Today, we’re thrilled to sit down with Donald Gainsborough, a political savant and leader in policy and legislation, who heads Government Curated. With his extensive expertise in public sector dynamics and government operations, Donald offers a unique perspective on the often-overlooked consequences of government shutdowns on the federal workforce. In this conversation, we’ll explore the immediate and lasting impacts on federal employees, the ripple effects on agency performance, and the broader implications for taxpayers and public services.
Can you explain in simple terms what a government shutdown means for federal workers and how it disrupts their daily lives?
Absolutely. A government shutdown happens when Congress doesn’t pass funding bills on time, and as a result, many federal agencies have to stop non-essential operations. For federal workers, this often means being furloughed—sent home without pay until funding is restored. Day-to-day, they can’t go to work, their projects stall, and there’s a lot of uncertainty about when things will get back to normal. Even though back pay is typically guaranteed, the immediate financial strain can be real, especially for those living paycheck to paycheck. It’s not just about the money—it’s the stress of not knowing how long they’ll be out of work.
What can you tell us about the immediate impact on federal employees during a major shutdown, like the 2013 event where 800,000 workers were furloughed?
The 2013 shutdown was a significant shock for those 800,000 employees. For 16 days, they were out of work, and the immediate impact was a mix of frustration and anxiety. Many felt sidelined, unable to contribute to their missions, whether that was managing national parks or processing critical paperwork. Financially, even with back pay guaranteed, there were short-term struggles—some had to dip into savings or delay bills because the paycheck wasn’t coming on time. It’s a disruption that hits hard, even if it’s temporary.
Your research highlights a 31% increase in furloughed workers leaving their jobs within a year. What drives this decision to walk away?
It’s largely about morale rather than money. When you’re furloughed, it’s not a reflection of your performance, but it can feel like a slap in the face—like your work doesn’t matter. Many employees start questioning their value to the agency or the stability of their career. The uncertainty and lack of control during a shutdown push people to seek jobs elsewhere, often in the private sector where they feel more secure. It’s less about the paycheck and more about wanting to work somewhere they feel respected and stable.
How do these departures affect specific groups of federal workers differently?
We’ve seen that certain demographics are more likely to leave after a shutdown. Younger workers, for instance, often have less tied to their federal roles and more outside options, so they’re quicker to jump ship. Highly educated professionals, who might have lucrative opportunities elsewhere, also tend to exit. And women, who sometimes face additional pressures balancing work and family during uncertain times, are often disproportionately affected. These patterns create a real challenge for diversity and retention in the federal workforce.
Shifting to the broader impact, how does losing these workers affect the long-term operations of federal agencies?
The loss of experienced employees creates significant gaps. When seasoned staff leave, you lose institutional knowledge—things like how to navigate complex regulations or manage long-term projects. Agencies struggle to maintain continuity, and core functions like payment processing or legal enforcement can suffer. Often, they turn to temporary contractors to fill the void, but that’s not always effective. Contractors may lack the deep understanding of agency goals, and the revolving door of temporary staff can lead to inconsistent performance over time.
Speaking of contractors, your findings show agencies spent around a billion dollars more on them after the 2013 shutdown. Why did this happen, and was it a sustainable solution?
After the 2013 shutdown, agencies were desperate to keep operations running despite the staffing shortages from employee exits. Hiring contractors was a quick fix to plug the holes, but it came at a steep cost—about a billion dollars more than the payroll savings from losing full-time staff. It’s not a sustainable solution because contractors are often more expensive in the long run, and they don’t bring the same level of commitment or continuity as permanent employees. Plus, the quality of work can vary, which sometimes impacts the services delivered to the public.
You’ve also noted declines in areas like payment accuracy and legal enforcement after shutdowns. Can you share some specific ways this plays out for taxpayers and public services?
Certainly. Take payment accuracy—after a shutdown, agencies with high turnover often see more errors in federal disbursements, like overpayments or underpayments in programs such as Social Security. These mistakes can cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over time, as funds aren’t recouped easily. In terms of legal enforcement, losing experienced attorneys means weaker oversight or slower case resolutions, which can undermine public safety or regulatory compliance. When key staff like scientists or engineers leave, innovation—such as patenting activity—also takes a hit, slowing down progress in critical areas.
Your study suggests that the drop in motivation after a shutdown is so severe it would take a 10% pay raise to offset it. Can you unpack what workers are feeling that leads to this kind of impact?
What we found is that a shutdown deeply affects workers’ sense of purpose and belonging. They feel a loss of control over their work, a lack of recognition for their efforts, and sometimes a disconnect from their agency’s mission. It’s not just about being sent home—it’s the message that their role can be paused without warning. We estimated that to restore that intrinsic motivation, you’d need to offer a roughly 10% pay raise, which speaks to how much these non-monetary factors matter. Workers want to feel valued, and a shutdown strips that away.
Looking ahead, what is your forecast for the impact of potential future shutdowns on the federal workforce, especially given the current political climate?
I’m concerned that future shutdowns could exacerbate the challenges we’re already seeing. With the political gridlock we’re facing and the recent downsizing of the federal workforce, another shutdown could further erode morale and drive more talent away. We might see an even smaller, less experienced workforce struggling to meet public needs. On the flip side, some argue that those who’ve stayed through recent turbulence might be more resilient. But overall, I think the risk of long-term damage to agency performance and public trust remains high unless we find ways to avoid these disruptions altogether.
