Bill Overview
Title: Improving Government Efficiency and Workforce Development through Federal Executive Boards Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses the perpetuation, administration, and funding of Federal Executive Boards. Specifically, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration (GSA), shall continue to support the existence of the Federal Executive Boards in geographic areas outside the District of Columbia (DC) metropolitan area. Federal Executive Board means an interagency entity established by OPM, in coordination with OMB and GSA; located in a geographic area with a high concentration of federal employees outside the DC metropolitan area; focused on strengthening the management and administration of agency activities and coordination among local federal officers to implement national initiatives in that geographic area. OPM must develop a set of criteria to establish and evaluate the number and locations of such boards that (1) factor in contemporary federal workforce data as of the date of this bill's enactment; and (2) is informed by annual changes in workforce data, including the geographic disbursement of the federal workforce and the role of remote work options. The bill sets forth provisions regarding administration and oversight, and governance and activities, of such boards. OPM, in coordination with OMB and GSA, must establish a Federal Executive Board Fund within OPM for financing essential board functions for the purposes of staffing and operating expenses.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals working in federal agencies located outside the DC metropolitan area
Estimated Size: 2500000
- The bill specifically targets Federal Executive Boards, which are entities established in areas with high concentrations of federal employees outside the DC area.
- These boards focus on enhancing management and administration of agency activities and improving coordination among local federal officers.
- Federal Executive Boards impact federal employees in regions outside DC, as they aim to strengthen local federal agency initiatives through improved management and interagency cooperation.
- The bill involves OPM, which is responsible for federal workforce management, suggesting its impact is particularly on federal employees.
- Since the boards are located in areas with high concentrations of federal employees, the primary population affected includes those working in federal agencies scattered across the US outside DC.
- The legislation suggests these boards will be more responsive to changes in the workforce, including remote work, impacting employees' work conditions and collaboration.
Reasoning
- The population affected by this policy primarily consists of federal employees located outside the DC metro area, so we'll predominantly choose interviewees from various regions known to host significant federal facilities.
- A mix of blue-collar and white-collar federal employees will be included, reflecting different occupational impacts.
- Considering the policy's focus on better management and coordination, we expect variations in wellbeing depending on job levels, with potential positive impacts more noticeable at mid-level positions.
- We'll include a few interviews from non-federal employees to capture indirect impacts and public perceptions.
- The budget constraints ensure that only a moderate change in wellbeing scores might be observed due to resource limitations.
Simulated Interviews
Federal Office Manager (Denver, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope it improves our communications with headquarters.
- It might provide us with more resources to handle local challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Federal IT Specialist (Dallas, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could mean better leadership and more clarity in our roles.
- Resource allocation has always been an issue here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Environmental Scientist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's promising in terms of cross-agency collaborations.
- I'm cautiously optimistic about having a more unified approach to project management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Administrative Assistant (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about whether this will truly improve our work conditions.
- There's always talk, but implementation tends to lag.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Policy Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Streamlined operations would help us develop more effective policies.
- It depends on how well these boards function.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Compliance Officer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical; we have had similar initiatives before.
- Hope this will bring more autonomy to local offices.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public Health Advisor (Boston, MA)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Unified efforts across agencies can improve public health responses.
- I'm hopeful but it requires constant support from these boards.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Federal Grant Coordinator (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe streamlining grant processes and communication can be beneficial.
- Skeptical about whether these boards will have a lasting impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Network Engineer (Albuquerque, NM)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced coordination might lead to better IT solutions across agencies.
- We need more innovation, though I'm not sure this act alone will provide it.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Federal Building Manager (Detroit, MI)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's uncertain if middle management will see much change.
- Any improvements in interagency communication would certainly help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $4200000, High: $6200000)
Year 3: $5300000 (Low: $4300000, High: $6300000)
Year 5: $5400000 (Low: $4400000, High: $6400000)
Year 10: $5500000 (Low: $4500000, High: $6500000)
Year 100: $5500000 (Low: $4500000, High: $6500000)
Key Considerations
- The initial investment aims to improve efficiency, which could lead to future savings.
- Federal Executive Boards can enhance local implementation of national initiatives, improving public service outcomes.
- Developing technology for remote work accommodation may have significant up-front costs.