House of Representatives Staff Levels in Member, Committee, Leadership, and Other Offices, 1977-2016
Released: 2016-09-13T00:00:00

T he manner in which staff are deployed within an organization may reflect the mission and priorities of that organization.

In the House of Representatives, employing authorities hire staff to carry out duties in Member-office, committee, leadership, and other settings. The extent to which staff in those settings change may lend insight into the work of the House over time. Some of the insights that might be taken from staff levels include

an understanding of the division of congressional work between Members working individually through their personal offices, or collectively, through committee activities; the relationship between committee leaders and chamber leaders, which could have implications for the development and consideration of legislation, the use of congressional oversight, or deployment of staff; and the extent to which specialized chamber administrative operations have grown over time.

This report provides staffing levels in House Member, committee, leadership, and other offices since 1977. No House publication appears to officially and authoritatively track the actual number of staff working in the chambers by office or entity. Data presented here are based on staff listed by chamber entity (offices of Members, committees, leaders, officers, officials, and other entities) in telephone directories published by the House.

Table 1 in the " Data Tables " section below provides data for staff listed in House directories through 2016. Data for House staff listed as joint committee employees on panels that met in the 114 th Congress (2015-2016) are provided in Table 7 .

This report provides data based on a count of staff listed in House telephone directories published since 1977. Like most sources of data, telephone directory listings have potential benefits and potential drawbacks. Telephone directories were chosen for a number of reasons, including the following:

telephone directories published by the House are an official source of information about that institution, and are widely available; presumably, the number of directory listings closely approximates the number of staff working for the House; while arguably not their intended purpose, the directories provide a consistent breakdown of House staff by internal organization at a particular moment in time; and the directories afford the opportunity to compare staff levels at similar moments across a period of decades.

At the same time, however, data presented below should be interpreted with care for a number of reasons, including the following:

There is no way to determine whether all staff working for the House are listed in the chamber's telephone directories. If some staff are not listed, relying on telephone directories is likely to lead to an undercount of staff. It is not possible to determine if those staff who are listed were actually employed by the House at the time the directories were published. If the directories list individuals who are no longer employed by the House, then relying on them is likely to lead to an overcount of staff. The extent to which the criteria for inclusion in the directories for the House have changed over time cannot be fully determined. Some editions of the House's directories do not always list staff in various entities the same way. This may raise questions regarding the reliability of telephone directory data as a means for identifying congressional staff levels within the House over time. Some House staff may have more than one telephone number, or be listed in the directory under more than one entity. As a consequence, they might be counted more than once. This could lead to a more accurate count of staff in specific entities within the House, but multiple listings may also lead to an overcount of staff working in the chamber. Chamber directories may reflect different organizational arrangements over time for some entities. This could lead to counting staff doing similar work in both years in different categories, or in different offices. A random sample of House Member offices used to develop an estimate of Member office staff working in Washington, DC, and discussed in greater detail below, may or may not be representative of the entire population of House Member offices. The extent to which the sample is representative of the population from which it is drawn will determine the accuracy of the estimated data for House Member offices. While it is unlikely that a full count would yield significantly different results, it is a possibility.

House Staffing

House Data Collection

House staff data were developed based on an estimate of staff working in Member offices, and a full count of staff listed in all non-Member congressional offices listed in each House telephone directory. In some years, the House published two directories. When that happened, data were taken from the earlier publication.

A full count of House Member office would have exceeded available resources, and unlikely to yield a significantly different result than that which would result from a count of staff working in a random sampling of Members' offices. Since 1975, the House has limited the number of full-time staff working in a Member's office to 18 permanent employees; in 1979 up to four FTEs who may work part time were authorized. As a consequence, among all congressional entities, House Member office staffing is the least likely to show a high degree of variability. For each year, a random sample of 45 Member offices was drawn in proportion to the distribution of Member offices in the Cannon, Longworth, and Rayburn House office buildings in 2014. Staff telephone data from those offices were counted and assumed to be in Washington, DC, if they were listed as working in the Cannon, Longworth, or Rayburn buildings, and outside of Washington, DC, if they were not. The average number of staff working in Washington, DC, and in district offices was computed. Those data were multiplied by the number of Member offices to derive an estimate of the number of staff employed in personal offices who work in House Member offices. Table 2 in the " Data Tables " section below provides the computed averages from the sample data and the estimated House Member staff working in Washington, DC, and district offices.

Committee data are based on a full count of all telephone directory listings for House standing, special, and select committees as described in individual directory listings. The data also include associate staff of the Committees on the Budget, Rules, and Ways and Means, and joint committee staff housed in House facilities. In the " Data Tables " section below, four tables provide staff levels in various House committees. Joint committee staff data from the House for panels that met in the 114 th Congress (2015-2016) are available in Table 7 .

Data for leadership offices include a full count of staff working for Members in leadership positions. In 2016, these listings included the following: Speaker, Majority Leader, Majority Whip, Chief Deputy Majority Whip, Minority Leader, Minority Whip, Assistant Minority Leader, Senior Chief Deputy Minority Whip, and Democratic and Republican Cloakrooms. Other leadership positions included House Republican Conference, House Republican Policy Committee, House Republican Study Committee, House Democratic Caucus, and House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee.

Data for chamber officers and other House officials include a full count of staff working for House officers and officials. In 2016, House officers included the Clerk, Sergeant at Arms, Chief Administrative Officer, and Chaplain. Officials included staff in the offices of Parliamentarian, Interparliamentary Affairs, Law Revision Counsel, Legislative Counsel, General Counsel, Inspector General, Emergency Preparedness and Planning Operations, and House Historian.

Commissions data comprise the smallest category of House data, and are based on a full count of those entities. In 2016, commissions data included staff working for the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards (commonly known as the Franking Commission); the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (typically referred to as the Helsinki Commission); the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China; and the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (successor to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus).

House Staff Data

Between 1977 and 2016, the number of House staff grew from 8,831 to 9,420 or 6.67%. Staffing levels have ranged from a low of 8,831 in 1977 to a peak of 10,004 in 2008. The number of House staff has grown by an average of 15 individuals annually, or 0.22%. Change in House staff has been characterized by slight, but steady growth in two periods (1977-1994, 12.01%; and 1996-2011, 14.89%), separated by a brief period of sharp decline (1994-1996, -12.13%), and ending with another decrease (2011-2016, -5.67%).

Figure 1 displays staff levels in five categories since 1977. These categories include staff working in the offices of

Members, committees, leadership, officers and officials, and commissions.

Figure 3 displays change in the distribution of staff among the categories over the same time period. Table 1 , in the " Data Tables " section below, provides detailed staff levels in those categories.

House Member Offices

Staff levels in House Member offices have grown from 6,556 in 1977 to 6,880 in 2016, or 4.94%. The level of staffing grew steadily from 1977 until peaking at 7,284 in 1994, and falling 10.74%, to 6,502, in 1995. Member staff increased between 1997 and 2011 in an uneven, but generally upward pattern before reaching its highest level, 7,360, in 2009. Since 2009, Member staff have decreased to 6,880, an 6.52% decline.

Figure 2 displays the distribution of House Member staff between Washington, DC, and district offices since 1977, and the average number of staff working in a Member office at various times. From 1977 until 1994, more staff worked in Washington, DC, than in field offices. Throughout that period, however, the number of staff assigned to district offices steadily grew while Washington, DC-based staff declined in an uneven, but generally downward pattern. Since 1994, staff have been relatively evenly distributed between Washington, DC, facilities and district offices. The number of staff working in Members' offices reflects both the relatively modest overall growth of Member staff since 1977, and the changing distribution of staff from Washington, DC, to district office settings. Table 2 in the " Data Tables " section below provides the estimated House Member staff working in Washington, DC, and district offices since 1977.

House Member staff comprise approximately three-quarters of all House staff. This proportion of overall staffing has been relatively steady since 1977. Figure 3 provides staff levels and distributions among categories of offices from 1977 to 2016.

Committees

Committee staff levels have shown the greatest decline among House staff categories, decreasing 31.36% since 1977. Change among House committee staff was characterized by a moderate decline in 1977-1981 (-9.04%), steady growth from 1981 until 1992 (29.83%), a period of sharp decline in 1992-1997 (-42.81%), a period of slow, unsteady growth from 1997 to 2010 (18.09%), and another sharp decline from 2010 to present (13.93%). The 2016 level of 1,298 is 593 (-31.36%) fewer than 1977 levels, and 935 (-41.87%) fewer than the 1992 peak of 2,233 staff.

Since 1977, committee staff have comprised a decreasing proportion of House staff, falling from 21.41% of House staff in 1977 to 13.78% in 2016.

In the " Data Tables " section below, four tables provide staff levels in various House committees. Table 3 provides House committee data for 2007-2016; data for 1997-2006 are available in Table 4 . Table 5 provides data for 1987-1996; and data for 1977-1986 are available in Table 6 . Totals for each year, which include joint committee staff listed in the House directory found in Table 7 , are presented in Table 1 .

Leadership Offices

The actual number of staff in House leadership offices grew from 62 in 1977 to 239 in 2016, peaking in 2011 at 241. This growth was relatively steady over time. As a proportion of House staff, leadership employees comprised 0.70% in 1977, and 2.54% in 2016.

Officers and Officials

Staff working in the offices of House officers and officials has grown 254.98% since 1977. Staff levels grew steadily from 1977 to 1991, and then showed a one-year drop of 33.15%, from 537 in 1992 to 359 in 1993. In 1994, staff levels returned to a level similar to 1992, and increased again in 1995 to 818, a one-year increase of 57.01%. After dropping to 704 in 1996, levels began a steady increase to a peak of 1,056 in 2008, an increase of 50.00%, before falling 8.90% to 962 by 2016.

As a proportion of House staff, officers and officials staff grew from 3.07% in 1977 to 10.21% in 2016.

Commissions

Congressional commission staff levels are essentially flat, and have ranged from a high of 51 in 1977 to a low of 19 in a number of years, most recently in 2001. In 2016, 41 staff worked for congressional commissions.

Congressional commissions have consistently comprised less than one-half of one percent of all House staff.

Discussion

Since 1977, the number of staff working for the House has grown, though there has been a decrease in recent years. Overall, there have been increases in the number of staff working in chamber leadership offices, and larger increases in the staffing of chamber officers and officials. Staff have shifted from committee settings to leadership settings or the personal offices of Members. Some of these changes may be indicative of the growth of the House as an institution, or the value the chamber places on its various activities.

One example that may be an indication of institutional development arguably is found in the growth of the number and percentage of staff working in leadership and officers and officials offices, even though that growth has slowed recently. A potential explanation for these changes may be found in what some might characterize as an ongoing professionalization and institutionalization of congressional management and administration. Some note that as organizations such as governing institutions develop, they identify needs for expertise and develop specialized practices and processes. In Congress, some of those areas of specialization arguably include supporting the legislative process through the drafting of measures, oversight and support of floor activities, and the management of legislation in a bicameral, partisan environment.

Another potential explanation related to a more institutionalized, professionalized Congress could be the demands for professional management and support. This could arise as a result of congressional use of communications technologies, and the deployment of systematic, professionalized human resources processes, business operations, and financial management. Consequently, increased specialized support of congressional legislative and administrative activities may explain increases among staff working for chamber leaders, and officers and officials.

In another example, the distribution of staff working directly for Members has shifted from committee settings to personal office settings. House committee staff has decreased. This may represent a shift from collective congressional activities typically carried out in committees (including legislative, oversight, and investigative work) to individualized activities typically carried out in Members' personal offices (including direct representational activities, constituent service and education, and political activity).

Data Tables