Intensified opposition from congressional bodies confronts USDA's proposed relocation plan
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is currently implementing a significant reorganization plan that involves the relocation of approximately 2,500 to 2,600 federal employees from Washington, D.C., to five new regional hubs. These hubs are located in Raleigh, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fort Collins, Colorado; and Salt Lake City, Utah.
The aim of this reorganization is to reduce costs associated with the high cost of living in the National Capital Region and to bring the department closer to agricultural producers. The USDA plans to retain about 2,000 employees in the D.C. area post-reorganization, down from around 4,600.
However, this move has raised concerns from House Democrats and some senators. They have criticized the lack of transparency and questioned whether the plan genuinely benefits communities or if it is primarily a means to reduce workforce numbers. The Democrats have pushed for more details and a thorough cost-benefit analysis to justify the relocations and office consolidations.
There is skepticism about whether the plan truly serves USDA employees and agricultural stakeholders or if it diminishes an already reduced workforce by consolidating offices and encouraging early retirements and buyouts without clarifying the fate of some employees. The USDA has pledged to cover relocation expenses within federal limits and promised ongoing updates, but some critics feel the process lacks clarity and adequate employee input.
The Democrats have urged USDA to turn over all documents and communications related to the relocation plans and have given a deadline of Aug. 21 for the agency to explain how it prepared for the relocation and detail any cost-benefit analysis that occurred prior to announcing its plans.
In a letter to USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins on Aug. 7, 2023, Democratic lawmakers expressed concern about a lack of transparency and communication to Congress about the agency's plans. In response, the Democrats have reintroduced the COST of Relocations Act, which requires agencies to conduct and publish a detailed cost-benefit analysis before permanently relocating any offices.
The COST of Relocations Act requires an assessment of real estate and staffing costs, as well as estimates of employee attrition and anticipated impacts on agency mission. The bill aims to ensure that any attempt to move federal agencies is appropriately analyzed.
The relocation plans underway at USDA are much broader than those that occurred in 2019. As a result, there is concern about an "upheaval" in the agency's workforce and a potential failure to deliver on the agency's mission without proper planning. The Democrats argue that without proper planning, USDA's relocation would cause staff attrition, a loss of institutional knowledge, and worsened productivity.
President Donald Trump had previously vowed to move up to 100,000 federal employees out of D.C. during his reelection campaign. The White House directed agencies to conduct reorganization and reduction-in-force plans this year, including proposed relocations of agency bureaus and offices from Washington, D.C., to less-costly parts of the country.
The relocation plans announced last month by USDA will affect more than half of its employees in the national capital region. USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Alexander Vaden argued that the prohibitive cost of living in the D.C. area makes it hard to keep employees and that the reorganization plan will allow USDA to recruit the next generation of its workforce. Vaden also argued that criticism of the reorganization plan was overblown, given that about 90% of USDA employees already work outside of the D.C. area.
Despite these arguments, the Democrats remain concerned about the potential impact of the relocations on the agency's workforce and mission. They have urged USDA to provide more transparency and to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis before proceeding with the relocations. The reorganization is ongoing, with phased implementation and some uncertainty about final workforce distribution and cost savings.
- The Democrats have expressed concerns about the USDA's reorganization plan, which involves relocating employees, suggesting that it lacks transparency and may be a means to reduce workforce numbers without considering the potential impact on health-and-wellness, both for employees and the general public.
- In response to critics, the Democrats have reintroduced the COST of Relocations Act, a policy-and-legislation aimed at ensuring that any federal agency reorganization or relocation is appropriately analyzed, considering factors such as real estate and staffing costs, employee attrition, and anticipated impacts on agency mission.
- As the USDA moves forward with its workplace-wellness initiative, it faces criticism from Democrats who argue that the relocation could lead to an "upheaval" in the agency's workforce, resulting in staff attrition, a loss of institutional knowledge, and worsened productivity, ultimately affecting the delivery of services in the field of science and health-and-wellness.
