Transcript
PAUL LIGHT: Okay. Let's get started. Nice and cool in here.
I'm Paul Light. For the next 24 hours or so, I'm still vice president and director of Governmental Studies. As of tomorrow, or, I guess the 1st, I'll be director of the Center for Public Service, but no longer vice president. I'm giving up one of my several titles in an effort to flatten the Brookings hierarchy. (Laughter.)
At the start of this event here, where we're going to release this report and hear from Senator Thompson on his views of what's going on, let me thank the team of people who helped with this work. Gina Russo, Mary McIntosh, Judy Labiner, Carole Plowfield, Bill Fanaras, Hannah Sistare, who was released from her indentured service to the Governmental Affairs Committee in February so that she could be the executive director of the Volcker Commission. I hope I got everybody on our team. A lot of people contributed to this report. The Packard Foundation and the Dillon Fund also contributed funding to this report. The first version — the first piece of this work was published in Government Executive, which has actually been my longest association with any organization in my career. It's been 12 years with Tim Clark and the team there.
This is one of the most difficult reports I've ever written. It's very complicated data. It's very good data. It's probably the best sample and piece of data that I've had to work with in a long time. The survey at hand is based on two separate surveys with the same people: 673 federal employees in 2001 and the same 673 employees in 2002. The number may seem small to you, but these employees were identified through random-digit dialing at home, not at work. George Gallup once said that it does not take a gallon of blood to determine blood type, and when you look at survey sampling, you need to remember that the key to a high quality representative sample is randomness, that every federal employee has an equal opportunity to be included in the sample and that increases the power of the sample to reveal prevailing patterns.
Random sampling through random-digit dialing is an extraordinarily powerful tool and the fact that we went back to the same employees a year later means that even small changes in attitude can be very significant because you're talking to the very same people. This report has some very troubling conclusions about the federal workforce, but for me, I always have this issue of whether this is a glass half full or a glass half empty.
Now, there's a sign out at the sign-in desk advertising government's greatest achievements. We put that out there to just show you that I can be positive about what government can do. Government does wonderful things. I think we're going to have a successful endeavor here on homeland security and the war on terrorism, but there is some troubling information to talk about today.
Let me start with the half-full argument — the glass-half-full argument. Looking back to 2001 and comparing the answers to the survey in 2002, there's still much to admire about the federal workforce. Some things have not changed since September 11th. Federal employees still say their organizations encourage employees to take risks. Federal employees still refuse to characterize their jobs as boring. Feds are still reasonably satisfied with salary benefits and the public respect they receive for the work they're doing. Feds still say that their organizations provide enough information and technological equipment to do their jobs well. Feds still overwhelmingly say they accomplish something significant at work and the estimated percentage of poor performers — when we ask federal employees how many other people you work with are not doing their jobs well — has remained exactly the same in 2001 and 2002 at 22 percent. That is lower than the estimated percentage of poor performers among private sector employees who estimate the number in their midst of poor performers at about 24 percent. It is slightly higher than non-profit workers who estimate the number of poor performers in their midsts at 19 percent.
I should note here that there's some troubling news about what Americans think about federal performance. In June, Mary McIntosh graciously did a survey for us of 2,200 Americans, more or less, asking them to estimate the number of poor performers in the federal government. We said to Americans — just your best guess, how many federal employees are not doing their jobs well. Americans said 48 percent on average of federal employees were not doing their jobs well. They said 42 percent of people who work for private businesses are not doing their jobs well and 38 percent of people who are working for charitable organizations are not doing their jobs well. We did not ask about think tank employees because we knew that answer would be zero percent were not doing the jobs well, so — and the media, we would never ask. I mean, Americans — there's something going on when Americans think that our work force — that a very high percentage of our work force — federal, private or non-profit — is not doing its work well and I can't quite figure that one out. Mary and I are going to do some work on it.
There's no change in the desire to leave government and there's one positive up trend. Satisfaction with job security among federal employees is up, which is contrary to some of the concerns so many of us have about contracting out. I would not say that's something to advertise as good news. If I were a federal employee or a federal agency, saying, well, here's a good thing: satisfaction with job security post-September 11th — I just don't think politically it's a good advertising point for the federal government, especially when we talk about the down points.
There has been significant improvement in at least one of the federal government's work forces: the Defense Department. Defense employees were significantly more likely to say they're given a chance to do the things they do best; more likely to say there are no poor performers in their midst; more likely to say their organizations provide enough employees to do the job well; more likely to say that they are satisfied with the opportunity to accomplish something worthwhile. Interestingly enough, there has not been a significant increase in defense employment during the period before we did this second survey. What we think is going on here is that defense employees are perceiving better performance among their colleagues and more employees in their midst because there's more productivity at that agency. That's what we think might be going on. Well, that's what I think might be going on and looking squarely at Mary and Mary is thinking, am I thinking that? Why are you using the pronoun we? (Laughter.)
Cautionary note. Defense employees are more likely than non-defense to say their organizations do not provide enough training to do the job. Now, why is that? Why are defense employees more likely to say they're not getting the training they need than non-defense, and I think the reason is that they're feeling the need for training more than non-defense; that they're really on edge. They've got an acutely apparent mission and I think that they want to be on top of that mission.
Now let me give you the glass-half-empty news and then we'll turn it over to the senator. Despite the good news, there are many indicators in our survey that show that the federal government's workforce is in trouble. Morale is down. Satisfaction with the opportunity to accomplish something worthwhile is down. The ability of employees to describe the mission of their agencies is down. The number of layers that federal employees see between themselves and the top of their agencies is up. That could be perception. I don't think there's an increase in the actual number of layers in the federal government, but I think federal employees are feeling the impact of layers today more than they did a year ago because they feel a lot of pressure to do better.
More significantly, the number of federal employees who say they come to work for the paycheck — solely the paycheck — is up. Now, we asked federal employees this simple question. We said a variety of factors motivate people to come to work each day. Why do you come to work every day? Very simple question. And we recorded all of the answers, you know, you could have said anything you wanted. Many did. We had one respondent who said, I come to work because my wife makes me come to work, otherwise, I'd be out gambling. (Laughter.)
Of the answers here in 2001, 31 percent of federal employees answered that they come to work solely for the paycheck, for the compensation. In 2002, that number was up to 41 percent. I mean, I can explain that figure. I can explain why it went up, but I cannot forgive that figure. I've been a strong advocate of public service for a long time and for federal employees — for that number to be going up is extremely troublesome.
Now, to keep it in perspective, almost 50 percent of private sector employees come to work for the paycheck, okay? So federal employees are still below the private sector, but senator and others, we talk a lot about federal employees and federal agencies becoming more businesslike; this is one area where federal employees are becoming more businesslike and it's troublesome.
By comparison, we just came out of the field, as we call it, with a survey of non-profit employees. Only 16 percent of employees of charitable organizations say they come to work for the paycheck or compensation. About 41 percent of non-profit employees say they come to work because they love the job. I love my job. I like helping kids. I love my work. I make a difference. I mean that's what we want to hear from federal employees. We don't want to hear from federal employees that they're just coming to work for the paycheck; at least I don't think we do. There are very serious problems at non-defense agencies. The percentage of employees at non-defense agencies who say they're given a chance to do the things I do best is down substantially, while defense employee satisfaction with the opportunity or being given the chance to do the things they do best has gone up. There's a 19 percent spread now between defense and non-defense employees on that one question where there was no spread at all in 2001.
The number of feds who say that the job is a dead end with no future is up at non-defense, unchanged at defense. The number who are dissatisfied with their job is up at non-defense, unchanged at defense. Trust in the organization, belief the organization is good at helping people — all of these measures are down at non-defense agencies and either stable or up at defense.
Let me briefly talk about how we might explain these findings. Number one, defense and non-defense work forces, I believe, were dissatisfied with the opportunity to accomplish something worthwhile for different reasons. I think defense employees are dissatisfied with their lack of ability to accomplish something worthwhile because they've got a mission that's intense. They want to make an impact. They are frustrated with bureaucratic barriers and they're frustrated with a lack of training. That I think is the good predictor of why they're dissatisfied at defense. They've got a job to do and there are bureaucratic barriers to doing so.
Non-defense employees appear to me to be confused about their mission. They seem to feel that they're being left behind. They don't know their place in a post-September 11th world. Percent of defense employees who said people they work feel more of a sense of mission since September 11th was 63 percent. You know, two out of three defense employees said that the people they worked with have more of a sense of mission post-September 11th. Among non-defense employees, it was 35 percent.
Non-defense employees looking around their agencies are saying we don't feel more of a sense of mission here; it's still the same. Nothing has changed. Defense employees were also responding to what a lot of HR professionals call satisfiers: leadership, mission, and the ability of the employees to get the resources they need by way of employees and so forth. They have a focus-measurable mission while non-defense employees appear to be focusing on what human resource experts call dissatisfiers. I think they're reacting to the dual pay raise. I think they're reacting to the contracting out initiative. I think they're reacting to the lack of a focus mission and, I think most importantly, I think they're reacting to the lack of contact with the president. The president isn't talking much to them about what he expects from the civilian workforce. What we've got here I think in some ways is a response to what the president isn't saying, and I'm strongly encouraging the president here in this report to talk to the federal workforce about what's going on and to try to interpret the post-September 11th environment in a way that federal employees can grapple with.
And I talk a lot here about the need for stronger measurement of performance, which is something that Senator Thompson has worked on a good deal, the Office of Management and Budget — and I'd like it noted that I'm saying something positive about OMB. They have a new initiative on performance measurement, which I think actually holds some promise for rewarding agencies more effectively for what they do well and for what they don't do well.
So that's pretty quick. I don't know, I think I got that in about 10 minutes, was it? Our interviews lasted about 30 minutes, so that's a pretty good timeline.
Let me introduce Senator Thompson to talk about these issues. I've admired his work ever since he came to the United States Senate. I paid money to see his work before he came to the United States Senate and once he leaves the Senate.
SENATOR FRED THOMPSON (R-TN): I hope you will again.
MR. LIGHT: Yeah, I was just going to say that.
(Laughter.)
MR. LIGHT: I was watching "In the Line of Fire" last night, which was on TNT. You'll see.
SENATOR THOMPSON: (Off mike.)
MR. LIGHT: Yeah, and a darn good one, you know. (Laughter.)
At any rate, Senator Thompson, from my perspective on governmental affairs, did a terrific job zeroing in on performance issues: worried about the right questions, asked the right questions. I strongly encouraged him not to leave the United States Senate. I felt that there is an unfinished agenda. I thought I had him convinced and that we as a community had him convinced. I think we did for a little bit but he's going to be leaving, and we hope to continue to engage him at Brookings and elsewhere in town on these issues of good government. I think we've got a commitment of a sort to doing that.
It's just a pleasure to introduce the senator from Tennessee and welcome him here to talk about these issues. Senator Thompson.
(Applause.)
SENATOR FRED THOMPSON (R-TN): Thank you, Paul. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only lame duck here today (laughter), so I feel a little better. Several things I could say about the survey, sitting here thinking about it — I'm wondering how much of this general public 48 percent view — unfavorable view of federal employees has had to do — is unduly weighted by their view toward members of Congress. I mean, I assume that we?re included in that federal employee group, but my commitment to better government has to do with the fact that I gave up Hannah Sistair to come over to the Volcker Commission and try to help out. I?m glad to see Hannah and Tim here today.
Just a couple of comments. First of all, thank you again, Paul, for what I consider to be a great public service. These issues need to be highlighted and brought to our attention. These are long festering problems that cannot — we cannot afford to have go in the direction that they are going in. We clearly have got to do a better job of our hiring processes for federal employees, motivating them, giving incentives and disincentives in the right way, having a system in which they can work and prosper and be held accountable. We?ve failed in all of those things. We are trying to move toward a more performance-based government little by little. We?re trying to make the results mean something and work. It is a tough job.
Until it?s tied to the budget process, it?s probably not ever going to work, but I must say the president in his budget has a management-focused agenda. I?ve talked to Mitch Daniels and several others at the OMB, many of whom used to work for me about this area and so it?s just the proverbial huge battleship. You?re trying to move a couple degrees, and in the last two years we?ve been able to move it a little bit, but certainly Paul and Brookings and others downtown have done at least as much, but we?ve got to continue to do that because we now are beginning as never before to see the significance of these problems.
In the first place, I?ve watched over the last few years and studied for the last years of some of the causes of this problem and seeing that it?s a part of a bigger problem with regard — that we have with regard to the federal workforce; the fact that the downsizing we went through in the ?90s caused a brain drain; the fact that the retirement picture does not look good. I think the next — you know, 50 percent in the next five years are eligible to retire. The GAO, of course, tells us that my human capital issues are now on the high-risk list as far the government is concerned. We know of problems we have with the civil service and how virtually impossible it is to do anything about that.
That is all of our background, but as I say, now we?re beginning — and I?m certainly — beginning to see just one big chunk of the significance of that and it?s not all bad news because surely now these problems can be highlighted in such a way that we can get some momentum for doing something about it.
I just saw — reading the paper coming over here — it looks like a big chunk of employees is going to get a raise out of committee — 4.1 percent, I think, for defense and other employees. That probably wouldn?t have happened a short time ago, but when I talk about significance, I?m talking the national defense area, and of course we?re up to our neck right now in the Governmental Affairs Committee considering the homeland security bill, and it?s going to be one of the things that both parties agree should be at the top of our agenda as we finish up this year.
The Hart-Rudman Commission pointed out to us many things; they?re quoted daily now. But one of the things they pointed out was that there was a crisis of confidence in government that a lot of that had to do with the kind of work force that we were attracting and needed to attract. The key people we were losing, the highly specialized needs that we had and were developing, that we were falling behind in such things as language skills and other things that were extremely troublesome, and for one thing, it was having a direct impact on our intelligence-gathering capabilities. It?s very specific, and boy, has all that come home to us because we see now that the heart of the problems that we have seen and have been public so far and I think the ones that will come out still yet in large part have to do with the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence, and now we?re in the process of setting up a huge new homeland security department involving just under 170,000 employees in 22 agencies, and that in and of itself is a real issue in terms of federal employment and the attitude of the people who may be coming into this and it may not be, and where they?re going to be in the hierarchy, and what?s going to happen, but the significance I?d like to talk to today is the fact that so much of it is going to be resting on a questionable foundation. This is a department that needs to happen, but a good part of it is going to be based on its ability to collect accurate and timely — and analyze on an accurate and timely basis — intelligence.
And our intelligence community, our counter-intelligence, counter-terrorism capabilities need substantial reform, and this department will be relying on traditional sources of intelligence for its ability to operate in all of the various ways that it?s going to be set up to operate, so we have to have better intelligence. We have to have better capabilities in the collection and certainly in the analysis and dissemination of information. That, in turn, is based upon the kind of people that we?re able to attract and keep. We have fallen way behind in terms of things such as human intelligence. We have fallen behind in terms of our ability to penetrate. We?ve fallen behind in terms of our language capabilities and things of that nature. It?s a different world altogether as we know, and it?s even a more different world in the national security arena and specifically the intelligence arena.
And so it all goes — it all builds up, the things we?re talking about here today. It builds up to become what I consider to be the crux of the most important issue facing our country today; that is the national security of this country. It all rests on the foundation of good, capable, knowledgeable people, and in some areas, more and more growing areas, people who must have extremely significant skills, training, capabilities, willingness, and will never be able — these people can make many, many more times the salary of what they?re making. They?re going to have to be motivated in a way that they?ll be willing to give a certain part of their lives to their country.
So we need to understand that, and as we tackle the larger issues that this is a part of and that being the overall management of government, the overall lack of leadership that we have seen. You know, management and leadership would solve an awful lot of our problems, and it distresses me to see that as we?re debating homeland security, as we?re trying to grapple with those issues, as we?re talking about the human capital issues that we face with regard to national security, as we talk about things like information technology and those issues that are such an integral part of protecting this country. Now, we understand that. These computers, yes, they have to talk to each other. Yes, we have to have the most sophisticated technicians. Yes, we have the capability in this country of developing scanners so that people don?t have to stand in line half their lives at airports and all of that.
Unfortunately, all of these areas that we?re dealing with now as part of homeland security are the things that the government does worse. We?ve seen over a period of years that all of these areas that I just mentioned are on the GAO high-risk list. I mean, you can throw financial management in there, too, because as this new bureaucracy gets built up, somebody is going to have to, you know, remember where the typewriters are or something. I mean we lose billions of dollars just misplaced in this country, in this government because of financial mismanagement and we don?t know where things are.
So the challenge now that we?re facing is to come with a national security component — as large as it is, it?s still a component of the bigger government — that is efficient and well running and well staffed and fully funded in an area when the thing that they are a part of is nothing like that?nothing like that, whether you?re talking about human capital issues or information technology or financial management or whatever. That just highlights the size of the challenge.
So again, working our way back — big picture, national security, homeland defense and all of that — you?re working your way down the steps. It all gets — all rests upon these personnel and human capital problems and challenges that we have in that particular area. So it?s very, very good that we are reminded and kept aware, for this is exactly what are situation is from the ground up — what actual people are thinking about their jobs and what our fellow citizens think about their jobs. It will help us continue to move hopefully in the right direction. Thank you all.
(Applause.)
MR. LIGHT: (Confers off mike.) We?ll take some questions here. I agree. We do see in this homeland security debate a fairly significant opportunity to do some work on fixing the human capital problems, but we?ll talk a little bit about that.
Let?s — Al, what?s on your mind?
QUESTION FROM AL EISELE OF THE HILL: Paul, I wouldn?t —
MR. LIGHT: Answer to the second first, no. This is a survey of civilian workers; not postal workers, not military and not congressional. We did ask a question about Congress a couple of weeks ago. We were trying to explore public support for a pay increase for members of Congress and Supreme Court justices, and I think Mary McIntosh and I have concluded that there?s no way to ask this question that would get a majority of Americans to support a pay increase for members of Congress. That may be a surrogate here.
On the first issue, you can?t get at the question of fear. We did ask whether or not federal employees think their jobs are more stressful. Defense Department employees were more likely than non-defense, so at the back of the survey you?ll see those questions: Is your job more stressful since September 11th? More fulfilling? More difficult? More rewarding? And in all of those cases, Defense Department employees were more likely to say stressful, fulfilling, rewarding, difficult, and all of those answers were significantly correlated with feeling better about work.
Actually, Defense Department employees feel that their jobs are more difficult, but they also feel that that?s linked to a sense that morale is up, that?s linked to a sense that they have the ability to accomplish something worthwhile. We did pick up some fear factor in the open-ended questions about why do you come to work each day. We did 40 long interviews with a whole team of people from the Center for Public Service and we did hear a little bit about that. This is sort of a generalized fear.
Tim?
QUESTION FROM TIM CLARK OF GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE: The Republican Party has not been one for creating new bureaucracies. The last organizational efforts that I can recall by the — that were endorsed by the Republican Party in fact went the other way and were contemplating the abolishment of some cabinet level departments. This new agency, it seems to me, is — no question about it, big government, growth of government. You?ve got a big, new bureaucracy being put in place. You?ve got 12 new political appointees. You?ve got a new super structure that has to be created to manage all of the newly organized department and the agencies that are coming in under it.
I sense that there is fear that it will take a long time to really get that working, so that — and you alluded yourself to peoples? worries about where they would be in the hierarchy and all that. I wonder whether that worries you.
And secondly, I also wonder whether you think that now is the opportunity — now comes the opportunity to — you alluded to fully funding — to increase the funding of some of these organizations like the Border Patrol, for example. Barry McCaffrey has said that the Border Patrol should be four times the size it is and the Coast Guard and other agencies moving into this department are pretty demonstrably underfunded, and so you?re looking not only at a bigger bureaucracy, but perhaps considerably more spending. And I?m just wondering — looking through the lens of the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Republican Party — how all that looks to you.
SENATOR THOMPSON: I think one of the first things that the creators of the department