GovernmentExecutive.com

If you're a federal employee in the Washington area, you may think you're underpaid compared to private-sector workers in similar jobs. But it could be worse.

On average, congressional staffers on Capitol Hill make a third less than other D.C.-based federal workers. And the gap is growing.

Congressional staffers are paid far less than other federal workers in Washington and generally have been in their current positions for a very short period of time, according to the latest study by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF). That report traces Hill staffers' salary information and demographic data over the past 10 years.

While this latest study centers on Senate staff, it also includes House data from the CMF's previous work. (The full study, which includes additional demographic data, can be found at http://www.cmfweb.org).

Washington-based Senate staffers earned 32 percent less than other D.C.-based federal workers, the study found. On the House side, Hill-based staffers earned 39 percent less than other local federal workers. And in both cases, the salary gap grew during the past decade.

The CMF offered a few explanations for the disparity: Senate staffers did not receive cost-of-living increases in 1994 and 1995, while other federal workers got automatic salary boosts. And federal salaries are supplemented by a locality pay formula, which Hill staffers do not enjoy. Finally, the report notes, "Senate staff tend to be younger and less-experienced, but better educated than their counterparts in the federal government."

And those educations do seem to pay off, at least relatively speaking. The foundation reported that in 2001, Senate staffers with bachelor's degrees earned 33.2 percent less than other federal workers with similar degrees, while those with advanced degrees sometimes earned only 20 percent less than similarly educated executive branch employees.

Now, all of these numbers may seem dry, but the potential effects reach far beyond Hill aides' checkbooks. As the CMF report warns, "This continuing differential in pay between well-educated Senate staff and the national workforce could encourage some Senate staff to leave Capitol Hill."

Now the foundation is probably too objective to extrapolate additional conclusions. But several can be assumed nonetheless. The disparities in pay no doubt mean the revolving door is flourishing and won't be closed soon. Good-government types should be worried that the salary differences will drive the best Hill people to lobbying firms in search of more money, thus depriving Capitol Hill of experienced staffers. And members of Congress should shudder at the thought of constantly losing top staff just as soon as they get good at their jobs.

True, most Hill staffers are motivated by more than just money, but it's foolish to think paychecks don't play a role. After all, just look at the rapid turnover.

In fact, everyone should be worried about CMF's findings that show just how inexperienced most congressional staffs are. Get this: Almost two-thirds of the Senate staffers have been in their positions for two years or less. And 45 percent have not even been on Capitol Hill for that long - an increase of almost 5 percentage points since 1991.

If you wonder why Congress seems to make the same mistakes over and over again, this lack of institutional memory is particularly disturbing. And the CMF study goes a long way toward explaining why so many of us who hit Capitol Hill on a regular basis feel so damn old every time we go up there.

But with all that turnover and frequent hiring, at least Congress is becoming an equal-opportunity employer, right? Think again. While the gap is narrowing, wide disparities remain between Senate salaries for white men vs. those for women and minorities.

All in all, the CMF study seems short on silver linings. With the federal budget back in deficit, congressional staff salary increases are certain to be low on the priority list. And of course, Congress would suffer a backlash if it increased staff salaries too quickly - just imagine the challengers' campaign ads. But the new data should make members on both sides of the Hill stop and consider how bad the brain drain is among the staff they rely on so much.