Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Federal Agencies and Employees from Political Interference Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the relocation of the headquarters for any federal entity located in the National Capital region unless relocation legislation is enacted. In addition, any employee's position with a duty station in the National Capital region shall remain in that region unless legislation relocating the position is enacted.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Federal employees and their families
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The legislation specifically addresses federal agencies and employees based in the National Capital region, which is defined to include Washington, D.C., and its surrounding areas.
- Federal employees are directly affected because their job locations are protected from being moved outside the National Capital region without explicit legislation.
- Departments and agencies headquartered in Washington, D.C., would be particularly involved since their entire operations are based there.
- Indirectly, the regions surrounding Washington, D.C., which may have been potential relocation sites, are also impacted because they will not be receiving these agencies or positions.
Reasoning
- The legislation targets federal employees within the National Capital region, stabilizing job locations and potentially alleviating concerns about forced relocations due to policy changes.
- A diverse set of population segments within the federal workforce should be considered, including various demographic profiles and job roles.
- Job stability is likely a crucial factor for employees, providing peace of mind and could result in a higher self-reported wellbeing under the policy.
- This simulation will help assess potential benefits among a range of employees, from entry-level workers to senior executives in federal agencies.
- It is important not to overlook those who might not be affected significantly as this policy doesn't alter their employment situation.
- Budgetary limits imply that major structural changes or expansions are unlikely, keeping the focus on preventing disruptive relocations.
Simulated Interviews
Federal Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives me a sense of stability knowing my job won't suddenly relocate.
- It's tough balancing work and family, so staying in D.C. helps a lot.
- I'm relieved that my daughter's schooling won't be interrupted.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
IT Specialist at a federal agency (Arlington, VA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Maintaining stability is crucial for us; moving would be a serious disruption.
- It's reassuring to have a policy that supports existing staff locations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Junior Researcher in a federal think-tank (Alexandria, VA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen what relocations can do to teams, so stability is important to me.
- This policy seems like a good safeguard for newcomers in the area.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Senior Policy Director (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My career trajectory heavily depends on staying involved here at the headquarters.
- I support the policy as it ensures organizational continuity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Federal Contractor (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a contractor, I'm not directly affected, but stability might mean more contract opportunities.
- The policy seems fair, but I'm watching cautiously as we're more influenced indirectly.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Administrative Assistant at a federal agency (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Housing prices in the area are a concern, but at least my job is secure against relocation.
- I appreciate the security this policy provides to employees like me.
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 |
Recent graduate and intern at a federal department (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for stability, but I'm not yet invested in staying long-term.
- This policy has minimal impact on my current situation as an intern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Federal Regional Liaison (Fairfax, VA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Less concerned about relocations; my job involves plenty of travel anyways.
- Policy is good for others, but doesn't greatly influence my life's trajectory.
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 |
Department Head at a federal agency (Bethesda, MD)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring stability in my final working years is appreciated, helping to mentor successors.
- This policy strengthens the agency by keeping us rooted here in D.C.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Federal Investigator (Reston, VA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy isn't directly impactful as my role entails significant travel anyway.
- If anything, it slightly decreases operational disruptions at the office.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill strengthens the permanence of federal jobs in the National Capital region, which benefits employees by providing job stability.
- There could be unintended consequences for areas outside the National Capital region that will not benefit from federal agency relocations.
- Ensuring compliance with the legislation may involve additional administrative oversight in federal entities.