FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE

Recent Trends in 

Federal Civilian 

Employment and 

Compensation

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate

January 2014

GAO-14-215

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-215, a report to the

Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, 

U. S. Senate

January 2014

FEDERAL WORKFORCE

Recent Trends in Federal Civilian Employment and 

Compensation

Why GAO Did This Study

Skilled federal workers are critical to 

the successful operation of 

government. At the same time, 

personnel costs for current and former 

federal civilian employees represented 

about 26 percent of total discretionary 

spending in 2012; these personnel 

costs are outlays from budget authority 

authorized by appropriations acts. 

Given the need to control agencies’ 

personnel costs while also maintaining 

agencies’ high performance, a 

thorough understanding of employment 

and compensation trends is a critical 

component of strategic workforce 

planning.

GAO was asked to provide data on 

federal employment and compensation 

trends. This report examines (1) 

employment trends of federal civilian 

personnel from 2004 to 2012 and 

some factors that affect these trends, 

and (2) the extent to which federal 

civilian employee compensation has 

changed (as a percentage of total

discretionary spending) and some 

reasons for this change. 

For this report, GAO analyzed 

government-wide executive branch 

civilian personnel data from 2004 to 

2012. GAO also interviewed Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM), Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), 

and other selected agency officials. 

GAO also reviewed relevant literature, 

such as studies on attrition.

GAO is not making any 

recommendations in this report. GAO 

received technical comments on a draft 

of this report from OMB, OPM, and the 

Departments of Defense, Homeland 

Security, and Veterans Affairs; 

comments were incorporated as 

appropriate.

What GAO Found

From 2004 to 2012, the federal non-postal civilian workforce grew by 258,882 

employees, from 1.88 million to 2.13 million (14 percent). Permanent career 

employees accounted for most of the growth, increasing by 256,718 employees, 

from 1.7 million in 2004 to 1.96 million in 2012 (15 percent). Three agencies—the 

Departments of Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), and Veterans Affairs 

(VA)—accounted for about 94 percent of this increase. At DOD, officials said that 

converting certain positions from military to civilian, as well as the growth of the 

agency’s acquisition and cybersecurity workforce, contributed to this overall 

increase. At VA, officials said the increased demand for medical and healthrelated services for military veterans drove most of the growth in personnel 

levels. DHS officials said the increase in employment was due in large part to 

the nation’s border security requirements. (In contrast, ten agencies had fewer 

career permanent employees in 2012 than they did in 2004). Government-wide, 

most of the increase in employment from 2004 to 2012 occurred within 

occupational categories that require higher skill and educational levels. These 

categories include professional occupations (e.g., doctors and scientists), and 

administrative occupations (e.g., financial and program managers), as opposed 

to clerical, technical, and blue collar occupations (which remained stable). In 

terms of turnover, retirement rates remained relatively flat (at around 3.5 percent) 

from 2004 until the start of the recession in December 2007. Retirement rates fell 

to a low of around 2.5 percent during the recession in 2009, and then increased 

to pre-recession rates in 2011 and 2012. With respect to retirement eligibility, of 

the 1.96 million permanent career employees on board as of September 2012, 

nearly 270,000 (14 percent) were eligible to retire. By September 2017, nearly 

600,000 (around 31 percent) will be eligible to retire, government-wide. 

Spending on total government-wide compensation for each full-time equivalent 

(FTE) position grew by an average of 1.2 percent per year, from $106,097 in 

2004 to $116,828 in 2012. Much of this growth was driven by increased 

personnel benefits costs, which rose at a rate of 1.9 percent per year. Other 

factors included locality pay adjustments, as well as a change in the composition 

of the federal workforce (with a larger share of employees working in professional 

or administrative positions, requiring advanced skills and degrees). In terms of 

employee pay per FTE, spending rose at an average annual rate of 1 percent per 

year (a 7.9 percent increase overall). However, as a proportion of governmentwide federal discretionary spending, spending on compensation remained 

constant from 2004 to 2010 (at 14 percent), with slight increases in 2011 and 

2012. 

While the federal civilian workforce grew in size from 2004 to 2012, most of the 

growth was concentrated in three federal agencies and was driven by the need to 

address some of the nation’s pressing priorities. At the same time—as GAO 

reported in February 2013—large numbers of retirement-eligible employees in 

the years ahead may be cause for concern: Their retirement could produce 

mission critical skills gaps if left unaddressed. As GAO reported in its February 

2013 High Risk update, strategic human capital planning that is integrated with 

broader organizational strategic planning will be essential for ensuring that—

going forward—agenices have the talent, skill, and experience mix they need to 

cost-effectively execute their mission and program goals.

View GAO-14-215. For more information, 

contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757 

or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

Letter 1

Background 4

Concluding Observations 9

Agency Comments 10

Appendix I Briefing Slides 12

Appendix II Scope and Methodology 30

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 34

Contents

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

January 29, 2014

The Honorable Jeff Sessions

Ranking Member

Committee on the Budget

United States Senate

Dear Senator Sessions,

Current budget and long-term fiscal pressures demand that agencies 

operate more strategically and efficiently than ever before, and this 

includes cost-effective management of their human capital policies and 

practices. Indeed, personnel costs for both current and former federal 

civilian employees in 2012 represented about 26 percent of total 

discretionary spending, outlays from budget authority provided by 

appropriation acts. That said, skilled federal workers—including program 

managers, scientists, engineers, and clerks—are critical to the successful 

operation of government and need to be deployed at the right place, at 

the right time, and in the right numbers in order to address such complex 

national challenges as disaster response, national and homeland 

security, economic stability, and other evolving national issues. As we 

have previously reported, the government’s capacity to address these 

challenges could be undermined by a potential wave of employee 

retirements that could produce gaps in leadership and institutional 

knowledge.1

Given the need to control agencies’ personnel costs while also 

maintaining agencies’ high performance, a thorough understanding of 

employment and compensation trends is a critical component of strategic 

workforce planning. This will help ensure agencies have the competency 

and skill mix needed to execute their mission and program goals within 

the constraints of available resources now, and into the future.

Because the Budget Committee needs information to help it study 

proposals that improve analytical and systematic evaluation of existing 

programs, you asked us to examine (1) employment trends of federal 

civilian personnel from 2004 to 2012 and some factors that affect those 

 1 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2013).
Page 2 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

trends, and (2) the extent to which federal civilian employee 

compensation has changed as a percentage of total discretionary 

spending and some of the reasons for this change.

To examine employment trends, we used OPM’s Enterprise Human 

Resources Integration (EHRI) Statistical Data Mart,2 which contains 

information on personnel actions and other data for most federal civilian 

employees, including employees of the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) 

Act agencies,3

We analyzed EHRI data starting with fiscal year 2004 because personnel 

data for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—which was formed 

in 2003 with a mix of new hires and transfers from other agencies—had 

stabilized by 2004. We selected 2012 as the endpoint because it was the 

most recent, complete fiscal year of data available during most of our 

review.

which represent the major departments (such as the 

Department of Defense) and most of the executive branch workforce.

We assessed the reliability of EHRI data through electronic testing to 

identify missing data, out of range values, and logical inconsistencies. We 

also reviewed our prior work assessing the reliability of these data and 

interviewed OPM officials knowledgeable about the data to discuss the 

data’s accuracy and steps OPM takes to ensure reliability. On the basis of 

this assessment, we believe the EHRI data we used are sufficiently 

reliable for the purpose of this report.

To assess the extent to which federal civilian employee compensation 

(pay and benefits) has changed as a percentage of total discretionary 

spending from fiscal years 2004 through 2012, we used the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) MAX Information System (MAX),4

 2 EHRI (formerly Central Personnel Data File–CPDF) is the primary government-wide 

source for information on federal employees. The EHRI data we analyzed cover executive 

branch civilian employees, and do not cover the U.S. Postal Service, legislative or judicial 

branch employees, or intelligence agencies. OPM transitioned from CPDF to EHRI as of 

fiscal year 2010. 

a 

database that contains budgetary data, including compensation costs of 

3 The CFO Act agencies are the executive branch agencies listed at 31 U.S.C. § 901(b).

4 OMB’s MAX Information System is a database used to support the federal management 

and budget process. The system collects, validates, analyzes, models, and publishes 

information relating to government-wide management and budgeting activities.
Page 3 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

federal employees.5 We analyzed trends in discretionary outlays as well 

as pay and benefits overall and pay and benefits per full-time equivalent 

(FTE),

6 based on the MAX database designation for FTEs.7

To assess the reliability of the MAX data, we performed electronic testing 

and cross-checked it against the numbers reported in the President’s 

Budget. In addition, we interviewed OMB officials to understand any 

discrepancies in the data. For example, we met with OMB officials and 

provided them our initial results to determine whether we were accurately 

representing spending on pay and benefits. Based on these discussions, 

we made adjustments to our scope and methodology, as appropriate.

For both objectives, to determine the factors contributing to employment, 

turnover, and compensation trends in the civilian workforce from 2004 to 

2012, we interviewed officials at the three agencies the data showed were 

responsible for some of the largest changes to these trends: the 

Departments of Defense (DOD), Veterans Affairs (VA), and Homeland 

Security (DHS). We also interviewed officials at two of the federal 

government’s central management agencies, the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) and OMB. (See appendix II for a more detailed 

description of our objectives, scope, and methodology).

We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to January 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

 5 The U.S. Postal Service, legislative and judicial branches, intelligence agencies and 

personnel, and non-civilian federal employees are excluded from our analysis. 

6 OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, defines the 

pay and benefits categories we use in this report. Pay includes payments to full-time 

permanent employees, part-time permanent and temporary employees, and pay for 

overtime, holiday pay, and payments above the basic rate for night work, and other types 

of premium pay, among other components. The benefits category includes federal agency 

contributions to life insurance, health insurance, and employee retirement benefits, as well 

as recruitment bonuses and other payments.

7 FTEs reflect the total number of regular straight-time hours (i.e., not including overtime or 

holiday hours) worked by employees divided by the number of compensable hours 

applicable to each fiscal year. Annual leave, sick leave, and compensatory time off and 

other approved leave categories are considered to be hours worked for purposes of 

defining FTE employment.
Page 4 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

In our earlier work on studies comparing federal and non-federal pay, we 

noted how the composition of the federal workforce has changed over the 

past 30 years, with the need for clerical and blue collar roles diminishing, 

and the need for professional, administrative, and technical roles 

increasing.8

As we have previously stated, inadequate planning prior to personnel 

reductions jeopardizes the ability of agencies to carry out their missions.

Today’s federal jobs require more advanced skills at higher 

grade levels than federal jobs in years past. As a result, a key 

management challenge facing the federal government in an era of fiscal 

austerity is balancing the size and composition of the federal workforce so 

it is able to deliver the high quality services that taxpayers demand, within 

the budgetary realities of what the nation can afford.

9

More recently, this management challenge has been exacerbated by the 

fact that today’s federal workforce consists of a large number of 

employees who are eligible for retirement. Various factors affect when 

individuals actually retire. Some amount of retirement and other forms of 

attrition can be beneficial because it creates opportunities to bring fresh 

skills on board and allows organizations to restructure themselves in 

order to better meet program goals and fiscal realities. But if turnover is 

not strategically managed and monitored, gaps can develop in an 

organization’s institutional knowledge and leadership as experienced 

employees leave. We have previously reported that the needs and 

missions of individual agencies should determine their approach to 

workforce planning.

For example, in the wake of extensive federal downsizing in the 1990s—

done largely without adequate planning or sufficient consideration of the 

strategic consequences—agencies faced challenges deploying the right 

skills when and where they were needed.

10

 8 GAO, Human Capital: Sustained Attention to Strategic Human Capital Management 

Needed, GAO-09-632T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22, 2009).

9 GAO-09-632T.

10 GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).

Background
Page 5 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

Our prior work has shown that strategic human capital management has 

been a pervasive challenge facing the federal government, and has led to 

government-wide and agency-specific skills gaps. Our February 2011 

update to our high risk list noted that federal strategic human capital 

management was a high risk area because current and emerging mission 

critical skills gaps were undermining agencies’ abilities to meet their vital 

missions.11

• planning, to identify the causes of, and solutions for, skills gaps and to 

identify the steps to implement those solutions;

To help close these skills gaps, we reported that actions were 

needed in three broad areas:

• implementation, to put in place corrective actions to narrow skills gaps 

through talent management and other strategies; and

• measurement and evaluation, to assess the performance of initiatives 

to close skills gaps.

Since our February 2011 update, OPM, individual agencies, and 

Congress have taken a number of steps to close mission critical skills 

gaps, but as we noted in our 2013 High Risk update, additional actions 

were needed, as our work found that skills gaps were continuing in such 

areas as cybersecurity, acquisition management, and aviation safety, 

among others.12

Since our 2011 High Risk update, OPM’s efforts to address mission 

critical skill gaps have included establishing the Chief Human Capital 

Officers Council Working Group in order to identify and mitigate critical 

skills gaps for both government-wide and agency-specific occupations 

and competencies. Moreover, the Working Group’s efforts were 

designated a cross-agency priority goal within the administration’s fiscal 

year 2013 federal budget; OPM is partnering with the Chief Human 

Capital Officer’s Council to create a government-wide Human Resources 

These actions included reviewing the extent to which 

new capabilities were needed, in order to give OPM and other agencies 

greater visibility over government-wide skills gaps so that agencies could

take a more coordinated approach to remediating them. OPM agreed that 

these were important areas for consideration. 

 11 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2011).

12 GAO-13-283. 
Page 6 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

Information Technology strategy that can provide greater visibility to OPM 

and agencies regarding current and emerging skills gaps.

From 2004 to 2012, the non-postal civilian workforce grew from 1.88 

million to 2.13 million, an increase of 14 percent, or 258,882 individuals. 

Most of the total increase (94 percent) was from 2007 through 2012. The 

number of permanent career executive branch employees grew by 

256,718, from about 1.7 million in 2004 to 1.96 million in 2012 (an 

increase of 15 percent). Of the 24 CFO Act agencies, 13 had more 

permanent career employees in 2012 than they did in 2004, 10 had 

fewer, and one agency was unchanged. Three agencies (DOD, DHS, and 

VA) accounted for 94 percent of the growth between 2004 and 2012.

These three agencies employed 62 percent of all executive branch 

permanent career employees in 2012. A number of factors contributed to 

the overall growth of the civilian workforce: For example, at DOD, 

according to agency officials, converting certain positions from military to 

civilian, as well as the growth of the agency’s acquisition and 

cybersecurity workforce contributed to this overall increase. At VA, 

according to agency officials, approximately 80 percent of employees 

hired from 2004 through 2012 were hired by the Veterans Health 

Administration (VHA), primarily to meet increased demand for medical 

and health-related services for military veterans. At DHS, the increase in 

civilian permanent career employment was due to increased staffing to 

secure the nation’s borders.

The Federal Civilian 

Workforce Grew by 14 

percent from 2004 through 

2012, and 14 percent of 

On Board Employees 

were Eligible to Retire in 

2012
Page 7 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

Employees in professional or administrative positions account for most of 

the overall increase in federal civilian employment.13

The retirement rate of federal civilian employees rose from 3.2 percent in 

2004 to a high of 3.6 percent in 2007 when, according to data from the 

National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began. During the 

recession, the total attrition rate dropped to a low of 2.5 percent in 2009 

before rebounding to pre-recession levels in 2011 and 2012. Beginning at 

the end of 2007, the recession saw retirement rates decline to 3.3 percent 

in 2008, 2.5 percent in 2009, and 2.7 percent in 2010, before increasing 

again to 3.5 percent in 2012.

For example, the 

number of employees working in professional positions increased by 

97,328 (from 394,981 in 2004 to 492,309 in 2012). This growth accounts 

for nearly 38 percent of the 256,718 total government-wide increase in 

permanent career employees during this period. In comparison, 

employees in administrative positions increased by 153,914 (from 

582,509 in 2004 to 736,423 in 2012). This growth accounts for 60 percent 

of the total government-wide increase during this period. Technical, 

clerical, blue collar, and other white collar positions accounted for the 

remaining 2 percent of those full-time permanent positions added from 

2004 to 2012.

With respect to retirement eligibility, of the 1.96 million permanent career 

employees on board as of September 2012, nearly 270,000 (14 percent) 

were eligible to retire. By September 2017, nearly 600,000 (31 percent) of 

on board staff will be eligible to retire. Not all agencies will be equally 

 13 OPM has established a uniform set of classification standards for agencies to determine 

grade levels for their positions organized within occupational categories — Professional, 

Administrative, Technical, Clerical, Blue Collar, and Other White Collar (PATCO).

Professional positions (e.g., doctors) require knowledge in a field of science or learning 

characteristically acquired through education or training equivalent to a bachelor’s degree 

or higher. Administrative positions (e.g., financial managers) involve the exercise of 

analytical ability, judgment, discretion, and personal responsibility, and the application of a 

substantial body of knowledge of principles, concepts, and practices applicable to one or 

more fields of administration or management. Technical positions (e.g., medical 

technicians) are typically associated with and supportive of a professional or 

administrative field. Those positions involve extensive practical knowledge, gained 

through experience and/or specific training less than that represented by college 

graduation. Clerical positions (e.g., data transcribers) involve structured work in support of 

office, business, or fiscal operations. Blue Collar positions comprise the trades, crafts, and 

manual labor (unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled). Other White Collar positions (e.g.,

correctional officers) are miscellaneous white-collar occupations that do not fall into any of 

the prior categories.
Page 8 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

affected. By 2017, 20 of the 24 CFO Act agencies will have a higher 

percentage of staff eligible to retire than the current overall average of 31 

percent.14

With respect to pay and benefits as measured by each full-time 

equivalent (FTE) position, total government-wide compensation grew by 

an average of 1.2 percent per year from 2004 to 2012 ($106,097 to 

$116,828—about a 10 percent overall increase). Much of this growth was 

driven by increased cost of personnel benefits, which rose at a rate of 1.9 

percent per year (a 16.3 percent increase overall). According to OMB, the 

government’s contribution to the Federal Employee Health Benefits 

(FEHB) program rose, on average, 5.2 percent from 2004 to 2011 and 4.7 

percent from 2011 to 2012. One study showed that employer 

contributions for premiums for family insurance coverage nationwide grew 

by about 58 percent from 2004 through 2012, for an average annual 

increase of around 5 percent.

About 21 percent of DHS staff on board as of September 2012 

will be eligible to retire in 2017, while over 42 percent will be eligible to 

retire at both the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

and the Small Business Administration (SBA). Certain occupations—such 

as air traffic controllers and those involved in program management—will 

also have particularly high retirement eligibility rates by 2017.

15

Spending on pay and benefits as a proportion of the federal discretionary 

budget remained relatively constant (at about 14 percent) from 2004 to 

2010, with slight increases in 2011 and 2012. Specifically, the proportion 

In terms of employee pay per FTE, 

spending rose at an average annual rate of 1 percent per year (a 7.9 

percent increase overall). While government-wide spending on pay and 

benefits rose slightly, some agencies had significant increases in their 

spending on compensation per FTE. For example, the Department of 

State’s spending on pay and benefits per FTE increased by 4.5 percent 

per year, on average, from 2004 through 2012. In total, government-wide 

spending on pay and benefits increased by $51 billion, from $193.2 billion 

to $244.3 billion (an average annual increase of 3 percent and an overall 

increase of 26.4 percent) from 2004 to 2012.

 14 These projected retirement eligibility rates do not take into account hiring and 

separations that may occur over the next 5 years.

15 Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust (Kaiser/HRET), 

Employer Health Benefits 2012 Annual Survey, (Menlo Park, CA and Chicago, IL:

September 2012). 

From 2004 through 2012, 

Federal Civilian 

Compensation Remained 

Relatively Constant as a 

Proportion of Total 

Discretionary Spending
Page 9 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

spent on pay increased by 0.6 percent and the proportion spent on 

benefits increased by 0.5 percent from 2004 to 2012. According to OMB, 

a portion of this increase can be attributed to an increase in the growth in 

federal civilian employment at certain agencies, locality pay adjustments, 

across-the-board pay increases, and (as previously stated) increases in 

the government’s share of FEHB program premiums. Government-wide, 

while the proportion of the discretionary budget spent on compensation 

remained constant, certain agencies had increases from 2004 to 2012.

Three agencies—DOD, DHS, and VA—accounted for 77 percent of the 

total government-wide increase in compensation from 2004 to 2012, 

largely due to increased hiring. DOD increased its spending on 

compensation by $19.9 billion (about 39 percent of the total increase), VA 

increased its spending by $10.5 billion (about 21 percent of the total 

increase), and DHS increased its spending by $8.8 billion (about 17 

percent of the total increase).

With respect to occupational categories,16

Appendix I provides more detail on each of our objectives and related 

findings.

48 percent of the overall

increase in spending on pay from 2004 to 2012 was due to more 

employees working in professional or administrative positions, which 

often require specialized knowledge and advanced skills and degrees, 

and thus, higher pay. Specifically, the percentage of those employees 

grew from 56 percent of the federal civilian workforce in 2004 to 62 

percent in 2012. Even if there had been no change in pay for the 

occupations, the changing composition of the federal workforce alone 

would have caused average federal pay to increase from $70,775 in 2004 

to $73,229 in 2012, as opposed to the actual 2012 average of $75,947.

While the size of the civilian federal workforce grew moderately during the 

period of our study, most of this growth was concentrated in a few large 

agencies and reflects some of our nation’s pressing priorities. The cost of 

compensating the civilian workforce has remained relatively constant as a 

percentage of the discretionary budget during the past decade; however,

 16 Because OMB’s MAX Information System does not include occupational categories, we 

used EHRI data to conduct our analysis of the change in compensation costs due to the 

changing federal civilian workforce.

Concluding 

Observations
Page 10 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

nearly half of the increased pay and benefits costs can be attributed to a 

shift toward more employees serving in professional and administrative 

capacities, in jobs that require specialized knowledge and higher levels of 

education. Although employment levels have grown, large numbers of 

retirement-eligible employees may be cause for concern among 

agencies, decision-makers, and other stakeholders, because they could 

produce mission critical skills gaps if turnover is not strategically managed 

and monitored.

Replacing retiring workers, both in terms of training and hiring costs, and 

in terms of the largely unquantifiable costs of losing experienced, highlevel employees, could be problematic given the era of flat or declining 

budgets that the government is experiencing.17

Combined, these challenges underscore the importance of strategic 

workforce planning and early preparation to help ensure agencies 

maintain their capacity to carry out their vital functions. Thus, as we have 

reported in our prior work, agencies should (1) take such key steps as 

determining the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to 

achieve current and future programmatic results; (2) develop appropriate 

talent management strategies to address any gaps in the number, 

deployment, and alignment of skills; and (3) monitor and evaluate their 

progress toward their human capital goals. In short, understanding the 

dynamics of the federal workforce and the drivers of agencies’

compensation costs will help guide decision-making on workforce 

composition and budgeting.

At the same time, 

retirement-eligible employees present an opportunity for agencies to align 

their workforces with current and future mission needs. Indeed, as the 

federal government faces an array of current and future challenges, 

agencies will be confronted with going beyond simply replacing retiring 

individuals by engaging in broad, integrated planning and management 

efforts that will bolster their ability to meet both current and evolving 

mission requirements.

We provided a draft of this report to the Director of OMB and the Director 

of OPM for their review and comment. In addition, we provided sections 

 17 See Partnership for Public Service and Booz Allen Hamilton, Beneath the Surface, 

Understanding Attrition at Your Agency and Why it Matters (Washington, D.C., November 

2010).

Agency Comments
Page 11 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

of this report to DOD, DHS, and VA. GAO received technical comments 

on a draft of this report from OMB, OPM, DOD, DHS, and VA, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to OMB, OPM, DOD, DHS, 

VA, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at 

no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Robert Goldenkoff

Director

Strategic Issues
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 12 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

Appendix I: Briefing Slides
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 13 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 14 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 15 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 16 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 17 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 18 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 19 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 20 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 21 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 22 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 23 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 24 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 25 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 26 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 27 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 28 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix I: Briefing Slides

Page 29 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

To analyze workforce and turnover trends, we used OPM’s Enterprise 

Human Resources Integration Statistical Data Mart (EHRI-SDM),1 which 

contains personnel action and on board data for most federal civilian 

employees. We analyzed agency-level EHRI data for the 24 Chief 

Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies,2

We examined on board, attrition, and retirement eligibility trends by 

agency, occupation, and education level. Occupational categories include 

Professional, Administrative, Technical, Clerical, Blue Collar, and Other 

white-collar (PATCO) groupings and are defined by the educational 

requirements of the occupation and the subject matter and level of 

difficulty or responsibility of the work assigned. Occupations within each 

category are defined by OPM and education levels are defined by OPM 

as the extent of an employee’s educational attainment from an accredited 

institution. We grouped education levels to reflect categories of degree 

attainment, such as a bachelor’s or advanced degree.

which represent the major 

departments (such as the Department of Defense) and most of the 

executive branch workforce. We analyzed EHRI data starting with fiscal 

year 2004 because personnel data for DHS (which was formed in 2003 

with a mix of new hires and transfers from other agencies) had stabilized 

by 2004. We selected 2012 as the endpoint because it was the most 

recent, complete fiscal year of data available during most of our review. 

We analyzed on board trends for most of the executive branch workforce, 

including temporary and term limited employees. However, we focused 

on career permanent employees in our analysis of separation trends, 

retirement eligibility, and changes in occupational categories and 

education levels because these employees comprise most of the federal 

workforce and become eligible to retire with a pension, for which 

temporary and term limited employees are ineligible. To calculate the 

number of federal civilian employees, we included all on board staff, 

regardless of their pay status. In addition, we excluded foreign service 

workers at the State Department since those employees were not 

included in OPM data for the years after 2004.

 1 EHRI (formerly Central Personnel Data File-CPDF) is the primary government-wide 

source for information on federal employees. The EHRI data we analyzed include

executive branch civilian employees, and do not include the postal service, legislative or 

judicial branch employees, or intelligence agencies. OPM transitioned from CPDF to EHRI 

as of fiscal year 2010. 

2 The CFO Act agencies are the executive branch agencies listed at 31 U.S.C. § 901(b).

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

Page 31 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

To calculate attrition rates, we added the number of career permanent 

employees with personnel actions indicating they had separated from 

federal service (for example, resignations, retirements, terminations, and 

deaths) and divided that by the 2-year on board average. To calculate 

retirement eligibility for the next 5 years, we computed the date at which 

the employee would be eligible for voluntary retirement at an unreduced 

annuity, using age at hire, years of service, birth date, and retirement plan 

coverage.

We assessed the reliability of the EHRI data through electronic testing to 

identify missing data, out of range values, and logical inconsistencies. We 

also reviewed our prior work assessing the reliability of these data3 and 

interviewed OPM officials knowledgeable about the data to discuss the 

data’s accuracy and the steps OPM takes to ensure reliability. On the 

basis of this assessment, we believe the EHRI data we used are 

sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report.4

To assess the extent to which federal civilian employee compensation 

has changed as a percentage of total discretionary spending from fiscal 

year 2004 through 2012, we analyzed discretionary outlays from OMB’s 

MAX Information System5

, which captures compensation costs as gross 

obligations, hereafter referred to as “spending.”6

 3 For example, GAO, Women’s Pay: Gender Pay Gap in the Federal Workforce Narrows 

as Differences in Occupation, Education, and Experience Diminish, 

We analyzed spending 

on employee compensation as a ratio of federal discretionary spending 

(as opposed to other baseline measures, such as total federal spending 

GAO-09-279

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 17, 2009) and GAO, Federal Workers: Results of Studies on 

Federal Pay Varied Due to Differing Methodologies, GAO-12-564 (Washington, D.C.: June 

2012).

4 We previously reported that government wide data from CPDF were 96 percent or more 

accurate. See GAO, OPM’s Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently Reliable 

to Meet Most Customer Needs, GAO/GGD-98-199 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 1998). 

Also, in a document dated February 28, 2008, an OPM official confirmed that OPM 

continues to follow the CPDF data quality standards and procedures contained in our 

1998 report.

5 OMB’s MAX Information System is a database used to support the federal management 

and budget process. The system collects, validates, analyzes, models, and publishes 

information relating to government-wide management and budgeting activities.

6 In customary use, “gross” refers to the sum or total value of a transaction before 

reduction by applicable offsets. Gross obligations refer to budgetary totals from which 

offsetting collections (such as user fees) have not been deducted. 
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

Page 32 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

or gross domestic product) because discretionary spending—that is, 

spending that is decided upon by Congress each fiscal year through 

annual appropriations acts—includes personnel costs as well as other 

operational and program expenses (such as equipment and contracts)

that agencies incur to carry out their mission. As a result, the ratio of 

compensation to discretionary spending enabled us to compare 

personnel costs to other agency spending. Moreover, using discretionary 

spending as a baseline allowed us to present this information for both the 

entire federal government as well as for an individual agency. Obligations 

data are reported in object classes, which are categories that present 

obligations by the type of expenditure.7 We analyzed the object class, 

“personnel compensation and benefits,” for executive branch agencies in 

our analysis.8

We analyzed pay and benefits per full time equivalent (FTE) based on the 

MAX database designation for FTEs.

Because OMB does not distinguish between mandatory 

and discretionary spending categories when reporting on budget 

obligations, we used outlays as a proxy for pay and benefits obligations.

According to a senior OMB official, this approach is appropriate for pay 

and benefits spending categories because most (or all) of the budget 

authority for these categories is obligated in the same year that it is 

authorized, resulting in similar numbers between outlays and obligations.

9

 7 Office of Management and Budget, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the 

Budget, OMB Circular A-11 (Washington, D.C.: July 2013).

To assess the reliability of the MAX 

data, we performed electronic testing and cross-checked it against the 

numbers reported in the President’s Budget. In addition, we interviewed 

OMB officials to understand any discrepancies in the data. For example, 

we met with OMB officials and provided them our initial results to 

determine whether we were accurately representing spending on pay and 

benefits. Based on these discussions, we made adjustments to our scope 

and methodology, as appropriate. Based on our assessment, we believe 

these data are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report.

8 The U.S. Postal Service, legislative and judicial branches, intelligence agencies and 

personnel, and non-civilian federal employees are excluded from our analysis. 

9 FTEs reflect the total number of regular straight-time hours (i.e., not including overtime or 

holiday hours) worked by employees, divided by the number of compensable hours 

applicable to each fiscal year. Annual leave, sick leave, compensatory time off, and other 

approved leave categories are considered to be “hours worked” for purposes of defining 

FTE employment.
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

Page 33 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

To determine the factors contributing to workforce, turnover, and 

compensation trends in the civilian workforce from 2004 to 2012, we 

interviewed officials at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Department of Defense 

(DOD), Veterans Administration (VA), and the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS).

We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to January 2014 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 34 GAO-14-215 Federal Workforce

Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov.

Robert Goldenkoff (Director), Trina Lewis (Assistant Director), and Chelsa 

Gurkin (Assistant Director) managed this assignment. Jeffrey Schmerling 

(Analyst-in-Charge) and Wesley Sholtes (Analyst) made key contributions 

to all aspects of the work. Ben Bolitzer, Sara Daleski, and John Mingus 

provided assistance with data analysis. Karin Fangman and Sabrina 

Streagle provided legal support; Robert Gebhart provided key assistance 

with message development and writing. Robert Robinson provided key 

assistance with graphics and Rebecca Shea provided methodological 

assistance.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(450988)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.