Jun 29, 2009

Employment At Social Security Dipped

Below are the March 2009 figures for the number of employees at Social Security, recently released by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), along with earlier figures for comparison purposes. The agency was operating on a continuing funding resolution for most of that time between September 2008 and March 2009 which probably accounts for the slight dip in the number of employees. The next report should show a significant increase in the number of employees at Social Security.
  • March 2009 63,229
  • December 2008 63,733
  • September 2008 63,990
  • June 2008 63,622
  • March 2008 60,465
  • December 2007 61,822
  • September 2007 62,407
  • June 2007 62,530
  • March 2007 61,867
  • December 2006 63,410
  • September 2006 63,647
  • September 2005 66,147
  • September 2004 65,258
  • September 2003 64,903
  • September 2002 64,648
  • September 2001 65,377
  • September 2000 64,521
  • September 1999 63,957
  • September 1998 65,629

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a look at, not only the alarming rate employees are retiring or resigning, but the alarming number of employees who were removed from employment, especially those persons who in a protected class. It is believed SSA is targeting a certain class of people who are of African-American, American- Indian, and who are Disabled.

Nancy Ortiz said...

SSA and all other federal agencies use FTE's (Full Time Equivalents) instead of actual counts of employees to measure staff. In the first two quarters of every year since the Reagan administration, we have been under CR's. Overtime is limited or nonexistent and there is lttle/no hiring. And, most employees under FERS retire in January, for annity computational reasons. Therefore, this dip in staff on duty probably represents a number of statistical seasonal adjustments, as they say. Otherwise, this COSS has a lot to account for when it comes to hiring. And,that ain't no seasonal adjustment--He just keeps going, and going....but never away. Snark tag, and disregard, if you're so inclined. :)