The Federal Workforce: Characteristics and Trends

The Federal Workforce: Characteristics and
Trends
Updated September 30, 2008
Curtis W. Copeland
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

The Federal Workforce: Characteristics and Trends
Summary
Understanding the characteristics and trends of the federal workforce is
important because, among other things, agencies accomplish their missions via that
workforce. Total personnel costs (direct compensation and benefits) for all federal
employees (civilian and military, current employees and retirees) were estimated at
more than $523 billion in 2008, and civilian personnel costs in the executive branch
alone were estimated at about $194 billion. Three cabinet departments — the
Departments of Defense (DOD), Veterans Affairs (DVA), and Homeland Security
(DHS) — accounted for almost 60% of the nearly 1.9 million executive branch
civilian employees in 2008. The duty stations for more than 35% of these employees
were in four states (California, Virginia, Texas, and Maryland) and the District of
Columbia, and DOD was the top federal employer in 35 states. DOD also employed
more than 90% of federal civilian employees in foreign countries, and was the top
federal employer in U.S. territories. The federal workforce grew by more than

120,000 employees between 2000 (the low point during the last 10 years) and 2008,

with the growth concentrated in homeland security-related agencies and DVA.
Civilian employment in other agencies (including DOD and most independent
agencies) declined during the last 10 years.
The number of blue-collar and clerical federal jobs declined between 1998 and
2008, but the number of professional and administrative jobs increased during this
period. The percentage of the federal workforce that was made up of minorities also
increased, but the percentage that was women remained almost constant. Although
women and minorities represented an increasing portion of the growing professional
and administrative groups, the representation of women and minorities in the Senior
Executive Service was less than their presence in the overall workforce. The federal
workforce was somewhat older in 2008 than it was in 1998, but the average length
of service declined from 15.2 years in 1998 to 14.7 years in 2008.
The number of white-collar employees in the General Schedule (GS) pay system
declined during the last 10 years, while the number of employees in agency-specific
pay systems (primarily at DOD and DHS) increased dramatically (from less than 1%
of the workforce in 1998 to 16% in 2008). If these trends continue, the GS system
will cover less than half of the federal civilian workforce by the year 2020. The
average salary of the workforce was $69,061 in 2008, but average salaries varied
substantially between and within federal agencies and pay systems.
Although the federal workforce has grown somewhat in recent years, a 2006
study estimated that the “hidden” federal workforce of contractors and grantees grew
by more than 50% between 1999 and 2005, when it reportedly included more than
10.5 million jobs in 2005. That figure is more than twice as large as the combined
total of all three branches of government, the U.S. Postal Service, the intelligence
agencies, the armed forces, and the Ready Reserve.
This report will be updated when September 2008 data for the federal workforce
become available.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Cost and Size of the Federal Workforce............................2
Federal Civilian Employment by Agency...........................5
Federal Civilian Employment by Location..........................8
Changes in the Size of the Federal Civilian Workforce................11
Types of Appointments and Work Schedules.......................13
The Arrival and Departure of Federal Employees....................14
Changes in Federal Occupational Categories .......................16
Changes in the Demographic Characteristics of the
Federal Civilian Workforce.................................17
Representation of Minorities and Women......................17
Age and Length of Service..................................20
Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Systems and Average Pay............22
Average Salary Differences.................................24
Summary Observations............................................26
List of Figures
Figure 1. Federal Civilian Workforce, March 2008.......................6
Figure 2. Size of the Federal Civilian Workforce, 1998 to 2008............12
Figure 3. Age Distribution of the Federal Civilian Workforce, 1998 to 2008..21
Figure 4. Years of Service Distribution of the Federal Civilian Workforce,
1998 to 2008................................................22
Figure 5. Percentage of Federal Civilian Employees in GS/Related and
Single Agency Program Systems, 1998 to 2008 and Projections........24
List of Tables
Table 1. Estimated Civilian and Military Personnel Compensation
and Benefits, 2008.............................................3
Table 2. Trends in Federal Civilian Employment, 1994 - 2004...............4
Table 3. Number of Direct and Indirect Federal Contract and Grant Jobs,
1999 and 2005................................................5
Table 4. Number of Federal Civilian Employees by Department
and Major Independent Agency, March 2008........................7
Table 5. States With Largest Number of Federal Civilian Employees
(Duty Stations), March 2008.....................................9
Table 6. Federal Civilian Employees in Foreign Countries and
U.S. Territories by Major Department or Agency, March 2008.........10
Table 7. Federal Civilian Employees in Foreign Countries and
U.S. Territories by Major Countries and Territories, March 2008.......11
Table 8. Federal Civilian Workforce: September 1998 and March 2008......13

March 2008.................................................14
Table 10. Type of Federal Hiring by Type of Position, 2007...............15
Table 11. Type of Separation From Federal Service by
Type of Position, 2007.........................................16
Table 12. Occupational Categories in the Federal Civilian Workforce,
September 1998 and March 2008................................17
Table 13. Percentage of the Federal Civilian Workforce,
Women and Minorities, 1998 and 2008............................18
Table 14. Percentage of Federal Civilian Workforce Categories
That Were Women, 1998 and 2008...............................18
Table 15. Percentage of Federal Civilian Workforce Categories
That Were Minorities, 1998 and 2008.............................19
Table 16. Percentage of the Federal Civilian Workforce and the Senior
Executive Service That Were Women and Minorities, March 2008......20
Table 17. Employees in Major Federal Civilian Pay Systems, 1998 and 2008..23
Table 18. Average Salaries for Selected Federal Departments
and Agencies, March 2008......................................25
Table 19. Average Salaries Within Major Federal Pay Systems.............26
Table 20. Percentage of Federal Civilian Employees in Major Pay Systems
at Various Pay Points, March 2008...............................26

The Federal Workforce: Characteristics and
Trends
Introduction
The work of the federal government is done via its workforce, so understanding
the characteristics and trends of that workforce is a critical part of understanding how
the federal government can better accomplish its various missions. As the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in May 2008,
The importance of a top-notch federal workforce cannot be overstated. The^st
nation is facing new and more complex challenges in the 21 century as various
forces are reshaping the United States and its place in the world.... To address
these challenges, it will be important for federal agencies to change their cultures
and create the institutional capacity to become high-performing organizations.
This includes recruiting and retaining employees able to create, sustain, and
thrive in organizations that are flatter, results-oriented, and externally focused
and that collaborate with other governmental entities as well as with the private¹
and nonprofit sectors to achieve desired outcomes.
In 2001, however, GAO identified the management of the federal workforce as a
government-wide “high-risk” area because federal agencies lacked a strategic
approach to workforce management that integrated those efforts with their missions²
and goals.
Understanding the federal workforce is also important for a variety of other
reasons. Personnel costs for both current and former employees represent a
substantial portion of many agencies’ budgets, and a significant portion of the total
federal budget. Some federal agencies are major employers in certain states, and tens
of thousands of federal employees work outside of the United States. The federal
workforce is also expected by some to reflect the gender, racial, and ethnic diversity
of the country as a whole. In addition, understanding recent changes in the overall
size and composition of the federal workforce can indicate what changes may lie in
the future.

¹ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Human Capital: Transforming Federal
Recruiting and Hiring Efforts, GAO-08-762T, May 8, 2008.
² U.S. General Accounting Office, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-01-263, January

2001.

Cost and Size of the Federal Workforce
Determining the size or cost of the federal workforce first requires a
determination of what should be considered “the federal workforce,” and what are
considered relevant costs associated with that workforce. Federal budget documents
distinguish federal personnel costs in terms of (1) direct compensation (e.g., salaries
and bonuses) versus personnel benefits (e.g, health benefits and life insurance), (2)
civilian employees versus military employees, and (3) current employees versus
retired employees. The documents also show costs specific to the U.S. Postal
Service and the Department of Defense (DOD), and separately show costs for the
legislative and judicial branches of the federal government.
According to the FY2009 federal budget, and as shown in Table 1 below, total
federal personnel costs (i.e., direct compensation and benefits) in 2008 for all groups
(i.e., civilian and military, current employees, and retirees) were estimated at more
than $523 billion. Direct compensation costs for current civilian employees
(including all three branches of government and the U.S. Postal Service) were
estimated at just under $190 billion. Civilian compensation costs for just the
executive branch were estimated at nearly $144 billion, with DOD constituting about
one-third of that total. In comparison, direct compensation costs for the legislative
and judicial branches were relatively small (less than $5 billion combined).
Compensation costs for employees of the U.S. Postal Service are almost entirely
funded by postal fees, not appropriations. Some federal regulatory agencies (e.g., the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the
Federal Communications Commission) are also entirely or primarily funded through
fees rather than appropriations.
According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and as shown in
Table 2 below, there were slightly more than 2.7 million employees in the total
federal civilian workforce (all three branches plus the U.S. Postal Service) in
September 2004 — down from nearly 3.0 million in September 1994.³ From the
beginning to the end of this period, the number of executive branch civilian
employees declined by nearly 259,000 employees,⁴ driven largely by reductions in
the Department of Defense (DOD, down nearly 212,000 employees) and the U.S.
Postal Service (down by more than 55,000).⁵ The number of legislative branch
employees declined somewhat during this period (down about 5,000 employees),

³ U.S. Office of Personnel Management, The Fact Book: 2005 Edition, p. 7, available at
[https://www.opm.gov/feddata/factbook/2005/factbook2005.pdf]. OPM has not published
The Fact Book since 2005, so 2004 data are the most recent available. Here and throughout
this report, the number of employees reported is based on head counts of employees on
board as of a particular date. Federal budget documents and other sources sometimes use
“full-time equivalent” or “FTE” numbers, in which two employees working 20 hours per
week are treated as one FTE.
⁴ As the table shows, executive branch employment actually reached its lowest point during
this period in 2000, and has risen somewhat since then.
⁵ For more information on the Postal Service, see CRS Report RS22864, U.S. Postal Service
Workforce Size and Employment Categories, 1987 - 2007, by Wendy Ginsberg.

while the number of judicial branch employees increased somewhat (up nearly

6,000).

Table 1. Estimated Civilian and Military Personnel
Compensation and Benefits, 2008
(millions of dollars)
Cost
Organizational/
Employee Di rect P e rsonnel Tot a l
Groupi ng Compensation Benef its Compensation
Civilian Personnel Costs
Department of
Defense (DOD)$46,040$12,367$58,407
Executive Branch
— Non-DOD$97,604$38,297$135,901
Postal Service$41,356$18,609$59,965
Legislative Branch$1,988$548$2,536
Judicial Branch$2,672$879$3,551
Total Civilian$189,660$70,700$260,360
Military Personnel Costs
DOD $82,510 $48,608 $131,118
Other Uniformed$2,717$1,040$3,757
Personnel
Total Military$85,227$49,648$134,875
Civilian and
Military
Personnel Costs$274,887$120,348$395,235
Retiree Costs
Civilian $65,522$8,872$74,394
Military $45,480 $8,349 $53,829
Total Retiree$111,002$17,221$128,223
Grand Total —
Civilian and
Military, Active
and Retiree$385,889$137,569$523,458
^Source:^{U.S. Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d B}^u^dg^et,^Budget^of^t^h^{e U}^.^{S. G}^o^ver^nm^ent^:^Anal^ytⁱ^c^al
^Per^s^p^ectⁱ^ves^{; Fi}^s^c^al^Y^e^ar²⁰⁰⁹^{, T}^a^bl^{e 24-}^3.
^No^te:^“^P^e^r^s^oⁿⁿ^e^l^b^eⁿ^e^f^{its” f}^o^r^r^e^tir^{ees in}^clu^d^{es h}^ealth^b^eⁿ^e^f^{its an}^d⁽^f^o^r^civ^ilian^p^e^r^s^oⁿⁿ^e^l)^lif^e
ⁱⁿ^s^u^ran^ce.

Table 2. Trends in Federal Civilian Employment,
1994 - 2004
(in thousands)
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Legi slative 35.4 31.5 30.5 31.2 30.9 30.0
Branch
J udicial 28.0 29.6 31.7 32.2 34.7 33.8
Branch
Executive 2,908.2 2,786.3 2,727.3 2,644.8 2,649.9 2,649.3
Branch
— DOD879.9795.9717.9676.3670.2668.2
— Non-DOD1,205.61,138.11,137.91,107.81,168.11,213.5
— U.S.822.7852.3871.5860.7811.6767.6
Postal Service
T otal 2,971.6 2,847.4 2,789.5 2,708.1 2,715.5 2,713.2
^Source:^OP^M’^s^{The Fact Book: 2005 Edition}^{, p. 7.}
These totals do not, however, include employees in the intelligence agencies,
members of the active armed forces, or members of the reserve forces. The number
of employees in the intelligence agencies is classified, but has been estimated at more
than 100,000.⁶ FY2009 appropriations legislation authorizes nearly 1.4 million
members of the active armed forces,⁷ and in September 2007, DOD reported that the
“Ready Reserve” strength was more than 1 million.⁸
The OPM workforce data also do not include federal contractors and grantees.
The exact number of direct and indirect federal contract and grant jobs is unknown,
but Paul Light of New York University has estimated the total to be more than 10.5
million in 2005 — more than twice as many as the combined total of all three
branches of government, the U.S. Postal Service, the intelligence agencies, the armed
forces, and the Ready Reserve.⁹ As Table 3 below shows, the estimated number of
federal contract jobs increased by more than 70% between 1999 and 2005 (from
more than 4.4 million to more than 7.6 million) — a change that was reportedly

⁶ Pamela Hess, “Contractors Make Up One-Fourth of Intelligence Workforce,” Government
Executive.com, August 27, 2008. The “more than 100,000” estimate was verified by Ronald
Sanders, chief human capital officer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
⁷ CRS Report RL34590, FY2009 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military
Personnel Policy Issues, Lawrence Kapp, Coordinator.
⁸ CRS Report RL30802, Reserve Component Personnel Issues: Questions and Answers, by
Lawrence Kapp. In addition to the Ready Reserve, there were more than 21,000 members
of the Standby Reserve and more than 650,000 members of the Retired Reserve.
⁹ Paul C. Light, Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University,
The New True Size of Government, August 2006. To view the study, see
[http://wagner.nyu.edu/performance/files/T r ue_Size.pdf].

driven almost entirely by increased spending at DOD.¹⁰ The table also shows that,
taken together, the number of federal contract and grant jobs increased by more than

50% during this six-year period.

Table 3. Number of Direct and Indirect Federal Contract and
Grant Jobs, 1999 and 2005
Increase
19992005Number Percent
Federal 4,441,000 7,634,000 3,193,000 71.9%
contract jobs
Federal grant2,527,0002,892,000365,00014.4%
jobs
T otal 6,968,000 10,526,000 3,558,000 51.1%
^Source:^P^a^ul^C.^Li^ght^,^T^h^{e N}^e^w^T^r^{ue Si}^z^e^of^G^o^ver^nm^ent^,^A^ugust^2006.
OPM’s Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) is the most comprehensive,
authoritative, and up-to-date database of federal executive branch employees, but it
does not include information for certain executive branch agencies (e.g., the
intelligence agencies) and certain entities that are sometimes considered part of the
federal government (e.g., the U.S. Postal Service). It also does not include
contractors, grantees, members of the armed forces, reservists, federal employees in
the judicial branch, or most employees in the legislative branch.¹¹
The data provided in the remainder of this report focus on civilian employees
in executive branch departments and agencies. Unless otherwise noted, the data are
drawn from OPM’s “FedScope” website ([http://www.fedscope.opm.gov]), which
is based on the CPDF. According to FedScope, in March 2008, there were 1,885,490
employees in the federal agencies that the CPDF covers.
Federal Civilian Employment by Agency
As Figure 1 and Table 4 below show, DOD was by far the largest federal
agency in March 2008 (669,926 civilian employees), followed by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA, 263,667 employees) and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS, 170,663 employees). These three cabinet departments accounted for

¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ Specifically, CPDF coverage of the executive branch currently includes all agencies
except the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Defense Intelligence Agency, Foreign Service personnel at the State Department, the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence, the Office of the Vice President, the Postal Rate
Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the U.S. Postal Service, and the White House
Office. Also excluded are the Public Health Service’s Commissioned Officer Corps, non-
appropriated fund employees, and foreign nationals overseas. The legislative branch is
limited to the Government Printing Office, the U.S. Tax Court, and selected commissions.

nearly 60% of the federal civilian workforce. More than 91% of federal civilian
employees worked in one of the 15 cabinet departments. Among independent federal
agencies (i.e., those agencies that are not part of a cabinet department), more than
65% of employees (108,701 of 166,845) were in four agencies: the Social Security
Administration (SSA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the General Services
Administration (GSA).
Figure 1. Federal Civilian Workforce, March 2008

^I^ndepen^dent
^age^nc^ies^,^8.^8%
^A^l^{l ot}^he^r^c^abinet
^depar^t^m^ent^s^,
³²^.⁶^%
^D^O^D^,^35.^9%
^D^H^S^,^9.^1%
^D^V^A^,^14.^0%
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.

Table 4. Number of Federal Civilian Employees by Department
and Major Independent Agency, March 2008
Department/AgencyNumber of Civilian Employees
Cabinet Departments
Department of Defense669,926
Department of Veterans Affairs263,667
Department of Homeland Security170,663
Department of the Treasury118,555
Department of Justice106,635
Department of Agriculture95,513
Department of Health and Human Services74,310
Department of the Interior67,812
Department of Transportation54,311
Department of Commerce42,101
Department of Labor15,379
Department of Energy14,882
Department of State11,142
Department of Housing and Urban9,416
Development
Department of Education4,333
Subtotal: All cabinet departments1,718,645
Independent Agencies
Social Security Administration 60,465
Environmental Protection Agency 17,894
National Aeronautics and Space18,516
Administration
General Services Administration11,826
All other independent agencies58,144
Total1,885,490
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.

Federal Civilian Employment by Location
As of March 2008, about 97.5% of federal civilian employees worked in the
United States. As shown in Table 5 below, more than 35% of federal civilian
employees’ duty stations (665,826 of 1,885,490) were in four states (California,
Virginia, Texas, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia. DOD had the largest
number of federal employees in 35 states, and the department had the second highest
number of employees in eight other states and in the District of Columbia. DVA had
the largest number of federal employees in 10 states, and was the second largest
federal employer in 24 other states. Other federal departments or agencies with large
numbers of employees in certain states included DHS (with more than 10,000
employees in five states, including more than 20,000 in both California and Texas);
the Department of Justice (DOJ, with more than 21,000 employees in the District of
Columbia); and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS, with more
than 32,000 employees in Maryland). Among independent agencies, the Social
Security Administration was the largest and most ubiquitous, with more than 11,000
employees in Maryland, more than 1,000 employees in 15 other states, and an
average of more than 350 employees in each of the remaining states.
As of March 2008, 34,578 federal civilian employees worked in foreign
countries, 13,844 employees worked in U.S. territories, and 765 worked in¹²
“unspecified” locations. As Table 6 below shows, more than 90% of federal
civilian employees in foreign countries worked for DOD, with DHS and the Agency
for International Development (AID) a distant second and third, respectively. DOD
employees in foreign countries most commonly worked for the Army (11,653
employees) or in DOD “Education Activity” (10,615 employees).
More than 75% of federal employees in U.S. territories worked for DOD, DVA,
or DHS. Within DOD, most employees worked for the Army (1,191 employees) or
in DOD “Education Activity” (952 employees). Within DHS, most employees
worked for either the Transportation Security Administration (TSA, 1,069
employees) or the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (838 employees).

¹² These data do not include certain agencies or employees in certain agencies (e.g., the
intelligence agencies and Foreign Service personnel in the Department of State).

Table 5. States With Largest Number of Federal Civilian
Employees (Duty Stations), March 2008
Federal CivilianMajor Federal
State Em ployees Em ployer(s)
California152,554DOD (55,238)
DVA (21,886)
DHS (20,119)
District of Columbia 149,034DOJ (21,309)
Virginia127,986DOD (81,106)
Texas124,577DOD (42,414)
DHS (21,756)
Maryland111,675HHS (32,432)
DOD (30,561)
Florida78,436DOD (25,409)
Georgia72,621DOD (33,626)
Pennsylvania64,326DOD (24,750)
New York64,042DVA (16,583)
Washington50,052DOD (24,547)
Illinois 46,177DOD (14,110)
Ohio45,685DOD (21,852)
North Carolina37,991DOD (18,187)
Missouri37,181DOD (8,952)
Arizona37,130DOD (8,479)
Alabama36,487DOD (22,175)
Oklahoma 34,390DOD (20,444)
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
^No^te:^T^h^{e t}^a^bl^{e i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^es^al^l^s^t^at^es^wⁱ^t^h^a^t^l^e^a^s^t³⁰^{,000 f}^e^deral^em^pl^oy^ees^{, an}^{d s}^h^ow^s^t^h^{e l}^a^rg^es^t
^f^e^deral^em^pl^oy^{er i}ⁿ^t^h^os^{e s}^t^at^es⁽ⁱⁿ^c^l^u^diⁿ^g^al^l^depar^t^m^e^nt^s^wⁱ^t^h^{20,000 or m}^o^{re em}^pl^oy^eesⁱⁿ^t^h^e
^state)^{. Fo}^r^secu^r^ity^p^u^r^p^o^s^e^s^,^F^e^d^S^co^p^e^d^o^e^{s n}^o^{t p}^r^o^v^id^{e d}^e^tailed^lo^catioⁿⁱⁿ^f^o^r^m^atioⁿ^f^o^r^cer^tain
^ag^en^cies^(e.g^{., th}^{e Federal B}^u^reau^of^In^v^e^s^tig^ation^,^th^{e Dru}^g^En^f^o^rcem^en^{t A}^g^en^cy^{, an}^{d th}^{e U.S. Secret}
^Ser^v^ice)^.^Em^p^l^o^y^{ees o}^f^th^{ese ag}^en^{cies th}^at^w^o^r^kⁱⁿ^th^{e W}^a^shⁱⁿ^g^t^oⁿ^{, DC-}^M^D-^VA^-^W^{V Metr}^o^p^o^litan
^Statis^{tical A}^r^{ea are all reported as}^w^o^rkⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^th^e^Di^s^t^rict^of^C^o^lu^m^b^{ia. Oth}^e^{r em}^ploy^ees^{are reported}
^as^“^S^u^ppres^s^e^{d” (a t}^o^t^a^l^of^{32,000 i}ⁿ^t^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^Ju^s^tⁱ^{ce). A}^s^a^res^u^l^t^,^F^e^dS^{cope s}^o^m^e^w^h^at
^ov^ers^t^ates^em^ploy^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^{r th}^{e Dis}^t^{rict of}^C^o^l^u^m^b^{ia an}^{d u}ⁿ^d^ers^t^ates^em^ploy^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^{r all s}^t^ates^,
^territories^{, an}^{d f}^o^reigⁿ^couⁿ^t^ries^.

Table 6. Federal Civilian Employees in Foreign Countries and
U.S. Territories by Major Department or Agency, March 2008
Number of Federal Civilian Employees Working
Department orin ForeignOutside the
AgencyCountriesin U.S. TerritoriesUnited States
DOD 31,563 4,041 35,604
DVA173,5663,583
DHS 918 2,896 3,814
AID9090909
USDA186723909
T r easury 48 613 661
All other9372,0352,972
departments and
agencies
T otal 34,578 13,844 48,422
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
^Note:^F^e^dS^{cope does}ⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e F}^o^rei^gⁿ^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce pers}^onⁿ^e^lⁱⁿ^t^h^{e D}^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^S^t^at^e.
Although there was at least one federal civilian employee in 162 foreign
countries, Table 7 below shows that more than 75% of these employees worked in
four countries — Germany, Japan, Korea, and Italy. In these countries, 99% of the
employees worked for DOD. Federal employment in U.S. territories is even more
stratified, with more than 75% of employees in those areas working in Puerto Rico
and 93% working in either Puerto Rico or Guam. In Puerto Rico, the major agencies
are DVA (3,566 employees), DHS (2,896 employees), and DOD (2,151 employees).
In the other territories, DOD is the dominant agency (e.g., 697 of 720 employees in
the Virgin Islands).

Table 7. Federal Civilian Employees in Foreign Countries and
U.S. Territories by Major Countries and Territories, March 2008
Federal Civilian Employees
Country/TerritoryNumberPercent of Total
Foreign Countries
Germany 13,901 40.2%
Japan7,01320.3%
Korea2,8398.2%
Italy2,3686.8%
United Kingdom1,7485.1%
Iraq7772.2%
Belgium6321.8%
All other countries5,30015.3%
Total in foreign countries34,578100.0%
U.S. Territories
Puerto Rico10,60576.6%
Guam2,28316.5%
Virgin Islands7205.2%
All other territories2361.7%
Total in U.S. territories13,844100.0%
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
Changes in the Size of the Federal Civilian Workforce
As Figure 2 below indicates, the federal civilian workforce became somewhat
smaller between 1998 and 2000, but has grown since 2000. As of March 2008, the
workforce had about 75,000 more employees than it had in September 1998. As
mentioned previously, though, the number of federal contractors is believed to have
increased much more substantially during this period, growing by more than 3
million workers between 1999 and 2005 (from more than 4.4 million to more than

7.6 million).¹³

¹³ Paul C. Light, Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York
University, The New True Size of Government, August 2006.

Figure 2. Size of the Federal Civilian Workforce, 1998 to 2008

^1,^885,⁴⁹⁰^1,^900,⁰⁰⁰
^1,^880,⁰⁰⁰
^1,^860,⁰⁰⁰
^1,^840,⁰⁰⁰^p^l^o^yees
^1,^820,⁰⁰⁰^l^E^m
^1,⁸⁰^0,³⁴¹^r^a
^1,^800,⁰⁰⁰^d^e
^e
^1,^780,⁰⁰⁰^f^F
^o
^1,^760,⁰⁰⁰^b^er
^m
^1,^740,⁰⁰⁰^N^u
^1,^720,⁰⁰⁰
^1,^700,⁰⁰⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷²⁰⁰⁸
^Ye^a^r
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
Several federal departments and agencies were created or substantially
reorganized between 1998 and 2008, so tracking changes over time by department
or agency must take those changes into account. For example, before DHS was
created in 2003, several of its bureaus were parts of other cabinet departments (e.g.,
the U.S. Coast Guard was in the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Customs
Service was in the Department of the Treasury, and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service was in the Department of Justice).
With that caveat, Table 8 below shows the number of employees in the major
departments and agencies in September 1998 and March 2008. As the table shows,
some of the agencies that were unconnected to the creation of DHS grew larger
during this period (e.g., HHS¹⁴ and DVA), and some grew smaller (e.g., the
Department of Agriculture and SSA).
¹⁴ Most of the increase in HHS was in the Office of the Secretary, which grew from 2,896
in 1998 to 13,493 in 2008.

Table 8. Federal Civilian Workforce: September 1998
and March 2008
September
Department/Agency1998March 2008Change
Department of Agriculture107,70995,513(12,196)(11.3%)
Department of Commerce38,93342,1013,1688.1%
Department of Defense710,412669,926(40,486)(5.7%)
Department of Justice122,580106,635(15,945)(13.0%)
Department of Labor15,94615,379(567) (3.6%)
Department of Energy16,14814,882(1,266(7.8%)
Department of Education4,8334,333(500)(10.3%)
Department of Health and58,26174,31016,04927.5%
Human Services
Department of Homeland(Did not170,663 — —
Securityexist)
Department of Housing and9,9849,416(568)(5.7%)
Urban Development
Department of the Interior73,03867,812(5,226(7.2%)
Department of State15,63711,142(4,495)(28.7%)
Department of Transportation64,85854,311(10,547)(16.3%)
Department of the Treasury141,966118,555(23,411(16.5%)
Department of Veterans240,846263,66722,8219.5%
Affairs
EPA 19,24217,894(1,348)(7.0%)
GSA 14,221 11,826 (2,395) (16.8%)
NASA 19,207 18,516 (691) (3.6%)
SSA 65,629 60,465 (5,164) (7.9%)
All other independent70,89158,144(12,747)(18.0%)
agencies
Total 1,810,341 1,885,490 75,149 4.2%
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
^No^te:^Neg^a^tiv^{e ch}^an^g^e^s^{are in}^paren^t^h^e^s^e^s^.
Types of Appointments and Work Schedules
As Table 9 below indicates, almost 90% of federal employees in March 2008
were full-time, permanent employees (which was about the same percentage as in

September 1998). About 5% of federal employees were full-time, nonpermanent; 3%
were not full-time, permanent; and 3.5% were not full-time, nonpermanent.¹⁵
Table 9. Federal Employees’ Type of Appointment and Work
Schedule, March 2008
Type of Appointment
WorkNon-
Schedul e P ermanent permanent Unspecif i ed Total
Full-time 1,664,642 96,089 117 1,760,848
Not Full-time58,76765,7352124,534
Unspecified 89 5 14 108
T otal 1,723,528 161,829 133 1,885,490
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
The departments and agencies with the largest percentage of non-permanent
employees were SSA (32.6%), HHS (28.6%), and the Department of State (24.3%).
Those with the largest percentage of employees working less than a full-time
schedule included OPM (22.6%), HHS (20.1%), and the Department of Commerce
(18.0%). There were also substantial variations within these departments and
agencies. For example, within the Department of Commerce, almost half (49.9%)
of Census Bureau employees worked less than full-time; rates for the other parts of
the department were less than 9%.
The Arrival and Departure of Federal Employees
In each of the last several years, about 250,000 employees joined federal
agencies. These “accessions” may be divided into two main groups — employees
who transferred into the agencies from other federal agencies (either through
individual or mass actions) and new hires. Each year, transfers are typically less than

¹⁵ The “non-permanent” category mainly consists of excepted service Schedule A and
Schedule B employees. According to OPM, Schedule A appointing authorities “describe
special jobs and situations for which it is impractical to use standard qualification
requirements and to rate applicants using traditional competitive procedures.” For example,
agencies must use a Schedule A exception to hire attorneys because, by law, OPM cannot
develop qualification standards or examinations for attorney jobs. OPM says Schedule B
authorities “also apply to jobs and situations for which it is impractical to rate applicants
using competitive procedures. However, under Schedule B authorities applicants must meet
the qualification standards for the job. For example, Schedule B includes hiring authorities
for the Student Temporary Employment Program, the Student Career Experience Program,
and the Federal Career Intern Program. Only students qualify for student programs; it is not
practical to use competitive procedures for them.” For more information, see
[ https://www.opm.gov/Strategic_Management_of_Human_Capital/fhfrc/FLX 05020.asp#
itemA1]. The “not full time” category mainly includes intermittent and part-time seasonal
and nonseasonal employees.

10% of all accessions.¹⁶ In FedScope, “new hires” are divided into competitive
selections, excepted service appointments,¹⁷ and selections for the Senior Executive
Service (SES). As Table 10 below indicates, in 2007 (the most recent year for which
complete data are available), most new federal hires were into excepted service
positions, not through the competitive selection process.
Table 10. Type of Federal Hiring by Type of Position, 2007
Type of Hiring
Senior
Type ofExceptedExecutive
Position Competitive Service Service Total
Full-time 59,721 47,061 331 107,113
permanent
Not full-time36,62296,99830133,650
permanent
T otal 96,343 144,059 361 240,763
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
The table also shows, however, that most federal hiring in 2007 was for other
than full-time and/or temporary employment. Of the 240,763 hires in 2007, less than
half (107,113, or 44.5%) were full-time/permanent employees. Among these full-
time/permanent hires, 59,721 (55.8%) were hired through the competitive selection
process and 47,061 (43.9%) were hired into excepted service positions. Some
agencies were more prone to hire full-time, permanent employees without using the
competitive selection process than others. For example, in 2007, 100% of TSA hires
and 90.5% of hires in the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection were into
excepted service positions.¹⁸
In each of the last several years, about 250,000 employees separated from
federal agencies in one of two ways — through transfers to other agencies (either
through individual or mass actions) or via separations from federal service. As was
the case with accessions, transfers typically account for about 10% of all separations

¹⁶ For example, in 2007, 22,781 (8.6%) of the 263,544 accessions were either individual or
mass transfers. The exception to this trend in recent years was 2003, when more than

162,000 employees were mass transferred when DHS was created, including 67,958 at TSA,

37,416 at the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and 24,239 at the Bureau
of Customs and Border Protection.
¹⁷ Certain positions are excepted from competitive service by law, by executive order, or by
OPM on the grounds that competitive examinations for such positions are not appropriate
or impracticable (e.g., attorneys, medical doctors, and students under certain temporary
employment programs).
¹⁸ Several agencies have been granted broad excepted service hiring authority, including
TSA, DHS, DVA, the Government Accountability Office, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. See [http://www.makingthedifference.org/federaljobs/exceptedservice.shtml]
for a list of the major excepted service agencies.

each year.¹⁹ Separations from the federal service may be divided into employees who
quit, retire, are separated through a reduction-in-force (RIF), are terminated, die, or
have some other type of separation. As Table 11 below shows, the most common
forms of separation from the federal service in 2007 were quits (40.0% of all
separations from federal service), removals/terminations (29.9%), and retirements
(20.1%). However, when considering only full-time, permanent employees,
retirements were most common (52.7% of all separations from federal service)
followed by quits (36.9%). Almost 87% of all removals/terminations involved
employees who were not full-time, permanent employees.
Table 11. Type of Separation From Federal Service by
Type of Position, 2007
Type of Separation from the Federal Service
Type ofRIF/
Position Quit Retire Removal Death Other Total
Full-time, 42,120 60,515 8,649 2,788 746 114,818
permanent
Not full-46,5531,72957,453254380135,961
time,
permanent
T otal 88,673 62,244 66,302 3,042 1,126 250,779
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
Changes in Federal Occupational Categories
Federal occupations vary widely, from pipefitting to psychology.²⁰ At the
broadest level, federal occupations are categorized as blue-collar and white-collar,
and the white-collar occupations may be grouped into five general categories:
professional, administrative, technical, clerical, and other.²¹ Table 12 below shows
the distribution of federal employees in these categories in 1998 and 2008. The table
shows that the number of employees working in blue collar and clerical occupations
declined substantially during this period (down 17.2% and 19.3%, respectively),
while the number working in administrative occupations increased substantially (up
23.3%). The number of employees in professional occupations increased slightly (up

4.3%), and the number in technical occupations declined slightly (down 2.0%).

¹⁹ For example, in 2007, 29,392 (11.7%) of the 250,779 separations were either individual
or mass transfers.
²⁰ As of March 2008, there were 2,645 federal employees in the “pipefitter” occupational
series, and 5,125 employees in the “psychology” series.
²¹ See [http://www.opm.gov/feddata/gp58.pdf] for the distinctions between these groups.

Table 12. Occupational Categories in the Federal Civilian
Workforce, September 1998 and March 2008
Change
Occupational
CategorySeptember 1998March 2008NumberPercent
Blue-c ollar 242,977 201,272 (41,705) (17.2)
White-c ollar 1,567,170 1,683,801 116,631 7.4
— Professional 439,704 458,47518,7714.3
— Administrative 531,395 655,175123,78023.3
— Technical 349,524 342,512(7,012)(2.0)
— Clerical 198,898 160,541(38,357)(27.6)
— Other 47,843 67,51519,67241.1
T otal 1,810,341 1,885,490 75,149 4.2
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
^No^te:^T^h^{e “}^o^ther^{” catego}^r^y^includ^es^{a f}^e^w^hund^r^e^d^“^uns^p^ecifⁱ^ed^{” in each y}^ear^.^{Negative changes ar}^e
ⁱⁿ^p^a^r^e^nt^he^se^s.
Changes in the Demographic Characteristics of the Federal
Civilian Workforce
The federal civilian workforce has also changed during the last 10 years in terms
of certain demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, age, and length
of service). Some of those changes were more significant than others, and some
appear to be continuations of longer-term trends.
Representation of Minorities and Women. Table 13 below provides data
on the percentages of the federal civilian workforce in September 1998 and March
2008 that were minorities and women. The data indicate that the representation of
minorities in the federal workforce rose somewhat during this period (from 29.6%
to 33.1%), while the representation of women rose only slightly (from 44.4% to

44.7%). These data suggest a continuation of previous federal workforce trends.

According to OPM, in September 1988, minorities composed 26.7% of the executive²²
branch workforce, and women composed 42.2%.
The relatively small change in the percentage of the federal workforce that was
women between 1998 and 2008 may be partly a function of the decline in the number
of federal clerical jobs during this period (down by more than 38,000, as shown in
Table 13 above), and in their participation rate in those jobs. As Table 14 below
shows, clerical jobs were 82% women in September 1998 but less than 70% women
by March 2008. On the other hand, the representation of women in the professional

²² U.S. Office of Personnel Management, The Fact Book, 1999 Edition: Federal Civilian
Workforce Statistics, OWI-99-2 (September 1999).

and administrative categories (occupational categories that were growing during this
period) increased somewhat during this period.
Table 13. Percentage of the Federal Civilian Workforce, Women
and Minorities, 1998 and 2008
Women/MinoritiesSeptember 1998March 2008
Women44.4%44.7%
Minorities 29.6% 33.1%
— African American15.9%17.6%
— Hispanic6.4% 7.2%
— Asian/Pacific Islander 4.5%5.4%
— Other minorities2.1%3.0%
^Sources^:^T^h^{e S}^e^pt^em^{ber 1998 dat}^a^{are f}^r^om^O^P^M’^s^{The Fact Book: 1999 Edition}^(O^WI-^99-^2,
^S^e^pt^em^{ber 1999), p. 56. T}^h^{e March}^{2008 dat}^a^{are f}^r^om^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
Table 14. Percentage of Federal Civilian Workforce Categories
That Were Women, 1998 and 2008
Percentage of the Federal Workforce - Women
Occupational CategorySeptember 1998March 2008
Blue-Collar 10.8% 11.0%
White-Collar 49.6% 48.7%
— Professional 39.0% 44.5%
— Administrative 42.6% 44.6%
— Technical 60.4% 59.4%
— Clerical 82.1% 69.4%
— Other 12.2% 14.4%
Total44.4%44.7%
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
As Table 15 below shows, the percentage of the federal workforce that was
minorities increased in all of the occupational groupings, but the increases were most
notable in the professional, administrative, and “other” occupational categories.

Table 15. Percentage of Federal Civilian Workforce Categories
That Were Minorities, 1998 and 2008
Percentage of the Federal Workforce - Minorities
Occupational CategorySeptember 1998March 2008
Blue-Collar 34.6% 34.8%
White-Collar 28.9% 32.9%
— Professional 21.3% 25.3%
— Administrative 24.5% 30.6%
— Technical 36.0% 39.7%
— Clerical 43.1% 46.4%
— Other 36.1% 41.0%
Total 29.6%33.1%
^Source:^T^h^{e S}^e^pt^em^{ber 1998 dat}^a^{are f}^r^om^O^P^M’^s^{The Fact Book: 1999 Edition}^(O^WI-^99-^2,
^S^e^pt^em^{ber 1999), p. 46 an}^{d p. 56. T}^h^{e March}^{2008 dat}^a^{are f}^r^om^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
The Senior Executive Service represents the most experienced and senior
element of the federal government’s career workforce, and racial, ethnic, and gender
diversity in the SES ranks can bring a variety of perspectives and approaches to policy
development and implementation.²³ As Table 16 below shows, the percentage of the
SES that was women in March 2008 was less than women’s representation in the
federal workforce as a whole (28.9% in the SES versus 44.7% in the workforce).
Minorities were even less represented in the SES than in the federal workforce (15.3%
of the SES were minorities versus 33.1% of the workforce as a whole).

²³ See, for example, David W. Pitts, “Representative Bureaucracy, Ethnicity, and Public
Schools: Examining the Link Between Representation and Performance,” Administration
& Society, vol. 39 (July 2007), pp. 497-527; and Morgen S. Johansen, “The Effect of Female
Strategic Managers on Organizational Performance, Public Organization Review, vol. 7
(September 2007), pp. 269-280.

Table 16. Percentage of the Federal Civilian Workforce and the
Senior Executive Service That Were Women and Minorities,
March 2008
Representation in the
Women/MinoritiesFederal WorkforceSES
Women44.7%28.9%
Minorities 33.1% 15.3%
— African American 17.6%7.9%
— Hispanic7.2%3.3%
— Asian/Pacific Islander5.4%2.4%
— Other minorities3.0%1.7%
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
Age and Length of Service. As Figure 3 below illustrates, the federal
workforce was somewhat older in March 2008 than in September 1998. For example,
the percentage of employees aged 55 and older increased from 15.1% in 1998 to
24.2% in 2008. On the other hand, the percentage of employees aged 30 to 49
declined from 59.5% in 1998 to 48.2% in 2008. These changes are evidence of a
much-discussed aging of the federal workforce, with a larger percentage of federal
employees potentially eligible to retire, or approaching retirement eligibility than in
previous years.²⁴

²⁴ See, for example, testimony of Nancy H. Kichak, Associate Director for Strategic Human
Resources Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, before the Subcommittee on the
Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, May 20, 2008, available at
[http://www.opm.gov/feddata/gp58.pdf].

Figure 3. Age Distribution of the Federal Civilian Workforce,

1998 to 2008

²⁵^.⁰
¹⁹^.²¹⁷^.⁶²⁰^.⁰^c^e
^r
¹⁶^.⁵^17.⁴¹⁶^.⁷^o^rk^f^o
¹³^.⁷^14.¹^13.⁴¹⁵^.⁰^W
^e^deral
^9.⁹^9.³^10.²¹⁰^.⁰^of^F
^7.⁷^age
^6.⁷^7.¹^5.⁶^rc^ent
^e
^4.⁰^5.⁰^P
^2.⁸^2.⁸
^1.⁹^1.⁶^0.⁴
^0.³^0.⁰
^<²⁰²^0-²⁴^25-29^30-34^35-39^40-44^45-49⁵⁰^-⁵⁴⁵^5-⁵⁹⁶⁰^-⁶⁴⁶⁵⁺
¹⁹⁹⁸²⁰⁰⁸
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
In contrast, the average length of service for the federal workforce declined
between September 1998 and March 2008 — from 15.2 years to 14.7 years. As
Figure 4 below shows, the changes between 1998 and 2008 were not uniform across
the length-of-service categories. A larger percentage of the federal workforce had less
than five years of federal service in 2008 than in 1998 (25.2% versus 15.8%,
respectively), but a somewhat larger percentage of the workforce in 1998 also had
more than 30 years of experience in 2008 (10.0% versus 6.8% in 1998). Differences
between 1998 and 2008 are also apparent in the middle length-of-service categories
(and particularly in the 10 to 14 year category). In 1998, 52.8% of the federal civilian
workforce had between 5 and 19 years of service; by 2008, the percentage of the
workforce with that category of service fell to 40.9%. The percentage of workers with
between 10 and 14 years of service fell most sharply — from 19.6% in 1998 to 10.1%
in 2008.

Figure 4. Years of Service Distribution of the Federal Civilian
Workforce, 1998 to 2008

^25.⁰
¹⁹^.⁶^20.⁰^e
^c
^17.⁰^17.⁸^16.²^k^f^o^r
^o^r
^14.³¹³^.5^15.⁰^l^W
¹³^.⁰^ra
^de
¹⁰^.4¹⁰^.¹^10.⁴^Fe
^9.²^8.³^10.⁰^of
^7.⁸^6.8^t^a^ge
ⁿ
^4.⁹^5.⁸^5.²^5.2^e^r^c^e
^3.³^5.⁰^P
^1.⁶
^0.⁰
^<¹^1-^-²^3-^-⁴^5-^-⁹^10-^-¹⁴¹⁵^-^-¹⁹²^0-^-²⁴^25-^-²⁹^30-^-³⁴³⁵⁺
¹⁹⁹⁸²⁰⁰⁸
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Systems and Average Pay
The General Schedule (GS) was created by the Classification Act of 1949, and
is by far the largest federal pay system. However, as Table 17 below shows, the
percentage of federal civilian employees who were covered by the GS and related pay
systems declined from nearly 80% in September 1998 to about 67% in March 2008,
and the percentage in the “Prevailing Rate” (blue-collar) pay system declined from
13.4% to 10.6%. During the same period of time, the percentage of employees in
single-agency pay systems increased substantially — particularly in pay systems not
related to nursing or teaching. The number of employees covered by such systems
increased from less than 16,000 in 1998 (0.8% of the federal civilian workforce) to
more than 300,000 in 2008 (16.0% of the federal workforce). According to FedScope,
within the “single agency” category, the largest pay plans (other than nursing) were
^!the “Standard Career Group” pay schedules used by DOD for (1)
professional and analytical employees (69,967 employees), (2)
supervisors and managers (35,355 employees), and (3) technical and
support employees (20,873 employees);²⁵
^!the pay plan for TSA administrative employees within DHS, other
than executives (59,918 employees);²⁶
²⁵ For more information on the DOD pay system, see CRS Report RL34673, Pay-for-
Performance: The National Security Personnel System, by Wendy Ginsberg.
²⁶ For more information on the DHS pay system, see CRS Report RL32261, DHs’s Max-HR
(continued...)

^!the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “Core Compensation”
plan (19,431 employees); and
^!the FAA air traffic controller compensation plan (18,458 employees).
Table 17. Employees in Major Federal Civilian Pay Systems,
1998 and 2008
September 1998March 2008
Federal Pay SystemNumberPercent Number Percent
General Schedule or1,431,75779.1%1,264,91367.1%
related
Prevailing Rate241,83713.4%200,29810.6%
Other 136,520 7.5% 420,217 22.3%
A. Government-wide 76,1254.2%69,8303.7%

1. Admin Determined58,6523.2%52,7042.8%

2. Senior Executive Service7,0190.4%7,5500.4%

3. All other10,4540.6%9,5760.5%

B. Single Agency60,3953.3%350,38718.6%

1. Nursing32,2671.8%40,0242.1%

2. Teaching12,2420.6%8,5540.5%

3. All other15,8860.8%301,80916.0%

T otal 1,810,341 100.0% 1,885,490 100.0%
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
As shown in Figure 5 below, if these rates of change continue into the future, by
about the year 2020, GS and related pay systems could cover less than half of the
federal workforce. By about the year 2026, the trend lines suggest that single agency
pay systems may cover as many employees as the GS and related systems.

²⁶ (...continued)
Personnel System: Regulations on Classification, Pay, and Performance Management
Compared With Current Law, and Implementation Plans, by Barbara L. Schwemle.

Figure 5. Percentage of Federal Civilian Employees in GS/Related
and Single Agency Program Systems, 1998 to 2008 and Projections

⁹⁰
^79.¹⁸⁰
^67.¹⁷⁰^e
⁶⁰^k^f^o^r^c
⁵⁰^l^Wor
^a
⁴⁰^eder
³⁰^{e of}^F
¹⁶^.⁰²⁰^ent^ag
^e^r^c
^0.⁸¹⁰^P
⁰
¹⁹⁹⁸²⁰⁰⁸²⁰¹⁸²⁰²⁸²⁰³⁸
^Sⁱⁿ^g^l^e^A^g^eⁿ^cy^S^yst^e^m^s^G^S^-^R^el^a^t^{ed S}^y^s^t^em^s
^Li^ne^ar⁽^G^S^-^R^e^l^a^t^{ed S}^y^s^t^em^s⁾^Li^near⁽^Sⁱ^ngl^{e A}^gen^c^y^S^y^s^t^em^s⁾
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
Average Salary Differences. In March 2008, the average salary of the nearly
1.9 million federal employees covered by the CPDF was $69,061. However, this
average varies substantially by agency and pay system, even among the major cabinet
departments. For example, as Table 18 below shows, the average salary at DHS
(which includes a large number of relatively lower-paid TSA employees) was
$59,220, whereas the average salary at DOT (which includes a large number of
relatively high-paid FAA employees) was $99,561.²⁷ The agency with the highest
average salary in March 2008 was the Securities and Exchange Commission
($134,153), and the agency with one of the lowest average salary was the National
Archives and Records Administration ($55,889).
²⁷ The average salary for TSA employees was $43,051, whereas the average salary for FAA
employees was $101,368.

Table 18. Average Salaries for Selected Federal Departments and
Agencies, March 2008
Departments/AgenciesAverage Salary (March 2008)
Departments/agencies with relatively high average salaries
Securities and Exchange Commission$134,153
Federal Housing Finance Board$131,517
Commodities Futures Trading Corporation$126,929
Merit Systems Protection Board$111,750
Federal Labor Relations Authority$110,139
Federal Communications Commission$108,450
Nuclear Regulatory Commission $108,085
Federal Deposit Insurance Commission$105,457
Department of Transportation$99,561
— Federal Aviation Administration $101,368
Department of Energy$97,243
Departments/agencies with relative low average salaries
Department of the Interior$62,736
— Indian Affairs$49,623
Department of Agriculture $60,968
— Agricultural Marketing Service$44,777
Department of Defense$64,735
— U.S. Army Installation Management$53,599
Department of Homeland Security$59,220
— Transportation Security Administration $43,051
National Archives and Records Administration$55,889
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
Average employee salaries also varied by major federal pay system, and
sometimes within those pay systems. For example, as Table 19 below indicates,
average salaries for employees in the blue-collar Prevailing Rate pay system were
substantially lower than in the white-collar GS and related systems, and much lower
than in the “other” systems (both government-wide and single-agency systems).
However, the table also shows that there were substantial average salary differences
by agency within the single agency systems (e.g., $43,576 for the pay systems within
DHS versus $104,072 for the pay systems within DOT).

Table 19. Average Salaries Within Major Federal Pay Systems
Pay System/DepartmentAverage Salary
General schedule/related pay systems$68,674
Prevailing Rate pay system$47,652
Other pay systems$80,444
Government-wide pay systems $104,856
Single agency pay systems $75,628
Within DHS $43,576
Within DOD $77,012
Within DOT $104,072
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
Another way to examine the salary differences by pay system is to look at the
percentage of employees in each system above various pay points. As Table 20 below
indicates, in the GS and related pay systems, less than 10% made more than $110,000
per year and less than 1% made more than $150,000 per year. On the other hand,
more than 55% of employees in governmentwide pay systems (e.g., the Senior
Executive Service and the physicians/dentist schedules) made more $110,000 per year,
and more than one-third made more than $150,000 per year.
Table 20. Percentage of Federal Civilian Employees in Major Pay
Systems at Various Pay Points, March 2008
More thanMore thanMore than
Pay System$110,000/year$130,000/year$150,000/year
General schedule/ related9.7%3.8%0.8%
pay systems
Other pay systems20.8%12.9%6.6%
— Government-wide55.2%46.7%34.1%
— Single agency15.8%8.1%3.0%
^Source:^O^P^M’^s^F^e^dS^{cope dat}^a^bas^e^.
Summary Observations
The data provided in this report show that the size, shape, and character of the
“federal workforce” varies substantially depending on how that workforce is
conceived. Viewed broadly, the “federal government” includes civilian and military
employees, all branches of government, and the U.S. Postal Service. However, most
discussions of the federal workforce focus on civilian employees in the executive
branch. Within that category, while OPM’s FedScope data indicates that nearly 90%
of the workforce in March 2008 was composed of full-time, permanent employees,

more than half of all accessions and separations each year involve temporary and/or
other than full-time employees. Therefore, in discussions about “the federal
workforce,” or even more specific issues of federal recruitment and retention, it is
important to be clear which agencies and what types of employees are included.
Some aspects of the federal civilian executive branch workforce are, however,
relatively unambiguous. That workforce grew by more than 120,000 employees
between 2000 (the low point during the last 10 years) and 2008, with the growth
concentrated in homeland security-related agencies and DVA. The civilian workforce
at DOD, on the other hand, declined between 1998 and 2008 by more than 40,000
employees (5.7%), and independent agencies like EPA and SSA also grew smaller.
Although federal employees work in more than 100 agencies and organizations, the
data indicate that nearly 60% of the federal civilian workforce was in three large
cabinet departments in 2008 — DOD, DVA, and DHS. Even in its reduced size,
DOD was by far the largest and most ubiquitous federal department or agency. In 35
states, DOD was the largest federal civilian employer (often by a wide margin), and
DOD was the second largest employer in most of the other states. DOD also
employed more than 90% of federal civilian employees in foreign countries (not
including the foreign service).
It is also clear from the data that certain aspects of the federal workforce have
changed in recent years. For example, between September 1998 and March 2008, the
number of blue-collar jobs declined by more than 17%, and the number of clerical
jobs declined by more than 27%. Meanwhile, the number of professional and
administrative jobs increased by more than 4% and 23%, respectively. The percentage
of the workforce that was minorities also increased during this period, but the
percentage that was women remained almost constant. Also, although women as well
as minorities represented an increasing proportion of the growing professional and
administrative groups, their representation in the Senior Executive Service lagged
behind their representation in the workforce as a whole.
The federal workforce is also noticeably older than it was 10 years ago. The
percentage of the workforce that was age 55 or older rose by more than 60% between
1998 and 2008. In 1998, the age grouping with the largest percentage of federal
workers was age 45-49; in 2008, the modal age grouping was age 50-54. With a
larger percentage of federal workers either eligible or almost eligible to retire, OPM
submitted a legislative proposal in March 2008 that would allow agencies in all three
branches of government to more easily rehire annuitants without a salary offset.
(Currently, unless agencies receive a waiver from OPM, federal retirees who are
reemployed by the federal government must have their salaries reduced.) The
proposal is similar to H.R. 3579, which would cover only executive branch
employees. Other legislation has been introduced in the 110^th Congress (e.g., H.R.
2780) that would allow certain employees to switch to a part-time schedule at the end
of their career without affecting the calculation of their annuities.
The data also illustrate a decline in the dominance of the GS pay system during
the last 10 years and a corresponding increase in the use of agency-specific pay
systems. If recent trends continue into the future, the GS system will cover less than
half of the federal workforce within the next 15 years, and the GS system will be
surpassed by agency-specific pay systems shortly thereafter. Several of these single-

agency pay systems are “pay for performance” systems, however, and those systems
have been met with resistence from federal employees, unions, and some Members
of Congress.²⁸ Therefore, to the extent that these single-agency systems are based on
pay for performance, and to the extent that pay for performance is resisted by
Congress and others, the growth in those agency-specific systems could slow in the
future.
Perhaps the most surprising statistics, however, involve the “hidden” federal
workforce of contractors and grantees. That workforce was estimated to include more
than 10.5 million jobs in 2005 — more than more than twice as large as the combined
total of all three branches of government, the U.S. Postal Service, the intelligence
agencies, the armed forces, and the Ready Reserve. The number of contractor and
grantee jobs was also estimated to have increased by more 50% between 1999 and
2005. If that rate of increase continued for the next six years, the number of federal
contractors and grantees could reach nearly 16 million by the year 2011. However,
the growth in contracting and grants could slow considerably if the next
administration is not as committed to transferring certain federal functions to the
private sector as the current Bush Administration.

²⁸ See, for example, Laura D. Francis, “Lawmakers Told of Inequities in Federal Pay But
Urged to Reject Alternative Pay Systems,” BNA Government Employee Relations Report,
August 7, 2007, p. 910; and Brittany Ballenstedt, “Defense to Probe Fairness of Pay for
Performance System,” Government Executive, August 22, 2008.