March 21, 2008
A summary of daily news relevant to the federal workforce produced by the Partnership for Public
Service.
-
-
-
Thoroughly Modern Do-Gooders
The New York Times
By David Brooks
Fashions in goodness change, just like fashions in anything else, and these days some of the very noblest people have assumed the manners of the
business world — even though they don’t aim for profit. They call themselves social entrepreneurs, and you can find them in the
neediest places on earth.
The people who fit into this category tend to have plenty of résumé bling. Bill Drayton, the godfather of this movement, went to
Harvard, Yale, Oxford and McKinsey before founding Ashoka, a global change network. Those who follow him typically went to some fancy school and then
did a stint with Teach for America or AmeriCorps before graduate school. Then, they worked for a software firm before deciding to use what
they’d learned in business to help the less fortunate.
Now they work 80 hours a week, fighting bureaucracies and funding restrictions in order to build, say, mentoring programs for single moms.
Earlier generations of benefactors thought that social service should be like sainthood or socialism. But this one thinks it should be like
venture capital.
These thoroughly modern do-gooders dress like venture capitalists. They talk like them. They even think like them. That means that aside from the
occasional passion for heirloom vegetables, they are not particularly crunchy. They don’t wear ponytails, tattoos or Birkenstocks. They
don’t devote any energy to countercultural personal style, unless you consider excessive niceness a subversive fashion statement.
Next to them, Barack Obama looks like Abbie Hoffman.
It also means that they are not that interested in working for big, sluggish bureaucracies. They are not hostile to the alphabet-soup agencies
that grew out of the New Deal and the Great Society; they just aren’t inspired by them.
J.B. Schramm created a fantastic organization called College Summit that provides students with practical guidance through the college admissions
process. Gerald Chertavian, a former software entrepreneur, created Year Up, which helps low-income students get apprenticeships in corporations and
packages its fund-raising literature in the form of an I.P.O. prospectus.
The venture-capital ethos means instead that these social entrepreneurs are almost willfully blind to ideological issues. They will tell you, even
before you have a chance to ask, that they are data-driven and accountability-oriented. They’re always showing you multivariate regressions or
explaining why some promising idea “didn’t pencil out.” The highest status symbol in their circle is a Rand study showing that
their program yields statistically significant results.
Bill Gates, who fits neatly into this world, came to dinner with journalists in Washington last week. He looked utterly bored as the conversation
drifted to presidential campaign gossip. But when asked about which programs produce higher reading scores, the guy lit up and became a fountain of
facts and findings.
The older do-gooders had a certain policy model: government identifies a problem. Really smart people design a program. A cabinet department in a
big building administers it.
But the new do-gooders have absorbed the disappointments of the past decades. They have a much more decentralized worldview. They don’t
believe government on its own can be innovative. A thousand different private groups have to try new things. Then we measure to see what works.
Their problem now is scalability. How do the social entrepreneurs replicate successful programs so that they can be big enough to make a national
difference?
America Forward, a consortium of these entrepreneurs, wants government to do domestic policy in a new way. It wants Washington to expand national
service (to produce more social entrepreneurs) and to create a network of semipublic social investment funds. These funds would be administered
locally to invest in community-run programs that produce proven results. The government would not operate these social welfare programs, but it
would, in essence, create a network of semipublic Gates Foundations that would pick winners based on stiff competition.
There’s obviously a danger in getting government involved with these entrepreneurs. Government agencies are natural interferers, averse to
remorseless competition and quick policy shifts. Nonetheless, these funds are worth a try.
The funds would head us toward this new policy model, in which government sets certain accountability standards but gives networks of local
organizations the freedom to choose how to meet them. President Bush’s faith-based initiative was a step in this direction, but this would be
broader.
Furthermore, we might as well take advantage of this explosion of social entrepreneurship. These are some of the smartest and most creative people
in the country. Even if we don’t know how to reduce poverty, it’s probably worth investing in these people and letting them figure it
out.
They won’t stop bugging us until we do.
Clearing the Fog From Retirees' Rebates
Washington Post
By Stephen Barr
Tax law is difficult to understand, and tax rebates are not easy to grasp either -- for the general public or for federal retirees.
This year's economic stimulus law does not count income from pensions for determining eligibility for rebates, and the law's omission of the Civil
Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System has created some confusion for government retirees.
"We've been getting a lot of calls," said Dan Adcock, assistant legislative director at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees
Association, based in Alexandria.
Most federal retirees, though, should be able to qualify for a rebate under this year's stimulus package. According to the Internal Revenue
Service:
Retirees who file a tax return and usually owe taxes will be eligible for rebates.
And retirees who do not pay taxes but have at least $3,000 in income from self-employment, wages, Social Security or certain types of railroad and
veterans benefits also can expect rebates.
Because the government's contribution to a federal pension is taxable income, many government retirees file tax returns and will probably qualify
for the tax rebate.
The average annual pension payment in the Civil Service Retirement System is $31,752, and the average annual annuity in the Federal Employees
Retirement System is $11,544. The latter system also provides a Social Security benefit.
Under the stimulus law, rebates phase out for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of more than $75,000 and married couples who file a joint
return with incomes of more than $150,000.
Most taxpayers will receive rebates of up to $600 ($1,200 for married couples), and parents will receive an additional $300 for each eligible
child younger than 17.
Federal retirees who do not file tax returns must submit a 1040A form to obtain a rebate, assuming they can show at least $3,000 in qualifying
income. Rebates for low-income retirees will range from $300 to $600.
Supplemental Security Income, a Social Security program that assists the disabled or people with limited income, does not count as qualifying
income for the rebate.
Yesterday, the IRS announced that military personnel serving in combat zones have the option of including their nontaxable combat pay on their
2007 or 2008 tax returns if it helps them qualify for a rebate. To receive a rebate this year, military personnel in combat zones must file a 2007
return by Oct. 15, the IRS said.
Information and fact sheets about the rebates, which the IRS will start sending to taxpayers in May, can be found on the IRS Web site, http://www.irs.gov/.
IG Enters Search for Acquisition Employees
Federal Computer Week
By
Matthew Weigelt
As agencies look to increase their acquisition workforces, candidates elude even inspectors general, who are turning to outside sources for help
in the hunt for good workers.
The Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General issued a notice March 7 seeking a company to help recruit acquisition employees.
"There are severe shortages in the labor market, and the OIG is experiencing fierce competition for top talent," according to the office’s
notice on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site.
That shortage is forcing the IG to develop new competitive approaches to recruiting and hiring employees, the notice states.
The IG is looking for an acquisition talent coordinator to analyze the labor market and create strategies for filling various jobs in the
IG’s office. The coordinator would also help with tactical planning and launch short- and long-term strategies to bring in employees, the
notice states.
In addition, the IG’s office wants to redesign its job announcement template to demonstrate in clear and concise ways that it is an
employer of choice. It also needs advertisements and brochures to distribute at job fairs, according to the notice.
The solicitation is open to small businesses, and the contract would be for one year with four option years.
Other departments and agencies are turning to college campuses to find acquisition employees. The recently launched Federal Acquisition Intern
Coalition seeks to convince young people that federal contracting is an important and interesting career. It’s offering them real-life
experience in an effort to draw them into the field.
The FedExperience Transitions to Government hiring initiative could help the government fill critical needs by tapping into the experience of baby
boomers who want second careers.
Meanwhile, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and DOD officials have surveyed their employees to get a clear picture of
gaps in their acquisition workforces. The findings could make the hunt for talent even more competitive.
