Homeland Security: DHS's Actions to Recruit and Retain Staff and
Comply with the Vacancies Reform Act (16-JUL-07, GAO-07-758).
Since its inception in 2003, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) has faced numerous human capital challenges related to
recruiting, retaining, and managing its workforce of nearly
171,000 employees. As requested, this report analyzes DHS's
attrition, efforts to recruit and retain staff, use of external
employees, and compliance with certain provisions of the
Vacancies Reform Act, which requires agencies to report to
Congress and the Comptroller General vacancies in certain
presidentially-appointed positions requiring Senate confirmation.
To conduct its work, GAO surveyed human capital personnel from
DHS and its component agencies; analyzed federal personnel data
files, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) human capital
documentation, and relevant legislation; and interviewed key DHS
officials.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-758
ACCNO: A72767
TITLE: Homeland Security: DHS's Actions to Recruit and Retain
Staff and Comply with the Vacancies Reform Act
DATE: 07/16/2007
SUBJECT: Employee incentives
Employees
Homeland security
Human capital
Personnel recruiting
Program management
Reporting requirements
Staff utilization
Strategic planning
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-758
* [1]Components listed in CPDF:
* [2]Results in Brief
* [3]Background
* [4]DHS Organization
* [5]Human Capital Management
* [6]Vacancies Reform Act
* [7]Due to Relatively High Attrition Rates among Transportation
* [8]DHS's Attrition Rate Affected by Attrition among TSA's Trans
* [9]Though DHS Senior-Level Attrition Decreased between Fiscal Y
* [10]Few DHS Component Agencies Reported "Great" Challenges to Fi
* [11]DHS and Several Component Agencies Analyze Attrition Data an
* [12]DHS Makes Use of Various Human Capital Flexibilities for Rec
* [13]DHS Uses Various Human Capital Flexibilities
* [14]DHS Most Frequently Used Individual and Group Cash Awards an
* [15]Awards Used as Retention Tools
* [16]Federal Career Intern Program Used as Recruitment Tool
* [17]Most DHS Components Rated Human Capital Flexibilities as "Ve
* [18]DHS Plans to Enhance the Use of Some Human Capital Flexibili
* [19]DHS IPAs and Personal Services Contracts Were in Place Prima
* [20]Distribution of IPAs and Personal Services Contracts
* [21]Salary Ranges for IPAs and Contract Value for Personal Servi
* [22]Authorities for IPAs and Personal Services Contracts
* [23]DHS Complied with the Tenure Provisions of the Vacancies Ref
* [24]DHS Has Complied with the 210-Day Tenure Provision of the Va
* [25]DHS Has Not Consistently Met Reporting Requirements of the A
* [26]DHS Has in Place Four of Five Management Controls Necessary
* [27]Conclusions
* [28]Recommendation for Executive Action
* [29]Agency Comments
* [30]GAO Contact
* [31]Acknowledgments
* [32]GAO's Mission
* [33]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [34]Order by Mail or Phone
* [35]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [36]Congressional Relations
* [37]Public Affairs
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
July 2007
Report to Congressional Requesters
HOMELAND SECURITY
DHS's Actions to Recruit and Retain Staff and Comply with the Vacancies
Reform Act
GAO-07-758
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 5
Background 8
Due to Relatively High Attrition Rates among Transportation Security
Officers, DHS Attrition Rates Were Higher Than Other Cabinet-Level
Departments for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006 12
DHS Makes Use of Various Human Capital Flexibilities for Recruitment and
Retention and Most Officials We Surveyed Rated Them as "Very Effective" 20
DHS IPAs and Personal Services Contracts Were in Place Primarily for
Program Managers and Subject Matter Experts 29
DHS Complied with the Tenure Provisions of the Vacancies Reform Act, but
Did Not Always Comply with the Act's Reporting Requirements and Did Not
Implement All Necessary Management Controls 33
Conclusions 35
Recommendation for Executive Action 35
Agency Comments 36
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 37
Appendix II DHS Component Agencies 41
Appendix III Attrition 43
Appendix IV Human Capital Flexibilities 47
Appendix V IPA and Personal Services Contracts 60
Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 68
Appendix VII GAO Contact and Acknowledgments 69
Tables
Table 1: SES Survey Responses on Challenges Faced in Filling SES
Positions, by Type of Challenge 17
Table 2: Flexibilities Involving DHS's Recruitment of New Employees 21
Table 3: Flexibilities Involving DHS's Retention of Employees 21
Table 4: Flexibilities Involving DHS's Retention of Employees and/or
Recruitment of New Employees 22
Table 5: Number of Times DHS Used Flexibilities Related to Retention per
100 Permanent Employees 23
Table 6: Percent of New Permanent Hires for Which DHS Used Flexibilities
Related to Recruitment 25
Table 7: IPA Agreements in DHS as of September 30, 2006 29
Table 8: Personal Services Contracts in DHS as of September 30, 2006 29
Table 9: Non-senior-level Attrition at Cabinet-Level Agencies, Fiscal
Years 2005 & 2006 43
Table 10: Non-senior-level Attrition at DHS Components, Fiscal Years 2005
& 2006 44
Table 11: Senior-Level Attrition at Cabinet-Level Agencies, Fiscal Years
2005 and 2006 45
Table 12: Senior-Level Attrition at DHS Components, Fiscal Years 2005 and
2006 46
Table 13: Number of Times DHS Components Used Human Capital Flexibilities
in Fiscal Year 2005 48
Table 14: Number of Times DHS Components Used Human Capital Flexibilities
in Fiscal Year 2006 50
Table 15: Number of Times DHS Used Human Capital Flexibilities in Fiscal
Year 2005 for Every 100 Permanent Employees 52
Table 16: Percent of New Permanent Hires for Which DHS Used Human Capital
Flexibilities in Fiscal Year 2005 53
Table 17: Number of Times DHS Used Human Capital Flexibilities in Fiscal
Year 2006 for Every 100 Permanent Employees 54
Table 18: Percent of New Permanent Hires for Which DHS Used Human Capital
Flexibilities in Fiscal Year 2006 55
Table 19: Rate at Which DHS Used Human Capital Flexibilities in Fiscal
Year 2006 per Every 100 Permanent Employees Compared to Median Rate at
Which Executive Agencies Used Flexibilities in Fiscal Year 2006 56
Table 20: Percentage of New Permanent Hires for Which DHS Used Human
Capital Flexibilities in Fiscal Year 2006 Compared to the Median
Percentage at Executive Agencies in Fiscal Year 2006 56
Table 21: Flexibilities Components Would Have Liked to Use More Often and
the Factors That Prevented Them from Doing So 59
Table 22: Intergovernmental Personnel Act Agreements at DHS as of
September 30, 2006 60
Table 23: Personal Services Contracts at DHS as of September 30, 2006 66
Figures
Figure 1: Department of Homeland Security Organization Chart 9
Figure 2: Comparison of DHS Attrition with Other Cabinet-Level Agencies on
a Quarterly Basis during Fiscal Years 2005 & 2006 13
Figure 3: Attrition at DHS Component Agencies during Fiscal Years 2005 &
2006 14
Figure 4: Senior-Level Attrition at Cabinet-Level Departments during
Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006 15
Figure 5: Frequency with Which DHS Components Used Individual or Group
Cash Awards per 100 Employees during Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006 24
Figure 6: Percent of New Hires for Which DHS Components Used FCIP 26
Figure 7: DHS Components Rate the Effectiveness of Human Capital
Flexibilities for Recruiting New Staff 57
Figure 8: DHS Components Rate the Effectiveness of Human Capital
Flexibilities for Retaining Staff 58
Abbreviations
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CPDF Central Personnel Data File
CHCO Chief Human Capital Office
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FCIP Federal Career Intern Program
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
HQ DHS Headquarters
HSA Homeland Security Act
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IPA Intergovernmental Personnel Act
OPM Office of Personnel Management
PAS presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed
SES Senior Executive Service
SCEP Student Career Experience Program
S&T DHS's Science and Technology Directorate
TSA Transportation Security Administration
TSO Transportation Security Officer
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
July 16, 2007
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson
Chairman
Committee on Homeland Security
House of Representatives
The Honorable Christopher P. Carney
Chairman
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight
Committee on Homeland Security
House of Representatives
Since its inception in March 2003, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) has faced enormous challenges related to protecting the nation from
terrorism while organizing its 22 predecessor agencies--several with
existing program and management challenges--into a coherent and integrated
department. Because these difficulties could have serious consequences for
the security of our country, we designated the department's implementation
and transformation a high-risk area in 2003 and reiterated our concerns in
January 2005 and again in January 2007.^1
One key challenge DHS has faced is effectively and strategically managing
its sizable workforce of nearly 171,000 employees in order to respond to
current and emerging 21st century challenges. DHS has taken action to
integrate the legacy agency workforces that make up its components and has
issued both a strategic human capital plan as well as a workforce plan for
the entire department.
But, as we have previously reported, many human capital challenges
remain.^2 They include attracting and retaining a qualified workforce;
rewarding individuals based on individual, team, unit, and organizational
results; obtaining, developing, providing incentives to, and retaining
needed talent; and ensuring leadership at the top. In addition, the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM), which plays a key role in helping agencies
build needed infrastructure and prepare for reform, recently reported that
DHS scored near the bottom, relative to other federal agencies, on indices
measuring leadership and knowledge management, results-oriented
performance culture, talent management, and job satisfaction. These
measures, which come from OPM's 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey, were
consistent with those from prior years.
^1 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [38]GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2007).
^2 GAO, Homeland Security: Overview of Department of Homeland Security
Management Challenges, GAO-05-573T (Washington, D.C.: April 2005).
As you know, various governmentwide laws, regulations, and departmental
policies govern DHS's approach to human capital management as it seeks to
address these challenges. For example, the Vacancies Reform Act^3 requires
agencies to report to Congress and us vacancies in certain
presidentially-appointed positions requiring Senate confirmation, and
limits to 210 days the length of time an official can fill such a position
in an acting capacity (known as the act's tenure provision). In addition,
the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA)^4 allows a nonfederal employee
to be temporarily assigned to a federal agency to meet the goals and
objectives of both entities. Moreover, the Homeland Security Act^5 and
other statutes permit DHS to use personal services contracts to acquire
talent from outside the government on a temporary basis. DHS also may
implement human capital flexibilities, which are statutory authorities
granted to agencies to allow them greater leeway in recruiting, retaining,
developing, managing, and compensating employees to meet the challenges of
the 21st century. They can include, among other things, incentive awards,
recruitment and retention bonuses, training and development, and work-life
policies that help agencies in a competitive employment environment to
attract and retain sufficient numbers of high-quality employees.
In light of the human capital issues facing DHS, you asked us to examine
aspects of how the agency manages and oversees its human capital
resources. In response, this report assesses (1) DHS's attrition rates of
permanent and senior-level employees for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 and
agency efforts to address workforce issues related to attrition and
filling senior-level vacancies; (2) DHS's use of human capital
flexibilities to recruit and retain staff; (3) how DHS makes use of IPA
agreements and personal services contracts, and its authority for these
tools, as of the end of fiscal year 2006; and (4) DHS's compliance with
the tenure provision and related reporting requirements of the Vacancies
Reform Act, and whether management controls are in place to help ensure
compliance with the act.
^3 5 U.S.C. SS 3345-3349d.
^4 5 U.S.C. SS 3371-3376.
^5 6 U.S.C. S 391(c).
To obtain information on attrition (defined for this report as
resignations and transfers to other departments and agencies outside of
DHS) of permanent employees,^6 we analyzed fiscal years 2005 and 2006 data
from OPM's Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). We also used the CPDF data
to determine attrition of DHS senior-level employees, both Senior
Executive Service (SES) and presidentially appointed. We have previously
assessed the reliability of the CPDF and found it sufficiently reliable
for our analysis. We did not make judgments regarding how the attrition of
permanent employees or the attrition of senior-level employees has
affected DHS. To obtain information on the degree of challenge that DHS
components had in filling senior-level positions, we surveyed human
capital personnel from DHS component agencies using a telephone survey we
developed for this engagement. To obtain information on DHS's use of human
capital flexibilities for recruitment and retention, we used OPM
documentation and our past reports to identify human capital flexibilities
likely to affect DHS's ability to recruit and retain staff. We then
limited the list of flexibilities likely to affect recruitment and
retention to those for which OPM maintained data in the CPDF and
categorized them as relating to recruitment, retention, or both. We used
the CPDF data to calculate DHS's use of the flexibilities in fiscal years
2005 and 2006. We also surveyed DHS headquarters and component agency
human capital officials on the use and perceived effectiveness of the
flexibilities and impediments to their use, using a self-report telephone
survey we developed for this engagement. We did not make judgments
regarding how DHS's use or non-use of human capital flexibilities has
affected the agency and we did not assess the appropriateness of DHS's use
of any specific human capital flexibilities, the reasons officials
provided for using or not using them, or the appropriateness of OPM's
rules. We analyzed how DHS makes use of IPA agreements and personal
services contracts, how often, and to what extent, as of the end of fiscal
year 2006. To obtain information on DHS's use of IPA agreements, we met
with DHS and requested and reviewed information pertaining to salaries,
description of duties, and name of employer, for all IPAs in place as of
September 30, 2006. To obtain information on DHS's use of personal
services contracts, we met with officials in DHS's Chief Procurement
Office and analyzed information pertaining to salary/contract value,
description of duties, and names of components utilizing all personal
services contracts in place as of September 30, 2006. We assessed the
reliability of information supplied pertaining to IPA agreements and
personal services contracts by interviewing agency officials knowledgeable
about the data and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of this report. We did not make judgments as to how the use
of IPA's or personal services contracts has affected DHS. To determine
DHS's compliance with the tenure and reporting requirements of the
Vacancies Reform Act, we reviewed the provisions of the act and reviewed
information contained in the Executive Vacancy Database that we maintain
to collect and analyze vacancy data submitted to us by agencies. To
determine if DHS had implemented the management controls necessary to help
ensure compliance with the act, we interviewed DHS officials, obtained
documentation from DHS, and reviewed our past work on the act.
^6 We use the term "permanent" to describe employees with permanent
appointments in the competitive or excepted service.
CPDF data indicate that there were 13 components that made up DHS during
fiscal year 2006 (see below for a listing of DHS component agencies in
CPDF). However, for some purposes DHS categorizes the components
differently. For the survey that we conducted on DHS's use of human
capital flexibilities, we interviewed officials representing the 13
components plus the Management Directorate. Likewise, for the survey on
filling senior vacancies, we interviewed officials representing the 13
components plus Office of Intelligence Analysis, Office of Operations,
Office of Preparedness, and Office of General Counsel. As a result, our
survey data reflect 14 and 17 components, respectively, while the CPDF
data reflect 13 components.
Components listed in CPDF:
o DHS Headquarters (HQ)
o Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO)
o Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
o Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)
o Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
o Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology (S&T)
o Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
o U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)
o U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
o U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
o U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
o U.S. Secret Service (USSS)
o U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
(US-VISIT)
We conducted our work from September 2006 through June 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I for
more information about our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief
Although DHS's attrition rates for permanent non-senior-level employees
decreased from 8.4 to 7.1 percent between fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the
department's attrition rates were higher for both permanent non-senior
-level and senior-level employees than the average attrition of comparable
employees at all other cabinet-level departments. However, this was due,
in part, to attrition rates of Transportation Security Officers (TSO) at
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), who compose roughly a
third of all DHS employees. After excluding TSA's attrition rates for
TSOs, DHS's overall attrition rate was 3.3 percent for both years. This
compares to an average attrition rate during the same period of
approximately 4.0 percent for other cabinet-level departments. For
senior-level employees (those in SES or presidentially appointed
positions), the rate of attrition was also higher for both years at
DHS--14.5 and 12.8 percent respectively, than the average attrition at all
cabinet-level departments (7 and 6 percent, respectively). With respect to
the ability of DHS to fill vacant SES positions, DHS personnel at most of
the components that we surveyed reported that filling senior-level
positions was either not a challenge or posed a slight or moderate
challenge. For example, when asked whether they faced challenges to hiring
senior-level personnel due to a limited number of applicants with the
necessary leadership skills, most reported that this was not a challenge
or that it posed a slight or moderate challenge. With respect to
collecting data for workforce planning, DHS reported that the department
itself, plus 9 of 13 components, separately analyze attrition data for
their workforces. Further, they reported that 11 components administer
exit surveys to their employees leaving the agency. We have previously
reported that these data are useful to agencies for workforce planning
purposes.
DHS made use of various human capital flexibilities, in accordance with
guidance from OPM, to recruit and retain employees in fiscal years 2005
and 2006. The flexibilities implemented by DHS included practices such as
hiring incentives, performance awards, and more. Flexibilities frequently
used by DHS, according to OPM's Central Personnel Data File, included
individual and group cash awards and the Federal Career Intern Program
(FCIP). These and other such practices were rated by all or most DHS human
capital officials we interviewed as "very effective" recruitment or
retention tools (14 of 14 on recruitment effectiveness and 10 of 14 on
retention effectiveness). However, officials at 12 of 14 components also
stated that there were reasons why they could not make greater use of
certain flexibilities, citing, for example, a lack of funding to implement
them or that federal rules and regulations prevented them from making
greater use of these flexibilities. For example, officials at eight DHS
components stated that they wanted to use direct hire authority--a special
authority that expedites hiring--but federal rules and regulations
governing eligibility for direct hire authority prevented them from doing
so by restricting the positions for which agencies can use the authority.
DHS plans to increase the use of some human capital flexibilities as part
of an effort to improve the hiring process, which is part of a broader
ongoing effort to meet strategic human capital goals.
As of September 2006, a total of 36 IPA agreements were in place at DHS;
of these, 17 were located in the agency's Science and Technology
Directorate (S&T) for individuals performing program manager functions and
duties. In addition, 61 personal services contracts were in place, with 36
in CBP for the services of individuals with subject matter expertise.
Salaries for IPA individuals ranged from $48,000 to $248,000, with a
median salary of $133,540. For personal services contracts awarded to
contractors, costs ranged from about $300 for laboratory testing services
to almost $21 million for dental and other medical services.
Between its inception in March 2003 and April 2007, DHS filled 16
positions under the Vacancies Reform Act and complied with the tenure
provision in all cases. However, during this same period, DHS did not
always meet the related reporting requirements of the act and did not have
one of the five management controls that we have reported are necessary to
ensure compliance with the act, overall. Specifically, with respect to
reporting, the act requires that agencies immediately report vacancies to
Congress and the Comptroller General. We found that DHS did not meet this
requirement for 3 of the 16 vacancies that occurred between March 2003 and
April 2007: DHS failed to report vacancies in the position of Deputy
Secretary in 2003, in the position of Commissioner of Customs in 2005, and
in the position of Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement in 2005. We also found that the DHS Office of General Counsel,
which has responsibility within DHS for compliance with the act, did not
have documented written procedures for compliance with the act--one of the
five management controls we have reported as necessary to ensure
compliance. We previously reported that documented procedures are a basic
management control mechanism that can help to ensure that when DHS staff
responsible for ensuring DHS's compliance with the Vacancies Reform Act
leave or are reassigned, those who replace them will have established
guidelines to follow. During the course of our work, DHS did in fact
reassign responsibility for compliance with the act from one attorney to
another. To prepare for this transition, an informal outline about
compliance was provided. However, informal outlines might not be
sufficient to ensure that compliance-related procedures are understood and
followed, and formal documented procedures rather than informal notes or
outlines might better prepare a replacement to meet the act's requirements
in a timely manner.
We are recommending that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security direct DHS's Office of General Counsel to develop written
policies and procedures that clearly explain the duties of officials who
may be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Vacancies Reform Act
including the reporting requirements, and how these duties are to be
carried out.
DHS reviewed a draft of this report and concurred with the recommendation.
In its written response, DHS noted that a draft written policy and
procedures to address this issue is being circulated within the department
for comment and final clearance.
Background
DHS Organization
DHS was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and became
operational in March 2003 with the consolidation and alignment of 22
separate governmental agencies. The 22 individual agencies were formerly
subordinate to eight departments: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy,
Health and Human Services, Justice, Transportation, and the Treasury, and
two independent offices (FEMA and the General Services Administration). In
March 2005, Secretary Chertoff launched a "Second Stage Review," which
resulted in the reallocation of functions within DHS and the
establishment, consolidation and/or alteration of organizational units,
effective October 1, 2005. (See fig. 1 for the DHS organizational
structure effective as of the time of our review.)
Figure 1: Department of Homeland Security Organization Chart
Human Capital Management
As we have reported in prior work, strategic human capital planning is the
centerpiece of federal agencies' efforts to transform their organizations
to meet the governance challenges of the 21st century.^7 Generally,
strategic workforce planning addresses two critical needs: (1) aligning an
organization's human capital program with its current and emerging mission
and programmatic goals and (2) developing long term strategies for
acquiring, developing, motivating, and retaining staff to achieve
programmatic goals. The long-term fiscal outlook and challenges to
governance in the 21st century are prompting fundamental reexamination of
what government does, how it does it, and who does it. Strategic human
capital planning that is integrated with broader organizational strategic
planning is critical to ensuring agencies have the talent they need for
future challenges.
^7 GAO, Human Capital: Federal Workforce Challenges in the 21st Century,
[39]GAO-07-556T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2007).
In the same report, we reported that top leadership in the agencies must
provide the committed and inspired attention needed to address human
capital and related organization transformation issues. Agencies' human
capital planning efforts need to be fully integrated with mission and
critical program goals. We reported that agencies too often do not have
the components of strategic human capital planning needed to address their
current and emerging challenges. Augmented efforts are needed to improve
recruiting, hiring, professional development, and retention strategies to
ensure that agencies have the talent needed to carry out their current and
future missions. Overall, federal agencies need to ensure that they are
using flexibilities available to them to recruit and hire top talent and
to address the current and emerging demographic challenges facing the
government.
Vacancies Reform Act
The Vacancies Reform Act was passed to ensure a clear understanding of
what is to be done when certain presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed
(PAS) positions^8 fall vacant.^9 These positions constitute the highest
level of staff in the federal executive branch, including the secretaries
for cabinet-level departments and their deputy and assistant secretaries.
Because most of these executives typically have relatively short tenures,
positions often are vacated during presidential terms of office. At a
change of administration, virtually all PAS positions are vacated. Under
the Vacancies Reform Act, if a presidential appointee covered by the act
dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties
of the office, the requirements of the act must be
^8Some PAS positions are not covered by the act. For example, the act does
not apply to members of multi-member boards or commissions, such as the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
^9 5 U.S.C. SS 3345-3349d.
followed. For covered PAS vacancies, the Vacancies Reform Act, among other
things,
o Requires agencies to immediately report to the Senate, the House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General changes in PAS
positions, including a vacancy and the date it occurs, the name of
any person serving in an acting capacity and the date such service
began, the name of any person nominated to fill a vacancy and the
date such nomination is submitted to the Senate, and any
rejection, withdrawal, or return of a nomination and the related
date.
o Specifies who may serve as acting officer.
o Limits the service of acting officials to 210 days beginning on
the date the vacancy occurred. At the end of the time limit, no
one may serve in the position on an acting basis. The Vacancies
Reform Act extends or resets the 210-day period under certain
circumstances, such as suspending the time limit when a nomination
is pending before the Senate and extending the limit by 90 days
with respect to any vacancy existing during the 60-day period
beginning at the start of a new administration. The Vacancies
Reform Act also requires us to inform specified congressional
committees, the President, and the Office of Personnel Management
if an acting officer has served longer than the statutory limit.
After passage of the Vacancies Reform Act, we, together with the executive
branch, developed a form, "Submission Under the Federal Vacancies Reform
Act," which the White House instructed agencies to use beginning July 1999
to notify Congress and us of the reportable events under the Vacancies
Reform Act. We maintain a computerized tracking system to collect and
analyze data submitted by agencies.^10 We receive agencies' reports and
enter the data in our tracking system.
^10 [40]http://www.gao.gov/legal.htm .
Due to Relatively High Attrition Rates among Transportation Security Officers,
DHS Attrition Rates Were Higher Than Other Cabinet-Level Departments for Fiscal
Years 2005 and 2006
The attrition rate for permanent non-senior-level employees decreased from
fiscal years 2005 to 2006, but was higher than other cabinet level
departments in both years. The higher attrition rate among permanent
non-senior-level employees was largely due to the attrition of TSA
Transportation Security Officers (TSO). The attrition rate for
senior-level employees--those in SES or presidentially appointed
positions--was higher than the average senior-level attrition rate for all
cabinet-level departments, but was not the highest rate of all
departments. DHS reported that there is rarely great difficulty in finding
senior executive service personnel with the skills and qualifications
needed to fill vacant positions. DHS and some of its components use
attrition and exit survey data for workforce planning.
DHS's Attrition Rate Affected by Attrition among TSA's Transportation Security
Officers
An analysis of quarterly CPDF data for fiscal years 2005 and 2006
indicated that the attrition rate for DHS non-senior-level permanent
employees declined from 8.4 percent in 2005 to 7.1 percent in 2006 (see
fig. 2). However, both years' rates were higher than the average for all
cabinet-level executive agencies of 4.0 percent in 2005 and 3.9 percent in
2006. (For purposes of our analysis, we restricted our definition of
attrition to include permanent employees working either full- or part-time
who left via resignation or transfer to another department.)
Within DHS, attrition by TSOs employed at TSA contributed significantly to
the overall DHS attrition rate, with rates of 17.6 percent in 2005 and
14.6 percent in 2006 (see fig. 2). When we excluded TSOs, who represented
35.8 percent of DHS's permanent employees in 2005 and 34.0 percent in
2006, from DHS's overall attrition rate, the resulting attrition rate for
DHS was 3.3 percent for both years. This attrition rate was lower than the
average for all cabinet-level departments. Additional details about
attrition at all cabinet-level departments for fiscal years 2005 and 2006
are provided in appendix III, table 9.
Figure 2: Comparison of DHS Attrition with Other Cabinet-Level Agencies on
a Quarterly Basis during Fiscal Years 2005 & 2006
Figure 3 and table 10 in appendix III provide additional detail about
attrition at DHS component agencies for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
Figure 3: Attrition at DHS Component Agencies during Fiscal Years 2005 &
2006
Though DHS Senior-Level Attrition Decreased between Fiscal Years 2005-2006, the
Rate Was More Than Twice the Federal Average
DHS senior-level attrition rates were higher in fiscal years 2005 and 2006
than the average for all cabinet-level departments though some departments
had higher attrition. The DHS attrition rate for senior-level employees
was 14.5 percent in fiscal year 2005 and 12.8 percent in fiscal year 2006,
while the average for all cabinet-level departments was 7 percent and 6
percent, respectively (see fig. 4). For the purposes of this engagement,
we defined senior-level personnel as those in presidentially-appointed
positions and employees in the SES. According to DHS, as of March 30,
2007, it (excluding TSA) had 24 presidential appointments (4 vacant) and
489 SES positions (111 vacant).^11 In addition, TSA had 1 presidential
appointment (0 vacant) and 155 Transportation SES^12 positions (16
vacant). Table 11 in appendix III provides additional detail about
senior-level attrition at cabinet-level departments for fiscal years 2005
and 2006.
^11 Seventy-three of the SES positions were new allocations effective
March 2007.
Figure 4: Senior-Level Attrition at Cabinet-Level Departments during
Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006
We also analyzed senior-level attrition within DHS and found that
Headquarters, TSA, and FEMA had the highest attrition at the senior-level.
Over the 2-year period, DHS Headquarters experienced a turnover of more
than half its senior employees through resignation or transfer to another
executive branch department (17 of 62 individuals in 2005 and 19 of 56 in
2006).^13 TSA's turnover was 25 of 160 individuals in 2005 and 21 of 145
in 2006; and FEMA lost 4 of 34 individuals in 2005 and 7 of 34 in 2006.
Appendix III, table 12, provides additional detail about senior-level
attrition at DHS component agencies for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
^12 The Transportation SES is the pay plan TSA has for its senior
executives. It provides higher pay levels than the governmentwide SES pay
plan.
Few DHS Component Agencies Reported "Great" Challenges to Filling SES Vacancies
In response to our survey, few DHS component agency officials reported
significant challenges to filling SES vacancies. Of four categories
(limited number of applicants with the necessary leadership skills,
limited number of applicants with the necessary technical skills, SES
staffing/hiring process, and OPM 90-day quality review board process), the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office reported that the limited number of
applicants with the necessary technical skills was a "great" or "very
great" challenge to filling vacant SES positions. FEMA reported that the
SES staffing and hiring process was a "great" or "very great" challenge to
filling vacant SES positions. Further, CBP and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement reported that the OPM 90-day qualifications review board
process was a "great" or "very great" challenge to filling vacant SES
positions. All other agencies reported that these four categories posed no
challenge, slight challenge, or moderate challenge to filling vacancies.
Additionally, no agency reported that a limited number of applicants with
the necessary leadership skills was a "great" or "very great" challenge to
filling vacant SES positions (see table 1).
^13Two other offices experienced a similar turnover. US-VISIT lost 3 of 9
senior-level employees in 2005 and 1 of 6 in 2006; the Office of the
Undersecretary for Science and Technology lost 3 of 10 in 2005 and 4 of 8
in 2006.
Table 1: SES Survey Responses on Challenges Faced in Filling SES
Positions, by Type of Challenge
Limited number Limited number
of applicants of applicants
with the with the OPM 90-day
Level of necessary necessary SES qualifications
challenge leadership technical staffing/hiring review board
reported skills skills process process
Not a Federal Law Federal Law Federal Law DHS
challenge Enforcement Enforcement Enforcement Headquarters
Training Center Training Center Training Center
Domestic
Office of Office of the Office of Nuclear
Intelligence Inspector General Counsel Detection
Analysis General Office
Office of the
Office of the Office of Inspector Federal Law
Inspector Operations General Enforcement
General Training
Science and Office of Center
Office of Technology Operations
Operations Directorate Office of
Office of General
Science and U.S. Coast Preparedness Counsel
Technology Guard
Directorate Transportation Office of
Security Operations
Transportation Administration
Security Science and
Administration U.S. Secret Technology
Service Directorate
U.S. Coast
Guard Transportation
Security
Administration
US-VISIT
Slight or CBP CBP DHS Headquarters Federal
moderate Emergency
challenge DHS DHS Domestic Nuclear Management
Headquarters Headquarters Detection Office Agency
Domestic Federal Office of Office of
Nuclear Emergency Intelligence Intelligence
Detection Management Analysis Analysis
Office Agency
U.S. Coast Guard Office of the
Federal U.S. Inspector
Emergency Immigration and U.S. Citizenship General
Management Customs and Immigration
Agency Enforcement Enforcement Office of
Preparedness
U.S. Office of CBP
Immigration and General Counsel U.S. Coast
Customs U.S. Immigration Guard
Enforcement Office of and Customs
Intelligence Enforcement U.S.
Office of Analysis Citizenship
General Counsel US-VISIT and
Office of Immigration
Office of Preparedness Science and Service
Preparedness Technology
Transportation Directorate
U.S. Security
Citizenship and Administration
Immigration
Service U.S.
Citizenship and
U.S. Secret Immigration
Service Service
U.S. Secret
Service
Great or None Domestic FEMA CBP
very great Nuclear
challenge Detection U.S.
Office Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
DHS and Several Component Agencies Analyze Attrition Data and Most Components
Administer Exit Surveys to Assist with Workforce Planning
DHS reported to us that it maintains and tracks attrition data for
workforce monitoring and planning on agencywide and component-specific
bases. The data that DHS maintains include breakdowns by separation type,
average age, grade, gender, minority status, disability status, and other
categories used to better understand attrition departmentwide. DHS
provided its 2005-2008 Workforce Plan, which has information on succession
planning by component. DHS also reported that it has a Workforce Planning
Council that uses attrition data for various metrics including as a
primary mechanism with regard to the President's Management Agenda.^14 In
addition, several components--U.S. Coast Guard, CBP, Citizenship and
Immigration Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, TSA, the
Preparedness Directorate, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Secret
Service, and FEMA--reported that they separately assess attrition for
their workforces.
As we have reported, workforce planning is a key component to maintaining
a workforce that can accomplish its mission.^15 Strategic workforce
planning focuses on developing and implementing the long-term
strategies--clearly linked to an organization's mission and programmatic
goals--for acquiring, developing, and retaining employees. Collecting data
on attrition rates and the reasons for attrition are important to
workforce planning. These data can be analyzed to identify gaps between an
organization's current and future workforce needs, which can in turn
become the basis for developing strategies to build a workforce that meets
future needs.
We also reported that, in addition to attrition data, collecting
information on why employees leave is useful for workforce planning.^16 As
we have noted, collection and analysis of data on the reasons for
attrition (the type of information collected through exit surveys) could
help agencies minimize the lost investment in training, particularly when
new employees resign.
^14 The President's Management Agenda consists of five initiatives with
the purpose of "improving the management and performance of the federal
government."
^15 GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce
Planning, [41]GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: December 2003).
^16 GAO, Veterans Benefits Administration: Better Staff Attrition Data and
Analysis Needed, [42]GAO-03-452T (Washington, D.C.: February 2003).
One approach to collecting such data is through exit surveys of employees
who leave the agency. Of DHS's components, 7 currently use independently
developed exit surveys; 4 use an exit survey developed by DHS's Chief
Human Capital Office (CHCO); 1 component has an exit survey under
development; and 1 does not use an exit survey. The seven components
currently administering their own exit surveys are:
o FEMA;
o Office of the Inspector General;
o TSA;
o U.S. Coast Guard;
o CBP
o U.S. Secret Service; and
o U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The four components using the exit survey developed by CHCO are:
o DHS Headquarters;
o Domestic Nuclear Detection Office;
o Science and Technology Directorate; and
o US-VISIT.
An exit survey is under development at the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service does not use
an exit survey. In general, the exit surveys request title, tenure, grade,
race/ethnicity, type of separation (e.g., voluntary, involuntary,
retirement, etc.), reason for leaving, and future intentions for
employment.
DHS components are not currently required to report any information
obtained from their exit surveys to DHS Headquarters. DHS officials in
CHCO told us that they were evaluating whether to have all components use
a single agencywide survey or to require all components to report certain
information about departed employees to headquarters through a required
report. The officials stated that they are developing a required report
that components could populate with exit survey information that will be
rolled out in the first quarter of fiscal year 2008. Officials noted that
the components each have unique circumstances and it might be more
effective to allow them to continue to use their own surveys, reporting
certain common elements to DHS through the required report.
DHS Makes Use of Various Human Capital Flexibilities for Recruitment and
Retention and Most Officials We Surveyed Rated Them as "Very Effective"
In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, DHS made use of various human capital
flexibilities that the federal government has implemented over recent
years to recruit and retain employees. Individual and group cash awards
and the FCIP were used most frequently. Most DHS component officials we
surveyed rated the flexibilities we reviewed as very effective for
recruitment and retention and reported a desire to make greater use of
flexibilities (see app. IV for more information). DHS is developing plans
to advance its use of human capital flexibilities.
DHS Uses Various Human Capital Flexibilities
In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, DHS made use of various human capital
flexibilities that are available to federal agencies. We have previously
reported that the effective, efficient, and transparent use of human
capital flexibilities must be a key component of agency efforts to address
human capital challenges.^17 To help agencies use flexibilities to address
human capital challenges such as recruitment and retention, OPM has
developed a handbook describing the available human capital flexibilities.
For purposes of this report, we did not examine all human capital
flexibilities available to DHS, which are reflected in the OPM handbook.
Rather, we examined the flexibilities reported in the CPDF (which includes
a record of each time an agency uses these flexibilities). Additionally,
for the purposes of this report, we established three categories for the
flexibilities we examined; (1) flexibilities involving DHS's recruitment
of new employees, (2) flexibilities involving DHS's retention of current
employees, and (3) flexibilities involving recruitment of new employees
and/or retention of current employees. Tables 2, 3, and 4 describe the
relevant flexibilities.
^17 GAO, Human Capital: Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies
in Managing their Workforces, [43]GAO-03-2 (Washington, D.C.: December
2002).
Table 2: Flexibilities Involving DHS's Recruitment of New Employees
Recruitment incentive A monetary payment to a newly-hired employee
when the agency has determined that the position
is likely to be difficult to fill in the absence
of such an incentive. In return, the employee
must sign an agreement to fulfill a period of
service with the agency of not less than 6
months and not more than 4 years.
Direct hire authority A special authority that expedites hiring by
eliminating competitive rating and ranking,
veterans' preference, and "rule of three"
procedures.
Veterans recruitment A special authority that expedites hiring by
authority allowing an agency to appoint an eligible
veteran without competition.
Student career experience Provides federal employment opportunities to
programs students who are enrolled or accepted for
enrollment as degree seeking students taking at
least a half time course load. Provides work
experience, which is directly related to the
student's academic program and career goals.
Students may be noncompetitively converted to
term, career, or career-conditional appointments
following completion of their academic and work
experience requirements.
Federal Career Intern Typically individuals are appointed to a 2-year
Program internship. Upon successful completion of the
internships, the interns may be noncompetitively
converted to a permanent position. This program
is for applicants placed into a 2-year training
program whether or not the applicant was
enrolled in an educational institution at the
time of application.
Superior Qualifications A rate of basic pay for a newly-hired employee
Rate at a rate above the minimum rate of the
appropriate GS grade because of (1) the superior
qualifications of the candidate or (2) a special
need of the agency for the candidate's services.
Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
Table 3: Flexibilities Involving DHS's Retention of Employees
Quality step increase A step increase to reward General Schedule
employees at all grade levels who display
high quality performance. It is a step
increase that is given sooner than the
normal time interval for step increases.
Individual and group cash award A monetary award to recognize superior
employee and group performance (also known
as "spot" awards).
Individual and group A monetary award for suggestions,
suggestion/Invention award inventions, or a productivity gain.
Individual and group time-off An award of time-off to recognize superior
award employee and group performance.
Retention incentive A monetary payment given to a current
employee when the agency determines that
the unusually high or unique
qualifications of the employee or a
special need of the agency for the
employee's services makes it essential to
retain the employee and if the employee
would be likely to leave the federal
service in the absence of a retention
incentive.
Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
Table 4: Flexibilities Involving DHS's Retention of Employees and/or
Recruitment of New Employees
Special Rate or Critical A special rate is a rate of basic pay for
Position Pay employees in hard to fill or retain occupations
nationwide or in specific locations. Critical
position pay is a rate of pay greater than would
otherwise be payable for the employee's position
because the position has been designated
critical.
Student Loan Repayment The federal student loan repayment program
permits agencies to repay federally insured
student loans as a recruitment or retention
incentive for candidates or current employees of
the agency.
Foreign Language Award A monetary award paid as a recruitment or
retention incentive for law enforcement agents
with foreign language skills.
Relocation Incentive A monetary payment to a current employee who must
relocate to a position in a different geographic
area that is likely to be difficult to fill in
the absence of such an incentive. In return, the
employee must sign an agreement to fulfill a
period of service of not more than 4 years with
the agency
Reemployed annuitant A waiver given to rehired retired federal
waiver employees that exempts them from the offset or
loss of their pension in order to meet temporary
emergency hiring needs or when the agency has
encountered exceptional difficulty in recruiting
or retaining a qualified candidate for a
particular position.
Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
Our analysis of CPDF data indicated that in fiscal years 2005 and 2006,
DHS made use of all the flexibilities we reviewed, with the exception of
student loan repayments. However, data maintained by DHS officials
indicated that DHS used the student loan repayment 18 times in 2005 and 13
times in 2006.^18 Officials from seven component offices told us that they
would have liked to use the student loan repayment, but were unable to do
so for reasons such as a lack of funding, not having written policies and
procedures in place to enable them to use student loan repayments, or
managers not being aware of the flexibility. (See app. IV, tables 13 and
14, for more detail on DHS's use of flexibilities in fiscal years 2005 and
2006. See app. IV, table 21, for component responses regarding which
flexibilities they would have liked to have used more often and why they
did not use them.)
^18 We did not find instances of DHS's use of student loan repayments in
the CPDF because they had invalid CPDF codes, which prevented us from
counting them as permanent employees; we reviewed the use of flexibilities
for permanent employees only.
DHS Most Frequently Used Individual and Group Cash Awards and the Federal Career
Intern Program
Awards Used as Retention Tools
Our analysis of DHS's use of retention flexibilities indicated that in
fiscal years 2005 and 2006, DHS used individual and group cash awards more
often than other flexibilities involving retention, though components
differed as to how frequently they used awards. The rate at which DHS used
these flexibilities increased from 2005 to 2006. Specifically, in fiscal
year 2005, DHS gave individual or group cash awards about 62 times per 100
permanent employees. In fiscal year 2006, the cash award rate more than
doubled to 161 awards per 100 permanent employees (see table 5). In
comparison, the median rate for all executive departments was 83 awards
per 100 permanent employees (see app. IV, table 19).
Table 5: Number of Times DHS Used Flexibilities Related to Retention per
100 Permanent Employees
Individual Individual and
Individual and Group Group
and Group Time-off Suggestion QualityStep
Cash Award Award Award Increase RetentionIncentive
Fiscal 62.46 24.42 0.02 0.81 0.16
year
2005
Fiscal 161.40 20.08 0.01 0.66 0.93
year
2006
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Between fiscal years 2005 and 2006, 7 of 13 components increased the
frequency at which they gave individual and group cash awards per 100
permanent employees, 3 gave approximately the same number of awards, and 3
decreased the rate of awards (see fig. 5). TSA, in particular, greatly
increased the rate at which it gave individual and group cash awards,
making about 98 awards per 100 permanent employees in fiscal year 2005 and
about 301 per 100 in fiscal year 2006.^19 The median award amount for
individual and group cash awards for all of DHS in fiscal year 2006 was
$500. The median amounts awarded ranged from a low at TSA of $400 to a
high of $2,250 at US-VISIT. For additional information regarding DHS's use
of human capital flexibilities for permanent employees see appendix IV,
tables 15, 17, and 19.
^19 The increase in individual and group cash awards by TSA could be
related to their plan to give most TSO's a cash bonus from April through
October of 2006.
Figure 5: Frequency with Which DHS Components Used Individual or Group
Cash Awards per 100 Employees during Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006
Note: We counted only one award per day, per person for each type of
award; some unknown number of employees might have received more than one
award per day, per type.
Federal Career Intern Program Used as Recruitment Tool
Our analysis of DHS's use of recruitment flexibilities showed that in
fiscal years 2005 and 2006, DHS used the FCIP more than any other as a
recruitment tool, as compared to the number of new permanent hires. This
program is for applicants placed into a 2-year training program whether or
not the applicant was enrolled in an educational institution at the time
of application. Upon completion of the internship, the interns may be
noncompetitively converted to a permanent position. DHS's use of FCIP
increased from 15.5 percent of new hires in 2005 to 22.5 percent of new
hires in 2006 (see table 6).
Table 6: Percent of New Permanent Hires for Which DHS Used Flexibilities
Related to Recruitment
Direct
Hire Recruitment Superior VeteransRecruitment
Authority FCIP Incentive SCEP Qualifications Authority
Fiscal 0.94 15.51 0.49 0.30 1.20 0.49
year
2005
Fiscal 0.79 22.48 0.10 0.41 1.04 0.35
year
2006
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Though for all of DHS FCIP was the most frequently used human capital
flexibility related to recruitment, only 4 of 13 components accounted for
over 99 percent of FCIP use in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. In particular,
CBP used FCIP for about 80 percent of new permanent hires in fiscal year
2005 and 87 percent in 2006, and ICE used FCIP for about 28 percent of new
hires in fiscal year 2005 and 50 percent in fiscal year 2006 (see fig. 6).
According to DHS officials the FCIP is uniquely situated to positions with
high training requirements. Such positions include CBP border patrol
agents and ICE immigration enforcement agents.
Figure 6: Percent of New Hires for Which DHS Components Used FCIP
For additional information regarding DHS's use of human capital
flexibilities compared to the number of permanent new hires, see appendix
IV, tables 16, 18, and 20.
Most DHS Components Rated Human Capital Flexibilities as "Very Effective" for
Recruitment and Retention and Reported Interest in Making Greater Use of Human
Capital Flexibilities
In response to our survey, DHS human capital officials at all of the 14
components^20 rated the majority of the flexibilities their components
used as "very effective" for purposes of recruitment and officials at 10
of the 14 components rated the majority of flexibilities used as "very
effective" for purposes of retention. Analysis of their survey responses
indicated that they found the use of superior qualifications pay most
effective for recruiting new employees, and quality step increases,
retention incentives, and individual and group cash awards most effective
for retaining employees. (See app. IV, figs. 7 and 8, for the components'
responses regarding the effectiveness of human capital flexibilities.)
Officials at 12 of the 14 components told us that there were instances in
2005 when they would have liked to make greater use of human capital
flexibilities. They cited a lack of funding and/or federal rules and
regulations regarding specific flexibilities as the primary reasons for
not using them more often. For example, officials from TSA, the U.S.
Secret Service, ICE, U.S. Coast Guard, and US-VISIT, said there were
instances in fiscal year 2005 when they would have liked to use student
loan repayments, but that they lacked the necessary funding to do so. We
did not assess the adequacy of funding levels. There were also instances
in fiscal year 2005 when officials from FLETC, the U.S. Coast Guard, ICE,
U.S. Secret Service, US-VISIT, FEMA, and DHS Headquarters and the
Management Directorate said they would have liked to use the direct hire
authority, but were prevented from doing so by federal rules that limited
the job series for which they could use direct hire authority. See
appendix IV, table 21, for the components' responses regarding which
flexibilities they would have liked to use more often.
DHS Plans to Enhance the Use of Some Human Capital Flexibilities in Order to
Improve Recruitment and Retention
DHS has plans to enhance the use of some human capital flexibilities as
part of its effort to meet strategic human capital goals, such as
improving the hiring process and implementing robust human capital
programs. For example, to improve DHS-wide hiring practices, DHS plans to
develop education and communication tools to promote hiring flexibilities
and contemporary hiring processes for human resource professionals and
managers by July 31, 2007. Also, as part of a DHS-wide retention
initiative, DHS intends to communicate and educate human resource
professionals and managers on the use of retention incentives and
work-life programs by July 31, 2007. By August 31, 2007, DHS intends to
use the FCIP in occupations such as finance, human resource and
acquisitions, as part of its efforts to create learning and development
programs for DHS employees.
^20 For purposes of the GAO survey on flexibilities, we collected data
separately for DHS Headquarters and the Management Directorate; however,
the CPDF captures data for these two organizational components together as
DHS Headquarters. As a result, our survey data reflect 14 components and
the CPDF data reflect 13 components.
At TSA, where, as we have reported, the highest rates of attrition have
occurred, other efforts are under way to enhance retention. For example,
in August 2006, TSA began implementing a Career Progression Program for
TSOs. The program includes new pay bands in an attempt to broaden career
opportunities for Security Officers. According to TSA, the purpose of the
Career Progression Program is to (1) ensure increased focus on technical
proficiency; (2) establish career path options for TSO's for recruiting
and retention improvement; and (3) enhance motivation of employees,
leading to improved morale, attendance, and performance.
DHS IPAs and Personal Services Contracts Were in Place Primarily for Program
Managers and Subject Matter Experts
Distribution of IPAs and Personal Services Contracts
As of September 30, 2006, a total of 36 IPA agreements were in place at
DHS--roughly half (17) located in DHS's Science and Technology Directorate
(S&T). In addition, 61 personal services contracts were in place, with
most in CBP (36) and U.S. Coast Guard (24). Tables 7 and 8 show the
distribution of IPAs and personal services contracts in these and other
components.
Table 7: IPA Agreements in DHS as of September 30, 2006
Component or office Total numberof agreements
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office 4
Office of Intelligence Analysis 2
Office of Policy 1
Office of Preparedness 11
Science and Technology Directorate 17
CBP 1
Total 36
Source: DHS.
Table 8: Personal Services Contracts in DHS as of September 30, 2006
Component or office Total numberof contracts
Office of Preparedness 1
CBP 36
U.S. Coast Guard 24
Total 61
Source: DHS.
Intergovernmental Personnel Act
The IPA is designed to facilitate the temporary hiring of skilled
personnel or specialists to and from federal entities, state and local
governments, colleges and universities, Indian tribal governments, and
other eligible organizations. Such assignments may be used to achieve
objectives such as assisting the transfer and use of new technologies by
the federal government. DHS retains individuals through IPAs under a
2-year agreement that can be renewed once for 2 additional years,
consistent with OPM regulations.
Personal Services Contracts
Federal agencies are normally required to obtain employees through
competitive appointment or other procedures established in the civil
service laws. However, certain agencies have specific statutory authority
to utilize personal services contracts, which create an employer-employee
relationship between the agency and the contactor's personnel. These
agencies are prohibited from awarding a personal services contract for
inherently governmental functions. Under DHS policy, obtaining personal
services by contract is possible, provided the duties are of a temporary
nature or in response to an urgent need and if DHS personnel with
necessary skills are not available, the contract will not fill a staffing
shortage, an excepted appointment cannot be obtained, and a non-personal
services contract is not practicable.
Most IPA individuals at DHS working in S&T were performing program manager
functions and duties. For example, a program manager in one DHS office had
responsibility for strategic, technical resource planning and execution of
short and long range programmatic goals, as well as the evaluation of
emerging technologies for potential insertion into assigned programs. A
review of the DHS justifications for hiring these individuals indicated
that they were considered to have senior technical, management, and
operational expertise--qualifications considered essential for effective
operations. The home organization or institutions of many of the
individuals working at S&T were national laboratories and universities.
See appendix V, table 22, for additional details.
Over half of the personal services contracts at DHS were located in CBP,
to contract with individuals for personal services abroad. CBP entered
into these contracts for a variety of services such as to validate
security compliance for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
program and for technical advisor services in a number of overseas
locations. The remaining personal services contracts were located mostly
at the U.S. Coast Guard for a variety of medical services; with one
additional personal services contract entered into by DHS HQ for a
procurement analyst in the Office of Preparedness. (See app. V, table 23,
for additional details.)
Salary Ranges for IPAs and Contract Value for Personal Services Contracts
Salaries for IPAs across all DHS components, as of the end of fiscal year
2006, ranged from $48,000 to $248,000.^21 The median salary of IPAs was
$133,540.
For personal services contracts, individual contract costs ranged from
$315 for 1 contract for laboratory testing services to a total of $20.9
million for 6 contracts for dental and other medical services. DHS
officials noted that the contract value amounts represent total contract
obligations and may reflect more than the salaries paid to individuals for
services. See appendix V, table 23, for additional details.
^21 In comparison, the basic pay rate for members of the SES in 2006
ranged from $109,808 to $165,200, depending on the agency.
Authorities for IPAs and Personal Services Contracts
DHS has the authority to arrange the assignment of an employee of a state
or local government to DHS for work of mutual concern to DHS and the state
or local government.^22 OPM provides agencies with guidance on IPAs that
sets out the requirements for certification of the eligibility of
participating organizations, requires a written agreement between all
parties before an assignment can begin, and requires reporting of
information requested by OPM.^23
According to DHS officials, an ethics review is required for every IPA
agreement, which includes filing a confidential or public financial
disclosure report. In August 2006, the Office of Government Ethics
published a final rule clarifying that assignees to an agency from a
state, local government, or other organization under the IPA are covered
by the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch Employees.
We discussed with DHS management controls, including policies and
procedures in place to guard against conflict of interest. By law, any IPA
individual on assignment to a federal agency, whether by appointment or on
detail, is subject to a number of provisions governing the ethical and
other conduct of federal employees. Officials told us that a DHS
agency-wide policy to ensure the appropriateness of these agreements was
awaiting final approval as of July 2007. They said the draft policy
requires a conflict of interest briefing, completion of a financial
disclosure form, and attendance at a required ethics briefing. The draft
DHS-wide policy further states that a DHS designated agency ethics
official and ethics officials of component chief counsel offices provide
incoming IPA assignees with an ethics briefing on the conflict of
interests statutes, the ethical standards of conduct, and the Hatch Act to
which individuals will be subject upon their assignment.^24
In the meantime, DHS implemented a draft management directive to establish
the agency's policy on temporary assignments of personnel between the
federal government and state or local governments, institutions of higher
education, Indian tribal governments, and other eligible organizations
under the IPA program. The directive applies to all DHS components. DHS
officials noted that every IPA agreement is reviewed by the specific
office or component hiring the individual. DHS officials also noted that
because S&T seeks IPA individuals with subject matter expertise and highly
specialized skills in very specific areas, it developed more detailed
guidance for its management officials effective May 2007. In a past GAO
report, we reported on our examination of management controls established
within S&T to help guard against conflicts of interest for IPA portfolio
managers, since a portion of S&T research funds have gone to the national
laboratories.^25
22 5 U.S.C. SS 3371-76.
^23 5 C.F.R. pt. 334.
^24 The Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. SS 7321-6, generally prohibits executive
branch employees from running as candidates for election to a partisan
political office; soliciting, accepting, or receiving political
contributions; and engaging in political activities while on duty.
DHS was given personal services contracting authority in the Homeland
Security Act (HSA).^26 With the exception of TSA, all DHS components are
subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the Homeland Security
Acquisition Regulation, and the Homeland Security Acquisition Manual,
which provide guidance on the use of personal services contracts. TSA
retained separate authority to engage in personal services contracts that
derives from the Federal Aviation Administration's procurement
flexibilities. The FAA Acquisition Management System provides guidance on
TSA's use of personal services contracts. CBP also has specific authority
from the DHS annual appropriations acts and the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 to enter into personal services contracts outside the United
States.^27 Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. S1091, the U.S. Coast Guard is
specifically authorized to award medical personal services contracts. This
authority does not apply to DHS civilian entities.
According to DHS officials, there is no requirement that personal services
contracts be submitted to DHS headquarters for review or approval.
Instead, the contracts are negotiated and administered at the component
level. A "determination and findings" may be completed by the contracting
officer for each contract that specifies why the personal services
contract is necessary. The contracting officer assigned to oversee the
contract is responsible for reviewing the determination and findings. DHS
regulations also require a legal review of personal services contracts
that is to be performed by the components' General Counsel.
^25 GAO, Homeland Security: DHS Needs to Improve Ethics-Related Management
Controls for the Science and Technology Directorate, [44]GAO-06-206
(Washington, D.C.: December 2005).
^26 Authorization to acquire the personal services of experts and
consultants is included in section 832 of the Homeland Security Act, 6
U.S.C. S 392. This section includes authority to use personal service
contracts, including authority to contract without regard to the pay
limitation of 5 U.S.C. S 3109 when the services are necessary due to an
urgent homeland security need.
^27 22 U.S.C. S 2386.
DHS Complied with the Tenure Provisions of the Vacancies Reform Act, but Did Not
Always Comply with the Act's Reporting Requirements and Did Not Implement All
Necessary Management Controls
From its inception in March 2003 through April 2007, DHS did not violate
the Vacancies Reform Act's 210-day tenure limit for acting officials.
However, during that same period there were three occasions where DHS
violated the act's requirement to immediately report vacancies for
presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed positions to the Congress and
Comptroller General. In addition, DHS has only four of the five management
controls in place that we identified in past work as essential for
ensuring compliance with the Vacancies Reform Act.
DHS Has Complied with the 210-Day Tenure Provision of the Vacancies Reform Act
Our analysis indicated that, from its inception in March 2003 through
April 2007, DHS had complied with the 210-day tenure provision of the act.
The act limits the tenure of acting officials to 210 days. Acting
officials at DHS had filled 16 positions subject to the act; in each
instance the acting official discontinued service or the President sent a
nomination to the Senate within the required 210 days.
DHS Has Not Consistently Met Reporting Requirements of the Act
Our analysis indicated that on three separate occasions DHS did not meet
the reporting requirements of the act. The act requires agencies to
immediately report actions related to vacancies in PAS positions to the
Congress and us, so that we can monitor compliance with the tenure
provision. DHS did not comply with the reporting requirement for 3 of the
16 vacancies between March 2003 and April 2007. In 2003, DHS failed to
report a Deputy Secretary vacancy. In 2005, DHS failed to report both a
vacancy for the Assistant Secretary at ICE and a vacancy in CBP for the
Customs Commissioner. DHS complied with the tenure provisions of the act
in these three instances.
DHS Has in Place Four of Five Management Controls Necessary to Ensure Compliance
with the Vacancies Reform Act
In previous work, we identified five management controls essential to
ensure compliance with the act.^28 The five management controls are as
follows:
1. Agencies should clearly identify the offices responsible for
compliance with each requirement of the act and any other offices
that will assist by providing information.
2. Staff that play a role in compliance with the act should
communicate frequently with each other.
3. The agency should prepare and maintain a list of the first
assistants for each of its PAS positions.^29
4. Agencies should make career employees responsible for
compliance with the act.
5. Agencies should document their Vacancies Reform Act procedures.
DHS has had four of these five management controls in place. First, DHS
met the management control to clearly identify the offices responsible for
compliance with each requirement of the act. Specifically, DHS's General
Counsel officials told us that DHS has identified the Office of General
Counsel and, in particular, the General Law Division, as having sole
responsibility for DHS's compliance with the act. Second, DHS met the
management control that staff that play a role in compliance with the act
should communicate frequently with each other. For example, though
officials from the General Law division have sole responsibility for
compliance, officials told us that they also learn of relevant information
from other components on an informal basis. Additionally, General Law
Division staff have frequent contact with the DHS White House Liaison.
Third, DHS has developed lists of first assistants and DHS officials told
us that they keep the list up-to-date. Finally, DHS officials told us that
the employees doing the work associated with the act's compliance are
career employees; therefore, DHS met the fourth management control to make
career employees responsible for compliance with the act.
^28 GAO, Federal Vacancies Reform Act: Key Elements for Agency Procedures
for Complying with the Act, [45]GAO-03-806 (Washington, D.C.: July 2003).
^29 Under the Vacancies Reform Act, the first assistant becomes the acting
officer unless the President directs someone else who meets one of the
listed qualifications to serve in that role.
DHS did not meet the fifth management control of having documented
policies and procedures. According to DHS officials, DHS does not have
formally documented procedures for compliance with the Vacancies Reform
Act. We previously reported that documented procedures are a basic
management control mechanism that can help ensure that when DHS staff
attorneys responsible for ensuring DHS's compliance with the Vacancies
Reform Act leave or are reassigned; those who replace them will have
established guidelines to follow.^30 During the course of our work, DHS
did in fact reassign responsibility for the act from one attorney to
another. According to DHS officials, to prepare for this transition, an
informal outline about compliance was provided. However, formal documented
procedures rather than informal notes or outlines might better prepare a
replacement to meet the act's requirements in a timely manner.
Conclusions
In the 4 years since its creation as a cabinet-level agency, DHS has faced
significant challenges related to transforming numerous legacy agencies
and developing and implementing new strategies and programs for making the
nation more secure. We understand that this has not been an easy task, and
the challenges of recruiting, hiring, and retaining the right mix of
individuals to carry the department's mission forward has contributed to
the complexities facing DHS. Although DHS has efforts under way to attract
and retain needed resources, the agency must continue its efforts to
achieve an optimum human capital management strategy if it is to be
successful in meeting its mission and goals.
DHS staff attorneys have not used formal written guidance describing
compliance-related procedures that must be followed to meet the reporting
requirements of the Vacancies Reform Act. Such written documentation is
important for ensuring that staff attorneys and others can meet the tenure
and reporting requirements of the act in the future.
Recommendation for Executive Action
To help ensure compliance with the requirements of the Vacancies Reform
Act, we recommend that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security instruct the DHS Office of General Counsel to develop written
policies and procedures that clearly explain the duties of officials
responsible for ensuring compliance with the act and how they are to carry
out those duties.
^30 See [46]GAO-03-806 .
Agency Comments
We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS
provided written comments on July 9, 2007, which are presented in appendix
VI.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretary of Homeland Security; and other interested
parties. In additional, this report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at [47]http://www.gao.gov .
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at 202-512-2757 or [48][email protected] . Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix VII.
Robert Goldenkoff
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
For the attrition rate calculations, we analyzed data from the Office of
Personnel Management's (OPM) Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) for fiscal
years 2005 and 2006. We included personnel with database codes that:
o Identified them as permanent employees, whether full- or
part-time.
o Indicated that they had separated from their agency of
employment through resignation or transfer to another agency.
We did not include a small percentage (<1%) of individuals with
inconsistent data such as multiple separations on a single day. The small
percentage of employees with inconsistent data is congruent with the
generally reliable data in the CPDF we have reported previously. See GAO,
OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently Reliable to
Meet Most Customer Needs, [49]GAO/GGD-98-199 (Washington, D.C.: September
1998).
To calculate the rates for each fiscal year, we divided the total number
of separations from each agency or Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
component by the average of the number of permanent employees in the CPDF
as of the last pay period of the fiscal year before the fiscal year of the
separations and the number of permanent employees in the CPDF as of the
last pay period of the fiscal year of separations. To place the overall
attrition rates for DHS and its component agencies in context, we compared
DHS's rates to those for employees in other cabinet-level agencies. We did
not make judgments as to what effect, if any, the attrition of permanent
employees had on DHS.
To determine the attrition rate for senior-level employees, we analyzed
CPDF data to identify all personnel coded as presidentially appointed or
senior executive service employees. We then followed the same procedure
described above focusing on this subset of individuals. The CPDF records
actions pertaining to individuals rather than positions. As a result, it
was possible to determine senior-level attrition, but not the history of
positions. To determine the history of positions (when vacant and filled),
we obtained monthly hardcopy printouts from DHS's Senior Executive
Resources Database (August 2005-February 2007). The usefulness of the DHS
data was limited in that position titles and organizational components
within DHS and its component agencies changed frequently, making it
impossible to accurately follow the status of all positions over time and
we did not assess its reliability. As a result, we were unable to use
these data and, therefore, unable to report on the history of vacancies in
specific senior-level positions.
To obtain information on possible challenges that DHS might face in
filling senior-level vacancies at the Senior Executive Service (SES)
level, for this engagement we developed a self-report telephone survey and
administered it to human capital officials from DHS headquarters and each
component. We also spoke with DHS and component officials to determine
what guidance they used in filling SES positions and what efforts they
made to determine why individuals leave. Since presidential appointments
are not made by DHS, we did not speak with DHS officials with regard to
how these appointments are filled, or any related challenges. We did not
make judgments as to how senior-level attrition or challenges in filling
SES positions might affect DHS; assess the adequacy of the data that DHS
and its components collect on attrition and the reasons for attrition; or
the use of it in resulting workforce planning efforts. We did not assess
the factors that account for the differences between the rates of
attrition among DHS components or between the rates of attrition at DHS
and other cabinet-level departments; some rates might be due to factors
beyond the control of DHS or its components.
To gather information on DHS's use of human capital flexibilities, as well
as that of other cabinet-level departments, we first developed a list of
flexibilities by reviewing past GAO reports, OPM documentation, and the
CPDF. We used CPDF data to calculate the number of occasions on which
these flexibilities were administered in fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
Specifically, we compared the number of times DHS used individual and
group cash awards; individual and group time-off awards; individual and
group suggestion/invention awards; quality step increases; and retention
incentives, to the number of permanent employees at DHS. We also compared
the number of times DHS used direct hire authority, FCIP, recruitment
incentive, Student Career Experience Program, superior qualifications rate
and veterans' recruitment authority to the number of new permanent hires.
In addition, we reviewed the number of times DHS used relocation
incentives, special rate or critical position pay, student loan repayment,
and foreign language award. We also compared DHS's use of flexibilities to
other federal agencies. Finally, we developed a self-report telephone
survey and administered it to DHS headquarters' and components' officials,
to gather information on the use and perceived effectiveness of the
flexibilities, as well as information on possible impediments to increased
use. We did not assess whether DHS used flexibilities appropriately or
not. Additionally, we did not make judgments as to how the use or non-use
of human capital flexibilities might affect DHS or assess the
appropriateness of DHS's use of any specific human capital flexibilities,
the reasons officials provided for using or not using them, or the
appropriateness of OPM's rules. We did not assess the factors that account
for the differences between the rates that DHS components used
flexibilities or between the rates DHS and other cabinet-level departments
used flexibilities; some rates might be due to factors beyond the control
of DHS or its components.
We believe that the CPDF data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of this study. Regarding the CPDF, we have previously reported that
governmentwide data from the CPDF for most of the key variables used in
this study were 97 percent or more accurate.^1 For other variables used in
this study, we have tested CPDF data and found them sufficiently reliable
to indicate the extent of occurrence.
To gather information on how and to what extent DHS utilizes the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA), we met with officials in the
following DHS headquarters' offices: Human Capital and General Counsel. We
reviewed data provided to us by DHS for IPAs in place throughout DHS as of
September 30, 2006. We also obtained and reviewed relevant policies and
procedures related to IPAs, including those related to internal controls
over such arrangements. We did not evaluate the appropriateness of the
individual IPA arrangements or the effectiveness of related management
controls and we did not make judgments regarding how the use of IPA's
might affect DHS.
To gather information on how and to what extent DHS utilizes personal
services contracts, we met with officials in DHS Headquarters Chief
Procurement Office. We requested and reviewed data pertaining to all
personal services contracts in place throughout DHS as of September 30,
2006. We reviewed documents provided to us by DHS for personal services
contracts, including those related to internal controls over such
contractual arrangements. We did not evaluate the appropriateness of these
contractual arrangements or the effectiveness of related management
controls and we did not make judgments regarding how the use of personal
service contracts might affect DHS.
We assessed the reliability of information supplied pertaining to IPA
agreements and personal services contracts by interviewing agency
officials knowledgeable about the data, and determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
^1 GAO, OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data Appears Sufficiently
Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs, [50]GAO/GGD-98-199 (Washington,
D.C.: September 1998).
To determine DHS compliance with the Vacancies Reform Act, we reviewed the
act and reviewed information contained in our Executive Vacancy Database.
Additionally, to resolve possible discrepancies between information
maintained by DHS and information in our database, we met with DHS
officials to discuss how DHS collects and verifies the accuracy of data
that it sends to us, for inclusion in the Executive Vacancy Database. We
also discussed with officials what management controls are in place to
ensure compliance with the Vacancies Reform Act.
We performed our work from September 2006 to June 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: DHS Component Agencies
Within OPM's Central Personnel Data File, the following were listed as
component agencies of DHS, as of September 30, 2006:
o DHS Headquarters
o U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
o U.S. Customs and Border Protection
o U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
o Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
o Federal Emergency Management Agency
o Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
o Office of the Inspector General
o Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology
o Transportation Security Administration
o U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology
o U.S. Coast Guard
o U.S. Secret Service
The following were identified as components of DHS Headquarters within
CPDF:
o Assistant General Counsel Border and Transportation Security
o Assistant General Counsel Emergency Preparedness & Response
o Assistant General Counsel for Rules and Administration
o Assistant General Counsel General Law
o Assistant General Counsel Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection
o Assistant General Counsel Science and Technology
o Board for Correction and Military Record
o Chief of Staff
o Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
o Deputy Chief for Intelligence
o Deputy Chief for Security Programs
o Deputy Chief of Intelligence
o Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
o Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
o DHS Headquarters
o Director Counternarcotics/USIC
o Director of Communications
o Director of Communications and Outreach
o Director of Internal Communications and Outreach
o Director of Legislative Operations/Management
o Director of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
o Director of Speechwriting
o Director, Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement
o Executive Secretariat
o General Counsel Emergency Preparedness & Response
o Homeland Security Advisory Committee
o Homeland Security Labor Relations Board
o Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary
o Immediate Office of the Secretary
o Incident Management Division
o National Capital Region Coordination
o National Programs Division
o Office for Domestic Preparedness
o Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
o Office of General Counsel
o Office of International Affairs
o Office of Legislative Affairs
o Office of Operational Integration Staff
o Office of Public Affairs
o Office of Security
o Office of State and Local Affairs
o Office of State and Local Government Coordination
o Office of the Chief of Staff
o Office of the Director
o Office of the Privacy Officer
o Office of the Secretary
o Operations and Response Division
o Plans and Regional Policy Division
o Preparedness Division
o Press Secretary
o Resources and Requirements Division
o Senior Attorney Board for Correction and Military Record
o Shared Services
o Special Assistant to the Secretary-Private Sector
o State and Local Grant Division
o System Support Division
o Training Division
Appendix III: Attrition
The following tables relate to attrition at cabinet-level departments,
including DHS, and DHS component agencies. For this report, attrition is
defined as resignation or transfer from the department of employment.
Rates were calculated by dividing the sum of the resignations and
transfers for a given year by the mean number of employees on the first
and last day of that fiscal year.
Table 9: Non-senior-level Attrition at Cabinet-Level Agencies, Fiscal
Years 2005 & 2006
Fiscal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006
Cabinet-Level Attrition Attrition
Agency rate Population Resignations Transfers rate Population Resignations Transfers
All
cabinet-level
agencies 4.0% 1,551,333 45,019 16,647 3.9% 1,550,721 45,200 15,827
Department of
Agriculture 3.0% 90,113 1,865 831 3.3% 88,356 1,976 913
Department of
Commerce 5.3% 35,495 1,496 394 7.1% 37,727 2,281 396
Department of
Defense 3.7% 626,759 13,939 9,511 3.7% 632,459 14,823 8,882
Department of
Justice 2.4% 100,920 1,795 650 2.5% 102,406 1,844 681
Department of
Labor 3.0% 15,116 295 165 3.6% 14,828 350 185
Department of
Energy 2.1% 14,291 175 132 2.5% 14,202 194 164
Department of
Education 3.7% 4,012 80 68 4.3% 3,883 95 72
Department of
Health and
Human Services 2.3% 52,112 1,036 176 2.5% 52,850 1,110 201
Department of
Homeland
Security 8.4% 136,951 9,697 1,791 7.1% 138,037 8,353 1,507
Department of
Housing and
Urban
Development 2.1% 9,696 111 96 1.9% 9,489 93 83
Department of
Interior 3.5% 60,460 1,348 784 3.7% 59,001 1,422 737
Department of
State 3.5% 18,249 412 222 3.5% 12,992 270 182
Department of
Transportation 1.4% 54,468 423 314 1.4% 52,649 495 268
Department of
Treasury 4.8% 118,827 5,014 644 4.4% 114,555 4,397 642
Department of
Veteran
Affairs 3.8% 213,864 7,333 869 3.9% 217,287 7,497 914
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Table 10: Non-senior-level Attrition at DHS Components, Fiscal Years 2005
& 2006
Fiscal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006
DHS component Attrition Attrition
agency rate Population Resignations Transfers rate Population Resignations Transfers
All Department
of Homeland
Security 8.4% 136,951 9,697 1,791 7.1% 138,037 8,353 1,507
DHS
Headquarters 8.8% 567 15 35 11.1% 898 37 63
Domestic
Nuclear
Detection
Office 13.5% 422 27 30 6.0% 619 16 21
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency 3.0% 2,264 29 39 4.2% 2,224 39 54
Federal Law
Enforcement
Training
Center 2.5% 848 6 15 1.5% 918 4 10
Office of the
Inspector
General 6.2% 454 6 22 8.4% 476 14 26
Office of the
Under
Secretary for
Science and
Technology 2.8% 141 3 1 8.5% 188 7 9
Transportation
Security
Administration 15.7% 59,072 8,406 864 13.0% 57,005 6,802 627
U.S.
Citizenship
and
Immigration
Services 2.7% 6,713 114 67 3.0% 7,247 132 82
U.S. Coast
Guard 4.8% 6,675 155 164 4.5% 7,030 167 151
U.S. Customs
and Border
Protection 2.6% 40,886 722 331 2.7% 42,310 890 264
U.S.
Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement 2.1% 14,082 141 149 2.1% 14,035 165 129
U.S. Secret
Service 2.9% 4,688 70 68 2.9% 4,969 74 69
U.S. Visitor
and Immigrant
Status
Indicator
Technology 6.5% 139 3 6 6.8% 118 6 2
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Table 11: Senior-Level Attrition at Cabinet-Level Agencies, Fiscal Years
2005 and 2006
Fiscal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006
Cabinet-level Attrition Attrition
agency rate Population Resignations Transfers rate Population Resignations Transfers
All
cabinet-level
agencies 7.0% 5,668 276 123 6.0% 5,744 203 139
Department of
Agriculture 3.8% 347 11 2 4.4% 361 12 4
Department of
Commerce 9.4% 362 20 14 6.4% 362 12 11
Department of
Defense 4.4% 1,187 30 22 4.3% 1,221 19 34
Department of
Justice 6.7% 656 32 12 4.9% 680 15 18
Department of
Labor 6.4% 187 6 6 7.1% 184 6 7
Department of
Energy 4.6% 455 15 6 4.1% 466 14 5
Department of
Education 18.3% 104 14 5 13.0% 100 11 2
Department of
Health and
Human Services 6.7% 387 21 5 3.3% 400 10 3
Department of
Homeland
Security 14.4% 445 48 16 12.8% 454 44 14
Department of
Housing and
Urban
Development 19.8% 106 16 5 4.7% 107 3 2
Department of
Interior 3.0% 271 6 2 5.9% 272 10 6
Department of
State 13.2% 197 21 5 9.4% 191 11 7
Department of
Transportation 8.3% 230 10 9 8.6% 222 11 8
Department of
Treasury 7.1% 439 19 12 7.5% 429 17 15
Department of
Veteran
Affairs 3.1% 295 7 2 3.7% 295 8 3
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Note: Senior-level attrition is of those in senior executive service or
presidentially appointed positions. Due to the method of calculation, the
number of vacant and filled senior-level positions at DHS listed in this
table will not match the number reported by DHS and listed on pp. 14-15.
See appendix I, scope and methodology, for more information about how
these were calculated.
Table 12: Senior-Level Attrition at DHS Components, Fiscal Years 2005 and
2006
Fiscal year
DHS component Fiscal year 2005 2006
agency Population Resignations Transfers Population Resignations Transfers
All Department
of Homeland
Security 445 48 16 454 44 14
DHS
Headquarters 56 15 4 62 12 5
Domestic
Nuclear
Detection
Office 8 3 0 15 1 1
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency 34 1 3 34 5 2
Federal Law
Enforcement
Training
Center 7 0 0 8 0 0
Office of the
Inspector
General 9 0 0 10 0 1
Office of the
Under
Secretary for
Science and
Technology 10 1 2 8 3 1
Transportation
Security
Administration 160 21 4 145 18 3
U.S.
Citizenship
and
Immigration
Services 16 2 0 17 0 0
U.S. Coast
Guard 8 0 0 8 0 0
U.S. Customs
and Border
Protection 57 0 1 66 3 0
U.S.
Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement 32 2 2 34 2 0
U.S. Secret
Service 39 0 0 41 0 0
U.S. Visitor
and Immigrant
Status
Indicator
Technology 9 3 0 6 0 1
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Note: Senior-level attrition is of those in SES or presidentially
appointed positions. Due to the method of calculation, the number of
vacant and filled senior-level positions at DHS listed in this table will
not match the number reported by DHS and listed on pp. 14-15. See appendix
I, scope and methodology, for more information about how these were
calculated.
Appendix IV: Human Capital Flexibilities
This appendix contains additional information on human capital
flexibilities. Specifically, it includes information on the following:
o The number of times DHS components used human capital
flexibilities in 2005 and 2006 (tables 13 and 14);
o The number of times per 100 employees that DHS used human
capital flexibilities in 2005 and 2006 (tables 15 and 17);
o The percentage of new hires for which DHS components used human
capital flexibilities in 2005 and 2006 (tables 16 and 18);
o Information on DHS's use of flexibilities compared to other
executive branch agencies (tables 19 and 20); and
o Data from the GAO survey regarding how DHS human capital
officials perceive the effectiveness of the flexibilities (figs. 7
and 8) and whether they would have liked to use the flexibilities
more often (table 21).
Table 13: Number of Times DHS Components Used Human Capital Flexibilities
in Fiscal Year 2005
Direct Veterans Quality
Recruitment Hire Recruitment Retention Step
Component Incentive Authority Authority SCEP FCIP Incentive Increase
All Department
of Homeland
Security 76 146 76 47 2,400 223 1,108
DHS Headquarters 0 3 0 1 2 2 25
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services 0 25 2 3 0 0 511
U.S. Customs and
Border
Protection 0 21 29 14 2,330 0 41
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement 2 1 14 0 51 57 6
Defense Nuclear
Detection Office 0 95 0 0 0 2 16
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency 0 0 1 0 0 1 202
Federal Law
Enforcement
Training Center 0 1 3 3 0 0 46
Office of the
Inspector
General 0 0 1 0 15 0 2
Office of the
Under Secretary
for Science and
Technology 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Transportation
Security
Administration^d 73 0 0 0 0 150 0
U.S. Coast Guard 1 0 26 25 2 9 220
U.S. Secret
Service 0 0 0 1 0 2 26
U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status
Indicator
Technology 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Special
Individual Individual Rate and
Individual and Group and Group Student Foreign Reemployed Critical
and Group Suggestion Time-off Relocation Superior Loan Language Annuitant Position
Cash Award Award Award Incentive Qualification Repayment^a Award^b Waiver^c Pay
85,536 31 33,448 47 185 0 599 15 5,255
407 0 22 2 30 0 0 0 1
3,294 0 2,536 0 0 0 0 0 41
439 0 3,794 30 0 0 0 9 2,055
6,494 0 6,915 0 0 0 536 1 2,594
406 0 60 0 69 0 0 1 5
1,892 0 1,727 0 3 0 0 2 81
1,543 1 37 0 0 0 0 0 14
238 0 33 0 13 0 0 1 2
61 0 27 0 5 0 0 0 4
57,991 27 16,517 13 0 0 0 0 0
6,643 3 1,767 2 56 0 0 0 399
6,044 0 3 0 0 0 63 0 59
84 0 10 0 9 0 0 1 0
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Note: The table totals might not match the sum of the rows because there
were data records with missing information.
^aDHS data indicated they used student loan repayment 18 times in fiscal
year 2005. However, we did not find instances of DHS's use of student loan
repayments in the CPDF because they had invalid CPDF codes that prevented
us from counting them as permanent employees, and we reviewed the use of
flexibilities for permanent employees only.
^bOnly law enforcement employees are eligible to receive foreign language
awards.
^cThe count for re-employed annuitant waiver is the number of re-employed
annuitants as of September 2005.
^dTSA is exempt from certain personnel rules that apply to most federal
agencies. TSA officials told us that for this reason they do not use the
following human capital flexibilities: direct hire authority, veterans'
recruitment authority, and quality step increases.
Table 14: Number of Times DHS Components Used Human Capital Flexibilities
in Fiscal Year 2006
Direct Veterans Quality
Recruitment Hire Recruitment Retention Step
Component Incentive Authority Authority SCEP FCIP Incentive Increase
All Department
of Homeland
Security 16 124 55 65 3,548 1,286 911
DHS Headquarters 1 34 0 2 0 1 38
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services 0 9 6 15 21 0 147
U.S. Customs and
Border
Protection 0 26 3 16 3,156 2 81
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement 0 6 8 8 359 687 40
Defense Nuclear
Detection Office 0 27 0 0 0 1 30
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency 2 22 0 0 0 2 115
Federal Law
Enforcement
Training Center 0 0 1 7 0 2 64
Office of the
Under Secretary
for Science and
Technology 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Office of the
Inspector
General 0 0 0 0 9 0 17
Transportation
Security
Administration^d 6 0 0 0 0 584 0
U.S. Coast Guard 6 0 37 17 3 5 337
U.S. Secret
Service 0 0 0 0 0 2 32
U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status
Indicator
Technology 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Special
Individual Individual Rate and
Individual and Group and Group Student Foreign Reemployed Critical
and Group Suggestion Time-off Relocation Superior Loan Language Annuitant Position
Cash Award Award Award Incentive Qualification Repayment^a Award^b Waiver^c Pay
222,812 20 27,721 31 164 0 648 10 5,668
770 0 24 2 55 0 0 1 1
6,841 0 1,585 0 0 0 0 0 41
21,439 0 5,611 5 1 0 0 4 2,495
6,493 1 2,726 0 0 0 580 1 2,725
654 0 40 0 35 0 0 0 3
1,694 0 1,622 0 2 0 0 3 85
1,663 2 60 0 0 0 0 0 10
110 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6
175 0 62 0 4 0 0 0 3
171,518 1 14,740 12 0 0 0 0 0
7,025 16 1,187 11 56 0 0 0 234
4,311 0 55 1 0 0 68 0 65
117 0 9 0 2 0 0 1 0
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Note: The table totals might not match the sum of the rows because there
were data records with missing information.
^aDHS data indicated they used student loan repayment 13 times in fiscal
year 2006. However, we did not find instances of DHS's use of student loan
repayments in the CPDF because they had invalid CPDF codes that prevented
us from counting them as permanent employees, and we reviewed the use of
flexibilities for permanent employees only.
^bOnly law enforcement employees are eligible to receive foreign language
awards.
^cThe count for re-employed annuitant waiver is the total number of
re-employed annuitants as of September 2006.
^dTSA is exempt from certain personnel rules that apply to most federal
agencies. TSA officials told us that for this reason they do not use the
following human capital flexibilities: direct hire authority, veterans'
recruitment authority, and quality step increases.
Table 15: Number of Times DHS Used Human Capital Flexibilities in Fiscal
Year 2005 for Every 100 Permanent Employees
Individual Individual
Individual and Group and Group Quality
and Group Time-off Suggestion Step Retention
Component Cash Award Award Award Increase Incentive
All Department of
Homeland Security 62.46 24.42 0.02 0.81 0.16
DHS Headquarters 71.84 3.88 0 4.41 0.35
U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services 49.07 37.78 0 7.61 0
U.S. Customs and
Border Protection 1.07 9.28 0 0.10 0
U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement 46.12 49.11 0 0.04 0.40
Defense Nuclear
Detection Office 96.32 14.23 0 3.80 0.47
Federal Emergency
Management Agency 83.59 76.3 0 8.92 0.04
Federal Law
Enforcement Training
Center 181.96 4.36 0.12 5.42 0
Office of the
Inspector General 52.42 7.27 0 0.44 0
Office of the Under
Secretary for Science
and Technology 43.42 19.22 0 3.56 0
Transportation
Security
Administration 98.17 27.96 0.05 0 0.25
U.S. Coast Guard 99.52 26.47 0.04 3.30 0.13
U.S. Secret Service 128.94 0.06 0 0.55 0.04
U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status
Indicator Technology 60.65 7.22 0 5.78 0
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Note: The table totals might not match the sum of the rows because there
were data records with missing information.
Table 16: Percent of New Permanent Hires for Which DHS Used Human Capital
Flexibilities in Fiscal Year 2005
Direct Veterans
Hire Recruitment Recruitment Superior
Component Authority FCIP Incentive SCEP Authority Qualifications
All Department
of Homeland
Security 0.94 15.51 0.49 0.30 0.49 1.20
DHS
Headquarters 1.00 0.67 0 0.33 0 10.03
U.S.
Citizenship
and
Immigration
Services 7.86 0 0 0.94 0.63 0
U.S. Customs
and Border
Protection 0.72 80.04 0 0.48 1 0
U.S.
Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement 0.54 27.72 1.09 0 7.61 0
Defense
Nuclear
Detection
Office 38.62 0 0 0 0 28.05
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency 0 0 0 0 0.81 2.42
Federal Law
Enforcement
Training
Center 1.79 0 0 5.36 5.36 0
Office of the
Inspector
General 0 22.06 0 0 1.47 19.12
Office of the
Under
Secretary for
Science and
Technology 0 0 0 0 0 9.09
Transportation
Security
Administration 0 0 0.71 0 0 0
U.S. Coast
Guard 0 0.23 0.12 2.90 3.02 6.50
U.S. Secret
Service 0 0 0 1.1 0 0
U.S. Visitor
and Immigrant
Status
Indicator
Technology 0 0 0 0 0 21.95
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Note: We did not adjust percentages in usage to account for differences
between agencies or DHS components such as the proportion of employees in
different personnel systems.
Table 17: Number of Times DHS Used Human Capital Flexibilities in Fiscal
Year 2006 for Every 100 Permanent Employees
Individual
Individual Individualand and Group Quality
and Group Group Time-off Suggestion Step Retention
Component Cash Award Award Award Increase Incentive
All Department of
Homeland Security 161.40 20.08 0.01 0.66 0.93
DHS Headquarters 85.79 2.67 0 4.23 0.11
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services 94.4 21.87 0 2.03 0
U.S. Customs and
Border Protection 50.67 13.26 0 0.19 0
U.S. Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement 46.26 19.42 0.01 0.29 4.89
Defense Nuclear
Detection Office 105.65 6.46 0 4.85 0.16
Federal Emergency
Management Agency 76.17 72.93 0 5.17 0.09
Federal Law
Enforcement
Training Center 181.15 6.54 0.22 6.97 0.22
Office of the
Inspector General 36.80 13.04 0 3.58 0
Office of the
Under Secretary
for Science and
Technology 58.51 0 0 2.13 0
Transportation
Security
Administration 300.88 25.86 0 0 1.02
U.S. Coast Guard 99.93 16.88 0.23 4.79 0.07
U.S. Secret
Service 86.77 1.11 0 0.64 0.04
U.S. Visitor and
Immigrant Status
Indicator
Technology 99.57 7.66 0 5.11 0
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Note: The table totals might not match the sum of the rows because there
were data records with missing information.
Table 18: Percent of New Permanent Hires for Which DHS Used Human Capital
Flexibilities in Fiscal Year 2006
Direct Veterans
Hire Recruitment Recruitment Superior
Component Authority FCIP Incentive SCEP Authority Qualifications
All Department
of Homeland
Security 0.79 22.48 0.10 0.41 0.35 1.04
DHS
Headquarters 13.55 0 0.40 0.80 0 21.91
U.S.
Citizenship
and
Immigration
Services 1.78 4.15 0 2.96 1.19 0
U.S. Customs
and Border
Protection 0.71 86.61 0 0.44 0.08 0.03
U.S.
Immigration
and Customs
Enforcement 0.83 49.65 0 1.11 1.11 0
Defense
Nuclear
Detection
Office 30.68 0 0 0 0 39.77
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency 9.48 0 0.86 0 0 0.86
Federal Law
Enforcement
Training
Center 0 0 0 7.78 1.11 0
Office of the
Inspector
General 0 19.57 0 0 0 8.70
Office of the
Under
Secretary for
Science and
Technology 0 0 0 0 0 22.22
Transportation
Security
Administration 0 0 0.06 0 0 0
Homeland
Security U.S.
Coast Guard
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security
Homeland
Security 0 0.37 0.73 2.08 4.52 6.85
U.S. Secret
Service 0 0 0 0 0 0
U.S. Visitor
and Immigrant
Status
Indicator
Technology 0 0 0 0 0 25.00
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Note: We did not adjust percentages in usage to account for differences
between agencies or DHS components such as the proportion of employees in
different personnel systems.
Table 19: Rate at Which DHS Used Human Capital Flexibilities in Fiscal
Year 2006 per Every 100 Permanent Employees Compared to Median Rate at
Which Executive Agencies Used Flexibilities in Fiscal Year 2006
Individual
Individual & Individual & and Group Quality
GroupCash GroupTime-off Suggestion Step Retention
Agency Award Award Award Increase Incentive
Department of 161.40 20.08 0.01 0.66 0.93
Homeland Security
rates
Executive agency 83.07 16.03 0.02 3.31 0.29
median rates
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Note: We did not adjust percentages in usage to account for differences
between agencies or DHS components such as the proportion of employees in
different personnel systems.
Table 20: Percentage of New Permanent Hires for Which DHS Used Human
Capital Flexibilities in Fiscal Year 2006 Compared to the Median
Percentage at Executive Agencies in Fiscal Year 2006
Direct Veterans
Hire Recruitment Superior Recruitment
Agency Authority FCIP Incentive SCEP Qualification Incentive
Department of 0.79 22.48 0.10 0.41 1.04 0.35
Homeland
Security
percentage
Executive 1.49 6.70 2.21 2.06 3.03 0.45
agency median
percentage
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
Note: We did not adjust rates in usage to account for differences between
agencies or DHS components such as the proportion of employees in
different personnel systems.
Figure 7: DHS Components Rate the Effectiveness of Human Capital
Flexibilities for Recruiting New Staff
Figure 8: DHS Components Rate the Effectiveness of Human Capital
Flexibilities for Retaining Staff
Table 21: Flexibilities Components Would Have Liked to Use More Often and
the Factors That Prevented Them from Doing So
Lack of Totalnumber of
written componentofficials
policies saying theywould have
Lack of OPM rulesand and liked touse
Flexibility funding regulations procedures Other flexibility more
Recruitment
Incentive 1 0 0 0 1
Direct Hire
Authority 1 8 0 0 8^a
Re-employed
Annuitant
Waiver 1 3 0 1 5
SCEP 3 0 0 1 4
FCIP 0 0 0 2 2
Retention
Incentive 0 1 1 1 3
Quality Step
Increase 3 1 0 0 4
Individual and
group cash
awards 2 1 0 0 3
Individual and
group
suggestion
awards 1 0 1 0 2
Individual and
group time-off
awards 0 0 0 2 2
Relocation
incentive 2 1 0 0 3
Superior
Qualifications
Rate 0 1 0 0 1
Student loan
repayment 5 0 2 1 7^a
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
^aA component cited multiple reasons.
As part of our survey, we asked DHS components the following:
Were there any occasions where you would have liked to have used a
flexibility, but were prevented from doing so?
If yes, did any of the following reasons prevent you from using the
flexibility?
o Lack of funding
o Lack of support within the component
o Lack of support from DHS
o Lack of written policies and procedures
o Concerns about inconsistencies in implementation within DHS
o Lack of OPM guidance
o OPM rules and regulations
o Other
Appendix V: IPA and Personal Services Contracts
This appendix contains additional information on IPAs and personal
services contracts. Specifically, it includes information on the
following:
o The complete list of all 36 IPA agreements in place at DHS as of
September 30, 2006.
o The name of the employing DHS component.
o The employer of the IPA individual.
o The position title and description of duties of each IPA
individual.
o The complete list of all 61 personal services contracts in place
at DHS as of September 30, 2006.
o The name of the DHS component that utilized the personal
services contracts.
o The salary/contract value of each personal services contract.
o The name of the position and description of the assignment of
each personal services contract.
Table 22: Intergovernmental Personnel Act Agreements at DHS as of
September 30, 2006
Number Position title and assignment
DHS component identifier Employer description
U.S. Customs 1 Pacific Systems Engineer. Provides
and Border Northwest leadership in the development of
Protection National detailed specifications for
Laboratory nuclear detection systems. Leads
system engineering studies,
documenting the functions and
requirements of global nuclear
detection architecture, trades
studies evaluating alternative
technology solutions to fulfill
the functions and requirements,
and identifies capability gaps
between existing technology and
the detection requirements for
the global architecture.
Domestic 2 National Test Scientist/Senior Scientist.
Nuclear Technology Provides DHS with subject matter
Detection Securities LLC expertise relating to detection
Office and sensor systems. Converts
knowledge into specific test
plans and protocols for
detection systems. Leads the
team responsible for data
collection.
3 Lawrence Scientist. Manages projects and
Livermore activities in the areas of
National nuclear and radiological
Laboratory forensics. Provides subject
matter expertise, analysis of
technical and operational
requirements and performance
specifications for information
and knowledge management
systems. Works on an interagency
basis to ensure that defined
roles, responsibilities and
relationships are developed and
implemented to ensure an
effective national forensics
program.
4 Lawrence Scientific Advisor. Provides DHS
Livermore with subject matter expertise in
National radiation detection and sensor
Laboratory systems. Provides support in the
development of a technical
reachback capability. Develops
and conducts radiation detection
efforts. Serves as technical
advisor for international
cooperation and exchanges.
5 Los Alamos Lead System Architect. Manages
National systems architecture development
Laboratory activities, support staff, and
support contracts. Coordinates
within DHS and externally
(federal, state, and local) on
the development of the
architecture. Establishes
baseline architecture. Develops
system performance metrics and
assessment methodologies.
Develops and assesses
architecture options.
Office of 6 Sandia National Chief Scientist/Deputy Director.
Intelligence Laboratories Discovers, defines and
Analysis implements threat assessment
approaches. Analyzes weapons of
mass destruction-related
intelligence.
7 New Jersey Analyst. Serves as state liaison
Office of officer. Specialist in
Homeland analytical operations,
Security & functions, techniques, and
Preparedness projects. Establishes link
between state and national
intelligence communities for
information sharing.
Office of 8 Center for Program Analyst. Provides
Policy Strategic and expertise in studying and
International producing strategies to combat
Studies terrorist tactics and
organizations. Conducts
management surveys and research
projects and provides advisory
services to assess the
effectiveness of program
operations. Analyzes and
evaluates quantitative or
qualitative effectiveness of
program operations in meeting
established goals and
objectives. Develops measurement
criteria, procedures, and data
collection instruments.
Collects, reviews, evaluates,
and interprets data.
Office of 9 Fairmount, Assistant Fire Specialist.
Preparedness Colo., Fire Provides support services to
Protection satisfy objectives of the
District Assistance to Firefighters Act
Grant Program (AFG) through
planning, implementation,
monitoring, and analysis
activities as outlined by the
AFG program office. Conducts
workshops for grant applicants.
Reviews and makes
recommendations on grant
amendment requests. Provides
technical assistance in the
development of informational
materials. Implements and
maintains program activities
relating to the AFG program.
Tracks issues on a variety of
fire service-related topics and
makes recommendations as they
apply to AFG. Recommends
activities or program actions on
grants and provides technical
direction to grantees.
10 University of Program Specialist. Provides
Pittsburgh support services to satisfy
objectives of the AFG through
planning, implementation,
monitoring, and analysis
activities as outlined by the
AFG program office. Conducts
workshops for grant applicants.
Reviews and makes
recommendations on grant
amendment requests. Provides
technical assistance in the
development of informational
materials. Implements and
maintains program activities
relating to the AFG program.
Tracks issues on a variety of
fire service-related topics and
makes recommendations as they
apply to AFG. Recommends
activities or program actions on
grants and provides technical
direction to grantees.
11 City of Berkeley Program Specialist. Provides
support services to satisfy
objectives of the AFG through
planning, implementation,
monitoring, and analysis
activities as outlined by the
AFG program office. Conducts
workshops for grant applicants.
Reviews and makes
recommendations on grant
amendment requests. Provides
technical assistance in the
development of informational
materials. Implements and
maintains program activities
relating to the AFG program.
Tracks issues on a variety of
fire service-related topics and
makes recommendations as they
apply to AFG. Recommends
activities or program actions on
grants and provides technical
direction to grantees.
12 Town of Program Specialist. Provides
Waterville support services to satisfy
Valley, N.H. objectives of the AFG through
planning, implementation,
monitoring, and analysis
activities as outlined by the
AFG program office. Conducts
workshops for grant applicants.
Reviews and makes
recommendations on grant
amendment requests. Provides
technical assistance in the
development of informational
materials. Implements and
maintains program activities
relating to the AFG program.
Tracks issues on a variety of
fire service-related topics and
makes recommendations as they
apply to AFG. Recommends
activities or program actions on
grants and provides technical
direction to grantees.
13 New York City Section Member/Program Manager.
Police Serves as security specialist.
Department Serves as a technical authority
on threats to the national
infrastructure and coordinates
projects designed to improve the
protection and reliability of
our national infrastructure.
Facilitates information sharing
and program planning and
implementation with industry
representatives and other
federal, state and local
jurisdictions.
14 Carnegie Mellon Acting Director, National
University Cybersecurity Division. Develops
incident and warning
non-disclosure policies. Assists
the US CERT team in the
development of non-disclosure
policies and the analysis of key
elements and related legal and
regulatory factors affecting
non-disclosure policies. Assists
the US CERT team in identifying
research and development needs
and priorities. Assesses
policies and working protocols
to enhance information sharing
and incident analysis as well as
an assessment of opportunities
for collaboration between the US
CERT and regional CERT
initiatives in other countries.
15 Office of the Program Specialist. Provides
Illinois State support services to satisfy
Fire Marshal objectives of the AFG through
planning, implementation,
monitoring and analysis
activities as outlined by the
AFG program office. Conducts
workshops for grant applicants.
Reviews and makes
recommendations on grant
amendment requests. Provides
technical assistance in the
development of informational
materials. Implements and
maintains program activities
relating to the AFG program.
Tracks issues on a variety of
fire service-related topics and
makes recommendations as they
apply to AFG. Recommends
activities or program actions on
grants and provides technical
direction to grantees.
16 University of Technical Advisor. Serves as the
North Carolina principal advisor regarding
at Chapel Hill issues that impact the Federal
government's ability to respond
to disasters and terrorist
attacks. Possesses a through
knowledge of emergency medical
preparedness and emergency
medical services. Serves as
point of contact in developing
the master plan for overall
medical preparedness operations
and response.
17 Idaho National Senior Technical Advisor.
Laboratory Provides expertise in risk
analysis and systems
interdependencies. Develops and
refines risk-based methodology
used to determine allocation of
DHS resources to include
comprehensive reviews and buffer
zone protection plans. Provides
overall guidance to risk-based
analysis of infrastructure as it
pertains to local, state, and
federal grant programs. Directs
coordinate infrastructure
analytical efforts of agency
personnel to develop critical
tools to allow threat
information to be evaluated.
18 Georgetown Technical Advisor. Provides
University technical leadership and
Medical Center operational management to the
National Bio-surveillance
Integration System (NBIS). Helps
develop procedures for operation
of the analysis team, designing
analysis methods for event
detection and characterization,
making recommendations for
analysis team training
requirements and conducting
regular team readiness
assessments. Provides management
and leadership of the team
during exercises or actual
events.
19 Fairmount, Program Specialist. Provides
Colo., Fire support services to satisfy
Protection objectives of the AFG through
District planning, implementation,
monitoring, and analysis
activities as outlined by the
AFG program office. Conducts
workshops for grant applicants.
Reviews and makes
recommendations on grant
amendment requests. Provides
technical assistance in the
development of informational
materials. Implements and
maintains program activities
relating to the AFG program.
Tracks issues on a variety of
fire service-related topics and
makes recommendations as they
apply to AFG. Recommends
activities or program actions on
grants and provides technical
direction to grantees.
Science and 20 Lawrence Center Director, Biothreat
Technology Livermore Characterization Center
Directorate National (BTCC)/NBAC. Provides DHS with
Laboratory senior technical, management and
operational expertise essential
for effective operations of S&T.
Provides critical laboratory
management experience needed for
continuity of operations.
Develops, manages, and executes
a scientific program to assess
the risks of biological threat
agents. Assesses and identifies
science and technology
requirements in providing
laboratory capability and
predictive data.
21 South Carolina Program Manager, Office of
Research Systems Engineering and
Authority Development. Responsible for
strategic, technical resource
planning, and execution of
short- and long-range
programmatic goals. Promotes,
coordinates, and maintains
standardization and integration
of program and portfolio support
with other program managers.
Evaluates emerging technologies
for potential insertion into
assigned programs. Establishes
goals, measures, metrics, and
priorities to focus on
performance management.
22 Tufts University Program Director, University
Programs. Assists in
establishing policies and
programs related to universities
and colleges to support U.S.
leadership in science and
technology. Ensures nationwide
participation in DHS extramural
programs. Establishes
university-based centers for
homeland security.
23 Lawrence Emergency Response Manager.
Livermore Provides critical scientific
National expertise and radiological
Laboratory emergency response experience.
Serves as a subject matter
expert for radiological
emergency response and
consequences management.
Facilitates the integration and
coordination of emergency
response assets. Supports First
Responders training and
preparedness. Participates in
federal interagency working
groups for emergency response
and consequence management.
24 Los Alamos Intelligence Analyst. Provides
National technical analysis in the area
Laboratory of chemical weapons.
25 Eastern Kentucky Deputy Director. Provides
University program and policy analysis.
Coordinates interoperability
programs, ensuring programs are
linked with other federal,
state, and local
interoperability programs.
Serves as primary liaison to
public safety officials.
Provides advice and guidance on
federal, state, and local
funding.
26 Texas A&M Program Manager. Works as part
University of a highly integrated
multi-disciplinary team to guide
the formation of science and
technology agendas. Oversees
projects impacting readiness for
biological defense. Provides
expert advice on policy matters.
27 DeWitt (N.Y.) Program Specialist. Responsible
Fire District for designing, setting up,
implementing, and monitoring
programs to develop tools,
technologies, and systems to
support homeland security at the
state and local levels. Obtains
information needed to assess and
identify homeland security
technology/systems needs and
gaps. Generates requirements for
enhancing state and local
preparedness. Proposes
priorities to allocate budget,
staff, and resources. Develops
strategic action plans and works
with federal, state, and local
governments to incorporate user
requirements into homeland
security efforts.
28 Johns Hopkins Program Manager. Duties include
University systems engineering and project
management for the design,
development, integration, test
and deployment of systems and
processes to counter threats
against critical
infrastructures. Employee is
knowledgeable in the fields of
sensor systems, surveillance,
software development, systems
acquisition, systems
engineering, and program
management.
29 Potomac Program Manager. Provides
Institute for expertise in concept development
Policy Studies and management of prototypes and
test beds to support the program
plan. Responsible for
solicitation, selection,
initiation, and management of
efforts in support of homeland
security mission. Delivers
capability, technology,
components, prototypes, and test
beds for programs.
30 Johns Hopkins Program Manager. Responsible for
University the solicitation, selection,
initiation, and management of
efforts in support of the
homeland security mission.
Delivers capability, technology,
components, prototypes and test
beds as specified in the program
definition document. Responsible
for identifying and initiating
activities to transition
technologies and capabilities in
support of DHS missions.
Responsible for monitoring the
execution of programs, ensuring
that program objectives are
being met, and recommending
remediation strategies.
31 Pacific Office Director. Responsible for
Northwest developing strategy. Develops
National the plans, budgets, and
Laboratory prioritization of activities and
performance measures within the
portfolio. Coordinates within
DHS and with federal agencies,
academia, private industry, and
research organizations as
appropriate.
32 Pacific Program Manager. Develops
Northwest strategy for preparing program
National plans and develops comprehensive
Laboratory program plans for the bioassays,
forensics, and technical
resource areas. Identifies
primary user and key technical
assets for bioassays, forensics,
and attribution. Defines
execution plans for providing
needed infrastructure. Defines
critical decision points,
milestones, and deliverables.
Develops consensus among primary
users and key technical assets
on the comprehensive program
plans.
33 Florida Program Manager/Science Advisor.
Department of Defines the vision, strategic
Health plan, and requirements for
future biomonitoring systems and
for their integration into an
integrated national
biomonitoring system. Builds the
interagency partnerships
necessary to accomplish this
strategy, clearly defining
agency roles and
responsibilities. Serves as
principal spokesperson for
BioWatch and related systems in
a variety of interagency and
technical forums.
34 National Program Executive Officer.
Institute of Responsible for congressionally
Aerospace mandated program for protection
of commercial aircraft.
Responsible for keeping program
on schedule, within budget, and
meeting all performance
criteria. Responsibilities
include program reviews, system
requirements reviews, design
reviews, independent reviews,
concept of operations
definition, modeling,
simulation, performance
prediction, and life-cycle cost
estimates.
35 Idaho National Intelligence Analyst. Serves as
Laboratory subject matter expert on
terrorist biological
capabilities, plans, and
intentions.
36 Sandia National Division Director. Provides
Laboratories leadership and support for
developing, demonstrating, and
implementing technology programs
to prevent, detect, deter, and
mitigate the use of biological
weapons. Oversees multiple large
and/or complex technical
programs, projects, and
initiatives by providing input
to assess and identify
technology needs and gaps.
Prepares annual and outyear
portfolio-specific roadmaps.
Coordinates with various
agencies and the intelligence
community on biological defense
countermeasures. Works with
federal, state, or local
governments and private-sector
entities to provide expertise,
equipment, technologies,
procedures, protocols, and
integrated systems.
Source: DHS data.
Table 23: Personal Services Contracts at DHS as of September 30, 2006
Name of position and
Number of Number of Salary/contract assignment
DHS component contractors contracts value^a description
Office of 1 1 $139,774 Procurement Analyst.
Preparedness Technical assistance.
U.S. Customs 19 19 $60.00/hr. or C-TPAT
and Border $480/day Validator/Subject
Protection Matter Expert.
Validating security
compliance of
participating
shippers.
1 1 $156.00/hr. Technical Consultant.
Provide technical
assistance in
communications to a
foreign country.
1 1 $60.00/hr. or Program Advisor/SME.
$480/day Organizational
Process
Analyst/Advisor to a
foreign country.
1 1 $60.00/hr. or Program Advisor/SME.
$480/day Advises the Ministry
of Defense and
Internal Affairs in a
foreign country.
1 2 $60.00/hr. or C-TPAT Validator/SME.
$480/day Validating security
compliance of
participating
shippers & SME in a
foreign country
program. IC conducted
survey of the foreign
countries fines,
penalties and
seizures policies and
procedures to
determine if a more
streamlined and
simplified approach
should be accepted.
1 1 $164,409 Chief of Party.
Provides customs
guidance,
recommendations and
assistance to the
Director General of
Customs in a foreign
country.
1 1 $122,566 Senior Advisor.
Provides border
security and related
law enforcement
assistance.
1 2 $122,267/ $50 Advisor. Provides
per hr. not to border operations
exceed $2,000 advisory services to
per week officers dealing with
border security
management and
cross-border crime
interdiction & SECI
close out.
1 1 $133,049 Investigations
Advisor. Training and
guidance in
investigative
procedures.
1 1 $126,301 Senior Advisor.
Provides border
security and related
law enforcement
assistance.
1 1 $114,875 Advisor. Works with
matters dealing with
a foreign country's
border services
relating to the
expedited flow of
goods and persons
involved in
international trade.
1 1 $50 per hr. not SECI close out.
to exceed
$2,000 per week
1 1 $400 per day Advisor under the
pay rate SECI program.
1 1 $60.00/hr. or Subject matter expert
$480/day under the GBSLE
program; worked
directly with the
GBSLE in-country
staff, CPB
headquarters' staff
and contracting
officer with regard
to the selection of
the contractor to
provide operational
repairs and
maintenance for the
GBSLE-built
facilities (to
include the aviation
hanger).
1 1 $5,000 per week Training under EXBS
Program. Conducted 2
single week seminars
on Undercover Stress
Management.
1 1 Firm fixed EXBS Program. Seminar
price of on Undercover Stress
$10,000 Management in three
foreign countries.
U.S. Coast 1 2 $75,362 Other medical
Guard^b services, spare
parts.
1 1 $4,475,662 Laboratory testing
services, factory
visit program.
1 1 $1,275 Medical/psychological
consultation
services.
1 1 $1,080 Medical/psychological
consultation
services. Domestic
violence treatment.
1 1 $315 Laboratory testing
services.
1 1 $18,000 Nursing Services,
temporary nursing
services.
1 1 0^c Other Medical
Services, labor,
supervision,
transportation,
training aids &
training materials to
conduct a basic
hazardous waste
management training
course at USCG Air
Station Cape Cod.
1 6 $20,970,099 Other medical
services and dental
services.
1 2 $11,458,660 Other medical
services.
1 1 $258,488 Dentistry services,
Dental Assistant.
1 1 $103,313 Laboratory testing
services. Medical
safety testing.
1 1 $275,000 Medical/Psychological
consultation
services. Provide
laboratory services
for Coast Guard
clinics.
1 1 $4,000 Other medical
services (DNA
testing).
1 1 $172,800 Cardio-Vascular
services. Provide
fitness center
services.
1 1 $43,658 Laboratory Technician
Assistance.
1 1 $2,700 Medical/Psychological
Consultation
Services. Anger
Management groups.
1 1 $662 Laboratory testing
services. Determine
whether the water
meets drinkability
standards.
Source: DHS data.
Legend
GBSLE Georgia Border Security Law and Enforcement Program
EXBS Export and Border Security Program
C-TPAT Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
SECI Southeast European Cooperative Initiative
Note: Data represent 52 contractors, with a total of 61 individual
contracts.
^aValues represent salaries for individuals as reported by agencies.
^bValues represent total contract obligations as of September 30, 2006,
and may reflect costs in addition to the salaries paid to individuals.
^cValue represents a contract modification and is a separate transaction
from the original award, which was signed on a previous date in fiscal
year 2006.
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Robert Goldenkoff (202) 512-2757 or [email protected]
Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Robert E. White, Assistant
Director; Doris Page; Amy Bernstein; Sylvia Bascope; Valerie Colaiaco;
Sean Lovitt; Jeffrey McDermott; and Gregory Wilmoth made key contributions
to this report.
(440520)
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [51]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
[52]www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: [53]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [54][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [55][email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [56][email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
[57]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-758 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Robert Goldenkoff at (202) 512-2757 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [58]GAO-07-758 , a report to congressional requesters
July 2007
HOMELAND SECURITY
DHS's Actions to Recruit and Retain Staff and Comply with the Vacancies
Reform Act
Since its inception in 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has
faced numerous human capital challenges related to recruiting, retaining,
and managing its workforce of nearly 171,000 employees.
As requested, this report analyzes DHS's attrition, efforts to recruit and
retain staff, use of external employees, and compliance with certain
provisions of the Vacancies Reform Act, which requires agencies to report
to Congress and the Comptroller General vacancies in certain
presidentially-appointed positions requiring Senate confirmation. To
conduct its work, GAO surveyed human capital personnel from DHS and its
component agencies; analyzed federal personnel data files, Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) human capital documentation, and relevant
legislation; and interviewed key DHS officials.
[59]What GAO Recommends
GAO is recommending that DHS's Office of General Counsel
develop written policies and procedures clearly explaining the duties of
officials and others responsible for ensuring compliance with the
Vacancies Reform Act. DHS reviewed a draft of this report and concurred
with the recommendation.
DHS's overall attrition rate for permanent employees (excluding those in
the Senior Executive Service and presidential appointments) declined from
8.4 percent in 2005 to 7.1 percent in 2006. These rates, which were above
the roughly 4 percent average rate for all cabinet-level agencies, were
affected by high levels of attrition (about 14-17 percent) among
transportation security officers at DHS's Transportation Security
Administration. With the security officers excluded, DHS's attrition rate
was 3.3 percent. To monitor and understand attrition rates, DHS and
several of its component agencies separately analyze attrition data and
administer exit surveys to employees upon their departure. GAO has
previously reported that these data are useful to agencies for workforce
planning purposes.
DHS used various strategies to recruit and retain employees in fiscal
years 2005 and 2006. For example, DHS used human capital flexibilities in
accordance with OPM guidance that included offering employee cash awards
and hiring staff under a 2-year training program. These practices and
others were rated by most DHS human capital officials GAO interviewed as
"very effective" recruitment or retention tools, though most component
officials also cited barriers to making greater use of certain
flexibilities, such as expedited hiring.
DHS implemented agreements under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act,
allowing nonfederal employees to be temporarily assigned to a federal
agency to meet mission needs. As of September 2006, 36 such agreements
were in place, roughly half of them in DHS's Science and Technology
Directorate. DHS also used personal services contracts to acquire talent
from outside the government on a temporary basis--with 61 such contracts
in place as of September 2006, almost all of them in Customs and Border
Protection and U.S. Coast Guard.
Between March 2003 and April 2007, DHS filled 16 positions covered by the
Vacancies Reform Act and complied with the "tenure provision" in all
cases, which limits to 210 days the tenure of acting officials in certain
positions that require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation.
However, during this same period, DHS did not always meet related
reporting requirements of the act and did not have one of the five
management controls that GAO has reported as necessary to ensure
compliance--written procedures documenting how to comply. The act requires
that agencies immediately report vacancies to Congress and the Comptroller
General. DHS did not meet this requirement for 3 of 16 vacancies between
2003 and 2007; DHS's Office of General Counsel did not know why these
vacancies were not reported. GAO has previously reported that documented
procedures are a necessary management control mechanism so that when DHS
staff responsible for ensuring DHS's compliance with the act leave or are
reassigned, their replacements will have established guidelines to follow.
References
Visible links
38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-556T
40. http://www.gao.gov/legal.htm
41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-39
42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-452T
43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-2
44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-206
45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-806
46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-806
47. http://www.gao.gov/
48. mailto:[email protected]
49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-98-199
50. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-98-199
51. http://www.gao.gov/
52. http://www.gao.gov/
53. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
54. mailto:[email protected]
55. mailto:[email protected]
56. mailto:[email protected]
57. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-758
58. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-758
*** End of document. ***