3 of 32

Reduction in Force (RIF), Separation, and Retirement Survey – Background

Concept, approach, and survey instrument drafted by former USAID employees in coordination with Our USAID Community and AFGE Local 1534 leadership. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 1534 (L1534) includes dues-paying members of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of State, and the U.S. International Development Corporation (DFC).
Survey Scope

Voluntary survey examined the end-to-end separation and retirement process, including interactions with:

Agency Human Resources Offices
Agency Payroll Offices and the National Finance Center (NFC)
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

In addition to process outcomes, the survey assessed communication quality, administrative timeliness, accuracy of benefits and payments, and the personal impacts—financial, physical, and mental—associated with separation from federal service.

Survey Objectives

Documented real-world experiences of civil service federal employees affected by RIFs, retirements, and other separations
Identified systemic delays, errors, and communication breakdowns across agencies, payroll providers, and OPM
Quantified the human and financial impact of separation processes on civil service employees and their families
Developed credible, data-driven evidence to support advocacy, oversight engagement, and policy reform efforts

Benefits of Participation

Build the evidence base to strengthen advocacy on behalf of current and former federal employees
Identify patterns that may warrant administrative reform, bargaining action, or congressional oversight
Elevate your individual experiences into collective evidence that can drive accountability and improvement
Ensure that future separations and retirements are fairer, timelier, and less harmful for federal workers

4 of 32

RIF, Separation, and Retirement Survey�Survey Distribution and Responses

Total Responses 316
Total Responses – Not Currently Employed by an Agency: 300

USAID: 238

Civil Service Employee: 238
Foreign Service Officer - 0
Contractor - 0
Other - 0

Department of State: 54

Civil Service Employee - 54
Foreign Service Officer - 0
Contractor - 0
Other – 0

Agency Blank: 8

Foreign Service Officer: 6
Contractor - 1
Other - 1

Total Responses – Currently Employed by an Agency: 16

AFGE Local 1534 used their dues-paying member email list to distribute the survey.
AFGE L1534 email list contained 2687 members:

946 USAID members
1633 Department of State members
108 DFC members

Former USAID employees also distributed the survey via chat groups to encourage participation. Daily response rate updates were provided.
Screening questions were used in the beginning of the survey to ensure data collected was focused on civil service employees who have separated from their agency.
If a respondent was still employed by their agency, an opportunity was given for them to share their experience with the Reduction in Force, Separation, and/or Retirement process in 5000 characters or less.

5 of 32

Reduction in Force (RIF), Separation, and Retirement Survey – Timeline

December 2025 - Draft AFGE Local 1534 and National Surveys - COMPLETE
Jan 19: Send National and L1534 Surveys to National - COMPLETE
Jan 20-23: Survey Development - COMPLETE
Jan 26-30: Test L1534 Survey - COMPLETE
Feb 2: Release L1534 Survey to USAID, State, and DFC members - COMPLETE
Feb 16: L1534 Survey Closes - COMPLETE
Feb 17-Mar 13: L1534 Survey Analysis – COMPLETE
March 2026 - Reporting to AFGE 1534 membership and other key stakeholders – IN PROGRESS

We Are Here

6 of 32

USAID Office of Human Capital and Talent Management (HCTM) Virtual Retirement Updates��Added Context Between February 2025 – January 2026

The following slides contain a combined, detailed, and structured synthesis of the nine transcripts of retirement update sessions held by USAID / HCTM (February 2025–January 2026), integrating leadership briefings, Q&A sessions, and status updates into a single coherent narrative. It is written to be oversight-ready and executive-facing while remaining faithful to what was actually communicated across sessions.

THE INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION DID NOT COME FROM THE SURVEY AND WAS COLLECTED SEPARATELY AFTER EACH USAID HCTM VIRTUAL RETIREMENT UPDATE

7 of 32

USAID HCTM Virtual Retirement Updates�Executive Summary

USAID / HCTM Retirement Communications

February 2025 – January 2026

Executive Summary

Between February 2025 and January 2026, USAID’s Office of Human Capital and Talent Management (HCTM) conducted at least nine retirement briefings to address an unprecedented surge in retirements driven by the Deferred Resignation Program (DRP), Involuntary Retirement (e.g. Discontinued Service Retirement), Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA), agency restructuring, and normal peak-season retirements.

Across these sessions, leadership consistently communicated that:

Retirement volume far exceeded historical norms (≈1,200 cases).
Internal staffing and systems were inadequate to handle the surge at speed.
Processing delays were unavoidable and largely structural.
Responsibility for downstream delays lay primarily with external entities (NFC, OPM), system constraints, or employee actions, rather than HCTM decision-making.

Over time, messaging evolved from urgent triage and warnings (Feb 2025) to process normalization and progress reporting (Oct–Jan), but without a corresponding assumption of institutional responsibility for employee harm, uncertainty, or financial disruption.

8 of 32

USAID HCTM Virtual Retirement Updates�Key Takeaways

USAID/HCTM faced a predictable but unmitigated retirement surge
Communications emphasized process compliance over employee protection
Accountability was consistently attributed to other agencies or downward to retirees
Transparency improved over time; USAID ownership of responsibility for process failures did not improve
The record, taken as a whole, documents systemic governance strain, not isolated failures
No NFC contact mechanism was acknowledged repeatedly by HCTM
No post-March contact plan admitted early in 2025
Case closures were threatened by HCTM when employees failed to respond, even in high-stress contexts
Non-chronological processing acknowledged, requiring equity scrutiny
VERA explicitly tied to DRP, limiting employee choice

9 of 32

USAID HCTM Virtual Retirement Updates�Context and Scale of the USAID Retirement Surge

Scale

Approximately 1,200 retirement cases entered the pipeline in early 2025 to the the closure of USAID and subsequent Reduction in Force, Deferred Resignation Program (DRP), and other workforce reduction efforts.
July–September 2025 represented the heaviest concentration of retirements.
Retirement volume was repeatedly described by USAID HCTM personnel as 2–3× normal levels.

Drivers

DRP / “Fork in the Road”
VERA approvals tied explicitly to DRP participation
Agency closure/restructuring pressures
Seasonal retirement peak (Q4–Q1)

Leadership emphasized that the system was not designed for this scale, framing delays as inevitable rather than preventable.

10 of 32

USAID HCTM Virtual Retirement Updates�Core Process as Described to Employees by USAID/HCTM

Across all sessions, USAID HCTM articulated a three-stage retirement process*:

1. Employee Submission (ORA)

Employees complete forms in the Online Retirement Application (ORA)
Errors or omissions (W-4P, survivor annuity forms, notarization) halt progress

2. Agency “Prep Work” (HCTM / ESB)

Full review of EOPF, service history, and benefits
Correction of decades-old onboarding gaps
This phase was repeatedly cited as the most time-consuming bottleneck

3. External Processing

Packages sent to USAID’s payroll servicing provider, the National Finance Center (NFC) (payroll closeout)
Then forwarded to OPM for adjudication and payment
Once sent USAID/HCTM disclaims further control

*The process described by USAID HCTM does not include the initial retirement applications that were submitted by retirees before ORA was brought online, causing all of these applications to be recreated in ORA.

11 of 32

USAID HCTM Virtual Retirement Updates�Tone and Messaging Evolution

February 12–13, 2025

(Crisis Entry Phase)

Tone: Directive, Strained, Defensive

Emphasis on:

“Do this now before you lose access”
Capacity limits (“two specialists for thousands of employees”)
Employees must manage their own risk

Clear warnings of:

Income gaps
Delays
Lack of NFC contact information

No acknowledgment of internal planning failures

December 2025–January 2026

(Control & Closure Phase)

Tone: Confident, Authoritative
Majority of cases completed or in final stages.
Messaging stresses:

Employee responsiveness as remaining risk
Case closure if employees do not comply

Focus shifts to enforcing timelines and closing files

June 5, 2025

(Stabilization / Counseling Phase)

Tone: Operational, Instructional
Group counseling replaces individualized sessions.
Heavy emphasis on:

FEHB / FEGLI rules
Employee compliance

Staffing shortages openly acknowledged, but normalized as unavoidable

October–November 2025

(Normalization Phase)

Tone: Managerial, Data-driven
Regular “State of Retirement” updates every two weeks.
Progress metrics highlighted (percent complete).
Introduction of surge staffing framed as corrective action.
Retrospective acknowledgment that onboarding failures dated back decades—but framed as historical, not leadership accountability

12 of 32

USAID HCTM Virtual Retirement Updates�Recurrent Themes Across All Nine Transcripts

1. Responsibility Fragmentation

HCTM presents itself as:

A processor, not a decision-maker
A conduit between employee and external agencies

NFC and OPM are repeatedly cited as controlling timelines.
Employees are assigned responsibility for avoiding errors, delays, and harm.

2. Absence of End-to-End Ownership

No single entity claims responsibility for:

Retirement income continuity
Employee financial harm
Post-separation support gaps

After handoff to NFC and then OPM, employees are “on their own.”

3. Normalization of Harm

Income gaps, delayed interim payments, and confusion are described as:

“How the system works”
“Not new”
“Expected under the circumstances”
“Caused by employee error”

4. Retrospective Justification

Repeated references to:

Historical onboarding failures
Inaccurate legacy records

These explanations justify current delays but do not include corrective accountability.

13 of 32

Retirement Process Insights��How long is it taking and what were the challenges?��Survey Questions 4 through 25a

14 of 32

USAID Retirement Process Timeline Summary

NFC processing is behaving like a major retirement process bottleneck.

For the many applications still stuck at NFC, the wait time is steadily increasing from as much as 121 days (as of February 16, 2026)
As of February 16, 2026, 59 of 72 (82%) applications in the survey dataset remain at NFC awaiting transmission to OPM. The median duration outstanding is 95 days, indicating a substantial processing backlog at the NFC stage.
Applications submitted to NFC before September 30, 2025 were processed and sent to OPM more than twice as fast as those applications sent to NFC after October 1, 2025.
The long ORA application processing time at USAID/HCTM directly contributed to the increase in wait time and delayed applications at NFC

For those limited number of retirees (7) in the survey who have made it to OPM, they waited an average of 8.5 months for OPM to start processing their retirement application after they submitted.
Of the 79 USAID employees who applied for retirement in the survey, only 4 (5%) indicated they began collecting their final FERS annuity payments. On average, the entire process took over 9 months for these individuals, far greater than the ”normal 3-5 months” still advertised by OPM.

15 of 32

USAID Retirement Process Timeline Summary

USAID employees submitted their retirement applications in Launchpad far in advance of and in accordance with the time processing parameters provided by HCTM.
Once the ORA system came online, employees were required to adhere to the ORA process, hence duplicating the application process and adding time to retirement requests
In addition to limited HCTM staffing, the implementation of OPM’s ORA system well into USAID’s RIF process required new processes, training, and contributed to additional delays early in the retirement process.
Earlier submission of retirement applications is associated with faster ORA account creation following separation. However, no statistically significant acceleration was observed in downstream in OPM processing stages.
USAID’s internal process alone has already taken as long as the entire OPM-published timeline from retirement date to finalization, although USAID employees did their part and submitted their retirement applications far in advance of agency policy and recommendations.
Early application submission helps to establish an ORA account after separation, but it does not help the time spent in ORA once the processing begins. ORA internal USAID processing duration is likely driven by workflow capacity, documentation completeness, and/or case complexity – not retiree behavior.
USAID retirees had to wait at least 3 months for their annual leave payout after being involuntarily separated, inflicting financial harm early in the long retirement process.
Annual leave payouts were typically received approximately 87–90 days after separation. Timing was not significantly associated with early retirement application submission, ORA internal processing duration, or separation type, indicating that leave payout operates largely as an independent administrative process.
Only 54% of retirees receive their final Earnings & Leave statement within 60 days of separation, and one-third are still waiting after three months.
While nearly half of retirees receive their final E&L statement within 30 days, fewer than 3% receive their annual leave payout within that same timeframe.

16 of 32

USAID Retirement Process Timeline – Survey Question Alignment

Submit Retirement

Application

RIF / Separation /

Retirement

ORA

Account

Created

ORA

Retirement

Application

Certified

by Employee

ORA

Retirement

Application

Certified

by USAID HCTM

ORA

Retirement

Application

Sent to NFC

by HCTM

ORA

Retirement

Application

Sent to OPM

by NFC

OPM Intake

OPM Enters Retirement Application Into OPM System

Employee Receives CSA Number from OPM by Mail

Employee Receives CSA Password from OPM by Mail

OPM Makes Initial Deposit

for Back-Interim FERS Payments

OPM Finalizes

Retirement

Sends ”Digital Booklet” Online to Retiree

USAID AGENCY PROCESS

NFC PROCESS

OPM PROCESS

OPM Continues to Make Interim Payments While Finalizing Retirement

(Question 8)

(Question 4)

(Questions 9/9a)

(Questions 12/12a)

(Questions 13/13a)

(Questions 15/15a)

(Questions 17/17a)

(Questions 18/18a)

(Questions 23/23a)

(Questions 24/24a)

OPM Finalizes

FERS

Supplemental Payments

(Questions 25/25a)

(Questions 23/23a)

Annual Leave Payout

(Question 6/6a)

17 of 32

USAID Retirement Process Timeline Summary

OPM PROCESS TIMELINE*

3 – 5 months

USAID RETIREE

EXPERIENCED TIMELINE

Submit

Retirement

Application

Retirement

Date

USAID HCTM

Processing

NFC

Processing

OPM Intake

OPM Processing

Retirement

Finalized

ORA Account

Creation

ORA Application

Certification

169 days (~5.6 months)

(Q12a – Q8)

94 days (~3.1 months)

(as of 2/16/2026)

98 days (~3.3 months)

(Q24a – Q15a)

USAID Agency and Payroll Processing

OPM Intake and Processing

*https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/apply/quick-guide/

18 of 32

*OPM’s Published Retirement Process Timeline

3-5 Months Total Time Between Separation and Retirement Finalization

30-45 Days Total Time for Agency and Payroll/NFC Processing

19 of 32

Communication Experience Summary��What was the quality and impact of support from USAID HCTM, Payroll/NFC and OPM��Survey Questions 28 through 44

20 of 32

Communication Experience Summary

Retirees report that they cannot get timely answers from the offices responsible for moving their cases forward. Timeliness of response is the most common complaint. These complaints mirror the measurable bottlenecks in the retirement processing pipeline, particularly at the NFC stage. The problem appears structural, not anecdotal.

HCTM staff were generally viewed as respectful, but even there, respondents cited delays and difficulty in getting answers

The lowest satisfaction ratings occur at the NFC stage — the same stage where quantitative analysis shows significant backlog and transmission delays

This alignment between satisfaction data and processing data suggests systemic workflow and capacity challenges rather than isolated service issues

In plain terms: retirees are not primarily upset about courtesy of service — they are frustrated by how long it takes to get answers

The following analysis is for questions 28 through 43 that asked retirees how easy it was to contact different offices and whether their questions were answered clearly, quickly, and respectfully.

21 of 32

Communication Experience – Summary Across Agencies

Communication satisfaction declines significantly after cases leave the agency HR office.

~33% positive responses
Communication issues exist but experiences are mixed.

Payroll

Positive responses drop sharply (~5.5%).
Communication satisfaction deteriorates once cases move beyond HR.

NFC

Lowest positive responses (~3%).
Nearly all respondents who interacted with NFC reported negative experiences.

OPM

Slightly higher positive responses (~10%) than payroll/NFC, but still limited.

22 of 32

Communication Experience – Summary Across Agencies

Communication satisfaction declines significantly after cases leave the agency HR office (USAID/HCTM).

NFC appears to be the weakest communication node in the pipeline. Across all four dimensions NFC performs the worst
HCTM professionalism is strong but access is limited
The communication breakdown follows the retirement processing chain

The survey responses suggest that communication challenges are systemic rather than isolated, affecting multiple stages of the retirement processing pipeline. In particular:

Retirees report difficulty identifying who to contact
Responses are frequently delayed
Information quality becomes less reliable downstream

23 of 32

USAID Personal Impact Summary� �How did the retirement process impact USAID retirees?��Survey questions 45 through 54a

24 of 32

Personal Impact Summary

The Personal Impact section of the survey paints a clear picture of the severe impact to USAID retirees:

Most separations were involuntary
Many respondents expected to work 5+ more years
The experience had significant mental and financial impact
Many searched for new employment but struggled to find it
A substantial portion relied on unemployment benefits
Very few reported using other government assistance programs

25 of 32

Personal Impact Summary

The following analysis is across questions 45 through 54a, that asked retirees about the personal impact they experienced due to the separation process.

1) Nature of Separation (Q45–46)

77 respondents (≈90%) said their separation was not voluntary
Only 8 respondents said it was voluntary and planned
77 respondents explicitly identified their separation as involuntary

Impact to Retirees

The overwhelming majority of retirees in this sample experienced involuntary separation, not planned retirement
This context is critical when interpreting health and financial impact responses

2) How Long They Would Have Continued Working (Q47)

Among those involuntarily separated:

Median: 5 additional years
Average: 6.6 years
Some reported up to 30 additional years

Impact to Retirees

Many respondents expected to continue working for several more years
A substantial number of respondents believe they were forced out earlier than planned

26 of 32

Personal Impact Summary

3) Impact on Physical, Mental, and Financial Health (Q48–50)

Scale: 1 = No impact -> 5 = Very strong impact

Physical Health

Median response: Strong impact
Average: 3.55

Mental Health

Median response: Very strong impact
Average: 4.2

Financial Health

Median response: Very strong impact
Average: 4.33

Overall Mental, Financial, and Physical Health Impact to Retirees

Mental and financial impacts were especially severe
Physical impact was significant but slightly lower
Respondents report serious mental and financial strain resulting from their separation experience
Financial impact was rated the highest of the three

The following analysis is across questions 45 through 54a, that asked retirees about the personal impact they experienced due to the separation process.

27 of 32

Personal Impact Summary

4) Post-Separation Employment (Q51–52)

67 respondents looked for other work.
Only 24 found employment.
54 reported they had not found employment

Interpretation

A majority attempted to re-enter the workforce.�Most were unsuccessful at the time of the survey

5) Unemployment Benefits (Q53)

33 respondents reported receiving unemployment benefits
49 reported they were not receiving benefits
This indicates that a substantial portion relied on unemployment support

7) Government Assistance (Q54–54a)

Only 1 respondent reported applying for non-employment assistance (SNAP and energy assistance)
82 reported they did not apply
This suggests that broader safety-net use was limited in this dataset

The following analysis is across questions 45 through 54a, that asked retirees about the personal impact they experienced due to the separation process.

28 of 32

Systemic Chain of Issues Across the Retirement Process and Agencies Resulting in Severe Personal Impacts to Retirees

USAID staffing and systems were inadequate to handle the surge at speed

Extreme delays across USAID, NFC, and OPM and uncertainty for retirees

Processing complexity and communication breakdowns

Reduced visibility into retirement case status

= Severe Financial, Mental, and Physical

Impacts

29 of 32

USAID Personnel Demographic Summary��Who was affected and was there bias?��Survey questions 56 through 67

30 of 32

USAID Demographic Summary – Who was affected?

The following questions 56 through 67 asked demographic questions.

The separation and retirement processing issues affect experienced personnel with substantial operational knowledge.
The respondent pool reflects a predominantly late-career, senior-grade workforce.
Most were age 50+, the majority were GS-14 or GS-15, and a substantial portion held supervisory or management roles.
This was a highly experienced cohort near traditional retirement eligibility — though most did not plan to separate when they did.
Disability representation and reported financial/mental health strain suggest some respondents may face compounded vulnerability during prolonged processing delays.

The demographic profile indicates that involuntary separations and retirement delays affected a diverse and highly experienced segment of the workforce. The data show significant representation of women, Black / African American employees, individuals with disabilities, and LGBTQIA+ employees within a predominantly senior-grade population.

🎯 Senior Workforce

86% GS-14/15
86% Age 50+

🌎 Race/Ethnicity

Majority White (52%)
Significant Black / African American representation (25%)
Additional Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and multiracial identities present

♿ Disability Representation

1 in 6 respondents report a disability

🏳️‍🌈 LGBTQIA+ Representation

Approximately 1 in 10 identify as LGBTQIA+

👩 Gender Distribution

Majority female (62%)

31 of 32

Demographic Analysis – Tests for Bias for Personal Impact

After controlling for union status, age, supervisory level, grade, occupation, disability, gender, and LGBTQIA+ identity, Black / African American respondents and respondents with disabilities were significantly more likely to report higher levels of mental and physical impact associated with separation. LGBTQIA+ respondents showed significantly higher reported physical impact. Financial impact differences were weaker but suggestive for Black respondents.

The strongest and most consistent demographic differences are:

Black respondents reporting higher impact severity (physical and mental; and financial at a weaker threshold)
Respondents with disabilities reporting higher mental health impact severity
LGBTQ+ identity showing a strong association with higher physical impact severity (in this sample)

CAVEATS:

Some groups (e.g., LGBTQ+) have small counts, which can inflate uncertainty even when signals appear strong
This is association, not proof of causation
Category collapsing improves stability but reduces granularity (e.g., GS14–15 vs other)

32 of 32

Demographic Analysis – Tests for Bias for Retirement Process Delays

A full regression modeling was conducted, controlling for age, grade, disability, and gender to quantify differential impact.

Within the stages that have enough data to model, there is very limited evidence that retirement-processing delays differ systematically by demographics once you control for the full demographic profile.

The only demographic signal that appears (weakly) is:

Age 60+ reporting faster ORA internal processing -> Older respondents’ cases move from NFC to OPM faster in this sample. Everything else (union, supervisory, grade group, occupation, race) was not statistically distinct.
In this dataset, age 60+ is associated with faster NFC→OPM submission, but this finding should be treated cautiously given limited event counts (17)
Across these higher-response stages, demographics generally do not strongly predict delay length once you control for the full demographic profile
The retirement bottlenecks observed in the lifecycle analysis appear to be process-driven, not consistently demographic-stratified—at least in the parts of the pipeline with adequate sample size