When we talk about numbers, don’t forget the context I described in the last post.
This all goes back to Anonymous’s question.
I’m looking for reputable numbers of Forest Service employee numbers over the last 50 years. Are we bloated, are we on the decline?
The next post will go further into the past, but for now, let’s talk about the recent past.
We are very fortunate here to have an actual HR person answer some of our questions, so a special thank you to that person! Also, these numbers may not agree with other numbers you read. Part of that is the timing of them being pulled, and since many op-eds and other publications don’t include that information, nor give the source of the numbers, it is hard to compare. ISo I don’t know but this is the best I could get, from a very recent data check.
It seems that there are many more news stories about the Park Service and Forest Service than other agencies, but that might be just due to my news sources. It does look like the Forest Service hired many permanents in the last few years. Many of these were on various kinds of authorities (non-competitive?) that require a 2-year probationary period. So.. given that overall 20% (I hope you check my math) of the permanent workforce was hired in the last two years, and that they were hired under authorities with-two year probationary periods (instead of one year for those hired under other authorities), then it would explain why firing probationary workers would have had a disproportional impact on the FS. If, as our HR source says, 2200 probationary employees were actually terminated at this point (see below), that would still leave the perms above the average of 2018-2022 (added 5860, lost 2200). But is it fair to count the converted 13/13s ( around 1400) as a real “addition?”
We could still subtract the 13/13 conversions from the 5860 and get 4460 new not converted. If 2200 positions were lost, the FS would still have 2260 more perms than previously. Again, please check my logic and math.
Given the conversions, perhaps the only way to answer Anonymous’s question would be to compare hours worked by all perms + temps, over time.
Who Gets a Probationary Period and How Long?
HR Notes: Let me qualify this first by saying I am not an expert on this issue, but here is my understanding of it. Any new hire to the Federal Service is subject to a 1-year probationary period. However, certain excepted hiring authorities, such as Direct Hire Authority (DHA), Veterans authorities, Schedule A, and others are subject to a 2-year period (called something else) but essentially a 2-year probationary period. A lot of the recent hiring (last couple of years) was using DHA, Sch. A, and Veteran authorities. Any SES selectee is subject to a 1_year probationary period (I think the FS had about a dozen). Finally, anyone hired into a supervisory position for the first time is subject to a probationary period. There are other nuances to all this, but this is the general, basic guidance.
What are the current numbers of terminated employees?
Off the top of my head, there were over 5,000 employees (both fire and non-fire) who were identified as probationary. Fire was mostly exempted from being DOGEed, so about 3,500 non-fire were ultimately identified to be terminated, but this number dropped significantly as further review of cases were made. Last I heard, there were maybe closer to 2,200 or thereabouts who were actually terminated. Now, there are efforts to try and hire some back, plus court rulings may ultimately bring some back, at least for a short time. This may all change again depending on who might apply for and be accepted for Voluntary Early Retirement (VERA). It will likely change yet again if/when a potential RIF plan is submitted (first iteration of Plan due to the Department very soon…March 13) and then implemented.
I hope someone will send me a copy of the RIF plan.
“Here are the actual Onboard numbers for the last 7 years, 2018 – 2024, plus 2025 year to date:All (perm + Temp) Perm (incl. Fire) Perm Fire Temp (all fire+non-fire)2018 35,210 27,730 7,280 7,3002019 35,740 27,420 7,680 8,1902020 36,920 28,930 8,670 7,8302021 35,985 28,720 8,550 7,0702022 35,990 29,700 8,970 6,0702023 38,180 32,780 9,710 5,2002024 38,820 35,650 10,400 3,0502025 ytd 35,220 34,630 10,090 460″HR Notes: the low temp number for 2025 reflects the time of year when count is made plus the effects of the hiring freezes put into effect by Chief Moore (mid 2024) and USDA (2025). Temp numbers have been trending down as the agency began moving toward more Permanent Seasonal Emplotyee (PSE) 13/13 positions in lieu of temp 1039 appointments. This started within the fire organization back in 2018 or earlier but accelerated in the last couple of years. Over 1,400 non-fire positions that were formerly temporary 1039 appointments were advertised and filled in 2024 as PSE positions. The percent of permanent fire positions relative to the total workforce was 26.25% in 2018, and was 29.2% in 2024.
So it appears that the trend to make seasonals permanent and hire many new perms (past Admin) was on a collision course with the this Admin’s idea of firing probationary employees (except for fire positions).
The temp number is low for a few reasons. This ytd number is where we stand from Oct. 1 thru early February. Typically, not many temps are hired for this timeframe. Some beat the freeze, so to speak, by having an offer letter, accepting the offer, and having a report date by February 8. All others in the pipeline were caught in the freeze. Some of these, if they were for fire positions, are now unfrozen based on an approved exception, and are back on track (within a week or two) of their originally planned onboard dates. A second exception recently approved released for advertisement a number of fire positions. I believe most of the fire jobs in the temp world are usually onboarded between PP 8 and 11, and thus are potentially still on track, assuming we get viable candidates.
My next question (you all can check my math): And to interpret the perms including fire.. it stayed about the same.. gradual increase, from 2018 to 2021. Then in 2022, 1000 were added with 420 of those fire.
In 2023, 3080 were added of which 740 were fire.
in 2024, 2780 were added of which 690 were fire.
So in two years, 23 and 24, the FS added 5860 permanent positions, of which 1430 were in fire? If we take, say, 28,500 (the average of 2018-2022), that would be about a 20% increase in perms in two years?
HR Notes: Yes, the agency did some major non-fire hiring over the last couple of years. Foresters, Forestry Tech (timber), Partnership Coordinators, Recreation 401s, archaeologists, lands and special use administrators, Engineers, and probably a few other categories, all had national collective hiring processes/events that brought in new employees. The agency did so well at this that they overshot what the budget could cover, hence the partial freeze that Chief Moore put into effect back in April 2024.
Note the “overshot” part- how could that happen? See next post going further into the past.
Again, everyone feel free to check my math and logic.
Good post, appreciate the detailed HR info.
All of R1 converted their Temp 1039s to PSEs in 2024, and this move absolutely was on a collision course with the current happenings. It is counterintuitive, but because of this move, we have many fewer employees even though the Perm employee count went up. So where we might have had 80 1039s on my forest in the past, the same funding only allowed for 60 PSEs last year. And many other forests had even larger reductions in the Temp-to-Perm shift
A. Can you explain about how much extra annually it costs for a Temp to Perm conversion? And what are the benefits to that individual?
I don’t know much of the specifics or costs or anything like that, I’m just a forester. But generally, in my experience, programs that used to hire four 1039 seasonals were able to advertise around three PSEs. For the hiring event, something in the ballpark of 75% of jobs advertised were filled, with more rural districts faring the worst.
The benefits as they were explained to me include healthcare, retirement, & TSP for the employees, plus stability and more career opportunities. Those benefits are of course part of why costs per person are higher. It does make sense that when we hire the same person for the same work for a decade, the job they’re doing isn’t “temporary”. The benefits to the agency are primarily in greatly reduced HR workloads, since one SF52 to go back in pay status is much less work than advertising & hiring all jobs every year
I have heard that the entire idea of temp employees was to fill a temporary, non-recurring job (a big trails project, restoration projects, etc.), and that the land management agencies were long abusing this type of employment when they should have been hiring permanent, seasonal employees for recurring positions. Again, this was anecdotal, but it does make sense.
That’s an interesting idea, I wonder whether the BLM has done the same?
There is also the benefit of not having to hire and train brand new Temporary Employees, year after year. We all know that there are no prerequisite skills, knowledge or experience, to put blue paint on trees. The USFS always wanted ‘team players’, but were unwilling to put those workers on ‘the team’, for many decades.
The Bureau of Labor Statics puts the cost of an employee (Government cost) at about 60% of salary. So, a GS 5 PSE is 1.6 times the cost of a temp GS 5. That’s higher than I remember, but anyone who has access to “Workplan” can see the FS breakdown. There are many reasons to continue to hire Temp employees, trying on for size is but one of them. For any Agency to actually serve its Mission, it needs to live within its means. We all know how that went a’foul last year, and the piper is now being paid!
Hi Sharon, i chair a couple forest collaboratives and would love to share your column with the members. Can i have your permission to share with them?
Absolutely! Everything on TSW is freely shareable.