Homeland Security
Federal Protective Service Should Improve Human Capital Planning and Better Communicate with Tenants Gao ID: GAO-09-749 July 30, 2009The Federal Protective Service (FPS), as part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for providing security services to about 9,000 federal facilities. In recent years, FPS downsized its workforce from 1,400 to about 1,000 full-time employees. In 2008, GAO expressed concerns about the impact that downsizing had on FPS's mission, and in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 Congress mandated FPS maintain no fewer than 1,200 employees. GAO was asked to determine the extent to which (1) FPS has hired and trained new staff to address its mandated staffing levels, (2) FPS has developed a strategic human capital plan to manage its current and future workforce needs, and (3) FPS's customers are satisfied with the services it provides. To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and documents, interviewed officials from FPS and other federal agencies, and conducted a generalizable survey of FPS's customers.
FPS did not meet its fiscal year 2008 mandated deadline of increasing its staffing level to no fewer than 1,200 full-time employees by July 31, 2008. This same mandate relating to FPS's staffing was included in DHS's fiscal year 2009 appropriations act. Although FPS currently has over 1,200 employees on board, it did not meet this mandate until April 2009, because of challenges in shifting its priorities from downsizing its workforce to increasing it, inexperience working with DHS's hiring processes, and delays in the candidate screening process. Also, not all of FPS's new law enforcement security officers have completed all required training. According to FPS officials, it expects to have all new hires fully trained by September 2009. FPS does not have a strategic human capital plan to guide its current and future workforce planning efforts, including effective processes for training, retention, and staff development. Instead, FPS has developed a short-term hiring plan that does not include key human capital principles, such as determining an agency's optimum staffing needs. The lack of a human capital plan has contributed to inconsistent approaches in how FPS regions and headquarters are managing human capital activities. For example, FPS officials in some of the regions GAO visited said they implement their own procedures for managing their workforce, including processes for performance feedback, training, and mentoring. Additionally, FPS does not collect data on its workforce's knowledge, skills, and abilities. These elements are necessary for successful workforce planning activities, such as identifying and filling skill gaps and succession planning. FPS is working on developing and implementing a data management system that will provide it with these data, but this system has experienced significant delays and will not be available for use until 2011 at the earliest. On the basis of GAO's generalizable survey of FPS customers, customers had mixed views about some of the services they pay FPS to provide. Survey results showed that 58 percent were satisfied, 7 percent were dissatisfied, 18 percent were neutral, and 17 percent were not able to comment on FPS's overall services. The survey also showed that many of FPS's customers did not rely on FPS for services. For example, in emergency situations, about 82 percent of FPS's customers primarily rely on other agencies such as local law enforcement, while 18 percent rely on FPS. The survey also suggests that the roles and responsibilities of FPS and its customers are unclear, primarily because on average about one-third of FPS's customers, i.e., tenant agencies, could not comment on how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with FPS's level of communication on its services, partly because they had little to no interaction with FPS officers. Although FPS plans to implement education and outreach initiatives to improve customer service, it will face challenges because of its lack of complete and accurate contact data. Complete and accurate contact information for its customers is critical for information sharing and an essential component of any customer service initiative.
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-09-749, Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Should Improve Human Capital Planning and Better Communicate with Tenants
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-749
entitled 'Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Should Improve
Human Capital Planning and Better Communicate with Tenants' which was
released on July 30, 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 Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2009:
Homeland Security:
Federal Protective Service Should Improve Human Capital Planning and
Better Communicate with Tenants:
GAO-09-749:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-749, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Federal Protective Service (FPS), as part of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for providing security services
to about 9,000 federal facilities. In recent years, FPS downsized its
workforce from 1,400 to about 1,000 full-time employees. In 2008, GAO
expressed concerns about the impact that downsizing had on FPS‘s
mission, and in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 Congress mandated FPS
maintain no fewer than 1,200 employees.
GAO was asked to determine the extent to which (1) FPS has hired and
trained new staff to address its mandated staffing levels, (2) FPS has
developed a strategic human capital plan to manage its current and
future workforce needs, and (3) FPS‘s customers are satisfied with the
services it provides. To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant
laws and documents, interviewed officials from FPS and other federal
agencies, and conducted a generalizable survey of FPS‘s customers.
What GAO Found:
FPS did not meet its fiscal year 2008 mandated deadline of increasing
its staffing level to no fewer than 1,200 full-time employees by July
31, 2008. This same mandate relating to FPS‘s staffing was included in
DHS‘s fiscal year 2009 appropriations act. Although FPS currently has
over 1,200 employees on board, it did not meet this mandate until April
2009, because of challenges in shifting its priorities from downsizing
its workforce to increasing it, inexperience working with DHS‘s hiring
processes, and delays in the candidate screening process. Also, not all
of FPS‘s new law enforcement security officers have completed all
required training. According to FPS officials, it expects to have all
new hires fully trained by September 2009.
FPS does not have a strategic human capital plan to guide its current
and future workforce planning efforts, including effective processes
for training, retention, and staff development. Instead, FPS has
developed a short-term hiring plan that does not include key human
capital principles, such as determining an agency‘s optimum staffing
needs. The lack of a human capital plan has contributed to inconsistent
approaches in how FPS regions and headquarters are managing human
capital activities. For example, FPS officials in some of the regions
GAO visited said they implement their own procedures for managing their
workforce, including processes for performance feedback, training, and
mentoring. Additionally, FPS does not collect data on its workforce‘s
knowledge, skills, and abilities. These elements are necessary for
successful workforce planning activities, such as identifying and
filling skill gaps and succession planning. FPS is working on
developing and implementing a data management system that will provide
it with these data, but this system has experienced significant delays
and will not be available for use until 2011 at the earliest.
On the basis of GAO‘s generalizable survey of FPS customers, customers
had mixed views about some of the services they pay FPS to provide.
Survey results showed that 58 percent were satisfied, 7 percent were
dissatisfied, 18 percent were neutral, and 17 percent were not able to
comment on FPS‘s overall services. The survey also showed that many of
FPS‘s customers did not rely on FPS for services. For example, in
emergency situations, about 82 percent of FPS‘s customers primarily
rely on other agencies such as local law enforcement, while 18 percent
rely on FPS. The survey also suggests that the roles and
responsibilities of FPS and its customers are unclear, primarily
because on average about one-third of FPS‘s customers, i.e., tenant
agencies, could not comment on how satisfied or dissatisfied they were
with FPS‘s level of communication on its services, partly because they
had little to no interaction with FPS officers. Although FPS plans to
implement education and outreach initiatives to improve customer
service, it will face challenges because of its lack of complete and
accurate contact data. Complete and accurate contact information for
its customers is critical for information sharing and an essential
component of any customer service initiative.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that FPS take steps to develop a strategic human capital
plan to manage its current and future workforce needs, and clarify its
roles and responsibilities to its customers. FPS concurred with our
recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-749] or key
components. For more information, contact Mark Goldstein, (202) 512-
6670, goldsteinm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
FPS Experienced Challenges with Hiring and Training New LESOs:
FPS Does Not Have A Strategic Human Capital Plan to Guide Its Current
and Future Workforce Planning Efforts:
FPS's Customers Have Mixed Views on Its Services:
Conclusion:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Survey of Federal Protective Service Customers:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: General Overview of Roles and Responsibilities of FPS's Law
Enforcement Occupations:
Table 2: Key Principles for Strategic Human Capital Planning and
Examples of Implementation of Principles:
Table 3: Survey Results on Customer Satisfaction with FPS's Level of
Communication on Various Topics:
Table 4: FPS Customer Survey Sample and Response Rates:
Figures:
Figure 1: Timeline of LESO Hiring Process:
Figure 2: Comparison of FPS, ICE, DHS, and Federal Government Attrition
Rates:
Figure 3: Survey Results For Primary Providers of Law Enforcement and
Physical Security Services at GSA-Controlled Facilities:
Abbreviations:
BSA: building security assessment:
CPDF: Central Personnel Data File:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
FLETC: Federal Law Enforcement Training Center:
FPS: Federal Protective Service:
GSA: General Services Administration:
ICE: Immigrations and Customs Enforcement:
LESO: law enforcement security officer:
NPPD: National Protection and Programs Directorate:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
RAMP: Risk Assessment and Management Program:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 30, 2009:
Congressional Requesters:
In 2003, the Federal Protective Service (FPS), under the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, was transferred from the General Services
Administration (GSA) to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). FPS
is the primary federal agency that is responsible for providing
physical security and law enforcement services to about 9,000
facilities under the control and custody of GSA, and is funded by the
security fees it collects from the agencies it protects. FPS conducts
its mission by providing (1) physical security services--conducting
threat assessments of facilities and recommending risk-based
countermeasures aimed at preventing incidents at facilities--and (2)
law enforcement services--proactively patrolling facilities, responding
to incidents, conducting criminal investigations, and exercising arrest
authority. FPS is also responsible for management and oversight of the
approximately 15,000 contract security guards posted at GSA facilities.
After its transfer to DHS, FPS experienced budget shortfalls and its
staff decreased by about 20 percent, from a high of about 1,400 full-
time employees at the end of fiscal year 2004, to a low of about 1,100
at the end of fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 1] To address these budget
shortfalls, FPS's security fee has increased over 100 percent since its
transfer to DHS, from 30 cents per square foot in fiscal year 2003, to
66 cents per square foot in fiscal year 2009. In our June 2008 report,
we expressed concerns about a number of changes FPS had made since
transferring to DHS.[Footnote 2] For example, we raised questions about
the additional demands FPS's downsizing efforts would place on its
workforce. We also identified several workforce-related challenges that
FPS has faced since its transfer to DHS, including low morale among
staff, increased attrition, and the loss of institutional knowledge. We
reported that some of FPS's customers were concerned about the quality
and cost of security provided by FPS since it transferred to DHS. In an
effort to address these challenges, Congress mandated in the Fiscal
Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act that by July 31, 2008, FPS
maintain no fewer than 1,200 full-time employees, including 900 in law
enforcement positions.[Footnote 3] This same mandate relating to FPS
staffing level was included in DHS's 2009 fiscal year appropriations
act.[Footnote 4] However, concerns remain about FPS's ability to manage
its current and future workforce needs and the impact changes to its
workforce may have on the agency's ability to provide physical security
and law enforcement services to GSA and its other customers in the
9,000 facilities it protects.
In response to your request and in light of recent concerns about the
quality of service provided by FPS, we address three objectives:
1. To what extent has FPS hired and trained new staff to address its
mandated staffing levels?
2. To what extent has FPS developed a strategic human capital plan to
manage its current and future workforce needs?
3. To what extent are FPS's customers satisfied with the services it
provides?
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and documents
and interviewed officials from FPS, GSA, and DHS. Specifically, we
interviewed FPS headquarters officials to understand the actions FPS
took to meet the mandate, challenges in meeting the mandate, efforts to
assess its overall workforce needs, and plans for future human capital
needs. We reviewed and analyzed available FPS workforce and human
capital plans and policies and compared FPS's efforts with Key
Principles of Effective Strategic Workforce Planning identified by
GAO.[Footnote 5] We conducted site visits to 5 of FPS's 11 regions;
while the results of these visits are not generalizable, these 5
regions account for about 50 percent of the 9,000 facilities that FPS
has responsibility for providing service. During our site visits, we
met with FPS regional law enforcement and human capital managers as
well as new and experienced law enforcement security officers to gain
an understanding of how FPS's recent workforce changes have affected
FPS's operations, actions each region has taken to address these
changes, and how regions determine workforce needs. We also discussed
the regions' role in the agency's human capital planning.
For information about the level of service FPS provides its customers,
we conducted a survey of building security committee chairpersons and
designated officials in buildings under the control and custody of GSA.
We focused on building security committee chairpersons and designated
officials, because these officials are responsible for working with FPS
at the building level to identify security issues and implement minimum
security standards for their buildings.[Footnote 6] The survey sought
information pertaining to FPS's law enforcement and physical security
services and customers' perspectives on the quality of FPS's services.
We surveyed a sample of 1,398 federal officials across all 11 FPS
regions and in buildings with assigned security levels I through
IV.[Footnote 7] We obtained an overall response rate of about 55
percent and used these sample data to produce estimates about the
entire population of FPS customers. See appendix I for a more detailed
discussion of our overall scope and methodology and appendix II for a
copy of the survey and complete tabulations of the results.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2008 through July 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 audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
FPS did not meet the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act
requirement that it increase its staff to no fewer than 1,200 full-time
employees by July 31, 2008. DHS's appropriations act for fiscal year
2009 contains the same requirement relating to FPS's staffing.
Additionally, not all of FPS's new law enforcement security officers
have completed all required training. Although FPS currently has 1,239
employees on board, including 929 law enforcement officers, it did not
meet this mandate until April 2009, because of challenges in shifting
its priorities from downsizing its workforce to increasing it to comply
with the mandate, inexperience working with DHS's hiring service
centers, and delays in the candidate screening process. FPS met its
2009 mandate by hiring 187 new law enforcement security officers (LESO)
and converting 105 FPS police officers to LESOs for a total of 292
employees. As of May 2009, 46 percent of the 187 new hires have not
completed the basic law enforcement training, and therefore are not
permitted to conduct any law enforcement components of their jobs,
including carrying firearms and exercising arrest and search
authorities. Additionally, all 292 new law enforcement security
officers are required to take physical security training. As of May
2009, 12 percent had not yet completed this training, which is required
for them to conduct building security assessments (BSA). Conducting
building security assessments is the core duty of the LESO position,
and FPS uses these assessments to determine and recommend
countermeasures to protect federal facilities. Despite this lack of
training, in two of the five regions we visited, police officers who
had been converted to LESOs told us they were conducting building
security assessments with little or no oversight from senior staff. FPS
officials told us the primary reason training has been delayed is that
FPS had submitted and finalized its schedule with its training center
over 1 year before it was mandated to increase its staff numbers, and
adding additional classes was a challenge because of the center's
limited space and instructors. According to FPS, depending on class
availability, it expects to have all LESOs fully trained by September
2009.
FPS does not have a strategic human capital plan to guide its current
and future workforce planning efforts. While FPS has started some human
capital planning, its efforts have not culminated in a long-term
strategic human capital plan. Instead, FPS has developed a short-term
plan for hiring new law enforcement security officers that is not an
adequate substitute for a human capital plan because it does not
include key human capital principles, such as an approach for
determining agency staffing needs or identifying gaps in critical
skills needed to accomplish its mission. The lack of a current human
capital plan has contributed to inconsistent approaches in how FPS
regions and headquarters are managing human capital activities for the
agency. FPS officials in three of the five regions we visited said they
implement their own procedures for managing their workforce, including
processes for performance feedback, training, and mentoring. For
example, one region we visited developed its own operating procedures
for a field training program, and has also taken the initiative in
several areas to develop specific guidance and provide employees with
feedback on their performance in several areas. Additionally, FPS does
not collect centralized and standardized data on the knowledge, skills,
and abilities of its full-time employees. These data are necessary for
workforce planning activities, such as identifying and filling skill
gaps and succession planning. According to FPS officials, the agency is
working on developing and implementing a data management system that
will provide it with the necessary data to engage in long-term human
capital planning, but this system has experienced significant delays
and will not be available for use until fiscal year 2011 at the
earliest.
According to our generalizable survey of FPS customers, customers had
mixed views about some of the law enforcement and physical security
services they pay FPS to provide. FPS's customers spent approximately
$187 million in fiscal year 2008 for basic security services, such as
preparing building security assessments, responding to incidents, and
providing advice and assistance to customers. Our survey asked FPS
customers how satisfied they were with these services. Survey results
showed that 58 percent were satisfied, 7 percent were dissatisfied, 18
percent were neutral, and 17 percent were not able to comment on FPS's
overall services. However, our survey also showed that many of FPS's
customers had different levels of reliance or could not comment on the
services they pay FPS to provide. For example:
* About 82 percent of FPS's customers indicated they do not use FPS as
their primary law enforcement agency in emergency situations and said
they primarily rely on other agencies such as local law enforcement,
the U.S. Marshals Service, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
while 18 percent rely on FPS.
* About one-third of FPS's customers could not comment on how satisfied
or dissatisfied they were with FPS's level of communication on various
topics including building security assessments, threats to their
facility, and security guidance, a response that suggests that the
division of roles and responsibilities between FPS and its customers is
unclear.
In addition, we found that GSA--the owner and lessee of many FPS
protected facilities--has not been satisfied with the level of service
FPS has provided since FPS transferred to DHS. For example, according
to GSA officials, FPS has not been responsive and timely in providing
building security assessments for new leases. FPS has taken some steps
to improve customer service through education and outreach initiatives;
for example, it has conducted focus groups and distributed a newsletter
to some of its customers. However, FPS will face additional challenges
because of its lack of complete and accurate customer contact data.
During the course of our review, we found that approximately 53 percent
of the e-mail addresses and 27 percent of the telephone numbers for
designated points of contacts was missing from FPS's contact database
and the database required a substantial amount of revising. Complete
and accurate contact information on its customers is critical for
information sharing and an essential component of any customer service
initiative.
Background:
As the primary federal agency that is responsible for protecting and
securing GSA facilities and federal employees and visitors across the
country, FPS has the authority to enforce federal laws and regulations
aimed at protecting federally owned and leased properties and the
persons on such property. FPS conducts its mission by providing
security services through two types of activities: (1) physical
security activities--conducting threat assessments of facilities and
recommending risk-based countermeasures aimed at preventing incidents
at facilities--and (2) law enforcement activities--proactively
patrolling facilities, responding to incidents, conducting criminal
investigations, and exercising arrest authority. FPS is also
responsible for management and oversight of the approximately 15,000
contract security guards posted at GSA facilities. To conduct its
mission, FPS has 11 regional offices across the country and maintains a
workforce of both law enforcement staff, and non-law enforcement staff.
FPS's law enforcement staff is generally composed of three occupations--
LESOs, who are also called inspectors; police officers; and special
agents--each with different roles and responsibilities. As shown in
table 1, LESOs are responsible for the majority of FPS's duties.
Table 1: General Overview of Roles and Responsibilities of FPS's Law
Enforcement Occupations:
LESOs:
Carry firearms: [Check];
Arrest and search warrants: [Check];
Criminal investigations: [Check];
Building security assessments and countermeasure recommendations:
[Check];
Contract guard oversight and management: [Check].
Police officers:
Carry firearms: [Check];
Arrest and search warrants: [Check];
Criminal investigations: [Empty];
Building security assessments and countermeasure recommendations:
[Empty];
Contract guard oversight and management: [Check].
Special agents:
Carry firearms: [Check];
Arrest and search warrants: [Check];
Criminal investigations: [Check];
Building security assessments and countermeasure recommendations:
[Empty];
Contract guard oversight and management: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of FPS data.
[End of table]
FPS funds its operations through the collection of security fees
charged to FPS's customers, that is, tenant agencies. However, during
fiscal years 2003 through 2006, these fees were not sufficient to cover
FPS's operating costs. When FPS was located in GSA, it received
additional support from the Federal Buildings Fund to cover the gap
between collections and costs.[Footnote 8] Fiscal year 2004 was the
last year that FPS had access to the Federal Buildings Fund, and
despite increases in its security fee, FPS continued to experience a
gap between its operational costs and fee collections. To mitigate its
funding shortfalls, in 2007 FPS implemented many cost-saving measures,
including restricting hiring and travel, limiting training and
overtime, suspending employee performance awards, and reducing
operating hours. FPS also took steps to reduce its staff levels through
voluntary early retirement opportunities, and some staff were assigned
on detail to other DHS offices. Also during this time, FPS did not
replace positions that were lost to attrition. In June 2008, we
reported that the funding challenges FPS faced and its cost-savings
actions to address them resulted in adverse implications for its
workforce, primarily low morale among staff and increased attrition.
To minimize the impact of its funding and operational challenges on its
ability to conduct its mission, in early 2007 FPS adopted a new
strategic approach to how it conducted its mission. Faced with the
reduction of its workforce to 950 full-time employees and the need to
maintain its ability to protect federal facilities, FPS announced the
adoption of a "LESO-based" workforce model. The model was intended to
make more efficient use of its declining staffing levels by increasing
focus on FPS's physical security duties and consolidating law
enforcement activities. FPS's goal was to shift its law enforcement
workforce composition from a mix of about 40 percent police officers,
about 50 percent LESOs, and about 10 percent special agents--its
composition when it was transferred to DHS in fiscal year 2003--to a
workforce primarily composed of LESOs and some special agents, with the
police officer position being gradually eliminated. To achieve this,
FPS began eliminating its police officer position by offering existing
police officers the option of applying for LESO positions, which
incorporate physical security duties into their existing law
enforcement responsibilities. Additionally, FPS eliminated police
officers through attrition, and as police officers separated from FPS,
their positions were not replaced.
In December 2007 the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act
was enacted; it mandated that FPS's security fees be adjusted to ensure
that collections are "sufficient to ensure [that FPS] maintains, by
July 31, 2008, not fewer than 1,200 full-time equivalent staff and 900
full-time equivalent [law-enforcement staff] who, while working, are
directly engaged on a daily basis protecting and enforcing laws at
Federal buildings." To address this mandate, FPS began a large-scale
hiring effort to bring on new LESOs by the legislated deadline.
Although FPS was no longer working toward reducing the size of its
workforce, it did not reverse its strategic direction of maintaining a
LESO-based workforce. Appropriations are presumed to be annual
appropriations and applicable to the fiscal year unless specified to
the contrary. The requirement for no fewer than 1,200 full-time-
equivalent staff, including 900 full-time law enforcement staff in
DHS's 2008 appropriations act was effective for 2008. DHS's
appropriations act for 2009 contains the same requirement relating to
FPS's staffing level and is effective for fiscal year 2009. The
President's budget for fiscal year 2010 requests that a staffing level
of 1,225 be maintained in 2010; it also proposes relocating FPS from
the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) component of DHS to the
National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) of DHS.
FPS Experienced Challenges with Hiring and Training New LESOs:
Delays in FPS's Hiring Process Affect Its Ability to Bring Staff On
Board in a Timely Manner:
While FPS is currently operating at its mandated staffing level, its
hiring process met with delays and challenges. FPS was required to have
at least 1,200 full-time employees, including 900 law enforcement
employees, on board by July 31, 2008. This same requirement for FPS was
included in DHS's fiscal year 2009 appropriations act, and FPS met this
staffing level in April 2009, with 1,239 employees on board, including
929 law enforcement staff, by hiring 187 new LESOs. According to human
capital officials, FPS did not experience any problems recruiting for
its LESO position, receiving over 6,000 applications. However,
officials told us that FPS was not able to meet the July 31, 2008,
mandate because of the challenges related to shifting its priorities
from downsizing its workforce to increasing it to comply with the
mandate, inexperience working with DHS's shared service center, and
delays in its candidate screening process. Since transferring to DHS,
FPS has been in a period of strategic transition--not only reducing its
workforce size, but also changing its composition to a LESO-based
workforce. Faced with funding challenges, FPS's human capital efforts
were aimed at cutting costs and reducing the size of its workforce to a
total staffing level of 950 full-time employees. FPS was on its way to
achieving this goal, and had reduced its workforce to 1,061 employees
in February 2008 when it changed course to respond to the mandate and
increase its workforce to 1,200. According to FPS, these continual
shifts affected the agency's ability to meet the staffing level
mandated in the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
FPS's ability to meet the mandate was also affected by its inexperience
in working with DHS's shared service center. After transferring to DHS,
the majority of FPS's hiring requirements are contracted out to the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Human Resources Management Center in
Laguna Niguel, California (Laguna), which provides human resource
services to all components of ICE through DHS's administrative shared
services program. Laguna is responsible for providing a full range of
human resource services to FPS, including processing actions related to
employee hiring, separation, benefits, and job classification.[Footnote
9] According to officials at Laguna, there have been some challenges
working with FPS; primarily, officials told us that it is unclear what
FPS's human capital needs are and where the agency is headed.
Additionally, officials at Laguna said that FPS changes its human
resource needs on a day-to-day basis and is constantly changing its
priorities, causing Laguna to expend a lot of time and manpower in
trying to meet the agency's needs. Additionally, officials said the
high turnover in FPS management in its headquarters office has
contributed to this lack of understanding.
Finally, FPS also experienced delays in the candidate screening process
that hampered its ability to meet the mandate. According to FPS
officials, its hiring process can take 5 to 6 months to complete;
however, under the mandate it was given 7 months to bring new staff on
board; thus it was challenged to meet this mandate. Consequently, it
experienced significant delays in screening potential candidates,
particularly delays in the medical screening component, which Laguna
contracts out to a private company. The screening process--which
consists of drug testing, a background security clearance, and a
medical screening--should take approximately 30 to 60 days. FPS
officials told us that delays in the medical portion of the screening
caused the process to take 90 to 100 days. According to FPS officials,
they are working with the contractors to address problems. For example,
FPS officials are working to determine if it is possible for candidates
recently separated from the military to receive a waiver for the
medical screening if they have recently undergone a military medical
examination. See figure 1 for a timeline of the FPS hiring process.
Figure 1: Timeline of LESO Hiring Process:
[Refer to PDF for image: timeline]
Develop and vacancy announcement: 14 days;
Announce open period: 14 days;
Qualifications review and certification issuance: 14 days;
Interview applicants and make selection: 27 days;
Notification of selectee: 3 days;
Clearances required (Drug, Security, Medical): 30 to 60 days;
Selectee and employer notification for release date: 28 days;
Enter on duty.
Source: GAO representation of CBP data.
[End of figure]
We have identified human capital management, including the hiring
process, as an area in which DHS has significant management challenges.
In our 2007 progress report on DHS's management challenges, we found
that DHS had made limited progress in managing its human capital.
[Footnote 10] With regard to a timely hiring process, we found that
while DHS has developed a 45-day hiring model, and provided it to all
of its component agencies, DHS does not assess the component agencies
against this model. The prolonged time it takes to select and hire FPS
LESOs further demonstrates the limited progress DHS's components have
made in meeting the goals of this model.
Some Newly Hired LESOs Are Not Fully Trained:
FPS has experienced delays in its LESO training program. Almost 16
months after FPS began hiring new LESOs, almost half of them have not
completed the required law enforcement training and therefore are not
permitted to conduct any law enforcement components of their jobs,
including carrying firearms or exercising arrest and search
authorities. Of these 187 new LESOs, almost all--95 percent--have
completed the physical security training that is required to conduct a
BSA. Conducting BSAs is the core function of the LESO position, and
BSAs are used by FPS to determine and recommend countermeasures to
protect federal facilities. In addition to hiring new LESOs, FPS
converted 105 police officers to the LESO position, and while all
police officers are already trained in law enforcement, 25 percent of
the 105 police officers FPS promoted to LESO positions have not
completed physical security training, and therefore are not eligible to
conduct BSAs or recommend countermeasures, their key responsibilities.
This training is essential to support FPS's new strategic direction,
and in his June 2008 testimony, the Director of FPS indicated physical
security responsibilities, such as completing BSAs, will account for 80
percent of a LESO's duties. According to FPS, depending on class
availability, it expects to have all new hire and converted LESOs fully
trained by September 2009. According to FPS officials, LESOs that have
not completed the physical security training are assisting experienced
LESOs in completing their BSAs. During our site visits to FPS's
regions, we were told that not having all LESOs fully trained caused a
strain on FPS's resources, with LESOs taking on increased workloads. We
also spoke with new LESOs in two regions who told us that while they
have not received physical security training, they were conducting BSAs
with little or no oversight from senior staff.
FPS officials told us the reason training has been delayed is that it
had submitted and finalized its training schedule with the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) over 1 year before it was mandated
to increase its staff numbers, and adding additional classes after this
time was a challenge because of limited space and instructors at FLETC.
Officials said that FLETC is doing its best to accommodate the number
of new hires and converts FPS is sending for training. According to FPS
officials, FLETC is holding its Physical Security Training Program once
every month back to back. Each class has a maximum of 24 students, and
in the past, at most FLETC held three Physical Security Training
Programs each year.
Moreover, FPS has taken limited steps to provide ongoing physical
security training to existing LESOs, a fact that limits the
functionality of experienced LESOs. FPS is currently in the process of
developing a biannual physical security training program to ensure that
LESOs are current in their knowledge of physical security standards and
technology. LESOs and regional officials we met with during our site
visits told us they did not feel the current level of physical security
training was adequate. According to FPS officials, the design and
methodology for the new Physical Security Refresher Training Program
have been completed, and a headquarters position dedicated to managing
the agency's training program has been created, but the program has not
been implemented and as of July 2009 there is no expected date for
implementation.[Footnote 11]
FPS's Attrition Rate Emphasizes the Need for Ongoing Hiring and
Training Programs:
While FPS has reached the mandated staffing levels, FPS continues to
have a high attrition rate, and about 30 percent of its employees are
eligible to retire in the next 5 years. Since fiscal year 2005, it has
experienced increases in its overall attrition rate. As we previously
reported, FPS experienced funding challenges in the first few years of
its transition to DHS, and took steps to mitigate these challenges by
reducing the size of its workforce. For example, FPS offered its
employees Voluntary Early Retirement Authority, as well as detailing
employees to other DHS components. FPS's attrition rate peaked at over
11 percent in fiscal year 2007, and while it began declining once FPS
halted its downsizing efforts, in fiscal year 2008 it was 9 percent,
which was higher than the average rate of the federal government and
ICE, but lower than DHS's. In addition, about 30 percent of FPS's
workforce--360 employees--are eligible to retire by 2014, a fact that
when combined with its attrition rates could place additional demands
on FPS's hiring process. See figure 2 for a comparison of FPS's
attrition rates with those of the federal government and DHS.
Figure 2: Comparison of FPS, ICE, DHS, and Federal Government Attrition
Rates:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Fiscal year: 2005;
Federal Protective Service (FPS): 6.78%;
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): 5.4%;
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): 13.71%;
Governmentwide: 8.66%.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Federal Protective Service (FPS): 10.71%;
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): 5.26%;
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): 11.8%;
Governmentwide: 8.73%.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Federal Protective Service (FPS): 11.15%;
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): 5.6%;
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): 11.8%;
Governmentwide: 8.91%.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Federal Protective Service (FPS): 8.97%;
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): 5.29%;
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): 11.22%;
Governmentwide: 7.83%.
Source: GAO analysis of OPM data.
Note: Attrition rate was calculated by the sum of all separations
divided by the average of the number of employees at the beginning of
the fiscal year plus the number at the end of the fiscal year. For the
purposes of this report, DHS's attrition rates were calculated omitting
ICE's attrition rate (including FPS), and ICE's attrition rates were
calculated omitting FPS's attrition.
[End of figure]
FPS Does Not Have A Strategic Human Capital Plan to Guide Its Current
and Future Workforce Planning Efforts:
FPS currently does not have a strategic human capital plan to guide its
current and future workforce planning efforts. Our work has shown that
a strategic human capital plan addresses two critical needs: It (1)
aligns an organization's human capital program with its current and
emerging mission and programmatic goals, and (2) develops long-term
strategies for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve
programmatic goals. In 2007, FPS took steps toward developing a
Workforce Transition Plan to reflect its decision to move to a LESO-
based workforce and reduce its workforce to about 950 employees. These
steps included the following:
* identifying skill sets needed to transition employees, including
conducting focus groups with senior managers to determine what skills
are needed in regions and headquarters and establishing a core
curriculum and a career path for FPS occupations in categories of
mission support, law enforcement, and supervisory positions;
* identifying the number of employees who meet current skill set
requirements and those who require training and type of training
needed; and:
* establishing a project plan to transition employees, including
determination of employees eligible for retirement; establishing
strategies for use of human capital flexibilities such as bonuses and
relocation allowances; and establishing recruitment and retention
strategies.
However, in 2008, FPS discontinued this plan because the objective of
the plan--to reduce FPS staff to 950 to meet the President's Fiscal
Year 2008 Budget--was no longer relevant because of the congressional
mandate to increase its workforce to 1,200 employees. FPS subsequently
identified steps it needed to take in response to the mandate. However,
we found that these efforts do not include developing strategies for
determining agency staffing needs, identifying gaps in workforce
critical skills and competencies, developing strategies for use of
human capital flexibilities, or strategies for retention and succession
planning.
Additionally, the lack of a current human capital plan has contributed
to inconsistent approaches in how FPS regions and headquarters are
managing human capital activities for the agency. FPS officials in
three of the five of the regions we visited said they implement their
own strategies for managing their workforce, including processes for
performance feedback, training, and mentoring. For example, one region
we visited developed its own operating procedures for a field training
program, and has received limited guidance from headquarters on how the
program should be conducted. Officials in this region have also taken
the initiative in several areas to develop specific guidance and
provide employees with feedback on their performance in several areas.
Another region we visited offers inspectors supplemental training in
addition to required training. This region also requires new inspectors
to complete a mentoring program in which they accompany an experienced
inspector and are evaluated on all the aspects of their job. Similarly,
a third region we visited has an informal mentoring program for the
police officers that were promoted to inspectors. Each newly promoted
inspector was paired with a senior inspector.
Additionally, we found FPS's headquarters does not collect data on its
workforce's knowledge, skills, and abilities. Consequently, FPS cannot
determine what its optimal staffing levels should be or identify gaps
in its workforce needs and determine how to modify its workforce
planning strategies to fill these gaps. Effective workforce planning
requires consistent agencywide data on the critical skills needed to
achieve current and future programmatic goals and objectives. FPS's
human capital activities are performed by a DHS shared service center
managed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Personnel Systems
Division in Laguna Niguel, California. This shared service center
provides FPS headquarters with biweekly reports on FPS's workforce
statistics such as workforce demographics, and attrition and hiring
data by occupation. These reports do not provide insight on FPS's
workforce's knowledge, skills, and abilities--information that is key
in identifying workforce gaps and engaging in ongoing staff
development. In addition to the official data maintained by the shared
service center, each FPS region maintains its own workforce data.
Without the collection of centralized or standardized data on its
workforce, it is unclear how FPS can engage in short-and long-term
strategic workforce planning. FPS's Risk Assessment and Management
Program (RAMP) system is intended to address some of these concerns,
but this project has met with numerous delays, and according to FPS
officials, data will not be available until fiscal year 2011.[Footnote
12] Additionally, FPS's human capital challenges may be further
exacerbated by the proposal in the President's 2010 budget to move FPS
from ICE to NPPD. If the move is approved, it is unclear which agency
will perform the human capital function for FPS, or how the move will
affect FPS's operational and workforce needs.[Footnote 13]
Strategic Human Capital Planning Is Necessary for Agency Leaders to
Align Personnel with Agency Needs:
GAO has developed a model of strategic human capital planning to help
agency leaders effectively use their personnel and determine how well
they integrate human capital considerations into daily decision making
and planning for the program results they seek to achieve.[Footnote 14]
Under the principles of effective workforce planning, an agency should
determine the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to
achieve current and future programmatic results. Then the agency should
develop strategies tailored to address gaps in number, deployment, and
alignment of human capital approaches for enabling and sustaining the
contributions of all critical skills and competencies. GAO has
identified five key principles that should be addressed in an agency's
strategic human capital planning. See table 2 for key principles and
examples of how an agency can implement these principles.
Table 2: Key Principles for Strategic Human Capital Planning and
Examples of Implementation of Principles:
Key principle: Involve top management, employees, and other
stakeholders in developing, communicating, and implementing the
strategic workforce plan;
Examples of implementation of principle: Communicate new strategic
direction through;
* establishment--by top management--of the overall direction and goals
for workforce planning;
* involvement of employees and other stakeholders in developing and
implementing future workforce strategies, and;
* establishment of a communication strategy to create shared
expectations, promote transparency, and report progress.
Key principle: Determine the critical skills and competencies that will
be needed to achieve current and future programmatic results;
Examples of implementation of principle: Identify needed skills and
competencies that are clearly linked to the agency's strategic
direction by collecting and analyzing data;
* from managers and employees on the factors influencing the agency's
capability to acquire, develop, and retain critical skills and other
competencies, and;
* on trends in attrition rates, projected retirement rates,
fluctuations in workload, and geographic and demographic trends.
Key principle: Develop strategies that are tailored to address gaps in
number, deployment, and alignment of human capital approaches for
enabling and sustaining the contributions of all critical skills and
competencies;
Examples of implementation of principle: Develop strategies to
eliminate gaps and improve critical skills and competencies that are
required for current and future workforce, including strategies for;
* hiring;
* training;
* staff development;
* succession planning;
* performance management, and;
* use of flexibilities.
Key principle: Build the capability needed to address administrative,
educational, and other requirements important to support workforce
strategies;
Examples of implementation of principle: Take advantage of existing and
new human capital authorities by;
* educating managers and employees on the availability and use of
flexibilities;
* streamlining and improving administrative processes, and;
* building transparency and accountability into the system.
Key principle: Monitor and evaluate the agency's progress toward its
human capital goals and the contribution that human capital results
have made toward achieving programmatic goals;
Examples of implementation of principle: Design performance measures
that gauge success in;
* progress toward reaching human capital goals, and;
* the contribution of human capital activities toward achieving
programmatic goals.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
FPS's Customers Have Mixed Views on Its Services:
FPS Customers Generally Had Mixed Views about Its Law Enforcement and
Physical Security Services, but Some Could Not Evaluate FPS Services:
On the basis of our generalizable survey of building security committee
chairs and designated officials in facilities protected by FPS, we
found that FPS customers had mixed views about the law enforcement and
physical security services they paid FPS to provide. In order for FPS
to carry out its mission of protecting federal buildings and the people
in those buildings, FPS is authorized to collect security fees from the
agencies it protects for law enforcement and physical security
services. In fiscal year 2008, FPS's customers paid approximately $187
million for basic security services, such as preparing BSAs, responding
to incidents, and providing advice and assistance to building security
committees. Our survey, which ended in May 2009, asked FPS customers
how satisfied they were with a variety of services they pay FPS to
provide. Overall, survey results showed that 58 percent were satisfied
or very satisfied with FPS's current level of service, 7 percent were
dissatisfied, 18 percent were neutral, and 17 percent were not able to
comment on FPS's current level of service.[Footnote 15] However, our
survey also showed that some of FPS's customers could not evaluate
specific services. For example, according to our survey, an estimated
28 percent of FPS's customers were satisfied with FPS's response time
to emergencies at their facility, while 6 percent were dissatisfied or
very dissatisfied, 11 percent were neutral, and 55 percent indicated
that they could not comment, to some extent because there may not have
been such an incident at their facility. Additionally, our survey
suggests that some of FPS's customers may not be satisfied with FPS's
decision to eliminate its police officer position and move to a LESO-
based workforce, since 22 percent of FPS customers thought there were
too few patrols of their facility by FPS police officers or LESOs,
while no customers indicated that there were too many, 21 percent said
about right, and 57 percent were unable to comment. (See appendix II
for complete questionnaire tabulations.)
Our survey also suggests that the communication between FPS and its
customers about roles and responsibilities is unclear, in part because
on average one third of FPS's customers could not comment on how
satisfied or dissatisfied they were with FPS's level of communication
on its services, as shown in table 3. For example, an estimated 35
percent of FPS customers could not evaluate FPS's level of
communication about services it can offer tenant agencies and 12
percent were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.
Table 3: Survey Results on Customer Satisfaction with FPS's Level of
Communication on Various Topics:
Question: How satisfied are you with FPS's current level of
communication with respect to the following? (percentage of total
respondents):
a. Services FPS can offer tenant agencies, such as guidance on security
issues and crime prevention training;
Satisfied or very satisfied: 33%;
Neutral: 20%;
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 12%;
Could not evaluate: 35%.
b. Information related to building security assessments and security
countermeasures;
Satisfied or very satisfied: 38%;
Neutral: 21%;
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 11%;
Could not evaluate: 30%.
c. Threats to your facility;
Satisfied or very satisfied: 36%;
Neutral: 19%;
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 10%;
Could not evaluate: 35%.
d. Security-related laws, regulations, and guidance;
Satisfied or very satisfied: 31%;
Neutral: 23%;
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 9%;
Could not evaluate: 37%.
e. Information related to the security guards at your facility;
Satisfied or very satisfied: 25%;
Neutral: 17%;
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 9%;
Could not evaluate: 50%.
f. General security information;
Satisfied or very satisfied: 38%;
Neutral: 24%;
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 9%;
Could not evaluate: 29%.
Source: GAO survey of FPS customers.
Note: Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. Numbers listed
have been adjusted to exclude missing values.
[End of table]
Additionally, an estimated 36 percent of FPS customers had no basis to
report on the frequency with which FPS officials attended meetings
about the security of their facility, while about 22 percent indicated
that FPS never attends and 18 percent reported rare attendance.
Respondents that provided comments on our survey indicated they could
not evaluate FPS's services mainly because they had little to no
interaction with FPS. For example:
* A respondent commented that he/she had little or no contact with FPS,
because the closest FPS office is approximately 150 miles away;
additionally this official noted that he/she was not aware of any
services provided by FPS.
* A respondent in a leased facility commented that FPS has very limited
resources and the resources that are available are assigned to the
primary federally owned building in the region.
* A respondent commented that during his/her tenure of 12 years, this
official remembered only one visit from an FPS officer.
With the exception of meetings to discuss BSA reports, which should
occur at least every 2 to 4 years, depending on the security level of
the facility, according to FPS officials, FPS does not have policies
regarding the frequency with which FPS LESOs should visit or patrol a
customer's facility.[Footnote 16] However, according to our survey, an
estimated 12 percent of FPS customers indicated that FPS had not
conducted a BSA within the past 5 years and about 24 percent did not
know if one had been conducted, and of those customers who indicated a
BSA had been conducted, not all of them were briefed on the results.
[Footnote 17]
Many FPS Customers Do Not Rely on FPS for Services, and Some Were Not
Fully Aware of the Services It Provides:
Our survey also found that many customers do not rely on FPS for law
enforcement and physical security services. Specifically, regarding law
enforcement services, the majority of FPS's customers, about 82
percent, do not rely on FPS as their primary provider in emergency
situations that require an immediate response, though 18 percent rely
on FPS. Most of the customers that did not indicate FPS as their
primary provider for emergency situations reported that they rely on
local law enforcement agencies, but some also used other federal
agencies, such as the U.S. Marshals Service, Custom and Border
Protection, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For nonemergency
situations, such as enforcing laws and regulations, approximately 51
percent relied on local law enforcement or others for service, while 49
percent of FPS customers relied on FPS. Our survey also showed that
about 48 percent of FPS's customers rely on FPS as their primary
provider of physical security, which includes BSAs that FPS is required
to provide customers and which has been FPS's primary focus since 2007,
but the remaining 52 percent relied on other sources, including their
agency's own internal security group, for physical security, and a few
noted contracting with private sector companies for services.[Footnote
18] See figure 3 for a summary of survey results about primary
providers of law enforcement and physical security services.
Figure 3: Survey Results For Primary Providers of Law Enforcement and
Physical Security Services at GSA-Controlled Facilities:
[Refer to PDF for image: three pie-charts]
Emergency situations:
Local law enforcement: 66%;
FPS: 18%;
Other[A]: 16%.
Non-emergency situations:
FPS: 49%;
Local law enforcement: 36%;
Other[A]: 16%.
Physical security services:
FPS: 48%;
Internal office within customer's agency: 29%;
Other[B]: 23%.
Source: GAO survey of FPS customers.
Note: Percentages shown are estimates and have margins of error of
within plus or minus 5 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence
level. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
[A] Others for this category include state law enforcement agencies and
federal agencies such as the U.S. Marshals Service, Customs and Border
Protection, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
[B] Others for this category include the General Services
Administration's Building Security and Policy Division, other federal
agencies such as the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Postal Service
Inspection Services, and private contractors.
[End of figure]
Although FPS and GSA have an agreement that outlines the services FPS
will provide customers in GSA facilities, some customers were not aware
of the services FPS provides and the fees that they paid for such
services. For instance, a customer in a federally owned building in a
remote location did not know that FPS provided 24-hour alarm-monitoring
services, because FPS had not visited the office in over 2 years; as a
result the customer purchased an alarm system that was not compatible
with FPS's monitoring system. Another customer we spoke to in leased
facilities told us that he/she had less of a need for FPS, because he/
she was in a leased facility and relied on either law enforcement
officers or physical security specialists from his/her own agency. When
we followed up with 10 customers who could not comment on FPS's
services, we found that 6 of the 10 customers were unaware of the fees
they paid FPS, and 4 of the 10 reported that FPS does not provide their
facility services.[Footnote 19] For example, one customer we spoke to
told us that she did not know what FPS's role was with respect to the
security of her facility and did not realize that her agency paid FPS a
security fee. GSA officials also told us that they have received
complaints from customers that they do not know what services they were
getting for the basic security fees they paid FPS. For instance, a
customer at a large government-owned complex was not satisfied with
FPS's security recommendation to add security guard posts at the
facility for a fee of up to $300,000 in addition to the approximately
$800,000 in basic security fees the customer was already paying FPS
annually, because the customer reported never seeing FPS officers as
part of the basic security fees they paid, according to a GSA official.
[Footnote 20]
In addition to our survey findings about the extent customers relied on
FPS for services, others have found that while FPS is the primary
federal agency responsible for protecting GSA facilities, federal
agencies were taking steps to meet their security needs using other
sources. GSA officials told us that some federal agencies have not been
satisfied with FPS's building security assessments and have started
conducting their own assessments. A few agencies have also requested
delegations of authority for their buildings from FPS, including the
National Archives and Records Administration and the Office of
Personnel Management, according to GSA. Specifically, although the U.S.
Marshals Service has delegated authority for building security of
federal courthouses, according to officials from the Marshals Service,
it started a perimeter security pilot program in October 2008 for
courthouses in six cities, because of concerns with the quality of
service provided by FPS contract guards at federal courthouses.
Additionally, a 2006 study by ICE found that federal agencies were
actively seeking delegations of authority because of increased overhead
costs and agencies wanted more control over the security within their
buildings. However, even with delegations of authority for security
from FPS, agencies are still expected to pay FPS's fee for basic
security services. Moreover, the Office of Management and Budget's 2007
assessment of FPS found that the services provided by FPS were
redundant and duplicative of other federal efforts, because many
federal agencies--including the U.S. Marshals Court Security, Secret
Service, and the Capitol Police--had their own security offices.
[Footnote 21]
GSA Has Not Been Satisfied with FPS's Performance:
GSA has not been satisfied with the level of service FPS has provided
and expressed some concerns about its performance since it transferred
to DHS. As GSA owns and leases over 9,000 facilities FPS protects, GSA
officials told us that they have a vested interest in the security of
these facilities. According to GSA officials, FPS has not been able to
provide the level of service GSA expects based on the existing
memorandum of agreement between the two agencies. For example, GSA
officials said FPS has not been responsive and timely in providing
assessments for new leases, a fact that delayed negotiations and
procurement of space for tenant agencies. According to FPS, it does not
consistently receive notification of pre-lease assessments from GSA,
and although FPS is working on developing an interface as part of RAMP
to ensure that information is received and appropriately routed for
action, this program has been delayed. GSA officials were also
concerned about the lack of consistency in the BSA process.
Specifically, GSA officials told us that the quality of a BSA can vary
depending on the LESO conducting the assessment.
While FPS and GSA have taken steps to improve information sharing,
communication and coordination continue to be a challenge for them. As
we recently reported, at the national level, FPS and GSA have
established some formal channels for sharing information such as
holding biweekly meetings, serving on working groups focused on
security, and forming a joint Executive Advisory Council, which
provides a vehicle for FPS, GSA, and customers to work together to
identify common problems and devise solutions.[Footnote 22] However,
GSA officials have been frustrated with FPS's level of communication.
Specifically, these officials said that although the frequency of
communication has increased, meetings with FPS are not productive
because FPS does not contribute to planning the discussions, bringing
up issues, or following up on discussion items as promised.
Additionally, while FPS's Director views GSA as a partner, GSA
officials said communication with FPS staff at levels below senior
management has remained difficult and unchanged. Furthermore, FPS and
GSA have not been able to reach an agreement about revisions to their
current agreement, which according to GSA officials, does not include
requirements regarding communication and measures that ensure the needs
of customers are met.
FPS Does Not Have Complete and Accurate Customer Contact Data to
Increase Customer Awareness about Services:
Although FPS is responsible for the protection of over 9,000 facilities
owned and leased by GSA, it does not have complete and accurate contact
data for the customers in these facilities who are responsible for
working with FPS to identify security issues and implement security
standards for their facility, typically the building security committee
chair or a designated official. During the course of our review, we
found that approximately 53 percent of the e-mail addresses and 27
percent of the telephone numbers for designated points of contacts were
missing from FPS's contact database. Additionally, while FPS was able
to provide us a sufficient amount of contact information to conduct our
survey, some of the customer data we received for our survey sample
were either outdated or incorrect. For example, approximately 18
percent of the survey notification e-mails we sent to customers in our
sample were returned as undeliverable. When we attempted to obtain
correct e-mail addresses, we found that some of the contacts FPS
provided had retired or were no longer with the agency. In some
instances, we found that the e-mail address FPS provided was incorrect,
because of human errors such as the misspelling of the customer's name.
Additionally, our follow-up calls to over 600 sample customers to check
on the status of the survey found that FPS did not have the correct
telephone numbers for about one-third of these customers, and more than
100 customers provided us with updated contact information.
While FPS acknowledges that it needs to improve customer service and
has developed some initiatives to increase customer education and
outreach, it will continue to face challenges implementing these
initiatives without complete and accurate customer contact information.
Specifically, one of FPS's three guiding principles in its strategic
plan is to foster coordination and information sharing with
stakeholders and strive to anticipate stakeholder needs to ensure it is
providing the highest level of service and has taken steps to achieve
this goal. For instance, in 2007, FPS conducted four focus group
sessions to solicit customer input, but this effort was limited to 4 of
11 FPS regions, with a total of 22 customers participating in the
discussion. Additionally, FPS developed and distributed four
stakeholder newsletters as a result of the focus group sessions.
According to FPS, the newsletter was distributed to members of FPS and
GSA's Executive Advisory Council as well as to 201 other director-level
officials from various federal agencies. FPS's marketing and
communications strategy identifies initiatives focused on improving
customer service. For example, FPS plans to administer its own customer
satisfaction survey with assistance from GSA. FPS's RAMP system is also
expected to help improve customer service and allow LESOs to be more
customer focused. In particular, RAMP will include a customer relations
module that will allow FPS LESOs to better manage their relationship
with customers by enabling them to input and access customer
information such as building contacts and preferences for meeting
times. However, it will be difficult for FPS to implement these or any
customer service initiatives before taking steps to ensure it has
complete and accurate contact information for all the facilities it
protects. Furthermore, our prior work has shown that effective security
requires people to work together to implement policies, processes, and
procedures.[Footnote 23] Therefore without existing information to
contact building security committees or officials responsible for
security issues, FPS cannot effectively work with customers to ensure
federal buildings are secure by communicating critical policies or
emergency information such as threats to facilities.
Conclusion:
In recent years FPS's human capital efforts have primarily focused on
downsizing its workforce and reducing costs. In December 2007, FPS's
funding challenges were mitigated and it began increasing its workforce
to meet a mandated deadline. While FPS's short-term hiring efforts met
with some success, because of its attrition rates and number of
employees eligible to retire in 5 years, FPS needs to continue to focus
on improving its hiring and training processes. We have identified
human capital management as a high-risk issue throughout the federal
government, and particularly within DHS. FPS's hiring challenges
further serve as an example of the importance of improving these
processes. Without a long-term strategy for managing its current and
future workforce needs, including effective processes for hiring,
training, and staff development, FPS will be challenged to align its
personnel with its programmatic goals. The President's 2010 budget
proposes to transfer FPS from ICE to DHS's National Protection and
Programs Directorate and presents FPS with a prime opportunity to take
the initial steps required to develop a long-term strategic approach to
managing its workforce. However, until FPS begins collecting data on
its workforce's knowledge, skills, and abilities, FPS will not be able
to start and complete this process.
While FPS customers paid about $187 million dollars in fiscal year 2008
for law enforcement and physical security services, and given the fact
that our survey showed some customers are unaware of or do not use the
services they are paying for, it is particularly important that FPS
enhance its interaction with its customers. FPS acknowledges the need
for improvement in its customer service, and has taken some initial
steps toward improvement. Until benefits of these actions are realized
by customers--something that cannot occur until FPS collects complete
and accurate contact data for the facilities it provides service to,
and establishes a process for reaching out to and educating customers
on the services they should be receiving--customers will continue to
raise questions about the quality of service they are receiving.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To facilitate effective strategic management of its workforce, we
recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director
of FPS to take the following actions:
* improve how FPS headquarters collects data on its workforce's
knowledge, skills, and abilities to help it better manage and
understand current and future workforce needs, and:
* use these data in the development and implementation of a long-term
strategic human capital plan that addresses key principles for
effective strategic workforce planning, including establishing
programs, policies, and practices that will enable the agency to
recruit, develop, and retain a qualified workforce.
To improve service to all of its customers, FPS should:
* collect and maintain an accurate and comprehensive list of all
facility-designated points of contact, as well as a system for
regularly updating this list, and:
* develop and implement a program for education and outreach to all
customers to ensure they are aware of the current roles,
responsibilities, and services provided by FPS.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DHS and GSA for review and
comment. DHS concurred with the report's findings and recommendations,
and provided us with technical comments. GSA had no comment. DHS's
comments can be found in appendix III.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate committees, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and other interested parties. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have any
questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or
goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are
listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Mark L. Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure:
List of Requesters:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Bennie Thompson:
Chairman:
The Honorable Peter King:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable James L. Oberstar:
Chairman:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton:
Chairwoman:
Subcommittee on Public Buildings, Economic Development, and Emergency
Management:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This report examines the workforce and human capital processes and
planning efforts of the Federal Protective Service (FPS). Specifically,
our objectives were to provide information (1) on the extent that FPS
has hired and trained new staff to address its mandated staffing
levels, (2) on the extent that FPS has developed a strategic human
capital plan to manage its current and future workforce needs, and (3)
on the satisfaction of FPS's customers with its services. Our work was
initially designed to address congressional concerns about FPS's
staffing composition and level since it transferred to the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), and its human capital polices and
procedures for hiring and retaining a qualified workforce. Since this
work was requested, DHS's 2008 and 2009 appropriations acts mandated
FPS to ensure fee collections were sufficient to maintain no fewer than
1,200 full-time equivalents, including 900 law enforcement positions.
[Footnote 24] We also reported that some tenant agencies and
stakeholders were concerned about the quality and cost of security
provided by FPS since it transferred to DHS.[Footnote 25] Our findings
raised questions about equity in which FPS has been providing services
to customers across the country in facilities with different security
needs. In light of these events and our recent findings, we expanded
the focus of our review to include an assessment of FPS's efforts to
meet the congressional mandate, steps it has taken to address customer
concerns, and FPS's customer satisfaction with its services.
To respond to the overall objectives of this report, we interviewed
officials from FPS, DHS, and the General Services Administration (GSA).
We also reviewed relevant laws, and FPS, DHS, and GAO documents related
to workforce planning and human capital management. We conducted site
visits at 5 of FPS's 11 regional offices; while the results of these
visits are not generalizable, these 5 site visits accounted for about
50 percent of the 9,000 facilities FPS is responsible for providing
service. During our site visits, we met with FPS regional law
enforcement and human capital managers as well as new and experienced
law enforcement security officers (LESO) to gain an understanding of
how FPS's recent workforce changes have affected FPS's operations,
actions each regional office has taken to address these effects, and
how regional offices determine workforce needs. We also discussed the
regions' role in the agency's human capital planning.
To assess the extent to which FPS is fully operational and has met
staffing levels required by Congress, we interviewed officials in FPS's
headquarters and officials from DHS Customs and Border Protection Human
Resources Management Center in Laguna Niguel, California (Laguna), who
were responsible for managing, overseeing, and implementing personnel
actions for FPS, to understand the actions FPS took, and challenges
faced, to meet the mandate. We also reviewed and analyzed FPS workforce
data, such as hiring, attrition, separation, and retirement
eligibility, by using the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM)
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF). We also identify trends in
attrition data for FPS employees from fiscal years 2005 through 2008
and compared that information with that of the rest of the federal
government and DHS during the same time period. To assess the
reliability of OPM's CPDF, we reviewed GAO's prior data reliability
work on CPDF.[Footnote 26] We also requested attrition and other
workforce data from Laguna, which administers FPS's personnel actions,
to determine the extent to which CPDF data matched the agency's data.
When we compared the CPDF data with the data provided by Laguna on FPS
personnel, we found that data provided by Laguna were sufficiently
similar to the CPDF data and concluded that the CPDF data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. However, we did
not independently verify the workforce data we received from Laguna.
To calculate the attrition rates for each fiscal year, we divided the
total number of separations from each agency or DHS component by the
average of the number of employees in the CPDF at the beginning of the
fiscal year plus the number at the end of the fiscal year. To place the
overall attrition rates for FPS in context, we compared FPS's rates
with those for federal employees in the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) a component agency within DHS, DHS as a whole, and
the rest of government. For the purposes of this report, DHS's
attrition rates were calculated omitting ICE's attrition rate
(including that for FPS), and ICE's attrition rates were calculated
omitting FPS's attrition.
To determine the extent to which FPS has developed a plan to manage its
current and future workforce needs, we reviewed and analyzed FPS and
ICE documents related to human capital planning, vacancies for critical
positions, and workforce models. We interviewed FPS officials regarding
efforts to (1) develop and implement a long-term strategic human
capital plan, (2) identify and fill critical vacancies, (3) and analyze
current and future workforce needs. We then compared FPS's efforts with
Key Principles of Effective Strategic Workforce Planning identified by
GAO.[Footnote 27]
To assess FPS's customer satisfaction with its services, we reviewed
the existing memorandum of agreement between DHS and GSA, which
outlines the services FPS provides GSA and other federal customers in
GSA-controlled buildings. We also met with GSA officials in its central
and regional offices to determine their level of satisfaction with
FPS's services and specific actions FPS and GSA have taken to ensure
effective communication and coordination. Additionally, we reviewed FPS
documents related to customer communication and outreach.
In addition, we conducted a Web-based survey of FPS customers in GSA-
owned and leased buildings. For the purpose of our survey, we defined
FPS customers as building security committee chairpersons and
designated officials. We focused on building security committee
chairpersons and designated officials, because these officials are
responsible for working with FPS to identify security issues and
implement minimum security standards for their buildings. The survey
sought information pertaining to FPS's law enforcement and physical
security services, customers' perspectives on the level of service FPS
has provided, and observed changes in services over the past 5 years.
To identify the appropriate officials to respond to the survey, we
constructed our population of FPS customers in GSA-owned and leased
facilities from GSA's facilities database as of October 2008, an action
that resulted in over 9,000 GSA-controlled facilities, and matched
customer contact information from FPS's database using GSA-assigned
building numbers. We excluded about 670 facilities with data errors or
anomalies pertaining to the security level of the facility as well as
security level V facilities, because FPS does not have responsibility
for protecting any level V buildings. On the basis of our discussions
with GSA officials about the types of facilities in their inventory, we
also excluded approximately 1,900 facilities that generally had either
(1) few to no occupants; (2) limited use; or (3) no need for public
access, such as warehouses, storage, and parking facilities, and this
resulted in a study population of about 6,422 facilities. We selected a
stratified random sample of 1,398 facilities from this study population
where the strata were defined by region. Table 4 summarizes the sample
and sample disposition for each of the strata.
Table 4: FPS Customer Survey Sample and Response Rates:
FPS Region: 1. New England;
Number: 99;
Response: 56;
Out of scope[A]: 0;
Response rate percentages: 57.
FPS Region: 2. Northeast & Caribbean;
Number: 102;
Response: 51;
Out of scope[A]: 0;
Response rate percentages: 50.
FPS Region: 3. Mid-Atlantic;
Number: 112;
Response: 68;
Out of scope[A]: 0;
Response rate percentages: 61.
FPS Region: 4. Southeast;
Number: 183;
Response: 106;
Out of scope[A]: 6;
Response rate percentages: 59.
FPS Region: 5. Great Lakes;
Number: 122;
Response: 60;
Out of scope[A]: 3;
Response rate percentages: 50.
FPS Region: 6. Heartland;
Number: 97;
Response: 57;
Out of scope[A]: 0;
Response rate percentages: 59.
FPS Region: 7. Greater Southwest;
Number: 188;
Response: 91;
Out of scope[A]: 6;
Response rate percentages: 50.
FPS Region: 8. Rocky Mountain;
Number: 112;
Response: 65;
Out of scope[A]: 1;
Response rate percentages: 58.
FPS Region: 9. Pacific Rim;
Number: 168;
Response: 82;
Out of scope[A]: 0;
Response rate percentages: 49.
FPS Region: 10. Northwest/Arctic;
Number: 108;
Response: 71;
Out of scope[A]: 5;
Response rate percentages: 67.
FPS Region: 11. National Capital;
Number: 107;
Response: 53;
Out of scope[A]: 5;
Response rate percentages: 52.
FPS Region: Total;
Number: 1,398;
Response: 760;
Out of scope[A]: 26;
Response rate percentages: 55.
Source: GAO.
[A] A total of 26 properties in our sample were determined to be out of
scope for this survey, generally because the facility was closed or
otherwise not part of our study population.
[End of table]
As summarized in table 4, we received responses from customers at 760
of the selected facilities (26 of which were out of scope, leaving 734
respondents belonging to our study population), for an overall weighted
response rate of approximately 55 percent.
We attributed this response rate as mainly due to outdated or
inaccurate FPS contact data. Our initial survey notification e-mail to
customers in our sample of 1,398 customers resulted in approximately 18
percent undeliverable e-mails. Our attempts to obtain e-mail addresses
for these customers showed that FPS's data were outdated and
inaccurate, because some customers had retired or left the agency. In
addition, when we attempted to contact customers to encourage their
participation in our survey, we found that FPS did not have the correct
telephone numbers for over 200 of the 683 customers that did not
respond to our survey. In addition to examining the response rates by
sampling strata, we also examined the weighted response rates for other
subgroups of the population and did not find wide variations in
response rate by a building's security level, whether or not it was
leased, or whether it was a single or multi-tenant building.
We used the information gathered in this survey to calculate estimates
about the entire study population of FPS customers in GSA-owned and
leased buildings. Because we followed a probability procedure based on
random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples
that we might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided
different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our
particular sample's results as a 95 percent confidence interval. This
is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95
percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are 95
percent confident that each of the confidence intervals in this report
will include the true values in the study population. All percentage
estimates from this survey have 95 percent confidence intervals of
within plus or minus 5 percentage points of the estimated percentage,
unless otherwise noted.
In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties
of conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly
referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a
particular question is interpreted, the sources of information
available to respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We included
steps in both the data collection and data analysis stages for the
purpose of minimizing such nonsampling errors. For example, we met with
security officials from GSA who were knowledgeable about the roles and
responsibilities of FPS and building security committees to gain an
understanding of the types of services FPS should be providing
customers and to discuss the feasibility of surveying customers in
different types of buildings (i.e., leased versus government owned). We
also pretested the questionnaire with five building security chairs to
ensure the questions were consistently interpreted and understandable.
We also corresponded with over 100 customers who contacted us to
provide updated contact information. During these conversations, we
discussed the relationship between FPS and building security
committees/designated officials, including FPS's roles and
responsibilities. In addition, we also followed up with 10 more
customers who had no basis to judge FPS's overall level of service to
gain an understanding of their responses to our survey questions and to
gather information on aspects of FPS's awareness and outreach efforts.
Specifically, we asked them about the types of information they receive
from FPS about changes to its services and fee structure as well as
actions FPS has taken to solicit their input. A copy of the survey
questions and a complete tabulation of the results can be found in
appendix II.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Survey of Federal Protective Service Customers:
The questions we asked in our survey on FPS's services are shown below,
and the percentages in parentheses indicate the proportion of
respondents that chose that particular answer. Unless otherwise noted,
all percentages shown are survey estimates that have 95 percent
confidence intervals of within plus or minus 5 percentage points of the
estimate itself.
Background Information:
Please answer all questions based your experience with the security at
[Building Address], with building number [Building Number]. If you
normally seek advice or support from Security/Law Enforcement/Physical
Security Specialists to fulfill your duties as the Building Security
Committee Chairperson or Designated Official, please feel free to seek
their input to respond to this survey.
1. What agency do you work for?
[Open Ended]
2. Which personnel function best describes your primary position within
your agency? (Select one):
1. Security personnel (12%):
2. Human resources personnel (0%):
3. Finance personnel (1%):
4. Management (70%):
5. Other (17%):
If you answered "Other" above, please specify:
[Open Ended]
3. How long have you been the Building Security Committee Chairperson/
Designated Official for _____? (Select one):
1. Less than a year (13%):
2. More than 1, but less than 2 years (12%):
3. More than 2, but less than 5 years (32%):
4. 5 or more years (44%):
4. What is the Department of Justice assigned security level at _____?
Please indicate the security level at _____ under the 1995 Department
of Justice standards, even if the facility has been re-assigned a new
security level under the 2008 Interagency Security Committee Standards
for Facility Security Level Determinations For Federal Facilities
(Select one):
1. Level I (6%):
2. Level II (22%):
3. Level III (10%):
4. Level IV (10%:
5. Level V (1%):
6. Do not know (50%):
5. Is _____ a government owned or a leased facility?[Footnote 28]
(Select one):
1. Government owned facility (19%):
2. Leased facility (80%):
3. Do not know (1%):
6. Is _____ a single or multi-tenant agency facility? (Select one):
1. Single tenant (34%):
2. Multi-tenant (65%):
3. Do not know (1%):
7. Does your agency have delegated authority for any of the following
security services? (Please check all that apply):
Security Service: Contract security guard service;
Checked: 23%;
Not Checked: 87%.
Security Service: Law enforcement services;
Checked: 10%;
Not Checked: 90%.
Security Service: Perimeter security;
Checked: 10%;
Not Checked: 90%.
Security Service: Interior security;
Checked: 18%;
Not Checked: 82%.
Security Service: Other;
Checked: 6%;
Not Checked: 94%.
Security Service: None of the above. My agency has no security
delegation authority;
Checked: 39%;
Not Checked: 61%.
Security Service: Do not know;
Checked: 18%;
Not Checked: 82%.
[End of table]
If you answered "Other" above, please specify:
[Open Ended]
Law Enforcement and Physical Security Providers:
8. What law enforcement agency do you consider the primary provider of
law enforcement services that require an immediate response to an
emergency, such as responding to violent crimes and life threatening
incidents, at _____? (Select one):
1.Federal Protective Service (uniformed police officers and inspectors)
(18%):
2. State law enforcement agency (3%):
3. Local law enforcement agency (66%):
4. Other (13%):
If you answered "Other" above, please specify:
[Open Ended]
9. What law enforcement agency do you consider the primary provider of
law enforcement services that do not require an immediate response such
as enforcing laws and regulations at _____? (Select one):
1. Federal Protective Service (uniformed police officers and
inspectors) (49%):
2. State law enforcement agency (5%):
3. Local law enforcement agency (36%):
4. Other (11%):
If you answered "Other" above, please specify:
[Open Ended]
10. What agency/organization do you consider the primary provider of
physical security such as an on-site evaluation and analysis of
security at _____? (Select one):
1. Federal Protective Service (uniformed police officers and
inspectors) (48%):
2. General Services Administration, Building Security & Policy Division
(12%):
3. My agency's own internal office (29%):
4. Other (11%):
If you answered "Other" above, please specify:
[Open Ended]
11. In addition to the agency you indicated for Q10, what other
agencies provide physical security such as an on-site evaluation and
analysis of security at _____? (Please check all that apply):
Providers: Federal Protective Service (uniformed police officers and
inspectors);
Checked: 32%;
Not checked: 68%.
Providers: General Services Administration, Building Security and
Policy Division;
Checked: 26%;
Not checked: 74%.
Providers: My agency's own internal office;
Checked: 32%;
Not checked: 68%.
Providers: Other;
Checked: 10%;
Not checked: 90%.
If you answered "Other" above, please specify:
[Open Ended]
12. FPS Provided Private Security Guard Service:
The following questions are about any service provided by private
security guards stationed at your facility that are obtained through a
contractual agreement with FPS. If there are no contract security
guards provided by FPS at _____, answer NO to question 12 and skip to
the next section.
13. Does the Federal Protective Service (FPS) provide private security
guards at _____? (Select one):
1. Yes (36%):
2. No - Skip to question 14. (61%):
3. Do not know - Skip to question 14. (3%):
14. How satisfied are you with the service provided by the security
guard(s) at _____? (Select one):
1. Very satisfied (42%)[Footnote 29]
2. Satisfied (45%)[Footnote 30]
3. Neutral (9%):
4. Dissatisfied (3%):
5. Very dissatisfied (0%):
6. No basis to judge/Not applicable (1%):
FPS Customer Service:
The following questions are about the services provided by Federal
Protective Service (FPS) police officers and inspectors.
1. Overall, how satisfied are you with the current level of service
provided by the FPS? (Select one):
1. Very satisfied (25%):
2. Satisfied (34%):
3. Neutral (18%):
4. Dissatisfied (5%):
5. Very dissatisfied (2%):
6. No basis to judge/Not applicable (17%):
15. In your opinion, how has the quality of the following FPS basic
security services changed over the past 5-years? (Select one for each
row):
a. Law enforcement services that require an immediate response to
emergencies such as responding to crimes and incidents:
Greatly improved (3%):
Improved (10%):
Stayed about the same (37%):
Declined (4%):
Greatly declined (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (45%):
b. Other law enforcement services such as patrolling the facility and
enforcing federal laws and regulations:
Greatly improved (2%):
Improved (9%):
Stayed about the same (36%):
Declined (5%):
Greatly declined (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (45%):
c. Building Security Assessments:
Greatly improved (3%):
Improved (18%):
Stayed about the same (44%):
Declined (4%):
Greatly declined (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (29%):
d. Assistance with security plans, such as Occupant Emergency Plans
(OEP) and Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP):
Greatly improved (2%):
Improved (12%):
Stayed about the same (33%):
Declined (5%):
Greatly declined (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (45%):
16. In your opinion, how has the quality of the following FPS building
specific services changed over the past 5-years? (Select one for each
row):
a.Management of security guards - acquisition and monitoring of guards
from a private company contracted by FPS for security services:
Greatly improved (3%):
Improved (9%):
Stayed about the same (24%):
Declined (4%):
Greatly declined (1%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (58%):
b. Installing, operating, maintaining, and/or repairing security
equipment, such as x-ray machines, closed-circuit televisions and
cameras, and alarm systems:
Greatly improved (2%):
Improved (7%):
Stayed about the same (17%):
Declined (4%):
Greatly declined (4%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (66%):
c. Consultation on security fixtures, such as vehicular barriers,
gates, locks, parking lot fencing, and guard booths:
Greatly improved (2%):
Improved (8%):
Stayed about the same (22%):
Declined (5%):
Greatly declined (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (62%):
17. How often does FPS attend meetings regarding the security at _____,
including meetings about Building Security Assessments and
countermeasures? (Select one):
1. Always (11%):
2. Sometimes (13%):
3. Rarely (18%):
4. Never (22%):
5. No basis to judge/Not applicable (36%):
18. How satisfied are you with FPS police officers' or inspectors'
current ability to perform the following activities? (Select one for
each row):
a. Respond to incidents at your facility:
Very satisfied (11%):
Satisfied (29%):
Neutral (12%):
Dissatisfied (6%):
Very dissatisfied (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (39%):
b. Patrol your facility:
Very satisfied (6%):
Satisfied (18%):
Neutral (15%):
Dissatisfied (6%):
Very dissatisfied (5%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (50%):
c. Provide crime prevention and security trainings for tenant agencies:
Very satisfied (7%):
Satisfied (17%):
Neutral (17%):
Dissatisfied (6%):
Very dissatisfied (4%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (49%):
19. Over the past 5-years, how has FPS police officers' or inspectors'
ability to perform to the following activities changed? (Select one for
each row):
a. Respond to incidents at your facility:
Greatly increased (3%):
Increased (8%):
Stayed about the same (36%):
Decreased (4%):
Greatly decreased (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (47%):
b. Patrol your facility:
Greatly increased (2%):
Increased (6%):
Stayed about the same (27%):
Decreased (6%):
Greatly decreased (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (57%):
c. Provide crime prevention and security trainings for tenant agencies:
Greatly increased (3%):
Increased (7%):
Stayed about the same (27%):
Decreased (5%):
Greatly decreased (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (56%):
20. How satisfied are you with FPS's current level of communication
with respect to the following? (Select one for each row):
a. Services FPS can offer tenant agencies, such as guidance on security
issues and crime prevention training:
Very satisfied (7%):
Satisfied (26%):
Neutral (20%):
Dissatisfied (9%):
Very dissatisfied (4%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (35%):
b. Information related Building Security Assessments and security
countermeasures:
Very satisfied (8%):
Satisfied (30%):
Neutral (21%):
Dissatisfied (8%):
Very dissatisfied (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (30%):
c. Threats to your facility:
Very satisfied (8%):
Satisfied (28%):
Neutral (19%):
Dissatisfied (7%):
Very dissatisfied (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (35%):
d. Security related laws, regulations, and guidance:
Very satisfied (6%):
Satisfied (25%):
Neutral (23%):
Dissatisfied (6%):
Very dissatisfied (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (37%):
e. Information related to the security guards at your facility:
Very satisfied (6%):
Satisfied (19%):
Neutral (17%):
Dissatisfied (6%):
Very dissatisfied (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (50%):
f. General security information:
Very satisfied (7%):
Satisfied (31%):
Neutral (24%):
Dissatisfied (6%):
Very dissatisfied (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (29%):
21. Over the past 5-years, how has the level of communication with FPS
changed with respect to the following? (Select one for each row):
a. Services FPS can offer tenant agencies, such as guidance on security
issues and crime prevention training:
Greatly increased (3%):
Increased (14%):
Stayed about the same (34%):
Decreased (8%):
Greatly decreased (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (39%):
b. Information related Building Security Assessments and security
countermeasures:
Greatly increased (3%):
Increased (16%):
Stayed about the same (36%):
Decreased (7%):
Greatly decreased (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (37%):
c. Threats to your facility:
Greatly increased (3%):
Increased (10%):
Stayed about the same (38%):
Decreased (5%):
Greatly decreased (1%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (43%):
d. Security related laws, regulations, and guidance:
Greatly increased (2%):
Increased (9%):
Stayed about the same (38%):
Decreased (6%):
Greatly decreased (1%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (44%):
e. Information related to the security guards at your facility:
Greatly increased (2%):
Increased (8%):
Stayed about the same (30%):
Decreased (5%):
Greatly decreased (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (53%):
f. General security information:
Greatly increased (3%):
Increased (13%):
Stayed about the same (39%):
Decreased (5%):
Greatly decreased (1%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (38%):
22. Based on your experience, what, if any, were the main actions FPS
took over the last 5-years that contributed to the change in quality of
service during this period?
[Open Ended]
FPS Law Enforcement Service:
The following questions are about the law enforcement services provided
by FPS police officers and inspectors.
23. How satisfied are you with FPS's response time to emergencies that
occur at _____? (Select one):
1. Very satisfied (11%):
2. Satisfied (17%):
3. Neutral (11%):
4. Dissatisfied (5%):
5. Very dissatisfied (1%):
6. No basis to judge/Not applicable (55%):
24. How satisfied are you with FPS's response time to non-emergencies
that occur at _____? (Select one):
1. Very satisfied (12%):
2. Satisfied (27%):
3. Neutral (13%):
4. Dissatisfied (3%):
5. Very dissatisfied (1%):
6. No basis to judge/Not applicable (44%):
25. How would you characterize the level of patrolling at _____ by FPS
police officers or inspectors? (Select one):
1. Too many (0%):
2. About right (21%):
3. Too few (22%):
4. No basis to judge/Not applicable (57%):
FPS Building Security Assessments:
26. Has FPS conducted a Building Security Assessment (BSA) at _____
within the last 5 years? (Select one):
1. Yes (64%):
2. No - Skip to question 34. (12%):
3. Do not know - Skip to question 34. (24%):
27. Were you the designated official/BSC Chairperson while the last BSA
was conducted by FPS at _____? (Select one):
1. Yes (83%):
2. No (17%):
28. What documentation was the designated official/BSC Chairperson
provided as a result of the BSA conducted by FPS at _____? (Please
check all that apply):
Documentation: Executive summary of BSA;
Checked: 35%;
Not checked: 65%.
Documentation: Full copy of BSA;
Checked: 36%;
Not checked: 64%.
Documentation: Other documentation of BSA;
Checked: 11%;
Not checked: 89%.
Documentation: No basis to judge/Not applicable;
Checked: 13%;
Not checked: 87%.
29. For the most recent BSA conducted at _____, was the designated
official/BSC Chairperson interviewed by the FPS inspector about
security concerns or security posture for your facility? (Select one):
1. Yes (83%):
2. No (9%):
3. No basis to judge/Not applicable (8%):
30. For the most recent BSA conducted at _____, how satisfied were you
with the level of interaction you had with FPS on the BSA? (Select
one):
1. Very satisfied (37%):
2. Satisfied (38%):
3. Neutral (15%):
4. Dissatisfied (3%):
5. Very dissatisfied (2%):
6. No basis to judge/Not applicable (5%):
31. Thinking back to the most recent BSA conducted by FPS at _____,
were you/your BSC briefed by FPS on the BSA results? (Select one):
1. Yes (82%):
2. No - Skip to question 34. (18%):
32. Thinking back to the most recent presentation of BSA results by FPS
at _____, how satisfied were you with the FPS inspector's overall
presentation of the BSA results and recommendations? (Select one):
1. Very satisfied (40%):
2. Satisfied (44%)[Footnote 31]
3. Neutral (12%):
4. Dissatisfied (2%):
5. Very dissatisfied (1%):
6. No basis to judge/Not applicable (1%):
33. Thinking back to the most recent presentation of BSA results by FPS
at _____, how strongly do you agree or disagree with each of the
following statements: (Select one for each row):
a. The FPS inspector was knowledgeable about physical security
standards, regulations, and guidelines.
Strongly agree (39%):
Agree (49%)[Footnote 32]
Neither agree nor disagree (7%):
Disagree (1%):
Strongly disagree (0%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (4%):
b. The FPS inspector provided useful information on the BSA process,
including information about threats to the facility and how these
threats are tied to the recommended countermeasures.
Strongly agree (30%):
Agree (43%)[Footnote 33]
Neither agree nor disagree (15%):
Disagree (4%):
Strongly disagree (1%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (7%):
c. The FPS inspector provided useful information on various security
countermeasures, including alternatives to recommended countermeasures.
Strongly agree (30%):
Agree (39%):
Neither agree nor disagree (16%):
Disagree (5%):
Strongly disagree (1%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (8%):
d. The FPS inspector provided cost estimates for various security
countermeasures.
Strongly agree (12%):
Agree (21%):
Neither agree nor disagree (17%):
Disagree (11%):
Strongly disagree (3%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (35%):
e. The FPS inspector took into consideration the budget cycle(s) of
tenant agency(s).
Strongly agree (8%):
Agree (18%):
Neither agree nor disagree (25%):
Disagree (6%):
Strongly disagree (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (40%):
f. The FPS inspector sufficiently responded to questions.
Strongly agree (32%):
Agree (48%)[Footnote 34]
Neither agree nor disagree (10%):
Disagree (1%):
Strongly disagree (2%):
No basis to judge/Not applicable (7%):
34. Thinking back to the most recent presentation of BSA results by FPS
at __________, to what extent did FPS prioritize recommended security
countermeasures?
[Note: Because of an error in the response categories for this
question, it was removed from the analysis of the FPS Customer Survey]
35. If you have any comments that on the BSA process or would like to
expand on your responses to questions Q26-34, please enter them in the
space provided below:
[Open Ended]
Completed:
36. If you have completed the survey, please check the "Completed"
circle below. Clicking "Completed" lets us know that you are finished
and that you want us to use your answers. Your answers will not be used
unless you have selected the Completed" option to this question.
(Select one):
1. Completed:
2. Not completed:
If you would like to view and print your completed survey, continue to
the next screen. Otherwise click on the Exit button below to exit the
survey and send your responses to GAO's server.
Thank you!
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
July 21, 2009:
Mr. Mark L. Goldstein:
Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Goldstein:
Re: Draft Report GAO-09-749, Homeland Security: Federal Protective
Service Should Improve Human Capital Planning and Better Communicate
With Tenants (GAO Job Code 543215):
The Department of Homeland Security (Department) appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the U.S. Government Accountability
Office's (GAO's) draft report referenced above. The Department,
particularly U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under which the
Federal Protective Service (FPS) currently is located, agrees with the
recommendations.
In order to facilitate effective strategic management of the FPS
workforce, GAO recommends that the Secretary direct the Director of FPS
to:
Recommendation 1: Improve how FPS Headquarters collects data on its
workforce's knowledge, skills and abilities to help it better manage
and understand current and future workforce needs.
Response: In early FY 2008, FPS undertook an ambitious effort, Phase I
of the FPS Workforce Skills/Knowledge/Abilities Assessment Initiative,
to standardize the position descriptions (PD) of its workforce. One
finding from that effort was that FPS needed to improve its processes
for capturing and conducting job task analyses and for improving its
systems for storing and retrieving that information. Currently, 80
percent of the workforce is on standard PDs and it is anticipated that
percentage will reach 90 percent by the end of FY 2009. The FPS
Workforce Skills/Knowledge/Abilities Assessment Initiative will result
in the design of a system that will capture, analyze, and validate the
skills, knowledge, and abilities required for the accomplishment of
tasks of various FPS positions. Phase 2 will involve the development or
purchase of a skill mapping template to determine and document the
skills, knowledge, and abilities required to accomplish the various
tasks of the FPS workforce.
Recommendation 2: Use this data in the development and implementation
of a long-term strategic human capital plan which addresses key
principles for effective strategic workforce planning including
establishing programs, policies, and practices that will enable the
agency to recruit, develop, and retain [a] qualified workforce.
Response: FPS has undertaken a Workforce Skills/Knowledge/Abilities
Assessment Initiative, a three phase plan that will ultimately result
in the use of data in the recruitment, development, and retention of a
qualified workforce. As previously noted, Phase 1 of the FPS Workforce
Skills/Knowledge/Abilities Assessment Initiative involves the
standardization of the position descriptions of the FPS workforce.
Phase 2 will involve the development or purchase of a skill mapping
template to determine and document the skills, knowledge, and abilities
required to accomplish the various tasks of the FPS workforce. Phase 3
of the initiative will involve the creation and implementation of a
standardized process for the identification of training, training
delivery methods, and assessment tools to assist FPS in the
recruitment, development, and retention of a qualified workforce.
To improve service to all FPS customers, GAO recommended that FPS:
Recommendation 3: Collect and maintain an accurate and comprehensive
list of all facility designated points of contact, as well as a system
for regularly updating this list.
Response: The FPS Risk Assessment and Management Program (RAMP) will
serve as the central point of information on the facilities protected
by FPS. A key component of RAMP will be its contact management
features. The system will store detailed information for multiple
points of contact for each facility. This will include Facility
Security Committee chairs, tenant representatives, GSA Property
Managers, FPS personnel associated with the facility, and local law
enforcement and emergency services contacts. FPS personnel will be able
to make updates to facility contacts remotely, which will facilitate
the process of maintaining accurate contacts, because RAMP will be
deployed on rugged laptops with mobile connectivity. Further, personnel
using RAMP will utilize these points of contact to schedule meetings
and interviews as part of the Facility Security Assessment Process,
which will also serve as a means to update contact information as
necessary. This phase of RAMP should be deployed in November 2010.
Recommendation 4: Develop and implement a program for education and
outreach to all customers to ensure they are aware of the current
roles, responsibilities, and services provided by FPS.
Response: ICE agrees that additional outreach is needed; however, ICE
disagrees with the GAO suggestion that there is "widespread
dissatisfaction with communication with FPS." In their responses to
survey questions concerning communications (Question 20), 13 percent or
less of the respondents indicated dissatisfaction with FPS's current
level of communication related to services FPS can offer tenant
agencies, information related to Building Security Assessments and
security countermeasures, threats to particular facilities, and
security related laws, regulations and guidance. Less than 11 percent
of the respondents (Question 21) indicated a decline in levels of
communication with FPS over the past five years in the same areas.
Respondents were also asked if the FPS inspector sufficiently responded
to their questions. In their responses to this question (Question 331),
only 3 percent of the respondents indicated dissatisfaction with
information provided.
FPS has actively engaged, and continues to engage, in outreach and
communication programs to improve the understanding of FPS roles and
responsibilities. In 2008, FPS conducted several outreach focus groups
to provide information about products and services offered by FPS and
to enhance current and future service offerings. In response to some of
the feedback received during these meetings, FPS recognized a need to
develop a guide that described security services provided to its
customers. The guide was developed based on the Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the FPS and the General Services Administration (GSA).
This MOA defines in detail FPS offerings and responsibilities with
regard to services provided to GSA controlled facilities.
FPS will also review, revise, and re-issue guidance to ensure that its
customers are aware of the current roles, responsibilities, and
services provided by FPS. Moreover, FPS will work with GSA senior
officials to ensure that they communicate to their field staff the need
to reinforce that FPS is their security provider and questions
concerning FPS roles and responsibilities in providing security should
be directed to their designated FPS inspector.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Michael E. McPoland, for:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Tammy Conquest, Assistant
Director; Tida Barakat; Brandon Haller; Delwen Jones; Steven Lozano;
Susan Michal-Smith; Josh Ormond; Mark Ramage; Kelly Rubin; Lacy Vong;
and Greg Wilmoth made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] FPS funds its operations through the collection of security fees
charged to tenant agencies, FPS's customers, for security services.
However, we reported in June 2008 that during fiscal years 2003 through
2006 these fees were not sufficient to cover FPS's operating costs.
[2] GAO, Homeland Security: The Federal Protective Service Faces
Several Challenges That Hamper Its Ability to Protect Federal
Facilities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-683]
(Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2008).
[3] Pub. L. No. 110-161, Division E, 121 Stat. 1844, 2051-2052 (2007).
[4] Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L.
No. 110-329, Division D, 122 Stat. 3574, 3659-3660 (2008).
[5] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic
Workforce Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39]
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).
[6] For purposes of this report, we refer to these building security
committee chairpersons and designated officials as FPS customers.
[7] The level of security FPS provides at each of the approximately
9,000 federal building it protects varies depending on the building's
security level, which is determined by the Department of Justice's 1995
Vulnerability Assessment Guidelines. The guidelines designated security
levels I through V for federal buildings and established 52 minimum
standards, with level I buildings having 18 minimum standards and level
V facilities having 39 standards. We excluded level V facilities from
our analysis, because FPS does not have responsibility for protecting
any level V buildings.
[8] Established in 1972 and administered by GSA, the Federal Buildings
Fund is a revolving fund in the U.S. Treasury into which federal agency
rent and certain other moneys are deposited. Moneys deposited into the
fund are available, subject to congressional appropriation, for GSA's
real property management and related activities. See 40 U.S.C. § 592.
[9] Laguna drafts vacancy postings for available FPS positions, posts
them online at [hyperlink, http://www.usajobs.gov] (the federal
government hiring portal), certifies applicant eligibility for open
positions, and refers eligible candidates to FPS for interviews. Once
FPS receives a list of certified candidates from Laguna, it schedules
and conducts interviews and selects candidates for offers of
employment. Laguna then makes employment offers to candidates, and upon
acceptance coordinates the new hire's date for reporting for duty.
[10] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on
Implementation of Mission and Management Functions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-454] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17,
2007).
[11] According to FPS officials, it established FPS Directive 08-010 in
December 2008, standardizing all field training and evaluations, and
has taken steps to provide ongoing in-house training to LESOs to
compensate for delays at FLETC.
[12] RAMP will be the primary tool FPS staff will use to fulfill their
mission. According to FPS, RAMP is intended to be a comprehensive,
systematic, and dynamic means of capturing, accessing, storing,
managing, and utilizing pertinent facility information. RAMP will
replace several FPS systems, including its Security Tracking System and
the Contract Guard Employment Requirements Tracking System, and may be
integrated with other systems associated with the BSA program.
[13] According to FPS, since the announcement of the proposed shift of
FPS from ICE to NPPD, a senior group from the three organizations has
met to exchange initial information and establish communications.
Additionally, FPS reported that working groups have been established
including a FPS Transition Senior Working Group consisting of senior
leaders from ICE, NPPD, and FPS with the purpose of producing a
transition plan.
[14] GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-373SP] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15,
2002).
[15] Unless otherwise noted all percentage estimates based on the FPS
customer survey have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or
minus 5 percentage points of the estimate itself.
[16] Until 2008, FPS followed the Department of Justice guidance for
completing BSAs, which requires BSAs to be completed every 2 to 4
years, depending on the security level of the building. For example, a
BSA for a level IV building is completed every 2 years and every 4
years for a level I building. On March 10, 2008, the Interagency
Security Committee, an organization composed of representatives from
nonmilitary government agencies, published new standards for
determining the security level of federal facilities, which superseded
the Department of Justice's guidance and standards. Under the new
standards, assessments will be conducted at least every 5 years for
level I and II facilities and at least every 3 years for level III, IV,
and V facilities. Additionally, although FPS established a policy in
March 2009 regarding minimum standards for the frequency of visits by
FPS LESOs to conduct guard post inspections, this policy does not
include requirements for FPS LESOs to interact with FPS customers,
namely the facilities' building security committee chairs, during these
inspections.
[17] We did not take steps to determine if building security
assessments were completed for all buildings in our sample, because as
noted in June 2008, we reported on the weaknesses of FPS's data
systems, which made it difficult for FPS to accurately track and
monitor performance measures, such as completion of BSAs and responses
to incidents.
[18] Our survey question regarding the primary provider of physical
security provided an example of such services as an on-site evaluation
and analysis of security of their facility, which FPS refers to as
building security assessments; see appendix II question 10 for further
details.
[19] We did not take steps to determine the actual level of service FPS
provided customers, because in June 2008 we reported on the weaknesses
of FPS's data systems and oversight of FPS's performance was beyond the
scope of our review.
[20] In addition to the basic security fee FPS charges each tenant
agency, other security services such as contract guard service and the
maintenance of security systems (e.g., closed circuit cameras) can also
be provided on a building or facility basis for an additional charge,
known as building specific charges.
[21] Office of Management and Budget, Program Assessment Rating Tool:
Federal Protective Service 2007 Assessment. See [hyperlink,
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore] (last accessed January 17, 2009).
[22] GAO, Homeland Security: Greater Attention to Key Practices Would
Improve the Federal Protective Service's Approach to Facility
Protection, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-644],
(Washington, D.C: July 29, 2009).
[23] GAO, National Preparedness: Technologies to Secure Federal
Buildings, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-687T],
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2002).
[24] Pub. L. No 110-161, Division E, 121 Stat 1844, 2051-2052 (2007),
and Pub. L. No 110-329, Division D, 122 Stat 3574, 3652-3691 (2008).
[25] GAO, Homeland Security: The Federal Protective Service Faces
Several Challenges That Hamper Its Ability to Protect Federal
Facilities, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-683]
(Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2008).
[26] GAO, OPM's Central Personnel Data File: Data Appear Sufficiently
Reliable to Meet Most Customer Needs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-98-199] (Washington, D.C.:
September 1998). Also in a document dated February 28, 2008, an OPM
official confirmed that OPM continues to follow the CPDF data quality
standards and procedures contained in our 1998 report.
[27] GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic
Workforce Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39]
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).
[28] As of June 2009 the General Services Administration's inventory
consists of 82 percent leased and 18 percent owned facilities.
[29] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 36
and 49 percent.
[30] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 39
and 51 percent.
[31] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 38
and 49 percent.
[32] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 44
and 55 percent.
[33] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 38
and 49 percent.
[34] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate is between 43
and 54 percent.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
