tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6618880.post3827581738229252674..comments2024-03-27T00:26:31.343-07:00Comments on The Commercial Space Blog: Will the Mars Rover Invigorate US & Canadian Space Budgets?Chuck Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09506476753520146858noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6618880.post-2283495185599216012012-08-15T08:06:04.134-07:002012-08-15T08:06:04.134-07:00Chuck;
It's been pointed out to me (by a form...Chuck;<br /><br />It's been pointed out to me (by a former CSA President) that a better source of info on actual expenditures is the CSA's annual Departmental Performance Report (DPR), which reports on what was actually spent, rather than the Plans and Priorities reports referred to above (which report on plans, with reality usually differing somewhat). The DPRs for the CSA are archived here for 2006-2010:<br /><br />http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2010-2011/index-eng.asp?acr=1852<br /><br />and here for earlier years:<br /><br />http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbs-sct/cmn/archives-eng.asp<br /><br />(for the latter, look under the Departmental Performance Report heading, click on the year in question, then find and click on the Canadian Space Agency link to get to the CSA DPR report).<br /><br />FYI, here are the actual headcount numbers (in FTEs), as net expenditures (in millions of $) for CSA from 1996 through 2011, plus forecasts out to 2015:<br /><br />FY 96/97 – 392, $251M<br />FY 97/98 – 344, $229M<br />FY 98/99 – 324, $341M<br />FY 99/00 – 377, $335M<br />FY 00/01 – 419, $319M<br />FY 01/02 – 461, $336M<br />FY 02/03 – 524, $329M<br />FY 03/04 – 550, $281M<br />FY 04/05 – 573, $286M<br />FY 05/06 – 596, $288M<br />FY 06/07 – 609, $314M<br />FY 07/08 – 604, $292M<br />FY 08/09 – 620, $306M<br />FY 09/10 – 663, $345M<br />FY 10/11 – 693, $373M<br />FY 11/12 - 701, $417M (forecast)<br />FY 12/13 - 687, $388M (forecast)<br />FY 13/14 - 687, $310M (forecast)<br />FY 14/15 - 687, $289M (forecast)<br /><br />Note that forecasts are frequently off by quite a bit, so they should be viewed<br />as being much less significant, but I’ve included them as the current<br />best estimates of CSA’s expectations.<br /><br />A major factor to keep in mind in interpreting these numbers, is that the FTEs only include actual civil servants. However, prior to about 2000, due to a government-wide hiring freeze that was in place for several years, a growing number of positions at CSA were staffed by contractors, who don't show up in this head-count. Around 2000, most of these contractor positions got turned into civil service positions, which accounts for at least some of the big change in headcount around then. (I'm still trying to chase down info on how many contractor positions got converted over in that period.)<br /><br />- Kieran<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6618880.post-65176431385641102102012-08-14T08:18:52.973-07:002012-08-14T08:18:52.973-07:00Chuck;
You wrote, "According to the CSA 2012...Chuck;<br /><br />You wrote, "According to the CSA 2012 - 2013 Report on Plans and Priorities, ...CSA salaries (expressed in terms of FTE's or full time equivalents) will remain at exactly the same level (687 FTE) during the entire three year period covered by the report."<br /><br />Thanks for that link --- I've been looking for historical info on CSA staffing levels.<br /><br />If you go to that link, you'll also find previous CSA Plans and Priorities Reports going back to 2006/07. If you check the forecasts each year, against the actuals for subsequent years, you'll see pretty large discrepancies in most cases. For example, for each report here what the actual was, versus the forecast for that year from the previous year (I've also included the next two years worth of forecasts in each case, in brackets):<br /><br />2006/07: 618 vs. 690 (07/08: 687, 08/09: 687)<br />2007/08: 619 vs. 709 (08/09: 704, 09/10: 701)<br />2008/09: 629 vs. 724 (09/10: 722, 10/11: 722)<br />2009/10: 663 vs. 711 (10/11: 704, 11/12: 698)<br />2010/11: 721 vs. 721 (11/12: 722, 12/13: 704)<br />2011/12: 701 vs. 710 (12/13: 710, 13/14: 710)<br />2012/13: TBD vs. 687 (13/14: 687, 14/15: 687)<br /><br />(Caveat: it’s not clear that any of the numbers in these reports are *actually* “actual” results --- e.g., the 619 FTEs I show in 2007/08 as the “actual”, is from the 2008/09 report’s table detailing FTE forecasts (in section 1.8 of that report, on p.29), and is shown as the “forecast” for the *previous* year. I’m guessing this is due to the fact that it takes some time to close the year-end books, and that the next-year’s Forecast Report is compiled before the previous year’s books are closed. I’m assuming, however, by the time the 2008/09 Forecast Report was put together, they had a fairly good idea of what the actual results from 2007/08 were going to be, and that that’s what they’ve recorded here..)<br /><br />Some observations from these numbers:<br /><br />- It appears that the CSA’s internal head-count went up by about 17%, between 2006/07 and 2010/11 (from 618 to 721), but has since declined a bit (to 701), and is forecast to decline further (to 687).<br /><br />- In the earlier years the one-year-out forecasts were rather higher than the actuals. In recent years, they’ve been more predictive. (The 2010/11 actual versus forecast looks suspiciously good, both being the same to 4 decimal places, at 721.4!).<br /><br />- Out-year forecasts are obviously pretty much placeholders some years, probably reflecting uncertainty in multi-year planning in some years --- if you have no basis for making a detailed plan, the default is clearly to assume constant staffing levels.<br /><br />- Kieran<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com