My concern is, first, whether or not your agency actually looks at geographic hot spots to identify high turnover areas.
This isn't pitting one region against another—I think every region of the country should have a balance of federal jobs—but if it comes down to the deputy heads, they could do this in a very holistic manner, or they could continue to do it the way they've always done it. If you are making planning decisions and you're apportioning a workload in regions where you have extremely high turnover, and you have other regional offices that have very low turnover, is there a criterion whereby you actually have to look at the overall bottom line of putting resources into places to train people who are going to leave in two years, as opposed to putting in the same resources and having someone for 25 years? Is that, in any way, mandated above the deputy head?