GovernmentExecutive.com

The Office of Management and Budget revised its guidance on which jobs are considered so essential to government that they cannot be outsourced.

The guidance has been fairly consistent for the past decade, but the latest revision gives agencies the option to exclude from competitions jobs performed by disabled workers. The prospect of disabled workers, who are often hired because the government has goals for their recruitment and employment, being forced to compete for jobs against nondisabled contractors has outraged some advocates of the disabled community.

Last October, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., introduced a bill to protect the jobs of disabled workers, which Congress is still considering. OMB said it will release a more detailed memo on how agencies should handle potential job competitions with disabled workers at an unspecified future date.

"We view it as helpful, but do have concerns with how it is going to be implemented," said Julie Ward, director of employment and transportation policy at the Arc and United Cerebral Palsy Disability Policy Collaboration, a Washington-based organization that advocates on behalf of the disabled community.

She was also concerned that leaving so much discretion up to each agency would make implementation difficult.

Diana Price, a procurement specialist for American Federation of Government Employees, said while she was pleased OMB "has taken a small step toward protecting disabled federal employees," there are still problems with the guidance.

"Giving agency officials the power to make up their own definitions and classify federal employees based upon only select portions of the work they do politicizes the process by allowing agencies to target particular employees," she said.

The inventory guidance, which the 1998 Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act requires OMB to issue annually, informs agencies which jobs should be considered "inherently governmental" and which should be considered "commercial." Jobs that are considered inherently governmental are considered "so intimately related to the public interest" that they must be performed by government employees, according to a 1992 OMB policy letter.

The definitions leave a lot of room for debate. "There's a huge gray area," said Allan Burman, president of the federal arm of Jefferson Consulting Group and former head of OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy. Burman drafted the 1992 guidance, which was the first time the definitions were explored so thoroughly.

The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy Disability Policy Collaboration, along with other groups representing disabled workers, wrote a letter to OMB Tuesday expressing concern that competitive sourcing initiatives hurt disabled workers, and asked that they be exempted from job competitions.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that between fiscal 1999 and 2003, the percentage of federal employees with targeted disabilities, which includes severely disabled workers, fell by 7.5 percent, to 25,500 workers. The number of employees with mental retardation fell by 21 percent.

The reason for the drop is not clear, but one potential explanation could be that disabled workers now have more employment options and as a result fewer work for the federal government.

A spokeswoman from Van Hollen's office said he hasn't decided whether to continue pushing his bill, and that he will monitor the situation and make sure OMB follows though on its new guidance.

OMB also said it was developing a database to track job classifications and expects it to be ready in 2006.

COMMENTS

• 1- Kimberly Palmer got her numbers mixed up. The WHOLE federal government fell 7.5 percent, while people with targeted, or severe disabilities fell by almost 21 percent. Thus, it is difficult for Federal agencies to show that they are complying with laws that require them to ensure that they hire and retain these individuals. 2- Based on the above stats, obviously this group is not protected, contrary to the quote from Stan Soloway, prez of the Professional Services Council. 2 - Van Hollen's bill only applies to SEVERE disabilities, which are only about one percent of the total workforce. Eric's comment about the protection being extended to minorities etc. reveals a common misperception re the law, which specifies that Federal agencies must set goals for hiring people with disabilities. There is no such law that applies to minorities, etc. Also, people with disabilties include all race/national origin groups. 3 - Lynne's disability is not necessarily included in the severe disabilty category. Targeted (severe) disabilities are: Partial paralysis, complete paralysis, deafness, blindness, missing limbs, distortion of limbs or spine, convulsive disorders, mental illness, and mental retardation. GovExec.com reader Posted July 11, 2005 2:42 PM
• Is getting it done on the cheap really what government is all about? If we exclude workers who aren't handicapped, isn't that a contradiction to getting the job done at the lowest price? Will minorities be excluded next? Aren't we helping to kill off the middle class by replacing workers with benefits with contract employees, who enjoy fewer or no benefits? Erich Darr Posted June 2, 2005 11:49 AM
• As a disabled civilian who has 20 yrs in I don't like this idea at all. I have Mutiple Sclerosis and started civil service as a GS01 and have worked my way up to a WG-06 and with only 10 years until I can retire (MRA) this doesn't seem right. I come in every day even when I am sick. I have always given 110% and have only asked for an air conditioner. I do not look like I have MS and have this disability long before I started Civil Service. I have always had to prove myself and now this. What could possibly be next? Lynne Posted May 31, 2005 2:02 PM