Bill Overview
Title: PPSA Act of 2021
Description: of 2021 This bill prohibits executive agency positions in the competitive service from being placed in the excepted service, unless such positions are placed in Schedules A through E as in effect on September 30, 2020. The bill also prohibits positions in the excepted service from being placed in any schedule other than the aforementioned schedules. On October 21, 2020, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order titled Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service . The order placed executive agency positions that are of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character, and that are not normally subject to change as a result of a presidential transition, under a new schedule in the excepted service (Schedule F) instead of the competitive service. The order also required any such positions in the excepted service to be reclassified to Schedule F. The order was revoked by President Joe Biden on January 22, 2021.
Sponsors: Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]
Target Audience
Population: Federal employees in the United States whose jobs are in the competitive service
Estimated Size: 2100000
- The PPSA Act of 2021 seeks to prevent the establishment of a Schedule F, which was intended to reclassify certain federal executive agency positions.
- When Schedule F was proposed, it included positions involved in policy-related activities, estimated to impact around several thousand federal employees.
- These positions are typically held by career civil servants, and the implementation of Schedule F would have potentially made it easier to dismiss and replace them based on political affiliations.
- Reinstating limits by prohibiting the conversion of positions to the excepted service averts these repercussions.
- The broader implications are on the stability of employment for the federal workforce, including protections against politically motivated turnover.
Reasoning
- The PPSA Act aims to prevent the creation of Schedule F, which could have led to more political appointees and a less stable job environment for career civil servants in executive agency roles.
- A key consideration in this simulation is to represent the potential impact on federal employees who may experience either direct or indirect effects from legislative protections against reclassification.
- These individuals' self-reported wellbeing should reflect concerns about job security and the potential for politically motivated firings, balanced against enhanced protections.
- A focus is given to a subset of federal employees that might experience measurable changes in wellbeing due to these structural protections.
- While only a small fraction of the total federal workforce would be directly impacted by Schedule F, the ripple effect of these protections can influence the broader work culture.
Simulated Interviews
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I felt that my job security was in jeopardy with the potential implementation of Schedule F.
- The PPSA Act offers a sense of relief knowing that my role is stabilizing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
IT Manager (Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While my specific role wasn't directly targeted, the possibility of reclassification added stress.
- With the PPSA Act, there's less uncertainty about future employment terms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Administrative Assistant (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I didn't think I'd be affected, but the atmosphere was tense about who might be shifted to Schedule F.
- Glad the PPSA Act is in place, it seemed to calm everyone down.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Budget Analyst (Virginia)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's always this pressure of what happens when government policies shift.
- Hearing about PPSA Act was a reassurance about my job security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
HR Specialist (Georgia)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our department was deeply concerned about Schedule F altering everything.
- The law makes our work environment feel more stable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Senior Research Scientist (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was looking at retirement in a few years but the job market instability was worrisome.
- Now with the act in place, I can plan my exit without fear of sudden changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Project Manager (Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our work became uncertain with Schedule F looming over.
- PPSA Act means I can focus on continuing my projects seamlessly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Legal Advisor (Florida)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The shift back to competitive service was a relief, it felt protective.
- With the PPSA Act, we have better structural job security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Data Analyst (Illinois)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Less affected by the direct changes but the overall mood in the office was tense pre-PPSA Act.
- This measure helps avoid the chaos we were expecting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Environmental Consultant (Colorado)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The service reclassification fears were affecting how federal partners planned projects.
- The PPSA Act brought clarity and renewed focus to long-term collaborations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $4000000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $4000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The federal workforce stability is crucial for maintaining consistent government operations.
- Maintaining classifications helps prevent workforce politicization, which is vital for democracy and good governance.
- The administrative infrastructure for maintaining current classifications is largely existing, reducing implementation costs.