To: From: Sent: Subject:
Jackson, Ryan[jackson.ryan@epa.gov] The Washington Post Wed 10/4/2017 4:01:58 PM Federal Insider: How big is the federal workforce? Much bigger than you think.
How big is the federal workforce? Much bigger than you think.
By Joe Davidson
Sunrise at the U.S. Capitol. (Chris Maddaloni/Getty Images)
How big is the federal workforce?
Much bigger than you think.
A new study on "The True Size of Government," by Paul C. Light, professor of public service at New York University, says the government's "blended" workforce is 7 to 9 million strong -- including contractors and grantees.
Grantees include a range of folks, such as the Ohio State University team that studied "Swedish massages for rascally rabbits," as former senator Tom GBtorn ftOllBldescn^
That example was not in Light's paper, and he does not diminish the work of anyone serving the government. But Light does raise a serious issue about
"Although Washington's blended workforce has an imperative role in the nation's success, it may have grown so large and poorly sorted that it has become a threat to the very liberty it protects," Light wrote. "With 7 to 9 million employees, the federal government's blended workforce may have become
Sierra Club v. EPA, 1:17-cv-01906
ED_001523_00001039-00001
"I think we've gotten close to it," he said later, adding the use of private security forces by the military as an example.
The threat to liberty, he explained, "comes from the pressure to maintain and expand missions that are primarily for the benefit of one or more parts of the blended workforce and not necessarily for the benefit of the public."
Think private prisons. Commercial prison operators have a financial incentive to get and keep people locked up, deprived of their liberty.
Tony Reardon, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, pointed to the IRS mandate to use private debt-collection agencies. "Twice this program has failed because of high cost and poor quality," Reardon said, "yet Congress ignored the history and ordered a third attempt, knowing that highly trained federal employees are better equipped to collect the debts and uniquely authorized to provide assistance and options to low-income taxpayers."
Broken down, the 9 million included about 2 million employees, 3.7 million contractors, 1.6 million grant employees, 1.3 million active duty military personnel and 500,000 Postal Service employees in 2015. The 7 million excludes the Postal Service, which does not receive congressional appropriations for its operations, and the military. The grantee and contractor numbers are estimates based on a Bureau of Economic Analysis model that considers money spent on projects and the labor needed to produce products.
"I suspect many taxpayers have no understanding that their tax dollars pay for 3.7 million private sector employees," Reardon said. "The work of federal employees, on the other hand, is transparent and accountable."
An important takeaway is "the study reminds us that the nation depends on a very large blended workforce that includes many more contract and grant employees than federal civil servants. It is easy to say the civil service is too big, but it is only part of the workforce needed to faithfully execute the laws," Light said.
"The question is not whether we have too many government employees, but [do] we have the right blend to deliver the mission at the best price, value, and performance. ... This means we should be counting all the heads when we get into debates about cutting workforces."
Sierra Club v. EPA, 1:17-cv-01906
ED_001523_00001039-00002
Even if an individual contractor earns less than a comparable federal
nplo|&E^ th^poe/ihea<tx(nwtedotdrfflmp^
dtata,tb^itaseidpts
H^iin;sliA^
Obama "actually shrunk the true size of government
quite dramatically." From 2010 to 2015, the blended workforce dropped by
IWietitteiT^BnijDMjcrepOTp I
iwI taiytorilill
sutfi^edifopBles,Wa^
and other costs of doing
business -- enter the equation," he wrote. "Add overhead to the totals, and
WSr^cwn^^etestfoasec^
H^radnlrirastfetier^^mpaye^ued there
was a `dramatic expansion in the federal workforce' during the Obama
&ttoi6ite^tib6,pitkeidepbEtra&y&jdfexterntixzto tip acPthririera^
Beagoro, agreechalitlgdfertlinirt^iteig^
heetihfcd' Jteright
bfSael, fi^obats/QdtfDnitetffltiiTtfrtiaste9i8traithM
in the internal
resources needed to understand when contractor help is needed, what
fekJbtqiHhresdunmfcaHJteai^
foeitriogieg tyosatistseogdtesto the
MtaW'd^fl^hee^mdlUW*
afteim wtaftL^p^frtingittagaye^
I
iafeifMnigitofifcte^pOTfedttJerete^inettto
for contract firms and
grant agencies, as is fair pay for everyone in the blended workforce."
In Light's view, however, cost is not the only factor.
That raises the debate over the cost of using contractors instead of feds. In a
WSianednc^^
IwgMfca^e `arohteotjkhldg^catete^^
pwfoftearprerastedvfesle
f^uttes^Bsnptay^
^Hiaide^ye^^iitH'itt^ e^p^dite^aid. Rather than pretending that only feds
can do the job or contractors are always less expensive, "what I want to know
is whether the blend is working for the public interest."
Read more:
Is Trump making the political environment fortop civil servants worse?
Hits on federal retirement advance as bill is introduced to fire feds for `no cause at all'
Trump's budget shows feds little love despite pay hike
; r c I, era I work i -p * m ose leave
More from Federal Insider
Federal employees are limited in how much vacation time
they can carry from one year to the next.
By Eric Yoder Read m<
_
PowerPost Perspective
uisiovaity slur latest in series showing frump
Sierra Club v. EPA, 1:17-cv-01906
ED_001523_00001039-00003
administration ' in trust of feds
Zinke's comments have left his staff at the Interior Department dismayed, on edge and offended. By Joe Davidson | Columnist Read m< Recommended for you
_
G"; Pi i Ply 202 newsletter
I
PowerPost's must-read morning briefing
I
for decision-makers.
i
Sign ud
Twitter Facebook
privacy. If you believe that this email has been sent to you in error or you no longer wish to receive email from The Washington Post, click here. Contact us
for help.
Sierra Club v. EPA, 1:17-cv-01906
ED_001523_00001039-00004