Congressional staffers are an essential component of what makes an elected official’s office stay afloat. Yet part of their daily lives go unrecognized by many Americans, because it’s their boss that gets the primetime spotlight. Who are these people anyway, and why are they essential to the legislative body that holds 535 elected members altogether? What are their career objectives, how long do they plan to serve, and do they want to be elsewhere? Furthermore, how much do they actually know about the institution they work in? Two chapters brought up in the book Congress Overwhelmed by Lee Drutman, Timothy LaPira, and Kevin Kosar tackle this subject, since scholarly research into congressional staffing has warned down, therefore a look into the area is overdue.
This piece set forward is to pinpoint key areas about congressional staffers, and be explanatory about those findings, all for the goal of educational purposes that may not be well known to those who have not yet developed a solid understanding in said topic. Some of the tables and graphs made by the researchers have been highlighted in this article to show the reader emphasis of discrepancy.
In Chapter 5 titled, “The Congressional Capacity Survey: Who Staff Are, How They Got There, What They Do, and Where They May Go,” by Furnas, Drutman, Hertel-Fernandez, LaPira, and Kosar, they conducted on Hill staff an online survey in 2017. Their goal was to, “find out more about the backgrounds, career paths, policy views, technical knowledge, substantive expertise, and job experiences of congressional staffers, as well as the procedures and organizational structures that allow them to assist members of Congress to do their work in the most effective and democratically responsive ways.”1
To make a background on academic degree and personal demographics of staffers short, a majority of them hold bachelor’s degrees, followed by master’s, law, and the least being philosophical doctorates. Nearly two-thirds had internship experience under their belt working for congressional offices in DC, whether it was paid or unpaid, most claiming they received their internships with no pay.2 As for age, gender, ethnicity, and political affiliation, the ‘modal staffer’ referred to by the authors, is someone who is a white male between the ages of 25-29 attaining a bachelor’s degree. Though it was noted,“there is more variation in the demographic composition of legislative staff than there is among members of Congress, but it is relatively homogeneous compared to the population at large.” Furthermore, there is a notable overrepresentation of whites, and underrepresentation of women amongst staff overall, as per the authors of the study.3
Aside from the academic degree and personal demographics of staffers, just how long (or short) does the average staffer works on the Hill? In their survey, congressional staff work in a single office for just under three years, and hold a mid-level position assigned to legislative operations at best. Eventually, as described, “most staffers stay on Capitol Hill for a few years and move on, whereas a select few commit their professional lives to congressional service. Ideally, more of the latter type would improve congressional capacity.” This could be a cause for concern, since staff may not want to stick it out for the long run, the structure of a well equipped staff in a congressional office wanes as there is a cycle of new staff personnel every few years.4
What about salaries? Sure a member of Congress is limited to make up to $174k+ a year, but looking into the salaries of staff, there tends to be a hierarchical ladder portraying how much one is likely to be paid. With the median household income in Washington DC is around $96,000 circa 2016, income for congressional staffers were lower than the said median by 35%. The median salary of a staff assistant (also known as ‘SA’), which was classified as a junior management role in an office, was set at approximately $23k, while the median for more senior level staff, such as chief of staff or director of committee staff, was set to $138k.5
Party affiliation by congressional staff from the survey resulted in Democratic staffers leaning more into the ‘Strong Democrat’ category at 77%, with baseline ‘Democrat’ at 10%. Meanwhile, their Republican colleagues were not as strong, and more open to dialing back the tone, of which Republican staffers leaned to ‘Strong Republican’ at 53%, with baseline ‘Republican’ at 24%. As noted, “Not surprisingly, staffers’ party identification typically matches that of their employers, with some minor variation. Respondents in Democratic offices were much more likely to identify as strong partisan than their Republican counterparts…”6
It is unique how staff that make up for a political office usually defines the policies set by an elected official, after all it is up to the lawmakers that truly decide how the office should be run. This results in an interesting giveaway: just as Congress has frequently been called to be a polarized institution with political ideology increasing from Pew Research, the same can be said along party lines of those who work inside the Hill.7
This may be a minor observation, but it could possibly be that Democratic lawmakers prefer to have their staff be more ideologically driven to their party’s core than their Republican colleagues who seem to have more acceptance to have a moderate stance in political ideology.
Americans want their elected officials to be alert to the policy and political challenges of the day, and provide their constituents, at minimum, a plan on how to approach solutions and various proposals. But they can’t do it all on their own, that’s why they have staff to inform them. Yet staff can’t do it all on their own either. In an explanation by the authors, “An individual congressional staffer almost inevitably works on a wide variety of issues. There are more policy issues than there are staffers in an individual member’s office.”8
With a better understanding of staff, as a whole they typically work between 40-59 hours a week, and are frequently combing through policy topics that touch on budget & appropriations, government operations, and health. But how does party affiliation play into devoting their time towards certain policy topics? The following table shows what policy topics by party are taken on a daily basis by congressional staff. Those who are Democrats tend to focus their time on issues such as social welfare, and civil liberties. Meanwhile their Republican colleagues across the aisle are geared towards focusing on government operations, energy, and agriculture.9
As previously mentioned, the average staffer tends to stay in an office for a few years, making below the median income of Washington, it's no wonder why staff turnover in Congress is consistently high. In fact, it would be found that midlevel staffers are more prone to feel the need to call it quits compared to their junior or senior level colleagues. Most staffers estimate that their time on Capitol Hill would range between 3-5 years on average.10
To further help the researchers find out why staff want to leave, the question that was asked in the survey was, “What would be the next step in your career?” This way the question helps better understand where staffers plan on going after their time on the Hill. Before the image of the revolving door plays on loop, that’s not always the case. As it turns out most staff do want to continue to work in government if given the opportunity. Most of this is based on the fact that those who responded in the survey said that they wish to work in a different congressional office. This could either be due to wanting a better work environment, a higher staffing position with a pay bump, working in a federal agency, the White House, or other considerations.11
But when asked about career aspirations outside of government, this is where political affiliations clearly differ, as the authors note:
“Many observers consider the ‘revolving door’ to be a widespread problem in Washington DC. When staffers move from Congress to other organizations, including lobbying firms, business associations, and other government agencies, they carry with them the connections and deep knowledge of congressional policy making and procedure that they have built up during their time on the Hill. Past research suggests that personal connections to members of Congress in particular can be a valuable commodity for staffers to exchange for jobs in the lobbying and governmental affairs sectors…”12
It may make sense for staffers to seek better opportunities outside the Hill, but it may come as a surprise to how each person based on political affiliation takes on a certain sector in a career change. In previous mentions about staff attention to certain policy subjects, this can be used in a similar context when it comes to selecting a job in that particular market. For example, most Republicans from the survey want to seek out work in lobbying firms, and trade/business associations. Meanwhile Democrats tend to focus on either going into graduate school, or focus on advocacy issues.13 As the authors describe, “In general, these differences are consistent with a Republican Party that is closely aligned with the business community, and a Democratic Party coalition of issue advocacy groups representing diverse identity groups and policy objectives… The bottom line is that jobs lobbying on behalf of businesses, especially in trade associations, are appealing to congressional staff, and especially experienced staffers.”14
A question proposed to staffers was, if the budgets of congressional offices doubled, what would the top priority of their choosing be? Given the hypothetical question staff overwhelmingly chose increased pay for staff stood out the most, while in second was the hiring of more legislative/policy staff. But with increased budget in the legislative branch, not all is equal when it comes to partisan differences for appropriation spending. Although a vast majority do want increased pay for staff, Democrats were more likely to push the need for increased pay and hire more staff. While Republicans were more in favor of hiring additional oversight staff.15
Now take out staffers by political affiliation, and replace it with seniority. The authors took into account senior versus midlevel staff to find out what priorities they usually seek. Though they both do want to see increased pay and hiring for staff, looking into their different sides on the end of the spectrum, the authors found in their survey that senior staff want to hire more staff that deal with constituent demands, and communications. On the other side with midlevel staff, they seek to have more oversight staff, as well as additional job benefits, with the authors adding, “that’s not a commonly top priority.”16
When taken into account by what chamber staff work in (House vs Senate), this too can show a difference. Those who work in the House want to hire more communication staff, while their Senate counterparts want to hire more oversight staff. As described, “This finding may reflect some differences in the chambers. In the House, more offices have little opportunity to do oversight because they are not on the relevant committees, and hiring communications staff may seem to be more of a boost to their bosses' profile. They are also up for reelection every two years rather than every six as for their Senate counterparts.”17
“Regardless of party, seniority, chamber, or office type, it is clear the vast majority of staff would prioritize paying existing staff more and hiring more legislative and policy staff if they had the money. This finding should give us confidence that if Congress were to allocate more for Members’ Representational Allowances, most offices would wind up with better-paid staff and more policy staff. This survey also gives us some sense of how money would be allocated depending on whether it goes to members or committees. Notably, committees would spend more on additional oversight while, not surprisingly, personal offices would spend more on constituent service.”18
In their conclusion of Chapter 5, is it without a doubt Hill staff start out as unpaid interns, and when hired they work long hours, must have a wide-range of flexibility on different issues, and figure out ways to defend their boss through the day. Despite the call for additional staff, this implies that they are not able to currently hold onto their ever-growing plate of subjects that ought to be covered by Congress. Despite the low annual salaries, and other not-so-pleasant duties of their day-to-day job, they hope that by grinding it out for a few years, better career opportunities will arise for them in the private sector. If staff were paid more, it is a possibility they would be able to stay on the Hill for a little bit longer, and not treat one of the highlights of their careers as a “pit stop,” which was noted as a cause for concern.19
With the explanation of how congressional staff start out, what their demographics are, how much their salaries tend to range, the debacle of office priorities, and more, now comes a new question raised by Kristina C. Miller in Chapter 6, titled, “What Do Congressional Staff Actually Know?” She starts off by stating lawmakers in the essence about congressional capacity negatively affect their duties to pursue legislative work, since most of their time is spent having to campaign, fundraise, and deal with constituency services. Whereby having staff would make things a bit easier for them in terms of assistance. Continuing, Miller explains a certain logic: “The logic is that while any one member of Congress cannot do everything, together with a team of professional staff, a member can successfully accomplish these many legislative and nonlegislative tasks. But are staff really up to the task?” She draws in her chapter to find out if staff who are working in legislation have both the knowledge of policy, and congressional procedure. Further emphasizing that staff knowledge in these areas are critical when it comes to understanding congressional capacity.20
From an academic standpoint, research into congressional staff membership is scant when it comes to discussions about Congress as a whole, however, scholars have pointed out that staff do serve a vital piece inside the legislative branch due to their roles in the field of public policy and the legislative process. As concise as a factor knowledge can portray, this needs to be highlighted amongst staff members, not only for further research into how Congress functions, or whether what type of reform is necessary, but helping to develop a better understanding if staff working amongst elected public officials are truly well-informed, and educated in their roles. “Among congressional scholars, then, is recognition that staff contribute to the legislative process, but one topic that we know relatively little about is what staff members know and how that knowledge varies.” Miller argues that if there is a need for a way to increase congressional capacity, reforms should focus on staff specialization, retention, and ways to make knowledge about policy and congressional procedure easier for staff to attain, or be informed about.21
“Notably, there is strong evidence that staff members with more experience, regardless of whether it comes from specialization or longer careers on Capitol Hill, are more knowledgeable about both procedure and policy. Partisanship also affects staff members’ knowledge of congressional rules and procedure with stronger partisans demonstrating more familiarity with how Congress works.”22
Starting off with revealing what staff members may or may not understand about procedure and policy, part of their role illustrates that they have the responsibility to develop legislative substance, and ease the complicated process of moving legislation. Having staff that are well-informed can benefit the legislative branch’s capability to set policy agendas, proposals, and better oversight on public policy. Miller explains, if staff members are poorly informed, this may cause the effectiveness of Congress to grind to a slow halt in two ways:
The first, staff would be interested in taking decision cues from those in party leadership, lobbying groups, federal agencies, or the executive branch, for example: when there is a decision to be made about legislative sponsorship, or what position to take onto existing proposals. The end result of taking this shortcut route would make a staffer inadequate, instead of relying on themselves to develop their own evaluation to the situation given. Although the first choice may reduce informational workload, such a strategy results in bias and misinformation. Miller elaborates, “Therefore, to the extent that less informed staff members are overly reliant on heuristics, they may be promoting incomplete or biased information within their network of staff and members of Congress. Such information may present just one perspective, or may omit the views of constituents, or may be misleading – all of which can produce suboptimal policy outcomes.”23
The second explanation in having low-informed staff creates a problem for Congress, “because they contribute to an information asymmetry that advantages the executive branch and interest groups over Congress.” If staff can not verify, develop counter information, or rely on their sources, those who have more influence in policy outcomes would be coming from outside the legislative branch. Over the years, this has been a growing concern amongst congressional scholars who have noticed a decline in congressional capacity, and an increased power presence by the executive branch and outside interest groups.24
As Miller will further detail, there is an informational gap between those who understand policy versus congressional procedure, for it may be based on what chamber staff work in. In the following chart comparing House and Senate staff to see who has more knowledge in a particular area, there is a small advantage for each of them. Although neither is a significant advantage over the other, it is an interesting observation to see that Senate staff have more policy knowledge at a 56% to 54% score, while House staff have more procedural knowledge at a 65% to 62% score.25
A misconception about congressional staff is that they are to be experts on policy, with the inclusion that those who serve on committees are able to focus on their substantive issues, while personal offices attend to the day-to-day political/electoral matters. In this assumption, committee staff would have higher policy scores compared to personal staff, when in reality that’s not the case. Despite committee staff being equipped to be better informed on issues attaining to their subject, and help makes the legislative proposals in committee process worthwhile, they scored lower than those in personal offices, including party office staff (who generated fewer than 20 people in the conducted Congressional Capacity Survey.) Miller states in this short sentence, “The key variation in policy knowledge seems to be rooted in specialization rather than institutional position.”26
Despite party office staff being a small amount in the representation of the survey, they outscored both personal and committee staff at a whopping 82 percentage points when asked about chamber rules and procedure. In comparison of the three, personal office staff scored at 64%, while committee office staff scored 61%. The reason why party offices have such a high score is because they are better informed about the rules that make up the congressional game, whereby using rules and procedure can be put forward to advance partisan party preferences.27
Speaking of partisanship, a key that may just affect every aspect of the legislative process, staff members are bound to be loyal to their party in one way or another. Explained by Miller, “scholars have shown that parties and their leaders in Congress strategically use chamber rules and procedures to advance their preferred policies and partisan goals… As a result, staffers who identify as strong partisans (from either party) should be more likely to be well versed in congressional procedure.” In the survey displaying the partisanship and procedural knowledge by those who are ‘weak partisan,’ ‘partisans,’ and ‘strong partisans’ it shows overall that those who identify as weak partisan have the least knowledge score at 49%, while partisans scored at 59%, and strong partisans scoring at 68%. This demonstrates that the stronger one is on the polarized identification spectrum, the greater familiarity one will know about congressional rules, and their procedures.28
This is without a doubt a cause for concern due to the weak partisan group of staffers lacking the knowledge about congressional procedure. Instead of seeking out reform measures to rely on a party-based approach to educate staff on this topic, Miller suggests there should be ways for reform advocates to create venues that would not only appeal to, but help educate less-partisan staff.29
To bring up an earlier account, those who work as congressional staff for a few years tend to go for the exits in hopes of finding a better career opportunities in the private sector: But just how much of their knowledge holds enough value once they leave the Hill compared to their peers who stick around for a longer period of time? This is where Miller questions if there is brain drain within congressional staff:
“A source of concern for advocates of a strong Congress is the possibility that the best and brightest are being courted away from the Hill, particularly into more lucrative private-sector jobs. Indeed there is evidence of a well-worn path between Capitol Hill and K Street, one that both members of Congress and their staff tread… In fact, scholars have shown that lobbyists who previously worked in Congress are paid better than their colleagues, which reflects the value of their unique knowledge of Congress… However, we know less about whether staff members who intend to leave Congress are distinct from staff who plan to continue working in Congress. One might expect that the most knowledgeable staff members also will be the ones to leave Congress for the private sector. Evidence of such a pattern would be troubling because it would leave Congress weaker relative to lobbyists, the executive branch, and other political actors.”30
When staff were asked how long they hope to work in Congress, 35% stated that they were on track to leave after two years, while 65% wanted to stay for longer. Putting these two groups together, Miller states that there is no evidence to suggest those who stick around for the short-term are more knowledgeable than those who want to seek the long-term picture. Whereas staff who planned on staying for 3+ years scored higher on both policy and procedural questions conducted by the authors.31
Even when staff had their long-term career goals compared, Miller relieves in finding there is no evidence of congressional brain drain. She explains while there is a revolving door between Congress and K Street, staff who leave earlier than their Hill colleagues doesn’t necessarily mean they would be the most knowledgeable once on K Street or elsewhere: “This is an encouraging finding for those who would like to see Congress retain a strong role in the policymaking process because it means that at least some highly knowledgeable staff members are choosing to stay in Congress."32
It’s helpful to know that the longer a staffer stays the more likely they will be knowledgeable about policy and procedure, but how does having experience help? When taking into account issues that staff work on a daily basis, Miller brings up that those who are willing to do just that instead of occasionally or never work on the issue at all, are bound to receive higher marks on relevant policy questions related to their field. “If experience is the root of staff members’ knowledge, then there should be a positive relationship between how much time staff spend working on an issue and how much they know about it.”33
It is documented that having more experience does help one’s understanding of retaining better knowledge about policy and procedure altogether, for having better educated staff indeed does help congressional capacity in two ways: The first shows that staff who stay longer will help benefit policy and procedural knowledge within Congress. Second, staff who work on issues on a constant daily basis tend to become more informed in their specialization. Whereas Miller expresses, “if the goal is to have better-informed staff to increase congressional capacity, the data suggest that staff specialization and staff retention are essential.”34
In a small section with no graph to show, there is a portion dedicated to the subject of a gender gap in congressional staff. Despite women making up for nearly half of Hill staff, they tend to be underrepresented amongst top office positions. Miller states that this may not have to do with gender itself, but rather how both males and females are scored on policy knowledge:
“The data on staff knowledge, however, provide no evidence of gender disparity in staff members’ knowledge of policy issues, regardless of whether the focus is budget and appropriations, health care, or national security. The scores of male and female staffers simply cannot be distinguished from one another. The absence of a gender-based difference in knowledge of policy areas undercuts the argument that disparities in staff members’ portfolios are reflections of knowledge of the substantive policy area. For instance, only 29 percent of congressional staff working on homeland security and defense are women… yet women score 60 percent on the national security questions compared with 57 percent for men.”35
In the conclusion of her chapter, Miller reveals congressional staff tend to know less on average about procedural and substantive matters despite having as close of a front row seat as possible to the legislative experience. However, those who are driven to devote their time to an issue will always be more informed than the rest of the pack. After all, it’s nearly impossible to expect one lone staffer to be as deeply knowledgeable about four policy issues as a lobbyist or agency staffer would. To help staff achieve a better potential for specialization would be not only to hire more staff, but by reorganizing staff and the resources at hand. “Greater substantive knowledge also may generate new ideas and different legislative proposals as staff are better able to evaluate existing claims and perhaps think more creatively about policy solutions.”36
When it comes to the topic of staff retention, having staff who serve on the Hill for longer periods of time have proven to be better informed about the institutional rules, and policy areas, hence that staff who show greater seniority benefit Congress by providing lawmakers the information necessary to make better decisions when it comes to public policy, and use the rules and procedures of their chamber to advance their goals. Despite the ongoing exits made by some staff, with the acknowledgment that turnover is unavoidable, there is no evidence, Miller suggests, that better educated staff are thinking about heading for the door. Henceforth, efforts to keep staff for the long term, “will both increase aggregate knowledge in Congress and improve the balance of information relative to the executive branch and interest groups who seek to promote their own interests in the legislative process.”37
Miller explains the dynamics of heightened partisanship are bound to happen, whereas congressional staff are not immune from this. As brought upon earlier, strong partisan staff and those who work in party offices, are more likely to be better informed on procedural knowledge in an effort to indicate more partisan legislation. For staff who are less-partisan, efforts should be made to help them become more knowledgeable about the procedures of their chamber, giving way for less-partisan advancement of legislation, and being able to counter biased partisan use. With that said, the more informed staff ought to become, the less likely they will be reliant on partisan cues, and make better decisions when it comes to advising lawmakers, which may shrink the polarization divide.38
Even though congressional staff have indicated heavily on the premise that they wish to hire more staff, that may not be the answer to all the problems they face. If Congress were to have better oversight of the current existing programs, solve complex public policy problems, as well as representing various other interests of their constituents, staff must be able to have the ability to clearly obtain the procedural and substantive information necessary to do their job. Doing so would change the dynamics of the legislative branch to engage with those outside of the Hill from their current position based on indifference, to a more secure position by strength. In doing so, Miller predicts that Congress will only be able to achieve this position if reforms were to be made that emphasize staff specialization and retention altogether:
“More broadly, the country will benefit from multiple, independent sources of information to help identify problems that need to be addressed and to develop innovative policy solutions. Increasing staff knowledge, then, is an important component of increasing congressional capacity to legislate, as well as to govern and to represent the people.”39
Alexander C. Furnas et al, “The Congressional Capacity Survey: Who Staff Are, How They Got There, What They Do, and Where They May Go,” in Congress Overwhelmed: The Decline in Congressional Capacity and Prospects for Reform, (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2020), 76.
Furnas et al, Congress Overwhelmed, 77.
Ibid., 78.
Ibid., 78.
Ibid., 78-80.
Ibid., 80-81.
Drew DeSilver, "The Polarization in Today’s Congress Has Roots that Go Back Decades," Pew Research Center, March 10, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/.
Furnas et al, Congress Overwhelmed, 82.
Ibid., 84.
Ibid.., 87.
Ibid., 87.
Ibid., 87.
Ibid., 88.
Ibid., 89.
Ibid., 89-90
Ibid., 91.
Ibid., 91.
Ibid., 92.
Ibid., 92-93.
Kristina C. Miller, “What Do Congressional Staff Actually Know?,” in Congress Overwhelmed: The Decline in Congressional Capacity and Prospects for Reform, (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2020), 94.
Miller, Congress Overwhelmed, 94-95.
Ibid., 95.
Ibid., 96.
Ibid., 96.
Ibid., 99-100.
Ibid., 100-101.
Ibid., 102
Ibid., 102.
Ibid., 103.
Ibid., 103.
Ibid., 104.
Ibid., 105.
Ibid., 106.
Ibid., 107.
Ibid., 107.
Ibid., 110.
Ibid., 110.
Ibid., 110.
Ibid., 111.