Homeland Security
DHS's Actions to Recruit and Retain Staff and Comply with the Vacancies Reform Act Gao ID: GAO-07-758 July 16, 2007Since 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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-758, Homeland Security: DHS's Actions to Recruit and Retain Staff and Comply with the Vacancies Reform Act
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-758
entitled 'Homeland Security: DHS's Actions to Recruit and Retain Staff
and Comply with the Vacancies Reform Act' which was released on July
16, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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:
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:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-758, a report to Congressional Requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
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.
[Hyperlink, http://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 goldenkoffr@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
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:
DHS Makes Use of Various Human Capital Flexibilities for Recruitment
and Retention and Most Officials We Surveyed Rated Them as "Very
Effective"
DHS IPAs and Personal Services Contracts Were in Place Primarily for
Program Managers and Subject Matter Experts:
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:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: DHS Component Agencies:
Appendix III: Attrition:
Appendix IV: Human Capital Flexibilities:
Appendix VI: PA and Personal Services Contracts:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: SES Survey Responses on Challenges Faced in Filling SES
Positions, by Type of Challenge:
Table 2: Flexibilities Involving DHS's Recruitment of New Employees:
Table 3: Flexibilities Involving DHS's Retention of Employees:
Table 4: Flexibilities Involving DHS's Retention of Employees and/or
Recruitment of New Employees:
Table 5: Number of Times DHS Used Flexibilities Related to Retention
per 100 Permanent Employees:
Table 6: Percent of New Permanent Hires for Which DHS Used
Flexibilities Related to Recruitment:
Table 7: IPA Agreements in DHS as of September 30, 2006:
Table 8: Personal Services Contracts in DHS as of September 30, 2006:
Table 9: Non-senior-level Attrition at Cabinet-Level Agencies, Fiscal
Years 2005 & 2006:
Table 10: Non-senior-level Attrition at DHS Components, Fiscal Years
2005 & 2006:
Table 11: Senior-Level Attrition at Cabinet-Level Agencies, Fiscal
Years 2005 and 2006:
Table 12: Senior-Level Attrition at DHS Components, Fiscal Years 2005
and 2006:
Table 13: Number of Times DHS Components Used Human Capital
Flexibilities in Fiscal Year 2005:
Table 14: Number of Times DHS Components Used Human Capital
Flexibilities in Fiscal Year 2006:
Table 15: Number of Times DHS Used Human Capital Flexibilities in
Fiscal Year 2005 for Every 100 Permanent Employees:
Table 16: Percent of New Permanent Hires for Which DHS Used Human
Capital Flexibilities in Fiscal Year 2005:
Table 17: Number of Times DHS Used Human Capital Flexibilities in
Fiscal Year 2006 for Every 100 Permanent Employees:
Table 18: Percent of New Permanent Hires for Which DHS Used Human
Capital Flexibilities in Fiscal Year 2006:
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:
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:
Table 21: Flexibilities Components Would Have Liked to Use More Often
and the Factors That Prevented Them from Doing So:
Table 22: Intergovernmental Personnel Act Agreements at DHS as of
September 30, 2006:
Table 23: Personal Services Contracts at DHS as of September 30, 2006:
Figures:
Figure 1: Department of Homeland Security Organization Chart:
Figure 2: Comparison of DHS Attrition with Other Cabinet-Level Agencies
on a Quarterly Basis during Fiscal Years 2005 & 2006:
Figure 3: Attrition at DHS Component Agencies during Fiscal Years 2005
& 2006:
Figure 4: Senior-Level Attrition at Cabinet-Level Departments during
Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006:
Figure 5: Frequency with Which DHS Components Used Individual or Group
Cash Awards per 100 Employees during Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006:
Figure 6: Percent of New Hires for Which DHS Components Used FCIP:
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:
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:
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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[Footnote 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)[Footnote 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[Footnote 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.
To obtain information on attrition (defined for this report as
resignations and transfers to other departments and agencies outside of
DHS) of permanent employees,[Footnote 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.
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:
* DHS Headquarters (HQ):
* Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO):
* Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA):
* Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC):
* Office of the Inspector General (OIG):
* Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology (S&T):
* Transportation Security Administration (TSA):
* U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS):
* U.S. Coast Guard (USCG):
* U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP):
* U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE):
* U.S. Secret Service (USSS):
* 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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: DHS.
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 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.
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[Footnote 8] fall vacant.[Footnote 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 followed. For
covered PAS vacancies, the Vacancies Reform Act, among other things,
* 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.
* Specifies who may serve as acting officer.
* 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.[Footnote 10]
We receive agencies' reports and enter the data in our tracking system.
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
[End of figure]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
[End of figure]
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).[Footnote 11] In addition, TSA had 1 presidential appointment
(0 vacant) and 155 Transportation SES[Footnote 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.
Figure 4: Senior-Level Attrition at Cabinet-Level Departments during
Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis od CPDF data.
[End of figure]
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).[Footnote 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.
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).
Table 1: SES Survey Responses on Challenges Faced in Filling SES
Positions, by Type of Challenge:
Level of challenge reported: Not a challenge;
Limited number of applicants with the necessary leadership skills:
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center;
Office of Intelligence Analysis;
Office of the Inspector General;
Office of Operations;
Science and Technology Directorate;
Transportation Security Administration;
U.S. Coast Guard;
Limited number of applicants with the necessary technical skills:
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center;
Office of the Inspector General;
Office of Operations;
Science and Technology Directorate;
U.S. Coast Guard;
SES staffing/hiring process:
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center;
Office of General Counsel;
Office of the Inspector General;
Office of Operations;
Office of Preparedness;
Transportation Security Administration;
U.S. Secret Service;
OPM 90-day qualifications review board process:
DHS Headquarters;
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office;
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center;
Office of General Counsel;
Office of Operations;
Science and Technology Directorate;
Transportation Security Administration;
US-VISIT.
Level of challenge reported: Slight or moderate challenge;
Limited number of applicants with the necessary leadership skills:
CBP;
DHS Headquarters;
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office;
Federal Emergency Management Agency;
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Office of General Counsel;
Office of Preparedness;
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service;
U.S. Secret Service;
Limited number of applicants with the necessary technical skills:
CBP;
DHS Headquarters;
Federal Emergency Management Agency;
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Office of General Counsel;
Office of Intelligence Analysis;
Office of Preparedness;
Transportation Security Administration;
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service;
U.S. Secret Service;
SES staffing/hiring process:
DHS Headquarters;
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office;
Office of Intelligence Analysis;
U.S. Coast Guard;
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Enforcement;
CBP;
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
US-VISIT;
Science and Technology Directorate;
OPM 90-day qualifications review board process:
Federal Emergency Management Agency;
Office of Intelligence Analysis;
Office of the Inspector General;
Office of Preparedness;
U.S. Coast Guard;
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service.
Level of challenge reported:
Great or very great challenge;
Limited number of applicants with the necessary leadership skills:
None;
Limited number of applicants with the necessary technical skills:
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office;
SES staffing/hiring process: FEMA;
OPM 90-day qualifications review board process:
CBP;
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Source: GAO analysis of survey results.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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:
* FEMA;
* Office of the Inspector General;
* TSA;
* U.S. Coast Guard;
* CBP:
* U.S. Secret Service; and:
* U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The four components using the exit survey developed by CHCO are:
* DHS Headquarters;
* Domestic Nuclear Detection Office;
* Science and Technology Directorate; and:
* 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.[Footnote 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.
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 authority;
A special authority that expedites hiring by allowing an agency to
appoint an eligible veteran without competition.
Student career experience programs;
Provides federal employment opportunities to 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 Program;
Typically individuals are appointed to a 2-year 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 Rate;
A rate of basic pay for a newly-hired employee 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.
[End of table]
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 suggestion/Invention award;
A monetary award for suggestions, inventions, or a productivity gain.
Individual and group time-off award;
An award of time-off to recognize superior 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.
[End of table]
Table 4: Flexibilities Involving DHS's Retention of Employees and/or
Recruitment of New Employees:
Special Rate or Critical Position Pay;
A special rate is a rate of basic pay for 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 waiver;
A waiver given to rehired retired federal 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.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 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.)
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:
Fiscal year 2005;
Individual and Group Cash Award: 62.46;
Individual and Group Time-off Award: 24.42;
Individual and Group Suggestion Award: 0.02;
Quality Step Increase: 0.81;
Retention Incentive: 0.16.
Fiscal year 2006;
Individual and Group Cash Award: 161.40;
Individual and Group Time-off Award: 20.08;
Individual and Group Suggestion Award: 0.01;
Quality Step Increase: 0.66;
Retention Incentive: 0.93.
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 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.
Figure 5: Frequency with Which DHS Components Used Individual or Group
Cash Awards per 100 Employees during Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
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.
[End of figure]
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:
Fiscal year 2005;
Direct Hire Authority: 0.94;
FCIP: 15.51;
Recruitment Incentive: 0.49;
SCEP: 0.30;
Superior Qualifications: 1.20;
Veterans Recruitment Authority: 0.49.
Fiscal year 2006;
Direct Hire Authority: 0.79;
FCIP: 22.48;
Recruitment Incentive: 0.10;
SCEP: 0.41;
Superior Qualifications: 1.04;
Veterans Recruitment Authority: 0.35.
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
[End of table]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of CPDF data.
[End of figure]
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[Footnote 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.
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:
Text box:
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.
[End of text box]
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: Domestic Nuclear Detection Office;
Total number of agreements: 4.
Component or office: Office of Intelligence Analysis;
Total number of agreements: 2.
Component or office: Office of Policy;
Total number of agreements: 1.
Component or office: Office of Preparedness;
Total number of agreements: 11.
Component or office: Science and Technology Directorate;
Total number of agreements: 17.
Component or office: CBP;
Total number of agreements: 1.
Component or office: Total;
Total number of agreements: 36.
Source: DHS.
[End of table]
Table 8: Personal Services Contracts in DHS as of September 30, 2006:
Component or office: Office of Preparedness;
Total number of contracts: 1.
Component or office: CBP;
Total number of contracts: 36.
Component or office: U.S. Coast Guard;
Total number of contracts: 24.
Component or office: Total;
Total number of contracts: 61.
Source: DHS.
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 25]
DHS was given personal services contracting authority in the Homeland
Security Act (HSA).[Footnote 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.[Footnote
27] Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §1091, 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.
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.
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 http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at 202-512-2757 or GoldenkoffR@gao.gov. 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.
Signed by:
Robert Goldenkoff:
Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
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:
* Identified them as permanent employees, whether full-or part-time.
* Indicated that they had separated from their agency of employment
through resignation or transfer to another agency.
We did not include a small percentage (
