I have no statistics, but each employee turnover would cost in program suffering as there are less hands to do the work, HR staff hours and computer costs to re-post announcements and then interview, select, validate, etc. Instead of posting positions as a (for example) GS-7 with no room for advancement, why not allow for every position to be re-evaluated when the work being done exceeds the pay level? I know that there is a way to get the job itself re-classed to a higher level, but that is not the point of this entry. This idea goes specifically to the individual and their performance of their job. Instead of step-increases which only serve to appease the heartache of outperforming your job for no reward, why not identify those people that actually work hard and, after a year of the same continued performance, have the job moved up based on the quality of work being done at that position. If the position does get vacated, then move it back to the original starting point and repeat. Talented individuals are lost due to the lack of ability to advance grade-wise, not step-wise. This hurts the program as a whole, places unneeded stress on the other team members, and hours of training are spent on new workers. I am all for hiring new employees, but if an extra level of job security and reward was added, employee turn-over would decline.