Transportation Security Administration
TSA Executive Attrition Has Declined, but Better Information Is Needed on Reasons for Leaving and Executive Hiring Process Gao ID: GAO-10-139 October 9, 2009The Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Transportation Security Executive Service (TSES) consists of executive-level staff serving in key agency positions just below political appointees. Committees of Congress have raise questions about the frequency of turnover within the TSES and have directed GAO to examine turnover among TSES staff. Accordingly, this report examines: (1) TSES attrition and how it compares with that of Senior Executive Service (SES) staff in other DHS components and cabinet-level departments, (2) the reasons TSES staff separated from TSA, and (3) TSA efforts to mange TSES attrition consistent with effective management practices. To answer these objectives, GAO analyzed data within the Office of Personnel Management's Central Personnel Data File, reviewed TSA human capital policies and procedures, and interviewed former TSES staff. The results of these interviews are not generalizable, but represent the views of about half the TSES staff who separated from fiscal years 2005 through 2008.
Separation data from fiscal years 2004 through 2008 show that attrition among TSA's TSES staff was consistently lower than the rate of attrition among all DHS SES staff and, through 2007, higher than SES attrition for all other cabinet-level departments. Separations among TSES staff peaked at 20 percent in fiscal years 2005, but declined each year thereafter, and resignations (as opposed to retirements, terminations, transfers to other cabinet level departments, or expirations of a term appointment) were the most frequent type of TSES separations over this period. In interviews with 46 former TSES staff, the majority (36 of 46) identified at least one adverse reason (that is, a reason related to dissatisfaction with some aspect of their experience at TSA) for leaving, as opposed to a nonadverse reason (such as leaving the agency for another professional opportunity). The two most frequently cited reasons for separation were dissatisfaction with the leadership style of the TSA administrator or those reporting directly to him (14 of 46) and to pursue another professional opportunity (14 of 46). To better address TSES attrition and manage executive resources, TSA has implemented measures consistent with effective human capital management practices and standards for internal control in the federal government. These measures include, among other things, reinstating an exit survey and establishing a process for hiring TSES staff that encompasses merit staffing requirements. However, TSA could improve upon these measures. For example, due to TSA officials' concerns about respondents' anonymity, TSA's new exit survey precludes TSES staff from identifying their position. Without such information, it will be difficult for TSA to identify reasons for attrition specific for TSES staff. Moreover, inconsistent with internal control standards, TSA did not document its adherence with at least one merit staffing procedure for 20 of 25 TSES hired in calendar year 2006 and 8 of 16 TSES hired in calendar year 2008. Although there are internal mechanisms that provide TSA officials reasonable assurance that merit staffing principles are followed, better documentation could also help TSA demonstrate to an independent third party, the Congress, and the public that its process for hiring TSES staff is fair and open.
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-10-139, Transportation Security Administration: TSA Executive Attrition Has Declined, but Better Information Is Needed on Reasons for Leaving and Executive Hiring Process
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-139
entitled 'Transportation Security Administration: TSA Executive
Attrition Has Declined, but Better Information Is Needed on Reasons for
Leaving and Executive Hiring Process' which was released on October 9,
2009.
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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2009:
Transportation Security Administration:
TSA Executive Attrition Has Declined, but Better Information Is Needed
on Reasons for Leaving and Executive Hiring Process:
GAO-10-139:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-139, a report to Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Transportation Security Administration‘s (TSA) Transportation
Security Executive Service (TSES) consists of executive-level staff
serving in key agency positions just below political appointees.
Committees of Congress have raise questions about the frequency of
turnover within the TSES and have directed GAO to examine turnover
among TSES staff. Accordingly, this report examines: (1) TSES attrition
and how it compares with that of Senior Executive Service (SES) staff
in other DHS components and cabinet-level departments, (2) the reasons
TSES staff separated from TSA, and (3) TSA efforts to mange TSES
attrition consistent with effective management practices. To answer
these objectives, GAO analyzed data within the Office of Personnel
Management‘s Central Personnel Data File, reviewed TSA human capital
policies and procedures, and interviewed former TSES staff. The results
of these interviews are not generalizable, but represent the views of
about half the TSES staff who separated from fiscal years 2005 through
2008.
What GAO Found:
Separation data from fiscal years 2004 through 2008 show that attrition
among TSA‘s TSES staff was consistently lower than the rate of
attrition among all DHS SES staff and, through 2007, higher than SES
attrition for all other cabinet-level departments. Separations among
TSES staff peaked at 20 percent in fiscal years 2005, but declined each
year thereafter, and resignations (as opposed to retirements,
terminations, transfers to other cabinet level departments, or
expirations of a term appointment) were the most frequent type of TSES
separations over this period.
In interviews with 46 former TSES staff, the majority (36 of 46)
identified at least one adverse reason (that is, a reason related to
dissatisfaction with some aspect of their experience at TSA) for
leaving, as opposed to a nonadverse reason (such as leaving the agency
for another professional opportunity). The two most frequently cited
reasons for separation were dissatisfaction with the leadership style
of the TSA administrator or those reporting directly to him (14 of 46)
and to pursue another professional opportunity (14 of 46).
To better address TSES attrition and manage executive resources, TSA
has implemented measures consistent with effective human capital
management practices and standards for internal control in the federal
government. These measures include, among other things, reinstating an
exit survey and establishing a process for hiring TSES staff that
encompasses merit staffing requirements. However, TSA could improve
upon these measures. For example, due to TSA officials‘ concerns about
respondents‘ anonymity, TSA‘s new exit survey precludes TSES staff from
identifying their position. Without such information, it will be
difficult for TSA to identify reasons for attrition specific for TSES
staff. Moreover, inconsistent with internal control standards, TSA did
not document its adherence with at least one merit staffing procedure
for 20 of 25 TSES hired in calendar year 2006 and 8 of 16 TSES hired in
calendar year 2008. Although there are internal mechanisms that provide
TSA officials reasonable assurance that merit staffing principles are
followed, better documentation could also help TSA demonstrate to an
independent third party, the Congress, and the public that its process
for hiring TSES staff is fair and open.
Figure: Comparison of Attrition Rates among Executives at TSA, DHS, and
Cabinet-level Agencies (Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008):
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Fiscal year: 2004;
All of DHS (excluding TSA): 23;
TSA: 16;
All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 10.
Fiscal year: 2005;
All of DHS (excluding TSA): 23;
TSA: 20;
All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 11.
Fiscal year: 2006;
All of DHS (excluding TSA): 24;
TSA: 19;
All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 11.
Fiscal year: 2007;
All of DHS (excluding TSA): 17;
TSA: 13;
All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 11.
Fiscal year: 2008;
All of DHS (excluding TSA): 14;
TSA: 10;
All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 11.
Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM‘s Central Personnel Data File.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends the TSA enable TSES staff to identify their level of
employment when completing exit surveys and better document how it
applies merit staffing requirements when hiring TSES staff. TSA
concurred with GAO‘s recommendations and has taken steps to implement
them.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-139] or key
components. For more information, contact Stephen M. Lord at (202) 512-
8777 or lords@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
TSES Attrition Has Declined Since 2005 and Has Consistently Been Lower
than SES Attrition at Other DHS Components and, Until Recently, Above
SES Attrition at Other Cabinet-level Departments:
Former TSES Staff We Interviewed Primarily Cited Adverse Reasons for
Leaving TSA; Current TSA Employees and Other Stakeholders Expressed
Varying Views on the Impact of These Separations:
Nonadverse Reasons Cited for Leaving TSA:
Adverse Reasons Cited for Leaving TSA:
TSA Has Taken Steps to Manage TSES Attrition by Affording Separating
TSES Staff the Opportunity to Complete an Exit Survey and Decreasing
Its Use of Limited Term Appointments, but Limited Exit Survey Data May
Hinder Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Transportation Security Executive Service Staff Attrition
Data:
Appendix III: Transportation Security Administration National Exit
Survey:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Differences between OPM and TSA Policies and Procedures
Related to Executive Staff:
Table 2: Number of Executive-level Staff Employed per Thousand
Nonexecutive Staff at DHS Agencies and TSA for Fiscal Years 2005
through 2008:
Table 3: Total TSES Headquarters and Field Staff, Fiscal Years 2004
through 2008a:
Table 4: Number of TSES Staff Who Left TSA from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2008, by Type of Separation:
Table 5: Reasons for Leaving TSA Sited by Former TSES Staff Members a
(N=46):
Table 6: Number of New Limited Term TSES Appointments and Total New
TSES Appointments for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008:
Table 7: Number of Hiring Decisions for TSES Positions Filled in
Calendar Years 2006 and 2008 for which TSA Documentation of Merit
Staffing Procedures Was Missing or Unclear:
Table 8: TSES Staff Who Separated from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2008
Possessing Selection Criteria Characteristics:
Table 9: Fiscal Years 2005 through 2008 Separated TSES Staff Members'
Cited Reasons for Leaving TSA:
Table 10: Seven Key Merit Staffing Requirements:
Table 11: Fiscal Year 2004 Attrition Data by Separation Type for Senior
Executives at All DHS Components:
Table 12: Fiscal Year 2004 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for
Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-level Departments:
Table 13: Fiscal Year 2005 Attrition Data by Separation Type for Senior
Executives at All DHS Components:
Table 14: Fiscal Year 2005 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for
Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-level Departments:
Table 15: Fiscal Year 2006 Attrition Data by Separation Type for Senior
Executives at All DHS Components:
Table 16: Fiscal Year 2006 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for
Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-Level Departments:
Table 17: Fiscal Year 2007 Attrition Data by Separation Type for Senior
Executives at All DHS Components:
Table 18: Fiscal Year 2007 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for
Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-level Departments:
Table 19: Fiscal Year 2008 Attrition Data by Separation Type for Senior
Executives at All DHS Components:
Table 20: Fiscal Year 2008 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for
Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-Level Departments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Comparison of Attrition Rates among All TSES Staff,
Headquarters TSES staff, and Field TSES staff, for Fiscal Years 2004
through 2008:
Figure 2: Comparison of Attrition Rates among Executives at TSA, DHS,
and Other Cabinet-level Agencies (Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008):
Figure 3: Comparison of Rates of Resignation among Executives at TSA,
DHS, and Other Cabinet-level Agencies (Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008):
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 9, 2009:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable David E. Price:
Chairman:
The Honorable Harold Rogers:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
President signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA)
into law on November 19, 2001, establishing the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) as the agency responsible for securing the
nation's transportation systems, including civil aviation, highways,
railroads, buses, mass transit systems, ports, and pipelines.[Footnote
1] Immediately after its formation, TSA began assembling a cadre of
senior-level career staff to help establish the new agency. These staff
members became part of the agency's Transportation Security Executive
Service (TSES), which--similar to the Senior Executive Service (SES) of
other executive branch agencies--is comprised of individuals selected
for their executive leadership experience and subject area expertise to
serve in key agency positions just below presidential appointees.
In June 2007, a report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives noted that TSA had frequent and sustained attrition
within its TSES ranks, resulting in a lack of historical knowledge
about the programs and policies of the agency.[Footnote 2] We have also
reported that the extensive loss of experienced workers can lead to
critical gaps in an agency's leadership, skills, and institutional
knowledge.[Footnote 3] Due to its concern over TSA executive turnover,
the Committee, in its report, encouraged TSA to take appropriate
measures to build a stable, senior executive workforce so that when a
change in political administration occurs, the agency can continue
operating throughout the transition period without a diminution in
transportation security oversight. Subsequently, the explanatory
statement accompanying the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008, directed GAO
to examine attrition--defined in this report as any type of separation
from service (e.g., resignation, retirement, transfer)--among TSES
staff since the agency's formation.[Footnote 4] Accordingly, this
report addresses the following questions:
1. What has been the attrition rate among TSES staff for fiscal years
2004 through 2008, and how does it compare to attrition among SES staff
in other DHS components and cabinet-level departments?[Footnote 5]
2. What reasons did former TSES staff provide for leaving TSA, and how
do current TSA officials and industry stakeholders view the impact of
TSES attrition on TSA's operations?
3. To what extent are current TSA efforts to manage TSES attrition
consistent with effective human capital practices and standards for
internal control in the federal government?[Footnote 6]
To address the first objective, we obtained fiscal year 2004 through
2008 data from the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Central
Personnel Data File (CPDF) to determine the rate of attrition among
TSES staff and SES staff in other DHS components and cabinet-level
departments.[Footnote 7] We selected this time period because 2004 was
the first full fiscal year during which TSA was a part of DHS after
transferring from the Department of Transportation in March 2003, and
2008 was the most recently completed fiscal year for which attrition
data were available in CPDF. To calculate attrition rates, we divided
the total number of TSES who separated in a given fiscal year by the
average number of TSES employed by the agency for that fiscal year.
[Footnote 8] For these calculations, we included all separation types--
that is, the manner in which the TSES or SES staff member left the
agency or department, such as through resignation, transfer to another
cabinet-level department, retirement, termination, and expiration of a
term appointment.[Footnote 9] However, we did not include transfers
from TSA to other SES positions within DHS because this information was
not readily identifiable within CPDF data. We found CPDF data
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this study. In addition to
calculating the overall rate of attrition for TSA, DHS, and cabinet-
level departments, we also calculated attrition rates for each
separation type. To place TSA's senior executive attrition rate in
context, we compared it to the overall DHS SES attrition rate
(excluding TSA) and the overall SES attrition rate for all other
cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS).
To obtain data on the reasons why former TSES chose to separate from
TSA, we conducted interviews with 46 TSES staff who left the agency
during fiscal years 2005 through 2008. To identify interviewees, we
obtained a list from TSA of all TSES staff who left the agency during
fiscal years 2005 through 2008--a total of 95 individuals.[Footnote 10]
From this list, we ultimately selected a nonprobability sample of 46
individuals for interviews in order to achieve diversity among the
following three characteristics--fiscal year of separation (2005
through 2008), manner of separation (resignations, retirements, etc.),
and job location (headquarters or field).[Footnote 11] To categorize
the reasons why the 46 TSES staff separated, we conducted a content
analysis of their responses to our open-ended interview question asking
them to describe the reasons why they left the agency. Although our
sample did not allow us to generalize about the reasons for all TSES
separations from fiscal years 2005 through 2008, it did provide us with
the perspectives on why nearly half of these TSES staff left TSA. To
obtain information on the impact of TSES staff attrition on agency
operations, we conducted interviews with 22 TSA staff who were direct
reports to--that is, staff who were directly supervised by--at least
one of the TSES staff who separated from TSA during fiscal years 2005
through 2008, as well as 7 TSA officials who had supervised at least
one of these former TSES staff members.[Footnote 12] To obtain
perspectives on how TSES attrition may have impacted TSA's ability to
work with stakeholders, we obtained information from seven industry
associations representing various transportation sectors that
collaborate with TSA on transportation security initiatives--three
aviation, one surface, and three maritime associations. We identified
these associations based upon our existing knowledge of contacts at
various associations and by canvassing GAO's team of transportation
security analysts for additional contacts. The results of our
interviews with direct reports, supervisors, and industry stakeholders
are not generalizable, but do provide a range of perspectives on the
impact of TSES attrition.
To gather information on the extent to which current TSA efforts to
manage TSES attrition are consistent with effective human capital
practices and internal control standards, we first reviewed past GAO
reports identifying effective human capital practices as well as the
standards for internal controls in the federal government.[Footnote 13]
We also reviewed applicable OPM regulations addressing merit staffing.
[Footnote 14] We conducted interviews with TSA human capital officials
on efforts underway and reviewed relevant documentation, such as TSA's
exit interview protocols (past and planned), completed exit interviews
with separated staff, succession plans, and procedures for hiring TSES
staff which incorporate merit staffing requirements. We also reviewed
all case files containing documentation of the merit staffing
procedures TSA followed for the competitive selection of all
individuals for career TSES appointments from March 2006--when TSA
established its hiring process--through the end of calendar year 2006
and for all of calendar year 2008.[Footnote 15]
We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 to October 2009 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our objectives. Additional details on our scope
and methodology are included in appendix I.
Background:
Human Capital Authorities and Flexibilities Available to TSA with
Regard to Its Executive Staff:
ATSA applied the personnel management system of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to TSA employees, and further authorized TSA to
make any modifications to the system it considered necessary.[Footnote
16] Therefore, similar to FAA, TSA is exempt from many of the
requirements imposed and enforced by OPM--the agency responsible for
establishing human capital policies and regulations for the federal
government--and, thus, has more flexibility in managing its executive
workforce than many other federal agencies.[Footnote 17] For example,
compared to agencies operating under OPM's regulations, TSA is not
limited in the number of permanent TSES appointments and limited term
TSES appointments it may make and the types of positions limited term
TSES appointments may be used for. Also, TSA has more discretion in
granting recruitment, relocation, or retention incentives to TSES staff
than other agencies have for SES staff (see table 1).
Table 1: Differences between OPM and TSA Policies and Procedures
Related to Executive Staff[A]:
Categories of executive service policies and procedures: Types of
executive appointments;
Policies and procedures related to executive staff at OPM-regulated
agencies: There are four types of executive appointments:
Career: an appointment in which the SES must be selected through merit
staffing and have executive core qualifications (ECQs) approved by OPM;
career appointees may fill any agency position, and may move to SES
positions at other agencies without undergoing merit staffing or ECQ
approval[B];
Noncareer: an appointment in which the SES may be selected through
merit staffing and does not have ECQs approved by OPM; noncareer
appointees may only fill certain positions approved for noncareer
appointments;
Limited term: an appointment in which the SES does not have to be
selected through merit staffing or have ECQs approved by OPM;
appointees may only fill certain positions for a limited duration;
Limited emergency: an appointment in which the SES does not have to be
selected through merit staffing or have ECQs approved by OPM;
appointees may only fill certain designated positions established to
meet an unanticipated, urgent need;
Policies and procedures related to executive staff at TSA: There are
two types of executive appointments:
Career: an appointment in which the TSES must be selected through merit
staffing and have ECQs approved by OPM; career TSES appointees may fill
any agency position and may move to SES positions at other agencies,
pursuant to the OPM-DHS interchange agreement, without undergoing merit
staffing or ECQ approval;
Limited term: an appointment in which the TSES does not have to be
selected through merit staffing or have ECQs approved; limited term
appointees may fill any position in the agency, but may not move to
another SES position outside of the agency without first being selected
through merit staffing and having their ECQs approved by OPM.
Categories of executive service policies and procedures: Duration of
limited term appointments;
Policies and procedures related to executive staff at OPM-regulated
agencies: Limited term appointments are up to 3 years in length.
Limited emergency appointments are up to 18 months in length;
Policies and procedures related to executive staff at TSA: No limit on
the duration of limited term appointments, but TSA has self-imposed a 3-
year limit[C].
Categories of executive service policies and procedures: Limitations on
term appointments as a percentage of total executive positions;
Policies and procedures related to executive staff at OPM-regulated
agencies: Noncareer appointments cannot exceed 25 percent of the number
of SES positions allocated to the agency and 10 percent of the number
of SES positions governmentwide. Limited term appointments cannot
exceed 5 percent of the number of SES positions governmentwide. By
regulation, agencies may approve limited appointments up to 3 percent
of the agencies' allotted number of SES positions. OPM approval is
required for additional appointments;
Policies and procedures related to executive staff at TSA: No limit on
the number of term appointments.
Categories of executive service policies and procedures: Compensation
Ceiling;
Policies and procedures related to executive staff at OPM-regulated
agencies: For SES under an appraisal system certified by OPM and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as making distinctions in pay
based upon performance, the pay cap is Level II of the Executive
Scheduled, ($177,000 in 2009). For SES who are not under a certified
appraisal system, the pay cap is Level III of the Executive Schedule
($162,900 in 2009). SES pay is subject to an aggregate limitation on
pay plus pay incentives (such as cash award for performance or
retention bonus) up to Level I of the Executive Schedule ($196,700) or
up to the Vice President's salary ($227,300 in 2009) for an SES member
under an appraisal system certified OPM and OMB;
Policies and procedures related to executive staff at TSA: The TSES
maximum rate of basic pay is equal to that of Level II of the Executive
Schedule. TSES pay is generally subject to an aggregate limitation on
pay plus pay incentives (such as cash award for performance or
retention bonus) up to the Vice President's salary ($227,300 in 2009).
For unique circumstances, the TSA Assistant Administrator of the Office
of Human Capital may waive the limit on aggregate pay up to $250,000,
but only for the purposes of a recruitment, relocation, or retention
incentive.
Source: GAO analysis of TSA and OPM guidance on senior executive
programs.
[A] The table does not identify and describe all differences in human
capital policies applicable to the TSES and the SES of other agencies.
[B] Pursuant to merit staffing requirements, which OPM established by
regulation, agencies must provide for fair and open competition in
their hiring process (by, for example, requiring that all candidates be
evaluated against stated position requirements). See 5 C.F.R. pt. 317.
Qualifications review boards (QRB) are convened by OPM and are
responsible for reviewing and approving applicants' executive core
qualifications (ECQ)--five executive skill sets (leading change,
leading people, results driven, business acumen, and building
coalitions) that OPM has determined are needed to succeed in a variety
of SES positions. To be evaluated by a QRB, candidates submit written
narratives identifying how they have demonstrated proficiency in each
of the ECQs over their career. SES and TSES staff members who have been
selected through merit staffing and who have had their ECQs approved by
a QRB are considered to have been "competitively placed." As such,
these individuals are no longer subject to the merit staffing and ECQ
approval processes for any subsequent position once they fulfill a
probationary assignment period.
[C] TSA began limiting limited term appointments to 3 years in 2006;
prior to this period, some appointments may have been made for
different lengths of time.
[D] By statute, maximum rates for SES and senior federal government
employees are defined by reference to the Executive Schedule, which
consists of five pay levels - Level I through Level V, and applies to
positions identified in 5 U.S.C. § 5312 through § 5316. Level I
encompasses the highest level of executive pay ($196,700 for 2009);
Level II encompasses the second highest ($177,000 for 2009), etc.
[End of table]
One benefit available to career-appointed SES in OPM-regulated agencies
is that once they are accepted into the SES of their agency, they can
apply for and obtain SES positions in other OPM-regulated executive
branch agencies without undergoing the merit staffing process. DHS and
OPM signed an agreement in February 2004 which also allows career-
appointed TSES staff the benefit of applying to SES positions without
being subject to the merit staffing process. Under the provisions of
the agreement, TSA must ensure that all TSES staff selected for their
first career TSES appointment (1) are hired using a process that
encompasses merit staffing principles and (2) undergo the ECQ-
evaluation process.[Footnote 18] Consistent with OPM regulations,
[Footnote 19] a hiring process that encompasses federal merit staffing
requirements should include:
* public notice of position availability,
* identification of all minimally eligible candidates,
* identification of position qualifications,[Footnote 20]
* rating and ranking of all eligible candidates using position
qualifications,[Footnote 21]
* determination of the best qualified candidates (a "best qualified
list"),[Footnote 22]
* selection of a candidate for the position from among those best
qualified, and:
* certification of a candidate's executive and technical
qualifications.
TSES Positions within TSA:
TSA has consistently employed more senior executives than any other DHS
component agency; however, as shown in table 2, from fiscal years 2005
through 2008, TSA went from being one of the DHS components with the
highest numbers of executive staff per nonexecutive staff, to one of
the components with the fewest executive staff per nonexecutive staff.
Specifically, out of eight DHS components, TSA had the third highest
number of executives per nonexecutive staff in 2005; however, by fiscal
year 2008, TSA had the third lowest number of executives per
nonexecutive staff. Compared with DHS overall, TSA had the same number
of executive per nonexecutive staff as DHS in 2005, but over the 4-year
period, the number of TSA executive to nonexecutive staff declined,
while that of DHS increased. Moreover, the number of TSA executive
staff per nonexecutive staff was consistently lower than that of all
cabinet-level departments for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 (see table
2).
Table 2: Number of Executive-level Staff Employed per Thousand
Nonexecutive Staff at DHS Agencies and TSA for Fiscal Years 2005
through 2008:
DHS components or departments[A]: Transportation Security
Administration;
FY 2005: Average number of executives[B]: 160;
FY 2005: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 2.7;
FY 2006: Average number of executives: 144;
FY 2006: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 2.5;
FY 2007: Average number of executives: 139;
FY 2007: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 2.4;
FY 2008: Average number of executives: 144;
FY 2008: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 2.4.
DHS components or departments[A]: U.S. Customs and Border Protection;
FY 2005: Average number of executives[B]: 58;
FY 2005: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.4;
FY 2006: Average number of executives: 67;
FY 2006: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.6;
FY 2007: Average number of executives: 74;
FY 2007: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.6;
FY 2008: Average number of executives: 89;
FY 2008: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.8.
DHS components or departments[A]: U.S. Secret Service;
FY 2005: Average number of executives[B]: 39;
FY 2005: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 5.9;
FY 2006: Average number of executives: 41;
FY 2006: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 6.2;
FY 2007: Average number of executives: 45;
FY 2007: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 6.8;
FY 2008: Average number of executives: 47;
FY 2008: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 7.1.
DHS components or departments[A]: Federal Emergency Management Agency;
FY 2005: Average number of executives[B]: 33;
FY 2005: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.5;
FY 2006: Average number of executives: 35;
FY 2006: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.4;
FY 2007: Average number of executives: 43;
FY 2007: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.9;
FY 2008: Average number of executives: 54;
FY 2008: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 3.3.
DHS components or departments[A]: Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
FY 2005: Average number of executives[B]: 31;
FY 2005: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 2.0;
FY 2006: Average number of executives: 33;
FY 2006: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 2.2;
FY 2007: Average number of executives: 42;
FY 2007: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 2.6;
FY 2008: Average number of executives: 51;
FY 2008: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 2.9.
DHS components or departments[A]: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services;
FY 2005: Average number of executives[B]: 16;
FY 2005: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.8;
FY 2006: Average number of executives: 16;
FY 2006: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.8;
FY 2007: Average number of executives: 24;
FY 2007: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 2.8;
FY 2008: Average number of executives: 41;
FY 2008: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 4.3.
DHS components or departments[A]: US. Coast Guard;
FY 2005: Average number of executives[B]: 8;
FY 2005: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.1;
FY 2006: Average number of executives: 8;
FY 2006: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.0;
FY 2007: Average number of executives: 9;
FY 2007: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.2;
FY 2008: Average number of executives: 12;
FY 2008: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 1.5.
DHS components or departments[A]: DHS Headquarters[C];
FY 2005: Average number of executives[B]: 35;
FY 2005: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 90.8;
FY 2006: Average number of executives: 50;
FY 2006: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 58.9;
FY 2007: Average number of executives: 76;
FY 2007: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 57.4;
FY 2008: Average number of executives: 102;
FY 2008: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 63.9.
DHS components or departments[A]: Department of Homeland Security
(excluding TSA);
FY 2005: Average number of executives[B]: 278;
FY 2005: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 2.7;
FY 2006: Average number of executives: 306;
FY 2006: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 2.8;
FY 2007: Average number of executives: 365;
FY 2007: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 3.3;
FY 2008: Average number of executives: 446;
FY 2008: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 4.0.
DHS components or departments[A]: Cabinet-level departments (excluding
DHS); FY 2005: Average number of executives[B]: 6289;
FY 2005: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 4.1;
FY 2006: Average number of executives: 6403;
FY 2006: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 4.1;
FY 2007: Average number of executives: 6575;
FY 2007: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 4.3;
FY 2008: Average number of executives: 6791;
FY 2008: Executives per thousand nonexecutive staff: 4.3.
Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM's Central Personnel Data File.
[A] The first eight entities in this table are a selection of DHS
components and do not account for all DHS SES positions; however, all
DHS SES positions are accounted for within figures for the Department
of Homeland Security (which immediately follows the eight DHS
components).
[B] For each fiscal year, the average number of executives was
calculated by averaging (1) the number of senior executive staff in the
CPDF as of the last pay period of the fiscal year prior to the fiscal
year for which the average is being calculated and (2) the number of
senior executive staff in CPDF as of the last pay period of the fiscal
year for which the average is being calculated.
[C] DHS Headquarters is a distinct component within CPDF data which
includes all DHS executive staff in positions serving departmentwide
functions, such as those involving financial or human capital
management.
[End of table]
TSA has employed approximately equal numbers of TSES staff in both
headquarters and in the field, where its operational mission of
securing the nation's transportation system is carried out (see table
3). TSES positions in the field include federal security directors
(FSDs) who are responsible for implementing and overseeing security
operations, including passenger and baggage screening, at TSA-regulated
airports; area directors, who supervise and provide support and
coordination of federal security directors in the field; special agents
in charge, who are part of the Federal Air Marshal Service and
generally located at airports to carry out investigative activities;
and senior field executives, who work with FSDs and other federal,
state, and local officials to manage operational requirements across
transportation modes. Headquarters executive positions generally
include officials responsible for managing TSA divisions dedicated to
internal agency operations, such as the Office of Human Capital or the
Office of Legislative Affairs, and external agency operations, such as
the Office of Security Operations and the Office of Global Strategies.
[Footnote 23]
Table 3: Total TSES Headquarters and Field Staff, Fiscal Years 2004
through 2008A:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Total TSES staff headquarters: 71;
Total TSES staff field: 83.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Total TSES staff headquarters: 76;
Total TSES staff field: 84.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Total TSES staff headquarters: 67;
Total TSES staff field: 77.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Total TSES staff headquarters: 72;
Total TSES staff field: 68.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Total TSES staff headquarters: 77;
Total TSES staff field: 68.
Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM's Central Personnel Data File.
[A] CPDF data do not identify whether TSES staff work in headquarters
or in the field, but do include codes that identify the physical
location of each TSES position. We used these codes to determine the
number of field and headquarters staff for each fiscal year, and also
had TSA review and confirm our results. See appendix I for more detail.
[End of table]
TSES Attrition Has Declined Since 2005 and Has Consistently Been Lower
than SES Attrition at Other DHS Components and, Until Recently, Above
SES Attrition at Other Cabinet-level Departments:
TSES attrition for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 was at its highest
(20 percent) in fiscal year 2005, due to a surge in resignations for
that fiscal year. The rate of attrition among TSES staff for fiscal
years 2004 through 2008 was consistently lower than the rate of
attrition among all DHS SES, but, until 2008, higher than the SES
attrition rate for all other cabinet-level departments. TSA human
capital officials acknowledge that attrition among TSES staff has been
high in the past--which they attribute to the frequent turnover in
administrators the agency experienced from its formation in fiscal year
2002 through mid-2005--and noted that since TSA has had more stable
leadership, attrition has declined.
TSES Attrition Peaked in Fiscal Year 2005, Primarily Due to Staff
Resignations, and Has Since Declined:
CPDF data for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 show that attrition among
TSES staff rose from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005--peaking at
20 percent in fiscal year 2005--and has declined each year thereafter,
measuring 10 percent in 2008. Attrition includes separations due to
resignations, retirements, expiration of a limited term appointment,
terminations, or transfers to another cabinet-level department. The
rate of attrition among TSES headquarters staff was generally more than
double that of TSES staff in the field. Specifically, in fiscal years
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008, TSES attrition in headquarters was 26, 28,
28, and 14 percent respectively, compared to TSES attrition in the
field, which was 8, 13, 10, and 6 percent respectively (see figure 1).
Figure 1: Comparison of Attrition Rates among All TSES Staff,
Headquarters TSES Staff, and Field TSES Staff, for Fiscal Years 2004
through 2008A:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Fiscal year: 2004;
TSES TSA total attrition rate: 16;
TSES Headquarters attrition rate: 26;
TSES Field attrition rate: 8.
Fiscal year: 2005;
TSES TSA total attrition rate: 20;
TSES Headquarters attrition rate: 28;
TSES Field attrition rate: 13.
Fiscal year: 2006;
TSES TSA total attrition rate: 19;
TSES Headquarters attrition rate: 28;
TSES Field attrition rate: 10.
Fiscal year: 2007;
TSES TSA total attrition rate: 13;
TSES Headquarters attrition rate: 10;
TSES Field attrition rate: 16.
Fiscal year: 2008;
TSES TSA total attrition rate: 10;
TSES Headquarters attrition rate: 14;
TSES Field attrition rate: 6.
Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM‘s Central Personnel Data File and
TSA data.
[A] Regarding the field TSES attrition figures, 7 of 83 field staff
separated in 2004; 11 of 84 in 2005; 8 of 77 in 2006; 11 of 68 in 2007;
and 4 of 68 in 2008. Regarding the headquarters TSES attrition figures,
18 of 71 headquarters staff separated in 2004; 21 out of 76 in 2005; 18
out of 67 in 2006; 7 out of 72 in 2007; and 11 out of 77 in 2008.
[End of figure]
With regard to the manner in which TSES separated (through resignation,
retirement, expiration of a limited term appointment, termination, or
transfer to another cabinet-level department), our analysis of CPDF
data shows that resignations were the most frequent type of TSES
separation, accounting for almost half of total separations over the 5-
year period and about two thirds of all separations during fiscal years
2005 and 2006 (see table 4). [Footnote 24] Also, over the 5-year
period, transfers and retirements tied for the second-most frequent
type of TSES separation, while expiration of a limited term appointment
and "other" were the least common separation types for TSES.
Table 4: Number of TSES Staff Who Left TSA from Fiscal Years 2004
through 2008, by Type of Separation:
Type of separation: Resignations;
FY04: 9;
FY05: 20;
FY06: 18;
FY07: 6;
FY08: 4;
Total: 57.
Type of separation: Transfers;
FY04: 8;
FY05: 4;
FY06: 2;
FY07: 2;
FY08: 5;
Total: 22.
Type of separation: Retirements;
FY04: 3;
FY05: 4;
FY06: 4;
FY07: 6;
FY08: 5;
Total: 22.
Type of separation: Terminations;
FY04: 4;
FY05: 3;
FY06: 2;
FY07: 1;
FY08: 0;
Total: 10.
Type of separation: Expiration of a limited term appointment;
FY04: 1;
FY05: 0;
FY06: 0;
FY07: 2;
FY08: 1;
Total: 4.
Type of separation: Other[A];
FY04: 0;
FY05: 1;
FY06: 0;
FY07: 1;
FY08: 0;
Total: 2.
Type of separation: Total separations;
FY04: 25;
FY05: 32;
FY06: 27;
FY07: 18;
FY08: 15;
Total: 117.
Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM's Central Personnel Data File.
[A] "Other" includes very infrequent types of attrition, such as the
death of an employee.
[End of table]
TSA human capital officials acknowledged that attrition among TSES
staff has been high at certain points in TSA's history. They noted that
frequent turnover in administrators since TSA's creation in 2002
through mid-2005 was the likely catalyst for much TSES attrition, and
that once Administrator Hawley, who served the longest term of any TSA
Administrator, was appointed, attrition among TSES staff declined.
[Footnote 25]
Attrition among TSES Has Been Lower than that of All Other DHS SES, but
Until Fiscal Year 2008, Higher than SES Attrition among Other Cabinet-
level Departments:
As shown in figure 2, the rate of attrition among TSES staff for fiscal
years 2004 through 2008 was consistently lower than the rate of
attrition among all DHS SES. On the other hand, from fiscal years 2004
through 2006, the TSES rate of attrition was higher than the overall
SES attrition rate for all other cabinet-level departments, but in
2008, the rate was slightly lower than the rate for other cabinet-level
departments.[Footnote 26]
Figure 2: Comparison of Attrition Rates among Executives at TSA, DHS,
and Other Cabinet-level Agencies (Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008):
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Fiscal year: 2004;
Rate of attrition, All of DHS (excluding TSA): 23;
Rate of attrition, TSA: 16;
Rate of attrition, All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 10.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Rate of attrition, All of DHS (excluding TSA): 23;
Rate of attrition, TSA: 20;
Rate of attrition, All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 11.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Rate of attrition, All of DHS (excluding TSA): 24;
Rate of attrition, TSA: 19;
Rate of attrition, All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 11.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Rate of attrition, All of DHS (excluding TSA): 17;
Rate of attrition, TSA: 13;
Rate of attrition, All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 11.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Rate of attrition, All of DHS (excluding TSA): 14;
Rate of attrition, TSA: 10;
Rate of attrition, All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 11.
Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM‘s Central Personnel Data File.
[End of figure]
When comparing attrition among types of separations, we found that TSA
had higher rates of executive resignations than DHS in 2005 and 2006;
in particular, the rate of TSES resignations in 2005 (13 percent) was
almost twice that of DHS SES (7 percent). TSA also had consistently
higher rates of executive resignations than other cabinet-level
departments for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 (see figure 3). TSA
human capital officials reiterated that many of these resignations were
likely influenced by frequent turnover among TSA administrators, and
that it is natural to expect that some executive staff would choose to
leave the agency after a change in top agency leadership. They also
explained that TSA's high number of resignations could, in part,
reflect TSES staff who opted to resign in lieu of being subject to
disciplinary action or having a termination on their permanent record.
Figure 3: Comparison of Rates of Resignation among Executives at TSA,
DHS, and Other Cabinet-level Agencies (Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008):
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Fiscal year: 2004;
Rate of resignation, All of DHS (excluding TSA): 7;
Rate of resignation, TSA: 6;
Rate of resignation, All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 2.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Rate of resignation, All of DHS (excluding TSA): 7;
Rate of resignation, TSA: 13;
Rate of resignation, All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 3
Fiscal year: 2006;
Rate of resignation, All of DHS (excluding TSA): 9;
Rate of resignation, TSA: 13;
Rate of resignation, All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 2.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Rate of resignation, All of DHS (excluding TSA): 4;
Rate of resignation, TSA: 4;
Rate of resignation, All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 2.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Rate of resignation, All of DHS (excluding TSA): 5;
Rate of resignation, TSA: 3;
Rate of resignation, All cabinet-level departments (excluding DHS): 2.
Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM‘s Central Personnel Data File.
[End of figure]
Regarding other separation types, TSA's TSES had lower rates of
retirements for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 than SES in DHS and all
cabinet-level departments. However, rates of transfers among TSES were
about the same as those among SES in DHS and cabinet-level departments.
[Footnote 27] For the same time period, TSA's attrition rate for TSES
terminations and expiration of term appointments was 3 percent or less,
whereas the rate for DHS and all other cabinet-level departments was 1
percent or less.
Former TSES Staff We Interviewed Primarily Cited Adverse Reasons for
Leaving TSA; Current TSA Employees and Other Stakeholders Expressed
Varying Views on the Impact of These Separations:
In interviews with 46 of 95 TSES who separated from TSA from fiscal
years 2005 through 2008, most reported adverse reasons for leaving the
agency--that is, a reason related to dissatisfaction with some aspect
of their TSA experience, as opposed to a nonadverse reason, such as to
spend more time with family or pursue another professional opportunity.
Perceptions regarding the impact of TSES separations on TSA operations
varied among TSA staff who directly reported to separated TSES staff
members, TSES supervisors, and stakeholder groups representing
industries that collaborate with TSA on security initiatives. Some of
these reported that TSES attrition had little or no impact on the
agency's ability to implement transportation security initiatives,
while others identified negative effects on agency operations, such as
a lack of program direction and uncertainty and stress among employees.
TSES Staff We Interviewed Cited Nonadverse and Adverse Reasons for
Leaving TSA:
In addition to obtaining information on the manner by which TSES staff
separated from the agency, such as through resignation or retirement,
we also sought more detailed information on the factors that led staff
members to separate. For example, for TSES staff members who left the
agency through retirement, we sought information on any factors, beyond
basic eligibility, that compelled them to leave the agency. According
to TSA officials, one of the primary reasons for attrition among TSES
has been the large number of TSES term appointees employed by the
agency, who, by the very nature of their appointment, are expected to
leave TSA, generally within 3 years. However, as shown earlier in table
4, only 4 TSES appointees separated from TSA due to the expiration of
their appointments for fiscal years 2004 through 2008, and TSA reported
hiring a total of 76 limited term appointees over this period. TSA
human capital officials later explained that when the time period for a
limited term appointments concludes, the reason for the staff member's
separation is recorded on his or her personnel file as a type of
"termination." For this reason, TSES on limited term appointments often
leave the agency before their terms expire in order to avoid having
"termination" on their personnel record, among other reasons. To better
understand the reasons for TSES separations, and the extent to which
they may have been influenced by TSES limited term appointments, we
requested TSA exit interview data that would provide more in-depth
explanations as to why the former TSES staff members left the agency.
[Footnote 28] Since TSA had documented exit interviews for only 5 of 95
TSES staff members who separated from TSA from fiscal years 2005
through 2008,[Footnote 29] we interviewed 46 of these former TSES staff
to better understand the reasons why they left the agency.[Footnote 30]
As stated previously, because we selected these individuals based on a
nonprobability sampling method, we cannot generalize about the reasons
for all TSES separations from fiscal years 2005 through 2008. However,
these interviews provided us with perspectives on why nearly half of
these TSES staff left TSA.
Of the 46 former TSES staff members we interviewed, 33 cited more than
one reason for leaving TSA. Specifically, these individuals gave
between one and six reasons for separating, with an average of two
reasons identified per interviewee. Ten of 46 interviewees identified
only nonadverse reasons for leaving TSA, 24 identified only adverse
reasons, and 12 cited both adverse and nonadverse reasons. Nonadverse
reasons were those not related to dissatisfaction with TSA, such as
leaving the agency for another professional opportunity or to spend
more time with family. Adverse reasons were those related to
dissatisfaction with some aspect of the TSES staff member's experience
at TSA. As shown in table 5, we identified three categories of
nonadverse reasons and nine categories of adverse reasons for why TSES
staff left TSA. By discussing only the perspectives of former TSES, we
may not be presenting complete information regarding the circumstances
surrounding their separation from TSA. However, as we agreed not to
identify to TSA the identities of respondents we spoke with, we did not
obtain TSA's viewpoint on these separations because doing so would risk
revealing the interviewee's identity.[Footnote 31]
Table 5: Reasons for Leaving TSA Cited by Former TSES Staff Members[A]
(n=46):
Nonadverse reasons for separation:
1. Pursuit of another professional opportunity;
Number of TSES citing reason: 14.
2. Personal and/or family reasons;
Number of TSES citing reason: 7.
3. Expiration of a limited term appointment or reannuitant waiver;
Number of TSES citing reason: 4.
Adverse reasons for separation:
4. Dissatisfaction with leadership style of top management;
Number of TSES citing reason: 14.
5. Perception that some TSES colleagues lacked executive-level skills
or were selected for positions based on personal relationships;
Number of TSES citing reason: 13.
6. Dissatisfaction with position authority or responsibilities;
Number of TSES citing reason: 13.
7. Disagreement with top leadership's priorities or decisions;
Number of TSES citing reason: 12.
8. Frustration with agency reorganizations and turnover of
administrators;
Number of TSES citing reason: 11.
9. Perception that TSA treated TSES executives and other employees in
an unprofessional or disrespectful manner;
Number of TSES citing reason: 9.
10. Termination or perception of being forced to leave TSA;
Number of TSES citing reason: 9.
11. Other adverse reason[B];
Number of TSES citing reason: 9.
12. Pay (insufficient pay or inequitable pay);
Number of TSES citing reason: 5.
Source: GAO analysis of interview responses of 46 former TSES staff who
left TSA from fiscal years 2005 through 2008.
[A] Many TSES gave more than one reason for leaving the agency.
Therefore the total number of reasons identified for leaving is greater
than 46 (the number of TSES we interviewed).
[B] These included reasons not captured by the other adverse reasons we
identified, but that were still related to dissatisfaction with some
aspect of the TSES staff member's experience at TSA.
[End of table]
Nonadverse Reasons Cited for Leaving TSA:
Of the TSES staff we interviewed who reported leaving TSA for
nonadverse reasons, 14 of the 46 reported leaving for another
professional opportunity, such as a position in a security consulting
firm. Seven of 46 reported separating from TSA because of personal
reasons, such as the desire to spend quality time with family, and 4 of
the 46 TSES told us they separated from the agency because they were
employed on re-employed annuitant waivers, which expired after 5 years.
[Footnote 32]
Adverse Reasons Cited for Leaving TSA:
Of the TSES staff we interviewed who reported leaving TSA for adverse
reasons, 14 of the 46 cited dissatisfaction with the leadership style
of top management as a reason they left the agency. These interviewees
defined top leadership as the TSA Administrator or those reporting
directly to him, such as Assistant Administrators. In addition to
issues with management style, 10 of the 14 responses focused
specifically on top leadership's communication style and cited
instances in which top management had not communicated with other TSES
staff and, in some cases, with lower-level staff. For example, one
former FSD reported that new policies and procedures were implemented
by headquarters with little or no notice to the field. He explained
that in some cases, he learned that headquarters had issued new
policies or procedures when the media called to ask questions about
them. Another TSES interviewee reported that communication occurred
between the administrator and a core group, but all other staff
received only "bits and pieces of information." Other examples provided
in this category were more general. For example, 3 interviewees
reported they were compelled to leave the agency due to a specific TSA
Administrator's more hierarchical management style.
Thirteen of the 46 former TSES staff we interviewed stated that some of
their colleagues lacked executive-level skills or were selected for
positions based on personal relationships with administrators or other
TSES staff. Specifically, 12 of the 13 interviewees in this category
stated their colleagues lacked the necessary qualifications for the
position. For example, one interviewee mentioned that an individual
with a rail background was put in charge of a TSA division that focused
on aviation policy. In addition, 6 of the 13 TSES staff in this
category stated that many in the TSES were hired based on personal
relationships, as opposed to executive qualifications. As discussed
previously, unlike many other federal agencies, TSA is not required to
adhere to merit staffing principles when hiring for limited term TSES
positions. However, TSA has agreed to adhere to merit staffing
principles when hiring for career TSES positions in accordance with the
OPM-DHS interchange agreement. The former TSES staff we interviewed did
not always provide us with the names of their colleagues whom they
believed were not hired in accordance with merit staffing principles.
Additionally, documentation related to the hiring of TSES staff who
joined the agency prior to March 2006 was not generally available.
Therefore, we were not able to conduct an independent assessment of
whether the TSES in question should have been hired, and subsequently
were hired, in accordance with merit staffing principles. However,
later in this report, we discuss the extent to which TSA documented its
adherence to merit staffing principles when hiring for TSES career
positions in 2006 and 2008, such that an independent third party could
make this type of assessment in the future.
Thirteen of the 46 TSES staff we interviewed cited dissatisfaction with
the authority and responsibilities of their position as a reason for
leaving. Specifically, 7 TSES staff members reported being dissatisfied
with the limited authority associated with their position. For example,
during a period when contractors, as opposed to FSDs, were responsible
for hiring TSA airport employees, one former FSD explained that he
arrived at the interview site to observe the interview and testing
process for the transportation security officer candidates, but was not
allowed to enter the facility, even though he would be supervising many
of the individuals who were hired.[Footnote 33] The remaining 6 TSES
reported that they were either dissatisfied with the duties and
responsibilities of their position, or they became dissatisfied with
their position after (1) they were reassigned to a less desirable
position or (2) they believed their position lost authority over the
course of their employment. For example, regarding the latter, one
former TSES staff member reported that after his division was subsumed
within another, he became dissatisfied with no longer having the
ability to report directly to the administrator or implement policies
across the agency, and subsequently left the agency.
Twelve of the 46 TSES staff we interviewed cited disagreement with top
leadership's priorities or decisions as a reason for separation. Seven
of the 12 TSES staff in this category disagreed with a specific
management decision. For example, one former TSES staff member reported
leaving the agency when top leadership decided to discontinue a process
for evaluating candidates for a certain TSA position, which the former
TSES staff member believed was critical to selecting appropriate
individuals for the position. The other 5 staff in this category
questioned agency priorities. For example, one TSES staff member
believed that TSA focused on aviation security at the expense of
security for other modes of transportation, while another commented
that agency priorities had shifted from a security focus to one that
was centered on customer service.
Eleven of the 46 TSES staff we interviewed reported that they were
frustrated with numerous agency reorganizations and frequent changes in
TSA administrators. For example, one TSES staff member reported that
during her tenure she experienced six physical office changes along
with multiple changes to duties and responsibilities, making it
difficult to lead a cohesive program in the division. We conducted an
analysis of TSA organization charts from calendar years 2002 through
2008, and found that TSA underwent at least 10 reorganizations over
this period.[Footnote 34] Furthermore, the charts reflected 149 changes
in the TSES staff in charge of TSA divisions.[Footnote 35] Also, TSA
was headed by several different administrators from 2002 through mid-
2005--specifically, a total of 4 within its first 5 years of existence.
TSA human capital officials acknowledged that the many reorganizations
and changes in agency leadership the agency has experienced since its
formation have led to many TSES staff separations.
With regard to some of the remaining adverse reasons,
* Nine of the 46 TSES staff told us they separated from the agency
because they believed that TSA executives and employees were treated in
an unprofessional or disrespectful manner. For example, one TSES staff
member reported that upon completion of a detail at another federal
agency, he returned to TSA and learned that his TSES position had been
backfilled without his knowledge.
* Nine of the 46 TSES staff reported they were either terminated or
pressured to leave the agency. We reviewed TSA-provided data on
separations, and found that 3 of the 9 TSES in this category were
actually terminated. The 6 who were not terminated reported that they
were pressured to leave the agency. Specifically, 4 of the 6 reported
that they were forced out of the agency after being offered positions
that TSA leadership knew would be undesirable to them due to the
location, duties, or supervisor associated with the position. Finally,
2 of the 6 TSES reported they were compelled to resign after being
wrongly accused of misconduct or poor performance.
* Five of the 46 TSES staff we spoke with reported either insufficient
or inequitable pay as a reason for separating from the agency. In one
case, a TSES staff member told us that, unlike his peers, he did not
receive any bonuses or pay increases even though he was given excellent
performance reviews. TSA provided us with data on the total amount of
bonuses awarded to each TSES staff person employed with the agency
during fiscal years 2005 through 2008.[Footnote 36] Agency
documentation reflects that these bonuses were awarded to recognize
performance. Of the 95 TSES who separated during this 4-year period, 55
were awarded performance bonuses, and the total amount of these awards
ranged from $1,000 to $44,000. Of 141 TSES who were employed with TSA
during fiscal years 2005 through 2008, 92 were awarded performance
bonuses, and the total amount of these awards ranged from at least
$4,800 to $85,000.[Footnote 37] Another interviewee told us that he
left TSA due, in part, to his perception that TSES staff doing aviation
security work were paid more than TSES staff such as himself who worked
in other nonaviation transportation modes.
TSA Employees and Stakeholders Held Varying Opinions on the Impact of
TSES Attrition:
While some attrition impacts agency operations negatively, such as the
loss of historical knowledge or expertise, the separation of other
staff can have a positive impact on agency operations--such as when an
executive is not meeting performance expectations. To identify the
potential impact of TSES separations on agency operations, we conducted
interviews with TSA staff who were direct reports to and immediate
supervisors of TSES staff members who left the agency. We also
interviewed representatives of seven transportation security
associations. While we would not expect any of these individuals to
have a full understanding of the impact that TSES attrition had on the
agency, we believe that presenting the perspectives of superiors and
subordinates and external agency stakeholders enables us to offer
additional perspective on this issue.
We found that the direct reports, supervisors, and external
stakeholders had varying views regarding the impact that TSES attrition
has had on TSA. Specifically, of the 22 direct reports we interviewed,
13 stated that TSES attrition had little or no impact on TSA's programs
and policies, whereas 8 others cited negative effects, such as delays
in the development and implementation of agency programs.[Footnote 38]
Two programs direct reports identified as being negatively affected by
TSES attrition were Secure Flight and the Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) programs.[Footnote 39] In addition, 12
of the direct reports stated that TSES attrition had little or no
impact on the functioning of their particular division, although 10
cited negative effects such as a lack of communication regarding the
direction of the division and its goals; difficulties in building
relationships with ever-changing supervisors; and decreased morale.
Regarding our interviews with the 7 supervisors of TSES staff who since
left the agency, 6 reported that TSES attrition had little or no impact
on TSA's programs and policies, but one stated that TSES separations
caused a lack of vision and direction for program development.
Additionally, 4 supervisors did not believe that TSES attrition had
negative impacts on the functioning of a specific division, but 3
supervisors stated that TSES attrition did have negative impacts,
stating that separations cause uncertainty and stress among employees,
which negatively impacts morale.
With regard to our interviews with seven industry associations
representing the various stakeholders affected by TSA programs and
policies (for example, airports, mass transit systems, and maritime
industries), four industry associations could not identify a negative
impact attributable to turnover among TSES staff. The remaining three
stakeholders reported delayed program implementation and a lack of
communication from TSA associated with TSES turnover.
TSA human capital officials noted that they were generally pleased that
many of the supervisors, direct reports, and stakeholders we
interviewed stated that the impact of TSES turnover on agency
operations was minimal. In particular, they interpreted this as
evidence that their succession planning efforts--to identify, develop,
and select successors who are the right people with the right skills
for leadership and other key positions--are working as intended, and
minimizing the impact of turnover on agency operations.
TSA Has Implemented Measures to Address TSES Attrition Consistent with
Effective Human Capital Practices and Internal Controls, but Data on
Exit Surveys and Hiring Decisions Could Be Improved:
By affording separating TSES the opportunity to complete an exit
survey, TSA has taken steps to address attrition that are consistent
with internal control standards and effective human capital management
practices. Nevertheless, the current survey instrument does not allow
TSES staff leaving the agency to identify themselves as executive-level
staff, hence preventing the agency from isolating the responses of TSES
staff and using the data to address reasons for TSES attrition. In
addition, the agency has implemented other measures to improve overall
management of its TSES corps that are consistent with effective human
capital management practices and internal control standards, such as
issuing an official handbook that delineates human capital policies
applying to the TSES, implementing a succession plan, and incorporating
merit-based staffing requirements (which are intended to ensure fair
and open competition for positions) into its process for hiring
executive staff. However, inconsistent with internal control standards,
TSA did not always clearly document its implementation of merit
staffing requirements.
TSA Has Taken Steps to Manage TSES Attrition by Affording Separating
TSES Staff the Opportunity to Complete an Exit Survey and Decreasing
Its Use of Limited Term Appointments, but Limited Exit Survey Data May
Hinder Efforts:
According to TSA officials, in January 2008, TSA began collecting data
on the reasons for TSES separation through an exit interview process,
asking questions specifically designed to capture the experiences of
executive-level staff. The interview was administered by TSA human
capital officials. According to a TSA official, after we requested
access to this information in September 2008, TSA ceased conducting
these exit interviews due to concerns that the format would not provide
for anonymity of former TSES staff members' responses. According to
standards for internal control in the federal government, as part of
its human capital planning, management should consider how best to
retain valuable employees to ensure the continuity of needed skills and
abilities.[Footnote 40] Also, we have reported that collecting and
analyzing data on the reasons for attrition through exit interviews is
important for strategic workforce planning. [Footnote 41] Such planning
entails developing and implementing long-term strategies for acquiring,
developing, and retaining employees, so that an agency has a workforce
in place capable of accomplishing its mission.[Footnote 42] In March
2009, TSA, recognizing the importance of such a process to its
management of TSES resources, announced it was affording separating
TSES staff the opportunity to complete an exit survey. Specifically,
TSA officials reported that they would use the agency's National Exit
Survey instrument, which has been in use for non-TSES staff since
November 2005.[Footnote 43] We reviewed the survey instrument, which
consists of 21 questions (20 closed ended and one open ended)
concerning the staff member's experience at TSA and the specific
reasons for separation, and found that it generally covered all the
reasons for separation identified by 46 separated TSES staff we
interviewed.[Footnote 44]
Although TSA's National Exit Survey responses are submitted anonymously
(thereby allaying TSA's concerns with the previous TSES exit interview
process), respondents are given the opportunity to identify what
position they held at TSA, such as "Transportation Security Officer
(TSO)," by selecting from a pre-set list of position titles.[Footnote
45] However, TSA does not list "TSES" among the answer choices, which
precludes TSES staff who fill out the survey from identifying their
position rank. TSA officials explained that they do not allow TSES
staff to self-identify because, given the small number of TSES staff
who leave the agency in a given year, it may be possible to determine
the identity of a particular TSES respondent. However, according to
TSA's documented policy for analyzing exit survey data, survey
responses will not be analyzed by position if the total number of
respondents in that position is fewer than five. We discussed this
issue with TSA human capital officials and the TSA officials stated
that, in light of this policy, they may consider allowing TSES staff
members to identify themselves as such when filling out the survey.
Without the ability to isolate the responses of TSES staff from those
of other staff, it will be difficult for TSA to use the results of the
exit survey to identify reasons for attrition specific to TSES staff,
thus hindering TSA's ability to use exit survey data to develop a
strategy for retaining talented TSES staff with specialized skills and
knowledge, and ensuring continuity among the agency's leadership.
TSA has also sought to manage attrition among TSES by decreasing its
use of limited term TSES appointments. TSA officials believe that the
agency's use of limited term appointments has contributed to higher
attrition among TSES staff. TSA's Chief Human Capital Officer stated
that during the agency's formation and transition to DHS, TSA made more
liberal use of limited term appointments, as it was necessary to
quickly hire those individuals with the executive and subject area
expertise to establish the agency. The official explained that as the
agency has matured, and since it now has a regular executive candidate
development program, the agency has hired fewer limited term
appointments. TSA data on the number of limited term TSES appointed
(hired) per fiscal year from 2004 through 2008 show that the agency's
use of limited term appointments has generally been decreasing, both in
number and as a proportion of all new TSES appointments. Specifically,
the number of new limited term appointments was highest in fiscal year
2004, representing over half of all TSES appointments for that fiscal
year; in fiscal year 2008, TSES made six TSES limited term
appointments, representing a sixth of all new appointments for that
fiscal year (see table 6).
Table 6: Number of New Limited Term TSES Appointments and Total New
TSES Appointments for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008A:
Fiscal year: 2004;
Number of new limited term appointments[B]: 32;
Total new TSES appointments[C]: 59.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Number of new limited term appointments[B]: 20;
Total new TSES appointments[C]: 49.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Number of new limited term appointments[B]: 8;
Total new TSES appointments[C]: 27.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Number of new limited term appointments[B]: 10;
Total new TSES appointments[C]: 51.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Number of new limited term appointments[B]: 6;
Total new TSES appointments[C]: 36.
Source: GAO analysis of TSA and CPDF data.
[A] We did not provide the number of term employees as a percentage of
total new appointments because GAO does not generally present
percentages when the total population is less than 50.
[B] TSA provided data on the number of new limited term appointments
made for each fiscal year.
[C] Total new TSES appointments for each fiscal year were determined
through an analysis of CPDF data.
[End of table]
TSA Has Taken Steps to Better Manage Its TSES Program, but Better
Documentation Is Needed so that TSA Can Demonstrate Its Use of Merit-
Based Staffing Procedures as Part of Its TSES Hiring Process:
TSA has implemented a number of steps to help attract and retain TSES
staff. In November 2008, TSA issued a TSES handbook delineating human
capital policies and procedures applicable to TSES staff.[Footnote 46]
Prior to this, a comprehensive policy document did not exist. According
to standards for internal control in the federal government, management
should establish good human capital policies and practices for hiring,
training, evaluating, counseling, promoting, compensating, and
disciplining personnel in order to maintain an environment throughout
the organization that sets a positive and supportive attitude toward
internal control and conscientious management.[Footnote 47] Moreover,
these policies and practices should be clearly documented and readily
available for examination.
TSA has had documented policies and procedures in place for such things
as reassignments, transfers, and terminations since December 2003, and
for the performance assessment of its TSES staff since July 2003.
However, in November 2008, TSA issued a more comprehensive management
directive delineating the agency's human capital policies and
procedures for TSES that, in addition to the areas listed above, also
covers details to other agencies, reinstatements, compensation, work
schedules, leave, awards and recognition, disciplinary actions, and
workforce reductions. [Footnote 48] TSA stated that its goal is to
ensure that all current TSES staff members are aware and have copies of
the management directive. The directive, along with TSA's stated
commitment to increasing TSES access to this information, should help
provide TSES staff with a more accurate and complete understanding of
the applicable human capital management authorities, flexibilities,
policies, and procedures.
TSA also developed a succession plan in 2006 to improve its overall
human capital management of TSES staff. [Footnote 49] TSA's succession
planning efforts provide for a more systematic assessment of position
needs and staff capabilities. Specifically, the plan targets 81
positions (both TSES and pay-band) and identifies the leadership and
technical competencies required for all.[Footnote 50] The program is
designed to recruit talented TSA staff in lower-level positions as
possible candidates for these positions and encourage them to apply for
entrance into a Senior Leadership Development Program (SLDP) where,
upon acceptance, program participants are to receive special access to
training and development experiences.[Footnote 51] Moreover, program
participants are to have their executive core qualifications approved
by OPM upon completion of the program, making them eligible for
noncompetitive placement into vacant TSES positions.[Footnote 52] We
have previously reported that succession planning can enable an agency
to remain aware of and be prepared for its current and future needs as
an organization, including having a workforce with the knowledge,
skills, and abilities needed for the agency to pursue its mission.
[Footnote 53]
To better manage its TSES program, TSA also established in 2006 a
hiring process for TSES staff that incorporates merit staffing
requirements; however, TSA lacked documentation that would demonstrate
whether TSA is consistently following these requirements. Although TSA
has more human capital flexibilities with regard to hiring than most
federal agencies, the agency, on its own initiative, sought to
incorporate various merit staffing requirements into its hiring
process.[Footnote 54] Merit staffing requirements help to ensure that
competition for executive positions is fair and transparent, and that
individuals with the necessary technical skills and abilities are
selected for positions--which was a concern for 13 of the 46 former
TSES we interviewed. While TSA human capital officials asserted that
TSA has always hired qualified TSES staff in accordance with merit
staffing requirements, these officials also acknowledged that for most
of TSA's existence, the agency did not have a documented process for
doing so. In January 2006, TSA established an Executive Resources
Council (ERC), which was chartered to advise the TSA Administrator and
Deputy Administrator on the recruitment, assessment, and selection of
executives, among other things. TSA's ERC charter requires that merit
staffing be used when hiring for TSES positions by encompassing certain
merit staffing requirements into its procedures, namely public notice
of position availability; identification, rating, and ranking of
eligible candidates against position qualifications; determination of a
list of best qualified candidates with the final selection coming from
among those best qualified; and the agency's certification of the final
candidate's qualifications.
According to internal control standards, internal controls and other
significant events--which could include the hiring of TSES staff--need
to be clearly documented, and the documentation should be properly
managed and maintained.[Footnote 55] To determine the extent to which
TSA documented its implementation of the merit staffing procedures, we
reviewed case files for evidence that merit staffing procedures were
followed for the selection of 25 career TSES appointments for calendar
year 2006 (the year the TSES staffing process was established) and 16
TSES staff for calendar year 2008 (the most recent full calendar year
for which documentation was available).[Footnote 56] We could not
review documentation prior to this period because TSA explained that
its hiring decisions were not consistently documented prior to the
establishment of its ERC process in March 2006.
Based upon our review, we found that for 20 of the 25 career TSES who
were hired competitively in calendar year 2006 and for 8 of the 16 TSES
who were hired competitively in calendar year 2008, documentation
identifying how TSA implemented at least one of the merit staffing
procedures was either missing or unclear. For example, in our review of
one 2008 case file, we found that the person selected for the position
had not previously held a career executive-level position, but we did
not find documentation indicating on what basis the person had been
rated and ranked against other candidates applying for the
position.[Footnote 57] Absent such documentation, it is uncertain
whether the appointment comported with TSA's hiring process. Moreover,
OPM regulations establishing merit staffing requirements, upon which
TSA based its staffing process, provide that agencies operating under
merit staffing requirements must retain such documentation for 2 years
to permit reconstruction of merit staffing actions.[Footnote 58] Table
7 identifies the specific merit staffing procedures required by TSA's
hiring process for which documentation was either missing or unclear.
Table 7: Number of Hiring Decisions for TSES Positions Filled in
Calendar Years 2006 and 2008 for which TSA Documentation of Merit
Staffing Procedures Was Missing or Unclear:
Merit staffing activity: Public notice of position availability;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2006 (n=25): 0;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2008 (n=16): 0.
Merit staffing activity: Identification of all minimally eligible
candidates;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2006 (n=25): 2;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2008 (n=16): 5.
Merit staffing activity: Identification of position qualifications;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2006 (n=25): 9;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2008 (n=16): 1.
Merit staffing activity: Rating and ranking of all eligible candidates
using position qualifications;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2006 (n=25): 6;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2008 (n=16): 3.
Merit staffing activity: Determination of a best-qualified list;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2006 (n=25): 1;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2008 (n=16): 0.
Merit staffing activity: Selection of a candidate for the position from
among those best qualified;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2006 (n=25): 4;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2008 (n=16): 0.
Merit staffing activity: TSA's certification of candidate's executive
and technical qualifications;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2006 (n=25): 11;
Number of hiring decisions for which documentation was missing or
unclear--calendar year 2008 (n=16): 1.
Source: GAO analysis of TSA documents.
[End of table]
TSA human capital officials told us that a lack of documentation within
case files does not necessarily indicate that merit staffing procedures
were not followed for a particular staffing decision. Specifically, TSA
stated that because the TSES staffing process consists of multiple
levels of review, including review by both the TSA and DHS Executive
Resources Councils, regardless of the lack of documentation, the agency
has reasonable assurance that merit staffing principles have been
followed. While TSA officials may believe that the agency has these
assurances internally, by ensuring that there is complete and
consistent documentation of its TSES staffing decisions, TSA can better
demonstrate to an independent third party, the Congress, and the public
that the way in which it hires for TSES positions is fair and open,
that candidates are evaluated on the same basis, that selection for the
position is not based on political or other non-job related factors,
and that executives with the appropriate skills sets are selected for
positions.
Conclusions:
Given the broad visibility of its mission to secure our nation's
transportation system, it is important that TSA maintain a skilled
workforce led by well-qualified executives. As TSA prepares to bring on
a new administrator, it would be beneficial to address some of the
circumstances which led the former TSES staff members we interviewed to
separate. TSA has taken steps to address attrition among TSES staff and
to improve overall management of its TSES workforce. However, some
modifications to these efforts could be beneficial. For example, TSA's
planned effort to conduct exit surveys of TSES staff--consistent with
human capital best practices--is intended to provide TSA with more
comprehensive data on the reasons why TSES staff decided to leave the
agency. However, the method by which TSA has chosen to collect these
data--anonymous surveys in which the separating TSES do not disclose
their level of employment--will not provide TSA reasons why TSES staff,
in particular, left the agency, thereby rendering the data less useful
for addressing TSES attrition. TSA has also implemented a process to
hire TSES staff, which incorporates procedures based upon merit
staffing requirements in order to ensure that candidates for career
TSES appointments are evaluated and hired on the basis of their skills
and abilities as opposed to personal relationships--which was a concern
among some former TSES staff we interviewed. By more consistently
documenting whether and how it has applied merit staffing procedures
when filling career TSES positions, TSA can better demonstrate that its
hiring of TSES is fair and merit-based, as intended.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To address attrition among TSES staff and improve management of TSES
resources, we recommend that the TSA Administrator take the following
two actions:
* Ensure that the National Exit Survey, or any other exit survey
instrument TSA may adopt, can be used to distinguish between responses
provided by TSES staff and other staff, so that the agency can
determine why TSES staff, in particular, are separating from TSA.
* Require that TSA officials involved in the staffing process for TSES
staff fully document how they applied each of the merit staffing
principles required by TSA when evaluating, qualifying, and selecting
individuals to fill career TSES positions.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
On October 7, 2009, we received written comments on the draft report,
which are reproduced in full in appendix IV. TSA concurred with our
recommendations and has taken action to implement them. In addition,
TSA, as well as OPM, provided technical comments on the draft report,
which we incorporated as appropriate.
With regard to our recommendation that TSA allow TSES staff to identify
themselves as such when filling out the National Exit Survey, TSA
stated that it has revised Question 27 of the National Exit Survey--
"What is your pay band?"--to include "TSES" as a response option.
Regarding our second recommendation that TSA fully document how it
applied merit staffing principles when evaluating, qualifying, and
selecting individuals to fill career TSES positions, TSA stated that it
has established a checklist for proper documentation and will conduct
an internal audit of TSES selection files on a quarterly basis.
While TSA agrees that it should document its adherence to merit
staffing principles, it raised a question about our analysis by stating
that we regarded documentation of TSA's certification of the
candidate's executive and technical qualifications as deficient if
there was not both a signed letter from the selecting official and a
signed Executive Resources Council recommendation, even when
contemporaneous records existed. However, TSA's statement is not
accurate. To clarify, we considered documentation of this merit
staffing principle complete if there was both a signed letter from the
selecting official as well as a description of the candidate's
executive and technical qualifications. Therefore, even if the signed
ERC recommendation was not present, if other contemporaneous records
were provided to us attesting to the candidate's executive and
technical qualifications, we would have given TSA credit for this. We
found that for 2006, of the 11 staffing folders that we determined had
incomplete documentation of TSA's adherence to the agency certification
principle, 4 were only missing the signed certification by the
selecting official, 5 were only missing the description of the
candidate's qualifications, and 2 of the folders were missing both the
signed letter from the selecting official as well as a description of
the candidate's executive and technical qualifications. The one folder
we identified from 2008 as having incomplete documentation of TSA's
certification of the candidate was missing a description of the
candidate's qualifications. The absence of critical documentation makes
it difficult to support TSA's statement that it has implemented a
rigorous process for executive resources management consistent with
effective human capital management practices and standards for internal
control.
TSA also stated that it was unable to respond to the reasons we
reported for why former TSES staff left the agency, because the
responses were anonymous. It is the case that we did not provide TSA
with the names of the former TSES staff with whom we spoke. However, we
chose not to do so because we believe that if the former TSES staff we
interviewed knew that we were going to share their names with TSA, they
would have been less candid and forthcoming in their responses. We
would also like to note that TSA would not have had to rely on the
information we obtained from former TSES staff regarding their reasons
for leaving if TSA had consistently been conducting exit interviews or
exit surveys between 2005 and 2008, which is the period of time during
which those we interviewed left the agency.
We will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and the Acting Assistant Secretary for TSA. The report will
also be available at no charge on our Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any further questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512-4379 or lords@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 IV.
Signed by:
Stephen M. Lord:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Most executive branch agencies--including most Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) agencies--have a Senior Executive Service (SES), which
is comprised of individuals selected for their executive leadership
experience and subject area expertise who serve in key agency positions
just below presidential appointees.[Footnote 59] However, due to its
exemption from many of the requirements imposed and enforced by the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)--the agency responsible for
establishing human capital policies and regulations for the federal
government--the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA)
executives are part of the Transportation Security Executive Service
(TSES), which is distinct from the SES of other agencies. The
explanatory statement accompanying the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008,
directed GAO to "report on the history of senior executive service-
level career turnover since the formation of TSA."[Footnote 60]
Accordingly, we addressed the following questions regarding TSA's TSES
staff:
1. What has been the attrition rate among TSES staff for fiscal years
2004 through 2008, and how does it compare to attrition among SES staff
in other DHS components and cabinet-level departments?
2. What reasons did former TSES staff provide for leaving TSA, and how
do current TSA officials and stakeholders view the impact of TSES
attrition on TSA's operations?
3. To what extent are current TSA efforts to manage TSES attrition
consistent with effective human capital practices and standards for
internal control in the federal government?
More details about the scope and methodology of our work to address
each of these principal questions are presented below.
Objective 1 - Attrition Rates for TSES Staff and SES Staff in DHS and
Other Cabinet-level Departments:
To calculate attrition for TSES staff and SES staff in DHS overall
(excluding TSA) as well as other cabinet-level departments, we analyzed
fiscal year 2004 through 2008 data from OPM's Central Personnel Data
File (CPDF), a repository of selected human capital data for most
Executive Branch employees, including separations data. We selected
this time period because 2004 was the first full fiscal year during
which TSA was a part of DHS after transferring from the Department of
Transportation in March 2003, and thus a more meaningful starting point
for comparing TSES attrition to SES attrition at other federal
agencies. Also, at the time of our review, 2008 was the most recently
completed fiscal year for which attrition data were available in CPDF.
The individuals who we classified as senior executive staff who
attrited, or separated, from their agencies were those with CPDF codes
that:
* identified them as senior executive staff, specifically TSES, SES, or
SES equivalent staff and[Footnote 61]
* indicated that they had separated from their agency of employment
through resignation, transfer to another cabinet-level department,
retirement, termination, expiration of term appointment, or "other"
separation type.
We did not include TSES or SES staff who made intradepartmental
transfers (such as transferring from TSA to U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), which is another DHS agency) when calculating
attrition because these data were not readily available in CPDF.
We calculated the executive attrition rates (both SES and TSES) for
each fiscal year by dividing the total number of executive separations
for a given fiscal year by the average of (1) the number of senior
executive staff in the CPDF as of the last pay period of the fiscal
year prior to the fiscal year for which the attrition rate was
calculated and (2) the number of senior executive staff in CPDF as of
the last pay period of the fiscal year in which the attrition occurred.
To place the TSA's senior executive attrition rate in context, we
compared it to the overall DHS SES attrition rate (excluding TSA) and
the overall SES attrition rate for all other cabinet-level departments
(excluding DHS). We did not calculate senior executive attrition rates
for individual component agencies within DHS (such as for U.S. Secret
Service) because the total number of senior executive staff for most of
these components for a given fiscal year was fewer than 50. We
generally do not to calculate rates or percentages when the total
population for any unit is less than 50.[Footnote 62] Given that we
could not provide rates for all DHS components, we decided not to
compare TSES attrition to SES attrition for individual DHS components;
however we do provide data on the number and type of executive
separations for each DHS component in appendix II.
For additional context, we compared the attrition rate for TSES staff
who worked in TSA headquarters to those who worked in field locations
for fiscal years 2004 through 2008. The CPDF does not identify whether
a TSES staff person is considered headquarters or field staff, but does
include codes that identify the physical location of each TSES
position, including the location of TSA's headquarters building. As
such, we considered headquarters TSES staff to be all TSES staff
assigned location codes for TSA's headquarters building. In addition,
using CPDF location codes, we identified all TSES staff working in the
Washington D.C. area (Washington, D.C., and nearby counties in Virginia
and Maryland) who were not assigned location codes for TSA
headquarters, and asked TSA to identify which of these individuals were
considered headquarters staff. All TSES staff not identified as
headquarters staff were considered field staff.[Footnote 63]
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 were 97 percent or more
accurate.[Footnote 64]
Objective 2 - Reasons for TSES Separations from TSA and Stakeholder
Views on the Impact of TSES Attrition on TSA Operations:
To identify the reasons for TSES staff attrition, we selected a
nonprobability sample of 46 former TSES staff members to interview from
a TSA-provided list of 95 TSES staff members who separated from the
agency during fiscal years 2005 through 2008.[Footnote 65] TSA provided
us with the last-known contact information for each of these
individuals. We searched electronic databases, such as LexisNexis, or
used Internet search engines to obtain current contact information for
these individuals if the information TSA provided was outdated. We
determined that the TSA-provided list of 95 former TSES staff was
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this study. To make this
determination, we compared TSA data on TSES staff separations with the
number of TSES separations identified in CPDF and found that both
sources reported sufficiently similar numbers of TSES staff separations
per fiscal year.
We attempted to select former TSES staff based on a probability sample
in order to generalize about the reasons for TSES separation. Of the 46
interviewees, 31 were selected based upon a randomized list of the 95
separated TSES created to select a probability sample. We were unable
to obtain an acceptable response rate for our sample, thus we
determined we would continue interviewing until we had obtained
responses from about half of the 95 separated TSES staff. We selected
the remaining 15 interviewees in our sample of 46 in such a way that
the proportion of interviewees with the following three
characteristics--fiscal year of separation (2005 through 2008), manner
of separation (resignations, retirements, etc.), and job location
(headquarters or field)--would be about the same as the proportion of
the 95 TSES staff members who separated during fiscal year 2005 through
2008 who had those characteristics. For example, if one-third of the 95
former TSES staff TSA identified left the agency in fiscal year 2005,
then our goal was to ensure that approximately one-third of the 46
former TSES we interviewed left in 2005. We were not always successful
in obtaining interviews with staff possessing some of the
characteristics required to make our sample population resemble the
larger population; however, for most characteristics, our sample of 46
generally had the same proportions as the larger population of TSES
(see table 8). To obtain our sample of 46 TSES, we contacted a total of
70 of the 95 separated TSES, and of these 70, 24 did not respond to our
request for an interview. Specifically, 16 of these nonresponses were
from our attempt to select a probability sample. After we began
selecting TSES for interviews based on the three characteristics--
fiscal year of separation (2005 through 2008), manner of separation
(resignations, retirements, etc.), and job location (headquarters or
field)--we encountered an additional 8 nonresponses.
Table 8: TSES Staff Who Separated from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2008
Possessing Selection Criteria Characteristics:
Selection criteria characteristics: Resignations;
Percentage of TSES population: (n=95): 52% (49);
Percentage of sample TSES interviewed: (n=46): 46% (21).
Selection criteria characteristics: Retirements;
Percentage of TSES population: (n=95): 18% (17);
Percentage of sample TSES interviewed: (n=46): 17% (8).
Selection criteria characteristics: Terminations;
Percentage of TSES population: (n=95): 6% (6);
Percentage of sample TSES interviewed: (n=46): 9% (4).
Selection criteria characteristics: Termination through expiration of a
limited term appointment;
Percentage of TSES population: (n=95): 3% (3);
Percentage of sample TSES interviewed: (n=46): 2% (1).
Selection criteria characteristics: Transfers;
Percentage of TSES population: (n=95): 21% (20);
Percentage of sample TSES interviewed: (n=46): 26% (12).
Selection criteria characteristics: Headquarters staff;
Percentage of TSES population: (n=95): 66% (63);
Percentage of sample TSES interviewed: (n=46): 72% (33).
Selection criteria characteristics: Field staff;
Percentage of TSES population: (n=95): 34% (32);
Percentage of sample TSES interviewed: (n=46): 28% (13).
Selection criteria characteristics: FY 2005 separations;
Percentage of TSES population: (n=95): 34% (32);
Percentage of sample TSES interviewed: (n=46): 30% (14).
Selection criteria characteristics: FY 2006 separations;
Percentage of TSES population: (n=95): 29% (28);
Percentage of sample TSES interviewed: (n=46): 33% (15).
Selection criteria characteristics: FY 2007 separations;
Percentage of TSES population: (n=95): 21% (20);
Percentage of sample TSES interviewed: (n=46): 24% (11).
Selection criteria characteristics: FY 2008 separations;
Percentage of TSES population: (n=95): 16% (15);
Percentage of sample TSES interviewed: (n=46): 13% (6).
Source: GAO analysis of TSA data.
[End of table]
Since we determined which former TSES staff to interview based on a
nonprobability sample, we cannot generalize the interview results to
all TSES staff who separated from TSA from fiscal years 2005 through
2008. However, these results provided us with an indication of the
range of reasons why nearly half of the TSES staff who separated from
TSA during this time period left the agency.
To ensure consistency in conducting our interviews with separated TSES
staff members, we developed a structured interview guide of 24
questions that focused on senior-level executives' reasons for
separation and their opinions on how TSA could better manage attrition.
We conducted 3 of the 46 interviews in person at GAO headquarters and
the remainder via telephone. Our question on the reasons for separation
was open-ended; therefore, to analyze the responses to this question,
we performed a systematic content analysis. To do so, our team of
analysts reviewed all responses to this question, proposed various
descriptive categories in which TSES reasons for leaving TSA could be
grouped based upon themes that emerged from the interview responses,
and ultimately reached consensus on the 12 categories listed in table 9
below.
Table 9: Fiscal Years 2005 through 2008 Separated TSES Staff Members'
Cited Reasons for Leaving TSA:
Reasons for separation:
1. Pursuit of another professional opportunity.
2. Personal and/or family reasons.
3. Expiration of a limited term appointment or reannuitant waiver.
4. Dissatisfaction with leadership style of top management.
5. Perception that some TSES colleagues lacked executive-level skills
or were selected for positions based on personal relationships.
6. Dissatisfaction with position authority or responsibilities.
7. Disagreement with top leadership's priorities or decisions.
8. Frustration with agency reorganizations and turnover of
administrators.
9. Perception that TSA treated TSES executives and other employees in
an unprofessional or disrespectful manner.
10. Termination or perception of being forced to leave TSA.
11. Other adverse reason.
12. Pay (insufficient pay and/or inequitable pays).
Source: GAO analysis of interview responses of 46 former TSES staff who
left TSA from fiscal years 2005 through 2008.
[End of table]
To determine which categories applied to a particular response provided
by the former TSES staff members we interviewed, two analysts
independently reviewed interview responses and assigned categories to
the data; there was no limit to the number of categories the analysts
could assign to each response. If the two analysts assigned the same
categories, we considered the reasons for separation agreed upon. If
they determined different categories applied, a third analyst reviewed
the interview data and independently assigned categories. If the third
analyst assigned the same category as one of the other reviewers, we
considered the reason for separation the agreed upon category. If all
three analysts assigned different categories, we coded the reason for
separation as "unclassified." Of the 46 responses we received to our
question regarding reasons why the former TSES we interviewed separated
from TSA, the initial two analysts agreed upon the categories for 37
TSES staff members' responses. For all 9 responses in which there was
disagreement, a third analyst who reviewed the data agreed with the
category assigned by one of the other two other analysts.
One of the general categories we established for why TSES separated
from TSA was dissatisfaction with numerous agency reorganizations. To
identify the number of reorganizations TSA experienced since its
creation, and the movement of TSES staff associated with these
reorganizations, we analyzed 10 organization charts provided to us by
TSA covering calendar years 2002 through 2008.[Footnote 66] These
charts identified only high-level TSA organizational divisions and the
TSES staff member (usually an Assistant Administrator) who headed each
division.[Footnote 67] To identify movement of TSES staff, we compared
the charts in chronological order and counted the number of changes in
the TSES staff person heading the division from one chart to the next.
In conducting our analysis, we did not determine whether changes in
TSES staff from one chart to the next were directly attributable to
TSA's reorganizations because we did not have the resources to
investigate the specific circumstances surrounding each of the 149
changes.
Another of the general categories we established for why TSES staff
separated from TSA was dissatisfaction due to their perception of
receiving insufficient or inequitable pay. TSA provided us data on the
total amount of bonuses received by TSES staff employed with TSA during
fiscal years 2005 through 2008. We analyzed these data to identify the
number of TSES staff who received bonuses and the range of these
cumulative payments for staff who separated and for those who did not
separate during this period. For TSES staff who received, in addition
to bonuses, relocation, retention, and recruitment payments, TSA
provided us with a single sum for all these payments. For these TSES
staff, we could not identify the amount of the bonus from other
payments made for recruitment, retention, or relocation purposes. Thus,
we excluded from our analysis any individual receiving payments for
recruitment, retention, or relocation, in addition to bonuses.
Specifically, we excluded data for 4 TSES staff who separated during
fiscal years 2005 through 2008, and 34 TSES staff who were employed
throughout the 4-year period. Although we assessed TSA data on the
number of TSES staff separations for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 and
found them reliable, we were not able to assess the reliability of the
specific amounts of supplemental pay TSA reported giving to TSES over
this time period because some of these data were not recorded within
the CPDF for comparison. However, we confirmed with TSA that the data
provided were applicable to all TSES employed over the fiscal year 2005
through 2008 time period.
To address the impact of TSES attrition, we interviewed supervisors of
separated TSES, employees who were direct reports to--that is,
employees who were directly supervised by--separated TSES staff, and
industry associations representing some of the various transportation
sectors (aviation, surface, and maritime) that collaborate with TSA on
transportation security initiatives. To conduct interviews with
supervisors, we asked TSA to identify TSES supervisors who were still
with TSA and who supervised any TSES who separated during fiscal years
2005 through 2008. TSA identified nine TSES staff still at the agency
who had supervised other TSES staff; we requested interviews with eight
of these supervisors and conducted seven interviews.[Footnote 68] We
asked the supervisors to identify the impact, if any, of the TSES
separation(s) on 1) development or implementation of TSA programs or
initiatives and 2) external stakeholder relations. Two analysts then
performed a systematic content analysis to determine if the responses
to our interview questions portrayed a positive impact, negative
impact, or little to no impact. The analysts agreed in their
determinations for all seven interviews.
To identify direct reports for interviews, we asked the former TSES we
interviewed to provide us with names of employees who reported directly
to them when they were in TSES positions and who they believed were
still TSA employees; among the 25 former TSES staff who responded to
our inquiry, we were given names of 52 TSA employees who had reported
directly to these TSES staff during their tenure at TSA.[Footnote 69]
Though this selection method relied upon the recommendations of
separated TSES staff, we attempted to adjust for any bias the TSES
staff may have had when recommending these individuals by ensuring that
the direct reports we interviewed were evenly distributed across the
following three categories: 1) reported to TSES staff who left TSA for
only nonadverse reasons; 2) reported to TSES staff who left TSA for a
combination of nonadverse and adverse reasons; and 3) reported to TSES
staff who left TSA for adverse reasons only.[Footnote 70] We then
selected 26 direct reports for interviews from among the three groups.
[Footnote 71] We were able to conduct a total of 22 interviews: 5 from
the nonadverse category; 4 from the nonadverse/adverse category; and 13
from the adverse only category.[Footnote 72] We conducted 9 of the 22
interviews in person at TSA headquarters with only ourselves-- and no
other TSA employee--present in the room; we conducted the remainder of
direct report interviews via telephone, with a TSA staff person online
throughout the call. This staff person was the TSA liaison, whose
responsibility is to ensure that GAO receives access to requested
documentation and interviews for a given engagement. Though the TSA
liaison had no supervisory authority over the direct report staff we
interviewed, the presence of this individual during the phone call
could have inhibited the responses of the direct report interviewees we
spoke with via telephone. We asked the direct reports to describe the
impact, if any, of a TSES supervisor's separation on their individual
responsibilities and the efforts underway in their particular division.
We then performed a systematic content analysis of their responses in
the same manner as our content analysis of separated TSES interviews.
The two analysts reviewing the direct report interviews agreed in their
determinations for all 22 interviews.
Finally, to obtain perspectives from industry stakeholders, we
interviewed seven TSA transportation industry groups. We identified
these industry groups based on our experience in the field of
transportation security and by canvassing GAO analysts working in the
area of transportation security for other contacts. We requested
interviews with 13 industry stakeholder groups and either received
written responses or obtained interviews with 7--specifically 3
aviation associations, 1 surface transportation association; and 3
maritime transport associations.[Footnote 73] We asked the stakeholders
to identify whether they were aware of turnover among TSES staff, how
they knew turnover had occurred, and how it impacted a specific policy
or program they were working with TSA to implement. Two analysts then
performed a systematic content analysis on the responses, and there was
no disagreement between their determinations.
Although the direct report, supervisor, and industry stakeholder
interviews provided important perspectives on impact of executive
attrition, the results could not be generalized, and therefore, do not
represent the views of the entire population of each group.
Objective 3-The Extent to which TSA Efforts to Manage TSES Attrition
and Improve Overall Management of Its TSES Workforce Are Consistent
with Effective Human Capital Practices and Standards for Internal
Control:
To gather information on TSA efforts to address attrition, we
interviewed the Assistant Administrator and the Deputy Assistant
Administrator of TSA's Human Capital Office to learn about the various
initiatives they have underway to address attrition and to improve
management of their executive resources. These officials identified
several initiatives, which we assessed, including a reinstated exit
interview process, decreased use of limited term appointments, and
recent release of a comprehensive handbook delineating TSES human
capital policies, succession planning, and the establishment of a merit-
based staffing process.
To assess the exit survey process, we consulted prior GAO reports that
address the use of exit interview data in workforce planning.[Footnote
74] We reviewed exit interviews TSA conducted under its previous
process (specifically, five interviews dating from January 2008 through
September 2008), and examined TSA's data collection tool for conducting
these interviews. We also reviewed the National Exit Survey instrument
that TSA is presently using to conduct exit interviews of TSES staff,
and conducted interviews with TSA human capital officials on the
agency's plans for implementing this process.
To determine whether TSA has decreased its use of TSES limited term
appointments, we reviewed TSA-provided data on the number of limited
term appointments the agency made for fiscal years 2004 through 2008,
and reviewed CPDF data on the total number of TSES staff hired for
fiscal years 2004 through 2008. We were not able to determine the
reliability of these data because some TSA data on limited term
appointments were not recorded within CPDF.
To determine the extent to which TSA's handbook for TSES human capital
policies and its succession plan were consistent with effective human
capital practices and internal control standards, we reviewed criteria
in prior GAO reports, as well as the standards for internal control in
the federal government.[Footnote 75] We reviewed TSA management
directives for TSES staff from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year
2008 (one of which is the November 2008 handbook),[Footnote 76] as well
as TSA's succession plan (both the 2006 and 2008 versions).[Footnote
77] To identify the extent to which TSA has implemented its succession
plan, we also reviewed TSA data on the number of staff who completed
executive-level training identified within its succession plan and
spoke with human capital officials responsible for compiling these
data.
Finally, to determine the extent to which TSA has been following merit-
based staffing requirements for hiring TSES staff, we first reviewed
documentation delineating TSA's hiring process, specifically its
Executive Resource Council (ERC) charter. To determine the merit
staffing requirements TSA's ERC process should encompass, we reviewed
applicable OPM regulations addressing merit staffing.[Footnote 78] We
identified seven merit staffing requirements that should have been
reflected within TSA's hiring process, and therefore, within its
documentation of hiring decisions (see table 7). To ensure that the
seven requirements we identified were an appropriate standard for
assessing TSA's performance of merit staffing, we reviewed OPM's audit
procedures for merit staffing and found that OPM requires agencies
operating under its jurisdiction to document performance of these seven
requirements. In addition, TSA officials also confirmed that these were
the key merit staffing requirements they followed and agreed that these
should be reflected within documentation for TSES hiring decisions.
Table 10: Seven Key Merit Staffing Requirements:
Public notice of position availability:
Identification of all minimally eligible candidates;
Identification of position qualifications;
Rating and ranking of all eligible candidates using position
qualifications;
Determination of a best-qualified list;
Selection of a candidate for the position from among those best
qualified;
TSA's certification of a candidate's executive and technical
qualifications.
Source: GAO review of OPM regulations establishing merit staffing
requirements. (5 C.F.R. §§ 317.501-.502).
[End of table]
To determine whether TSA was documenting its performance of the seven
merit staffing requirements, we reviewed all case files for
competitively filled, career appointments to TSES positions for
calendar years 2006 and 2008--a total of 41 case files.[Footnote 79] We
reviewed case files for competitively filled, career appointments
specifically because TSA has committed to using merit staffing for
these hiring decisions; thus, we could expect to find documentation of
TSA's performance of merit staffing procedures within these files. We
did not review case files from 2007, because we were interested in
comparing how TSA followed merit staffing requirements when it
initially established its ERC process in 2006, with how it followed
them more recently in 2008--the most recent full calendar year when we
undertook our review. After we provided the draft report to DHS for
comment on July 27, 2009, TSA officials informed us that the they had
additional documentation to demonstrate that the agency had adhered to
the merit staffing principle of agency certification of the candidate's
executive and technical qualifications for more TSES career positions
than the number identified in our draft report. TSA provided this
additional documentation to us on September 4, 2009. Although this
documentation had not been kept in the files we reviewed, we assessed
the additional documentation and revised our report accordingly.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 through October
2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Transportation Security Executive Service Staff Attrition
Data:
The following tables provide data for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 on
the number of senior executive staff who attrited--or separated--from
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); other selected
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies; and all cabinet-level
departments, excluding DHS. In this report, we define attrition as
separation from an agency by means of resignation, termination,
retirement, expiration of appointment, or transfer to another cabinet-
level department. Senior executive staff members in TSA are those
individuals who are part of the Transportation Security Executive
Service (TSES), and senior executives for other DHS agencies and
cabinet-level departments are those individuals who are part of the
Senior Executive Service (SES) or who hold SES-equivalent positions
(for those agencies within cabinet-level departments that, like TSA, do
not have SES). The DHS agencies for which we provide SES attrition data
are those with operational missions, namely the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP),
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S.
Secret Service (USSS). We also provided SES attrition data for "DHS
Headquarters," which includes all DHS executive staff in positions
serving departmentwide functions, such as those involving financial or
human capital management.[Footnote 80] We do not report rates and
percentages for populations under 50. Although the executive
populations of TSA and some DHS components for fiscal years 2004
through 2008 numbered more than 50 individuals (namely CBP, DHS
Headquarters, and Rest of DHS), most DHS components had less than 50
executives during this period. So that the presentation of our data
would be uniform, we chose to present the attrition data in tables 11,
13, 15, 17, and 19 in total figures for all DHS components.
Table 11: Fiscal Year 2004 Attrition Data by Separation Type for Senior
Executives at All DHS Components:
Agency: TSA;
Average number of executives[A]: 154;
Total attrited: 25;
Other: 0;
Terminated: 4;
Resigned: 9;
Retired: 3;
Termination - expiration of appointment: 1;
Voluntary/other transfer: 8.
Agency: CBP;
Average number of executives[A]: 64;
Total attrited: 16;
Other: 0;
Terminated: 0;
Resigned: 1;
Retired: 15;
Termination - expiration of appointment: 0;
Voluntary/other transfer: 0.
Agency: USSS;
Average number of executives[A]: 38;
Total attrited: 10;
Other: 0;
Terminated: 0;
Resigned: 0;
Retired: 10;
Termination - expiration of appointment: 0;
Voluntary/other transfer: 0.
Agency: FEMA;
Average number of executives[A]: 38;
Total attrited: 8;
Other: 0;
Terminated: 0;
Resigned: 4;
Retired: 2;
Termination - expiration of appointment: 0;
Voluntary/other transfer: 2.
Agency: ICE;
Average number of executives[A]: 36;
Total attrited: 6;
Other: 0;
Terminated: 0;
Resigned: 3;
Retired: 3;
Termination - expiration of appointment: 0;
Voluntary/other transfer: 0.
Agency: USCG;
Average number of executives[A]: 10;
Total attrited: 2;
Other: 0;
Terminated: 0;
Resigned: 0;
Retired: 1;
Termination - expiration of appointment: 0;
Voluntary/other transfer: 1.
Agency: USCIS;
Average number of executives[A]: 15;
Total attrited: 0;
Other: 0;
Terminated: 0;
Resigned: 0;
Retired: 0;
Termination - expiration of appointment: 0;
Voluntary/other transfer: 0.
Agency: DHS headquarters;
Average number of executives[A]: 26;
Total attrited: 7;
Other: 0;
Terminated: 0;
Resigned: 4;
Retired: 0;
Termination - expiration of appointment: 0;
Voluntary/other transfer: 3.
Agency: Rest of DHS[B];
Average number of executives[A]: 50;
Total attrited: 13;
Other: 0;
Terminated: 0;
Resigned: 7;
Retired: 2;
Termination - expiration of appointment: 0;
Voluntary/other transfer: 4.
Source: GAO analysis of data from OPM's Central Personnel Data File.
[A] For all tables in which we present data on the average number of
executives, we calculated these figures by averaging (1) the number of
senior executive staff in the CPDF as of the last pay period of the
fiscal year prior to the fiscal year for which the attrition rate was
calculated and (2) the number of senior executive staff in CPDF as of
the last pay period of the fiscal year in which the attrition occurred.
[B] Includes Office of the Inspector General; Office of the Under
Secretary (OUS) Border and Transportation Security; Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center; OUS Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection; OUS Management; and OUS for Science and
Technology.
[End of table]
Table 12: Fiscal Year 2004 Attrition Rates by Separation Type for
Senior Executives at TSA, DHS, and all Cabinet-level Departments:
Agency: TSA;
Average number of executives: 154;
Rate of attrition[A]: 16%;
Other:
