Bill Overview
Title: PPSA Act of 2022
Description: of 2022 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 The order also required any such positions in the excepted service to be reclassified to Schedule F. The order was revoked by President Joe Biden on January 22, 2021.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: Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]
Target Audience
Population: Federal government employees
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The PPSA Act of 2022 reestablishes employment protections by preventing the reclassification of jobs under a potentially more precarious employment schedule.
- Civil service employees who may have been reclassified under Schedule F (eliminated in early 2021 but enacted in late 2020) will be directly impacted.
- The decision affects the categorization and potential job stability of potentially hundreds of thousands of federal workers in the competitive service.
- Given the nature of the legislation, individuals in various government positions involved in policy-making, a confidential role, or closely tied to presidential transitions are primarily affected.
Reasoning
- The PPSA Act of 2022 affects primarily federal government employees, especially those involved in policy-making roles. These individuals may have faced uncertain job security under Schedule F, risking loss of employment protections.
- Given the estimated affected population of approximately 3,000,000, the policy has a broad brush across all federal agencies, making individuals in these roles the core focus for understanding the policy's impact.
- The budget constraints suggest targeting parts of the workforce most likely to be reclassified under Schedule F could prioritize interventions and maximize policy efficacy without surpassing financial limitations.
Simulated Interviews
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more secure knowing that my position isn't at risk of reclassification without checks.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Senior Advisor (Arlington, VA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reinstatement of job protections feels like a return to normal.
- Potential reclassification was a significant stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Administrative Assistant (Denver, CO)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I was less worried about Schedule F—it seemed more relevant for senior positions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
IT Specialist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad protections are back, though Schedule F didn't apply to my role.
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 |
Department Head (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Strengthening the position classifications protects our operational integrity.
- This safeguards many careers in my department.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Senior Economist (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy removes anxiety about my future employment and influence.
- Schedule F was concerning more for job security than day-to-day work.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Public Affairs Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it’s great for many, I feel only indirectly supported.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Junior Policy Analyst (San Diego, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy makes me feel safer about advancing in my career here.
- Previously, it was unclear what protections I’d have.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Human Resources Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restoring previous job classifications helps stabilize our roles and responsibilities.
- It reduces the confusion that reclassification caused.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Data Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My position felt secure, but I support the return to established classifications for those affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The act reinforces job stability within the federal workforce, preventing potential political influences on job classification.
- Implementation primarily requires agency compliance with the limitations set by the bill, which can be managed with existing resources.
- The administrative burden is mainly associated with ensuring adherence to the designated schedules for employee classification.