GovernmentExecutive.com

In 2000, the outlook for the federal workforce looked bleak to many observers. They predicted a retirement flood and an empty pipeline to fill the vacant positions left in its wake.

Today, it's clear that retirements have moved along at an even, manageable pace and new hires this decade have created a healthy supply of future leaders.

It turns out there was a bit of unnecessary hysteria at the turn of the decade, driven by worst-case-scenario predictions that suggested baby boomers would retire en masse as soon as they were eligible and that the "best and brightest" wanted to work anywhere but the federal government.

As time has gone on and the overly pessimistic projections have proved wrong, workforce watchers have developed more conservative projections that better reflect reality.

Take retirement statistics, for example. The Office of Personnel Management in its 2001 retirement report predicted that 61,682 full-time permanent federal employees would retire in fiscal 2006 -- a 4.1 percent rate.

Three years later, in 2004, OPM reduced its projection to 55,508 retirees, a 3.5 percent rate. The actual retirements for fiscal 2006, which OPM recently released, were 58,583, or 3.7 percent.

In 2004, OPM predicted that the retirement rate would remain at about 3.7 percent to 3.8 percent for the remainder of the decade. That seems likely, at this point. That rate would produce a manageable number of vacancies for which agencies can recruit new workers.

As far as the recruitment worries at the beginning of the decade, they thankfully have proved unwarranted. Perhaps economic slowdown helped. The boom of the late 1990s, particularly in the technology field, had federal agency chiefs very concerned about getting good people for highly important jobs. But, in general, agencies find themselves awash in candidates for most jobs that they promote effectively.

Last year, the government hired 96,353 people from outside the federal workforce and has been hiring at a similar clip throughout the decade. The quit rate in 2006 was 2.6 percent across government, a favorable number that says federal service is holding on to workers.

Much is made of the graying of the federal workforce and of concerns accompanying an aging employee population. But one underappreciated point is that the government has become a destination for midcareer workers, not only for recent graduates. In fact, 52,696 of the new hires in 2006 -- about 54 percent -- were 35 or over.

That and the fact that people are putting off retirement (in part because they are living longer, healthier lives) are key reasons for the graying of the workforce. An increase in the average age of federal workers does not mean a retirement surge is in the works; it's more likely a permanent change.

Rather than preparing for massive exits, federal managers should be thinking about how best to use older workers who are going to be clocking in each morning for many years to come.

COMMENTS

• They had a Management Intern Program in 1975? I can believe that. While that institutional knowledge precedes me and is interesting that, 32 years ago, they had a program to recruit in new managerial talent, not unlike one of the tenets of the looming NSPS. At the time, I was more involved with another recruitment program for the federal government, voluntary enlistments. Still, the maturing of that program and the fact that 30 years and the age 55, entitles one to a retirement plus the social security supplement only reinforces my belief. Perhaps it won’t happen, all we can do is wait and see; but that really isn’t good management practice is it? Tip off GovExec.com reader Posted April 2, 2007 8:45 AM
• Mass exodus from federal service was a fear when I was hired under the Management Intern Program. That was in 1975. GovExec.com reader Posted March 30, 2007 11:37 AM
• I beg to differ with the conclusions of this report. Several factors lead me to think that the retirement bubble not only exists but is imminent due to demographics and governmental policies. The reasons I’ve heard for planned retirements are several. Demographically speaking, 1955 had the largest birth rate of the entire baby boomer time frame. Of course, ’54 and ’56 were 2nd and 3rd, and those people are now 50 to 53, rapidly approaching the minimum retirement age. One governmental policy pushing that retirement was the “carrot” used to entice civil servants to convert from CSRS to FERS, the Social Security Supplement for those qualified to retire at least 55 years of age but before 62. Another is most likely to kick in 12 months after the implementation of what many feel is an unfavorable personnel system - NSPS. I’ve heard several eligibles say, “I’d go before, but the conversion will raise my pay a year earlier than without NSPS.” While they dislike the tenets of the program, the process will give a mid-step increase affecting their high three calculation, thus delaying their exodus for one year. This retention will probably be touted as a success while merely being a delaying tactic. The combination of the NSPS and the prospect of lost retirement funds is gearing up many eligibles for “getting while the getting’s good.” Last year’s surge of approximately 28,400 workers age 35 and older was a misrepresentation. Much of it was a one-time fluke primarily due to a separate personnel initiative aimed at converting military slots to civilian, combined with eased restriction for ex-military (often retired) to enter the work force. Many of these were 38 and older, skewing the statistics. If you don’t think many workers will be voting with their feet, all you have to do is sit, wait, and watch. Just don’t stand in the doorway; you might get more than your feelings hurt. Tip off GovExec.com reader Posted March 28, 2007 12:19 PM