Gainers vs. losers: Some state agencies grew substantially

Over a 20-year period

SEE THE COMPLETE TABLE AND READ THE FULL REPORT ABOUT THE SIZE OF STATE GOVERNMENT EXCLUSIVELY IN OUR NEWSPAPER OR E-EDITION FOR SUNDAY, MAY 22, 2011.

By Bob Watson

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Although Missouri state government grew fairly steadily over most of the past two decades, some departments grew more than others, and some other departments lost employees over the years.

There doesn’t appear to be a pattern that applies equally to all parts of government at the same time.

While most agencies have seen employee reductions over the past couple of years, several parts of state government actually are at their highest number of employees during the current budget year that ends June 30, and others will grow a little in the next budget.

Of 20 departments or government branches, 11 will have more employees at ....

READ THE COMPLETE REPORT ABOUT THE SIZE OF STATE GOVERNMENT EXCLUSIVELY IN OUR NEWSPAPER OR E-EDITION FOR SUNDAY, MAY 22, 2011.

NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIBERS: CLICK ON AN E-EDITION ARTICLE TO LOG IN USING YOUR CURRENT ACCOUNT INFORMATION AT NO EXTRA CHARGE.

More like this story

two_cents_worth 2 years ago

With a gain in jobs of over 100% the past decade, you would think Facilities (OA) could do a little better job of maintaining the grounds at the state buildings.

The grounds at the ES building on Dunklin looks like abandoned property. They did manage to cut the 'field of weeds' last week...first time in 3 weeks it was cut...though brush still lays everywhere & weeds (now small bushes) grow in the parking lots.

I'm not just talkin' about the areas that were under construction either...

hudson 2 years ago

I called motor vehicle dept last week, after a recording that seemed to go on and on, telling me what numbers to press , I choose to speak to a live person, a recording told me I was call number 30 ! I would think with all the state employes they could have someone to answer the phone ? I would have waited for 5 maybe 10 calls before me but 30 seemed a bit much ! I guess my time is not worth much !

bluesfan13 2 years ago

To both of the previous posters...

Percentages mean nothing on the Insurance or OA stats. Over the past few years, OA took over all of Information Technology and Maintenance statewide, so their numbers increased while other departments decreased. There were no actual new jobs in those gains for OA.

Insuance is the same. Over the years, they took over Professional Registration from Economic Development. ED lost 600 jobs, but only 150 or so were actually lost. Insurance gained about 400 of them by taking over that department.

garylyndaker 2 years ago

The table presented here is nearly worthless. This is an example of reporting that is worse than nothing. I don’t believe it is a matter of bias. It is either just ignorance or, worse, it may have been decided that this table was all that you could handle and it would attract readers who might get riled up for one reason or another.

The problems begin with failing to include the Department of Social Services which is one of the two largest departments in our state.

However, the main problem is that the changes in workforce are presented as if they were growth or reduction in that department only – with no explanation. The actual explanations completely change the story told by this data.

For example, about 6 years ago, over 1100 information technology staff were transferred from 14 of the agencies into the Office of administration. A year or so before that, a few hundred of facilities management staff, who had been part of those same agencies, were also transferred to the Office of Administration.

Some of the big increases and decreases in Revenue, Labor, Insurance, Health, and the missing Department of Social Services were the result of reorganizations that moved entire Divisions from one Department to another. Most, but not all, of the large decrease in the Department of Mental Health workforce is the result of privatization of some psychiatric hospitals and most of the case management for the Division of Developmental Disabilities.

I believe the only major growth in Missouri State Government over the last two decades has been in Public Safety and Corrections, with significant, but much smaller, growth at Natural Resources. The significant, but small, losses have been in Education and Higher Education, and possibly Agriculture. Real, and significant, losses did impact Mental Health.

While I am certain of most of the above, if anyone has corrections, clarifications, or additions to this post, please comment.

online_editor 2 years ago

To see the full table and the complete report, see our newspaper or e-Edition. Naturally, additional observations about various aspects of any of the information reported are welcome.

JCLifer 2 years ago

The numbers at each agency are a good barometor of what we value in our state.

For education to be so low (and to be taking considerable losses), that is a sad state of affairs. (Note that DESE numbers include all the staff and teachers at the state schools for disabled, school for the blind, school for the deaf, etc.)

The articles and charts were a very good start. (Thanks NT!) More study needs to be done to really find out what is happening. Maybe someday we can find out how many cars and trucks state government has.

miracl 2 years ago

I see this when I hire people and then find out they can not add or spell.

gofish 2 years ago

The right wing will have you to believe that growth in government is a bad thing and reducing the size of government is a good thing. Not necessarily.

The Ashcroft years were SO bloody austere that government DID need to grow. Now "right sizing" is occurring in response to the budget, not the needs of the public.

Seems to me the "right size" should take into account both, the operating budget AND the needs of the people -- I mean the actual citizens, not the small businesses and corporations who take welfare like candy cigarettes and no one suggests their employees be drug tested.

Putting people to work will improve life for the citizens and the government budget. The right wing will have you believe all of the business welfare will achieve this. Reagan and his trickle down theory at best, and most remember how that recession went. Cuts to those most in need, just like now. Nothing trickled down to me until Clinton and Carnahan ruled Missouri.

Is there a pattern here? Yes. Republican control shifts the distribution of wealth from the lowest to the highest. Only difference now is the assassination of the middle class instead of just the bottom rungs.

The numbers on the chart are merely one piece of a much larger puzzle. I'm so sick of the same old rhetoric and lies that tell you how "we the Republican legislature" are ripping you "the people's" finances apart for your own good.

rmsberengaria 1 year, 12 months ago

Nothing trickled down to me until Clinton and Carnahan ruled Missouri. If you care to share "gofish" what trickled down to you?

evenkeel 2 years ago

Hey GoFish, you lost me. Clinton and Carnaham ruled Missouri? And you seem nostalgic about that? This nation kicked out rulers during that little dust-up called The War for Independence and most freedom-loving citizens of this nation do not look back with fondness at having rulers. Explain yourself please.

I am right-wing and far from apologetic about it. I am against all welfare, personal or corporate. If you want something to trickle down on you, walk outside when it is raining. If you want money, earn it. If you want someone else's money, change your heart because that is coveting and you have no moral claim on someone else's property.

I do not see the proper role of government should be in distributing wealth. Why do you?

miracl 2 years ago

Evenkeel,you are so right.

evenkeel 2 years ago

Hey hkchas, there is no Republican plan to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. I oughta know, I attend all the meetings. Demonize much?

3blindmice 2 years ago

they just want to take all the money in social security and turn it into a worthless voucher. ie a handout to wall st and all their corrupt bankers.

JCLifer 2 years ago

or give it out as corporate welfare to the party donors.

tonto 2 years ago

Just for clarification - about 48% of the people who have income do not have enough income that they owe any federal income tax. That's commonly rounded off to 50% and generalized to "pay no tax at all" as you did. Some of them even have negative tax and get back more than they paid in because their earned income credit and child care credits are more than the federal income tax they would otherwise have paid.

No one really escapes taxation, though, and some taxes on lower income people take a bigger percent of their resources than the taxes on those who have more. For example -

(a) all of those people who had earned income would have withholding for social security and medicare, and some would have paid state income tax.

(b) all of those people would pay sales tax on the things they buy including food.

(c) property tax would have been paid on the places they live. If they owned it they paid the tax and if htey rented it, property tax is part of the rent.

asb 2 years ago

Well put tonto. Those who say half the country works to pay for the other half to loaf are speaking Class Warfare propaganda, and it ain't from the poor side of the struggle. As tonto said, the poor pay plenty of taxes. In fact (who didn't see this coming?) proportionately, the poor put far more of their assets back into the government than those voting for the GOP candidate barking about welfare and the "if you didn't earn it you can't have any of it" crowd; and maybe they should, but they're not usually loafing. Those of you whose religious views prevent you from seeing the value of government as a social engine are also wrong, and are tools of wealth, which is a redundant definition of most religious dogma. As gross and corrupt as it can be, government is usually the best engine for social mediation and justice for the greatest number of us, and certainly more so than most businesses, churches, or armies.

wcywing 2 years ago

State and Fed gov do not have infinite money. the gov should not give favors or money to corporations, but they do. the lawmakers and highly paid officials should cut their pay and benefits, but i don't see that happening. that being said, people should start saving $$, because i don't think i will see a check for Soc. Sec. changes need to be made but politicians are just giving lip service.

i would want to my money that i put into soc security into a bond fund or something, someone else might want to put it in a mutual fund. just about anything is better than what washington is trying to do.

do we really need so many people working in the jails/prisons?

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune