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. ***