwerdling, 6/) and finally on field research performed in four agencies. 7/ Our questionnaire differed from the questionnaires used in earlier surveys in a number of respects. Unlike those used in the La Macchia study or the one used in a study conducted for the American Bar Association Section on Administrative Law, our questionnaire was almost completely checklist or multiple-choice in format rather than essay. There were three reasons for choosing the "close-ended" over the "open-ended" format. In the first place, it minimized the demands on the respondents' time. In the second place, the state of knowledge about the topics covered in the questionnaire, we felt, was sufficiently developed to warrant a close-ended survey. With respect to this second point, it should be noted that social science researchers generally concede open-ended questions are more appropriate for the beginning stages of inquiry into an area when --the depth of respondents' knowledge of the area is --the area is so poorly understood that appropriate Close-ended questions, on the other hand, are more appropriate for later stages of inquiry after the area has been illuminated by earlier research. The third reason for preferring the close-ended question is its relation to the first two. For a number of years, certain beliefs have thought to be commonly held by ALJS-viz, those having to do with causes of case backlogs and with benefits of potential improvements to the practice of administrative law. We wanted to assess the extent to which those beliefs, in fact, prevade the corps of ALJs. Thus, we |