The public is woefully unaware of the understandable reasons why legislative staff head for the exits for industry positions. Given the hostile atmosphere, low pay, and abusive treatment that push congressional staffers out of D.C. prematurely, leaving is both inevitable and understandable.
The life of a congressional staffer revolves around conducting the grunt work of the legislative branch, putting in 50 or more hours per week, (sometimes 80 hours), becoming burned out, being underpaid, and making cuts in routine lifestyle decisions like grocery shopping or dry cleaning. Most attend fundraising events to eat something, with the alternative option of eating pizza in the hallways with an office intern. Staff often receive absurd and abusive phone calls from constituents if they are assigned to an hourly phone shift.
The average congressional staffer is somewhere between 25 and 35 years old. The lowest ranking positions including scheduler, staff assistant, and legislative correspondent have made such dismal salaries that some work a second job to make ends meet. It’s a well-known fact inside the Beltway that elected political bosses often create untenable work environments, causing high turnover rates.
One well-publicized example of a staffer leaving became known during a September House hearing on bank oversight. Rep. Trey Hollingsworth (R-IN) boasted about his legislative assistant Sruthi Prabhu moving to start an exciting new career on Wall Street. “So I hope you take good care of her and know, and recognize the talent that she has shown already in our office. I’m sure she’ll do the same at Bank of America.”
Brian Moynihan, BofA’s CEO, responded, “We will do that, and her father works for us, so he’ll take care of it.” Another bank executive out of frame joked that “You should’ve called us,” causing Mr. Hollingsworth to crack a smile.
Although online profiles like Unusual Whales and Breaking Points were quick to condemn his remarks as “inexcusable,” and possible corruption, many people who work in public service are not in it to better themselves as an entitlement.
Perhaps the family member was the only resource she could rely on to get away from life on the Hill and to pursue her dreams in financial policy. Ms. Prabhu should be congratulated for pursuing a new career rather than condemned for corruption.
The book Congress Overwhelmed sheds light on the world of congressional staffers. Chapter 5 details a congressional survey conducted by authors Lee Drutman, Timothy LaPira, and Kevin Kosarone. Out of the 441 congressional staff who participated, the authors found a majority of staff reported their duration on Capitol Hill as only 3-5 years, but despite low pay and long hours, staffers still desired to continue working in government if given the opportunity—ideally at another congressional office.
When staff were asked about what career ambitions they would seek outside of the Hill, staffers of different political parties preferred different alternative pursuits. Those who sought out positions in lobbying firms and business and trade associations tended to be Republicans. Democrats usually aimed toward graduate school or joining advocacy groups.
Efforts to keep staff for the long term are crucial to the legislative process. Staff who wish to stay longer have proven to be more informed about the institutional rules and policy areas, hence senior staff provide 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 party goals. Despite acknowledging that turnover is unavoidable, Kristina C. Miller suggests in Chapter 6 that there is no evidence that highly informed senior staff will quit as frequently as junior level staff.
Although one’s length of service on Capitol Hill may be limited, some choose to stay in order to help Congress become stronger in the policymaking process. Despite short-term junior staff having a close front-row seat to the legislative experience, they tend to know less on average about procedural and substantive matters compared to their senior colleagues. In addition, they might not have the advanced information to help their new employer in an industry.
Given the low salaries, low morale, and the ever-increasing workload of most staffers, it's understandable why staff stick around for a few short years. While staff want to become knowledgeable on matters related to policy and procedure, in the hopes that better personal and professional opportunities will prevail, it is a challenging job not suitable for everyone.
The next time a congressional staffer leaves to pursue another job elsewhere, it doesn't mean corruption is the issue. Many still try to keep their burning passion for public service alive and well but are trying to keep afloat in a cut-throat working environment where resources are scarce. For some, leaving is indeed the best option.