Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7951

Bill Overview

Title: Telework Metrics and Cost Savings Act

Description: This bill prohibits executive agencies from reducing or otherwise limiting the level of employees who may telework below the level in effect at the time of the bill's enactment. Agencies must also report on their plans to increase the number of teleworking employees and any resulting cost savings; the Office of Personnel Management must also issue guidance on how agencies can more effectively collect data on telework use and implementation, including any cost savings.

Sponsors: Rep. Connolly, Gerald E. [D-VA-11]

Target Audience

Population: People employed by U.S. federal executive agencies with potential to telework

Estimated Size: 1900000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Data Analyst (Washington D.C.)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I really appreciate the opportunity to telework as it saves time on commuting and allows me more time with my family.
  • The policy ensures that I can continue to telework without worry, which is great.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Project Manager (New York)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If the policy increases my telework days, it would help manage my daily commute.
  • The cost savings could mean more resources for my projects, which I wouldn't mind.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

IT Specialist (Remote work location in Montana)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • My role is designed for remote work, so this policy reassures me that the current setup won't change.
  • The focus on telework gives me job security in this arrangement.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 5

Human Resources Manager (San Francisco)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful this will lead to more telework options in our agency.
  • The reporting will likely make our managers more accountable for work-life balance improvements in our human resource policies.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 5

Compliance Officer (Atlanta)

Age: 38 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • My job involves a lot of site visits which cannot be done remotely, so the policy may not directly affect me immediately.
  • However, if the data collection improves, it might create some indirect benefits for office policy changes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 5

Program Coordinator (Dallas)

Age: 41 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Teleworking provides flexibility in managing my team remotely, so any policy that ensures this can continue is beneficial.
  • I am particularly interested in seeing any resultant cost savings being redirected to team resources.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

Entry-level Administrative Assistant (Chicago)

Age: 26 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I don't see how this policy would change much for me unless they expand telework opportunities to cover my role.
  • It's interesting to see what cost savings they mention due to telework.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

Senior Regulatory Analyst (Miami)

Age: 49 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Teleworking is vital for coordinating with international partners in different time zones, so I'm glad the policy safeguards this.
  • I look forward to possible enhancements in telecommuting infrastructure.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 9 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 6

Training Specialist (Seattle)

Age: 37 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy helps ensure stability in how I deliver my work since all my deliverables are telework-friendly.
  • Optimizing telework reporting would benefit by providing data-driven evidence of productivity and job satisfaction.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 8 6

Federal Grants Officer (Los Angeles)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Since I'm nearing retirement, I'm less affected by this policy, although it's good for my younger colleagues.
  • More telework opportunities will likely improve work-life balance for them, leading to improved efficiency.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)

Year 2: $4000000 (Low: $3500000, High: $6000000)

Year 3: $4000000 (Low: $3500000, High: $6000000)

Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $5000000)

Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)

Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)

Key Considerations