Workforce Turnover Is Creating Continuity Issues within Federal Advocacy Consulting Firms

Washington-based consulting firms for federal advocacy have been encountering an issue of their own behind the scenes. As the policy process begins to stretch over long periods of time, clients may be starting to notice issues related to continuity within firm advisory structures.

The problem extends further than simple lobbying team turnover. Analysts and advisors involved with legislation tracking and policy discussion are also switching between consultancies and client projects with some frequency. This issue reveals itself when clients become engaged in multi-year processes of negotiation or policy discussion with agencies.

The lack of continuity is becoming an increasing concern among the kinds of clients who work through complex reimbursement issues, infrastructure programs or multi-month comment periods with agencies. Without continuity, federal advocacy consultants may start losing historical context associated with prior agency guidance or stakeholder engagement events.

From a practical perspective, this could affect federal firms' abilities to offer timely advice. The accumulation of contextual information required by policy work in Washington can take several months to achieve as clients navigate through hearing processes and new guidance documents from agencies.

Some firms may attempt to mitigate that risk by developing effective documentation processes. Others will focus on changing how accounts operate in order to prevent the loss of historical information that could impact their capacity for quick policy interpretations.

For Washington-based consultancies, continuity has become part of the evaluation process. Clients are paying just as much attention to continuity as the actual advisory service being provided.

This phenomenon is part of the wider movement of talent in the Washington space. Many people who have experience interpreting regulatory language and interacting with federal funding programs tend to move into other kinds of roles, such as strategy, compliance and sector-specific consulting work.

A young analyst pipeline may not help solve the problem. Policy advising often relies on the ability to understand regulatory language and procedural issues, which comes through a gradual accumulation of contextual information throughout many years of work. Young analysts may be hired relatively quickly; however, context may take more time.

Firms will need to communicate more clearly about this issue in upcoming conversations. Some clients appear to be more interested in continuous advising during policy shift windows than the prestige of the title they get in return.

Continuity issues become especially pronounced during times of uncertainty. Uncertain federal policies can generate additional interest in consulting, which means higher workload for advisors and less opportunities for clear communication with clients due to tighter budgets.

As a result, firms may need to distribute their consulting efforts between different clients as well as different firms. Although this strategy can reduce dependency risks, it may cause policy fragmentation due to differing interpretations and expectations provided by different firms.

The staffing issue may ultimately influence the market. Smaller firms might have to adjust the pay levels for federal analysts and lobbyists in order to retain employees with sufficient experience.

However, clients may be getting increasingly savvy in their demands in recent times. Continuous interaction with federal agencies tends to rely on contextual information and procedural experience gained by firms over time. It is hard to maintain both during periods of high staff turnover.

Firms who will win the clients' trust will likely not be the largest or most politically connected organizations. They will simply have the ability to provide continuous advice through federal policy change windows.