Homeland Security
Preliminary Observations on the Federal Protective Service's Workforce Analysis and Planning Efforts Gao ID: GAO-10-802R June 14, 2010We have identified several workforce related challenges faced by the Federal Protective Service (FPS) since its transfer to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003, including low morale among staff, increased attrition, and the loss of institutional knowledge. Our prior work has found that FPS continues to face challenges in identifying the optimal number of staff needed to adequately conduct its mission. In response to Congress's mandate in the House Report, which accompanied the DHS fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Act requiring GAO to evaluate the adequacy of FPS's workforce size, this report includes preliminary observations on the following questions: (1) What is the current status of FPS's efforts to determine its workforce requirements? (2) To what extent do FPS's efforts align with commonly used workforce analysis and planning practices? (3) What, if any, challenges may impede implementation of FPS's efforts?
FPS has taken steps to determine its workforce requirements, however, its workforce analysis plan is not finalized. FPS is using a model for determining optimal workforce size based on workload, risk, and work standard assumptions. As part of the Federal Protective Service-National Protection and Programs Directorate (FPS-NPPD) transition plan, FPS stated it would "create a robust workforce staffing model that is scalable based on changes in risk, threat, and consequence." This model is intended to provide the basis for staffing recommendations in future budget requests. According to FPS officials, the model contains elements of staffing models used by other federal law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Marshals Service and the Secret Service. FPS's staffing analysis methodology appears to incorporate commonly used industry practices and processes for conducting workforce analysis. For example, the methodology: (1) Identifies risk level and quantity of facilities and posts to be secured or protected. (2) Incorporates a workload analyses (identifying mission, tasks, and time to conduct activities). We found there are no widely used established criteria, formulas, or standards for determining the size of law enforcement and physical security workforces. However, officials in most organizations we spoke with told us that budget ultimately drives staffing decisions and is the primary consideration when making these decisions. FPS may face several potential challenges to implementing its workforce analysis plan: (1) Funding: FPS charges federal agencies to fund its services, however, FPS officials have not told us how they intend to fund an increased staff size. FPS's security fee has increased over 100 percent since its transfer to DHS, and FPS customers are already concerned about cost and quality of security and in the past fee increases have been met with resistance from GSA and tenant agencies. Additionally, FPS did not request additional funding in its fiscal year 2011 budget. (2) Data Quality: The accuracy of FPS's workload analysis is unclear due to the quality of workload data used. For example we have reported FPS does not accurately track key activities such as facility assessments and guard inspections. Additionally, with the implementation of a new automated risk assessment and management program, which may reduce the time it takes to conduct specific activities, the use of historical workload data may not be accurate. (3) Performance Measures: FPS does not have metrics in place to measure how changes to its workforce size, composition, and allocation are addressing its operational challenges. FPS may face several potential challenges to implementing its workforce analysis plan: (1) Human Capital Planning-FPS has not developed a strategic human capital plan to aid in long-term workforce planning and management as GAO recommended. (2) Hiring Processes-FPS recently experienced difficulties hiring and on-boarding about 180 inspectors, therefore it is unclear how it plans on managing the hiring of any additional staff that may be needed as a result of its workforce analysis plan. Additionally, FPS is no longer using Custom and Border Patrol's established human capital recruiting and hiring services. According to the transition plan, these services will be transferred to the Office of Personnel Management (3) Training-Continued backlogs at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) will impact FPS'sability to provide training to new staff--subsequently, some of the approximately 180 inspectors hired last year have yet to complete all required training.
GAO-10-802R, Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations on the Federal Protective Service's Workforce Analysis and Planning Efforts
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-802R
entitled 'Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations on the Federal
Protective Service's Workforce Analysis and Planning Efforts' which
was released on June 14, 2010.
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.
GAO-10-802R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 14, 2010:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd:
Chairman:
The Honorable George Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable David E. Price:
Chairman:
The Honorable Harold Rogers:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations on the Federal
Protective Service's Workforce Analysis and Planning Efforts:
We have identified several workforce related challenges faced by the
Federal Protective Service (FPS) since its transfer to the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003, including low morale among staff,
increased attrition, and the loss of institutional knowledge. Our
prior work has found that FPS continues to face challenges in
identifying the optimal number of staff needed to adequately conduct
its mission.[Footnote 1]
In response to Congress's mandate in the House Report, which
accompanied the DHS fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Act[Footnote 2]
requiring GAO to evaluate the adequacy of FPS's workforce size, this
report includes preliminary observations on the following questions:
(1) What is the current status of FPS's efforts to determine its
workforce requirements?
(2) To what extent do FPS's efforts align with commonly used workforce
analysis and planning practices?
(3) What, if any, challenges may impede implementation of FPS's
efforts?
This correspondence includes the briefing we provided your staff on
May 18, 2010 (see enclosure I). As agreed we will provide the
committee with a final report when FPS's workforce analysis plan is
finalized.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a copy of this report to the National Protection and
Programs Directorate (NPPD) of DHS for its review and comment. In his
comments, the Under Secretary of NPPD indicated that the FPS Staffing
Analysis Plan is currently in its final stage of approval at DHS and
will soon be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review. NPPD and FPS plan on implementing the plan after OMB
review and final approval by the Secretary of DHS. Additionally,
NPPD's comments indicated that FPS is optimistic that implementation
of the plan will face fewer potential challenges than we envision in
our analysis, and provided specific information on how FPS will
address the six potential challenges enumerated in our briefing,
including funding, data quality, performance measures, human capital
planning, hiring processes, and training. NPPD's complete comments can
be found in enclosure II.
Scope and Methodology:
The results of FPS's staffing analysis have not yet been finalized,
therefore we reviewed the methodology FPS is using to conduct its
analysis, we identified commonly used workforce analysis and planning
practices to determine if FPS incorporated them in its methodology,
and we identified challenges that may impede implementation of FPS's
workforce analysis. Additional information about our scope and
methodology is provided in enclosure I. We conducted this performance
audit from January 2010 to June 2010 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.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and the Director of the Federal Protective Service. In
addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staffs have any
questions about this report, please contact Mark L. Goldstein 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.
Signed by:
Mark L. Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Enclosures:
Enclosure I:
Homeland Security: Preliminary Observations on the Federal Protective
Service's Workforce Analysis and Planning Efforts:
Briefing to the Subcommittees on Homeland Security, Committees on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate and House of Representatives:
Preliminary Observations:
Federal Protective Service's Workforce Analysis Efforts:
May 18, 2010:
Information provided in this briefing is based on preliminary
observations.
Introduction:
Federal Protective Service (FPS) is mandated to maintain a staffing
level of at least 1,200 employees, and currently has a workforce of
about 1,225 employees.
In June 2008 and July 2009 we recommended that FPS:
* develop and implement a strategic approach to manage its staffing
resources that, among other things, determines the optimum number of
employees needed to accomplish its facility protection mission, and;
* take steps to develop a strategic human capital plan to better
manage its workforce needs.
Objectives:
The House Report which accompanied the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) fiscal year 2009 Appropriations Act mandated GAO to complete an
analysis of the staffing resource levels required for FPS to be able
to adequately protect federal facilities.
Based upon discussions with your staff, we agreed to the following
objectives:
(1) What is the current status of FPS's efforts to determine its
workforce requirements?
(2) To what extent do FPS's efforts align with commonly used workforce
analysis and planning practices?
(3) What, if any, challenges may impede implementation of FPS's
efforts?
Scope and Methodology:
To evaluate FPS's staffing analysis methodology we:
* reviewed documents provided by FPS officials, including its
workforce analysis methodology, its current staffing allocation, and
projected staffing key assumptions;
* conducted interviews with FPS headquarters' officials;
* conducted interviews with FPS Region 10 officials and inspectors in
Federal Way, WA. (Officials in region 10 were selected because they
were instrumental in the development of FPS's workforce analysis); and;
* conducted interviews with DHS's National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD) officials.
We also met with officials from law enforcement entities with roles
and responsibilities similar to FPS, such as protection of facilities,
management of contract guards, and core law enforcement duties. These
organizations included:
* 5 federal organizations”U.S. Postal Inspection Service, U.S. Secret
Service, Smithsonian Institution, AMTRAK, and U.S. Department of
Veteran's Affairs.
* 3 non-federal organizations”King County, WA, Sheriff's Office,
University of Washington Police, and the St. Louis, MO, Police
Department.
To identify security and law enforcement industry workforce planning
practices we obtained documents”such as staffing studies and published
journal articles”-and conducted interviews with officials from several
security and law enforcement organizations and academic experts,
including:
* International Associations of Chiefs of Police (IACP),
* American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS),
* BCD Associates,
* Security Analysis and Risk Management Association (SARMA),
* Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC),
* National Law Enforcement Recruitment Association, and,
* Michigan State School of Criminal Justice.
Additionally, we reviewed GAO reports addressing best practices on
workforce planning and management.
1) What is the current status of FPS's efforts to determine its
workforce requirements?
FPS has taken steps to determine its workforce requirements, however,
its workforce analysis plan is not finalized.
* FPS is using a model for determining optimal workforce size based on
workload, risk, and work standard assumptions.
* As part of the FPS-NPPD transition plan, FPS stated it would "create
a robust workforce staffing model that is scalable based on changes in
risk, threat, and consequence." This model is intended to provide the
basis for staffing recommendations in future budget requests.
* According to FPS officials, the model contains elements of staffing
models used by other federal law enforcement agencies, including the
U.S. Marshals Service and the Secret Service.
Figure: FPS's Workforce Analysis Model:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Historical and estimated workload:
Multiplied by:
Production rates and work standards:
Equals:
Required labor estimates.
Required labor estimates:
Divided by:
Effective work year:
Equals:
Required staffing.
Source: FPS.
[End of figure]
FPS's Workforce Analysis Model Components:
Workload Data: Specific activities performed by FPS to ensure secure
facilities and safe occupants. For example, for inspectors FPS used
historical data and subject matter experts to determine how many hours
were spent conducting Facility Security Assessments (FSA), attending
Facility Committee Meetings, mandatory training, pre-lease surveys,
among other activities.
Production Rates & Work Standards: The average hours required to
complete each workload activity.
For example, FPS based this on the frequency of specific activities
such as FSAs and guard inspections, as required by federal regulation
or agency standard operating procedures.
Labor Estimate: Total number of annual hours required to complete all
work for a specific activity identified in analysis of workload data.
Effective Work Year: 2,080 hours per employee.
FPS's Workforce Analysis Model Incorporates Some Risk Factors:
In addition to workload analysis,. facility risk are the primary data
used in FPS's workload analysis, including:
* Number of facilities,
* Facility Security Levels,
* Number of security posts for each facility, and,
* Number of contract guards per facility.
Additional Risk Factors:
* Geography (ire., the protected asset's location as it relates to
response time during an incident).
* DHS's Buffer Zone Protection Program study findings. This study is a
DHS administered infrastructure protection grant program to help local
law enforcement and first responders identity and mitigate
vulnerabilities At the highest-risk critical infrastructure sites. A
buffer zone is the area outside a facility that an adversary can use
to conduct surveillance or launch an attack.
* Regional intelligence data.
Current Status of FPS's Workforce Staffing Model:
According to NPPD officials, as of May 10, 2010, the FPS Workforce
Staffing Plan is pre-decisional and there is no anticipated date for
its finalization.
* In January 2010, FPS completed its workforce analysis plan and
provided a draft to NPPD for review and comment.
* On May 7 2010 NPPD completed its final review, and has submitted it
to DHS for review.
* Once DHS's approval and consensus is reached, the plan will be sent
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval before
it is approved by the Secretary of DHS.
2) To what extent do FPS's efforts align with commonly used workforce
analysis and planning practices?
FPS's staffing analysis methodology appears to incorporate commonly
used industry practices and processes for conducting workforce
analysis. For example, the methodology:
* Identifies risk level and quantity of facilities and posts to be
secured or protected.
* Incorporates a workload analyses (identifying mission, tasks, and
time to conduct activities).
We found there are no widely used established criteria, formulas, or
standards for determining the size of law enforcement and physical
security workforces. However, officials in most organizations we spoke
with told us that budget ultimately drives staffing decisions and is
the primary consideration when making these decisions.
3) What, if any, challenges may impede implementation of FPS's
workforce analysis efforts?
FPS may face several potential challenges to implementing its
workforce analysis plan:
* Funding: FPS charges federal agencies to fund its services, however,
FPS officials have not told us how they intend to fund an increased
staff size. FPS's security fee has increased over 100 percent since
its transfer to DHS, and FPS customers are already concerned about
cost and quality of security and in the past fee increases have been
met with resistance from GSA and tenant
agencies. Additionally FPS did not request additional funding in its
fiscal year 2011 budget.
* Data Quality: The accuracy of FPS's workload analysis is unclear due
to the quality of workload data used. For example, we have reported
FPS does not accurately track key activities such as facility
assessments and guard inspections. Additionally, with the
implementation of a new automated risk assessment and management
program, which may reduce the time a takes to conduct specific
activities, the use of historical workload data may not be accurate.
* Performance Measures: FPS does not have metrics in place to measure
how changes to its workforce size, composition, and allocation are
addressing its operational challenges.
* Human Capital Planning – FPS has not developed a strategic human
capital plan to aid in long-term workforce planning and management as
GAO recommended.
* Hiring Processes – FPS recently experienced difficulties hiring and
on-boarding about 180 inspectors, therefore it is unclear how it plans
on managing the hiring of any additional staff that may be needed as a
result of its workforce analysis plan. Additionally, FPS is no longer
using Custom and Border Patrol's established human capital recruiting
and hiring services. According to the transition plan, these services
will be transferred to the Office of Personnel Management.
* Training – Continued backlogs at the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC) will impact FPS's ability to provide training
to new staff”subsequently, some of the approximately 180 inspectors
hired last year have yet to complete all required training.
Contact Information:
If you or staff have any questions about this report, please contact
Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.
Key Contributors: Tammy Conquest, Assistant Director; Tida Barakat,
and Jennifer Clayborne.
On the Web:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/].
Contact:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, Public Affairs, youngc1@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Copyright:
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission
from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary
if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
[End of Enclosure I]
Enclosure II:
Comments from the Federal Protective Service:
Office of the Under Secretary:
National Protection and Program Director:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
June 9, 2010:
Mark L. Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Goldstein:
RE: GAO Briefing Slides (10-802R), Homeland Security: Preliminary
Observations on the Federal Protective Service's Workforce Analysis
and Planning Efforts (GAO Job Code 543258):
The National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) appreciates
the opportunity to review and comment on the U.S. Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) briefing slides for the engagement
referenced above.
This ongoing engagement is to review the NPPD Federal Protective
Service (FPS) Staffing Analysis Plan (the Plan) and planning
practices, and to identify challenges to its implementation. The Plan
is in its final approval stage at the Department and will soon be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
NPPD/FPS will implement the Plan following OMB review and final
approval by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
As indicated in the staffing analysis methodology provided to GAO, the
Plan is based on models of similar agencies that used a structured set
of basic calculations to estimate direct labor and staffing
requirements. The Plan represents a strategic approach to determine
the optimum number of employees needed to accomplish the FPS facility
protection mission and the allocation of those resources based on the
Department's risk management principles and FPS's goals and
performance measures.
FPS leadership is optimistic that implementation of the Plan will face
fewer potential challenges than the GAO envisions in its analysis. The
Plan's development and review processes have afforded FPS a valuable
opportunity to identify, analyze, and address anticipated challenges,
including the six potential challenges enumerated in the GAO briefing
materials: funding. data quality, performance measures, human capital
planning, hiring processes, and training.
With respect to funding, funding levels and issues are discussed in
the full Plan and will be made available to GAO upon final approval.
With respect to data quality, the foundation and integrity of the Plan
rests on the quality of its data, and although the data has not been
subjected to a rigorous scientific verification process, FPS has
reviewed the processes used to collect and certify the data and
believes it to be accurate, complete, and consistent with FPS mission
essential functions and supporting tasks. Moreover, the Plan is
undergoing rigorous Departmental review, which has enabled experts
from several operational and administrative teams to provide their
input and guidance as well. This holsters our confidence that the Plan
will be well considered and feasible.
With respect to performance measures, in addition to implementing
policies to address operational challenges, FPS has developed more
than 100 performance measures to include outcome measures,
approximately 30 percent of which have already been implemented, as an
initial test of the measure development and data collection processes.
As additional technology systems are implemented, FPS will institute
the appropriate associated measures.
In addition, the final Plan will indicate the impact that changes in
FPS's workforce size and composition will have on operational
capabilities. These changes, along with ongoing efforts to address
challenges, will result in improvements in operational effectiveness
and efficiency.
With respect to human capital planning, hiring processes, and
training, FPS fully intends to finalize a human capital strategic plan
after the staffing analysis is complete. We welcome any suggested best
practices or sample plans that GAO would like to provide as exemplars.
FPS and the NPPD Human Capital Office will collaborate to develop and
employ a well defined and sound human capital strategy to recruit,
train, allocate, and retain additional employees identified in the
Plan.
Finally, FPS intends to implement the Plan incrementally, and allow
for modifications if appropriate, which should help facilitate its
smooth and effective implementation.
Again, we thank you for the opportunity to review the briefing
materials.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Rand Beers:
Under Secretary:
[End of Enclosure II]
Footnotes:
[1] 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), and GAO, Homeland Security: Federal
Protective Service Should Improve Human Capital Planning and Better
Communicate with Tenants, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-749] (Washington, D.C.: July 30,
2009).
[2] H.R. No. 110-862, at 59 (2008).
[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:
