A forum for recruiters in federal government to discuss best practices for sourcing the best candidates for openings in federal agencies and for those who may want to post announcements to federal recruiters about career fairs, conferences, etc.
OPM and the 2012 Budget…
February 15, 2011 at 3:40 pm #123193
Yesterday, President Obama dropped his “Debt On Arrival” budget proposal for FY2012 on the steps of Congress. It was met with obvious criticism from the GOP and less then tepid support from those who actually support the President’s agenda.
Anyway, the budget proposal is a massive $3.73 Trillion. I thought I’d take a look at all things OPM. Whoops, that’s massive too. So today, I’m just going to take aim at a small part of the “Revolving Fund” using the last 3 submissions for Fiscal Years 2010, 2011 and 2012. I’ve actually been combing through the last decades budgets on OPM’s own site: http://www.opm.gov/budget. It’s pretty funny (sad really) how the projections miss the mark each year. Worse, it takes a Fiscal Year Budget Submission for 2012 to find out what the actual cost was for FY2010. To the contrary, companies traded on a stock exchange have to report their results to the penny every 3 months. Then again, they’re in the business of making money whereas the government is in the business of spending money.
Given that the OPM budget is pretty big, I’m going to cherry pick a few gems.
The actual Revolving Fund costs for FY2008, 2009 and 2010 can be found in the submission for FY2010, 2011, and 2012 Budgets respectively.
FY2009, $1,733,000,000 (19.9% Inc.)
FY2010, $2,254,000,000 (20% Inc.)
BTW, the Revolving Fund was $175 million in 1998. It’s like taking the dot com and housing bubbles and putting them on steroids.
For the record, the estimates were/are:
Estimated in FY2010 Budget
FY2009, $1,050,000,000 (missed by 65%)
FY2010, $1,161,000,000 (missed by 94%)
Estimated in FY2011 Budget
FY2010, $1,688,000,000 (missed by 33.5%)
Estimated in FY2012 Budget
During this amazing run up is the growth of Talent Services:
FY2009, $529,000,000 (33.6% inc.)
FY2010, $1,052,000,000 (a whopping 98.8% increase)
Another striking revelation is that the majority of the Revolving Fund is spent on “Other Services”.
In FY2008, $1,094,000,000 of $1,445,000,000 or 75.7% was categorized as “Other Services”.
In FY2009, $1,352,000,000 of $1,773,000,000 or 76.3 %
In FY2010, $1,759,000,000 of $2,254,000,000 or 78%
I don’t know about you, but “Other” typical means the exception (less than 10%) and not the rule. Bernie Madoff would be proud of this sleight of hand.
Also, a new program activity for USAJOBS showed up as a separate line item in the Revolving Fund for the FY2012 budget. It estimates that FY2011 will cost $11,000,000 and it will jump to $16,000,000 in FY2012.
In FY2009, OPM charged $5.155/employee for USAJOS. According to Fedscope the government had 2,113,980 employees on October 1, 2010 (FY2011). So, 2,113,980 * $5.155 = $10,897,566.90. Those pesky round numbers; But hey, I’m less than 1% off.
Based on the FY2012 proposal; the cost of USAJOBS jumps from $11,000,000 in FY2011 to $16,000,000 in FY2012. This means that agencies can expect the cost of USAJOBS to increase over 45% from $5.155/employee to $7.498/employee. I wonder when that bad news will delivered to the HR Directors. USAJOBS 3.0 had better be perfect.
I’ve read 5 U.S.C. 1304, which created the Revolving Fund and will write more about it in the future. The primary driver of 5 U.S.C. 1304 deals with background checks, however its creation of the Revolving Fund is so vague I can see where OPM felt it was a license to steal. I bet when brought under the microscope the outrage will make my posts seem visionary.
Also, OPM’s revolving fund is on a reimbursable (“actual cost”) basis and any “unexpended balances” (profits) have to be returned to the Treasury. They netted $26,000,000 in FY2009 and $20,000,000 in FY2010 from the Revolving Fund, which against the statute they plan to keep.
I bet OPM believes the Revolving Fund is just like a Franchise Fund. They are wrong!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.